Thursday, February 4, 2010

India Nuts-Up and Defies IPCC. BRAVO!

The following is from the Telegraph.co.uk:
The Indian government's move is a significant snub to both the IPCC and Dr Pachauri as he battles to defend his reputation following the revelation his most recent climate change report included false claims that most of the Himalayan glaciers would melt away by 2035. Scientists believe it could take more than 300 years for the glaciers to disappear.

The body and its chairman have faced growing criticism ever since as questions have been raised on the credibility of their work and the rigour with which climate change claims are assessed.
In India the false claims have heightened tensions between Dr Pachauri and the government, which had earlier questioned his glacial melting claims. In Autumn, its environment minister Mr Jairam Ramesh said while glacial melting in the Himalayas was a real concern, there was evidence that some were actually advancing in the face of global warming.

Dr Pachauri had dismissed challenges like these as based on “voodoo science”, but last night Mr Ramesh effectively marginalised the IPC chairman even further.

He announced the Indian government will established a separate National Institute of Himalayan Glaciology to monitor the effects of climate change on the world’s ‘third ice cap’, and an ‘Indian IPCC’ to use ‘climate science’ to assess the impact of global warming throughout the country.

“There is a fine line between climate science and climate evangelism. I am for climate science. I think people misused [the] IPCC report, [the] IPCC doesn’t do the original research which is one of the weaknesses … they just take published literature and then they derive assessments, so we had goof-ups on Amazon forest, glaciers, snow peaks.
My favourite line is definitely when the Indian environment minister Mr Jairam Ramesh said, "There is a fine line between climate science and climate evangelism."

39 comments:

Sheldon Furlong said...

A question. If one pretended for a moment that man made global warming/cooling was a fact.

What policy/action would stem from this that would be bad, if it turned out that global warminmg/cooling was in fact not man made?

Furlong said...

This would be neat question to answer for 20 page paper...

If we said that yes, CO2 emissions are causing the earth to warm to a point that it will be disastrous for the entire human population in the near future, then the most simple answer would be, restrict CO2 output everywhere (so Dad, please stop breathing).

So considering the importance of such a conclusion, that humanity as we know is at risk if we don't restrict CO2, well then, the need to restrict CO2 becomes more important than the needs and wants of any government, any business, and individual. The solution, therefore, is for an international agreement to form a central authority (which has been attempted, and recently failed thanks to China) that would monitor CO2 emissions world wide and enforce CO2 emissions restrictions. Given that everything we do leads to CO2 emissions, this central authority would have de facto authority over everything anybody does.

It would essentially destroy the individual and the economy. Individual liberties would be sacrificed in the resulting legislation required to meet CO2 restrictions world wide, and it would be done in the name of the common good. It would essentially usher in a world-wide fascist government in which all of its actions would be done in name of the common good which noone would be able to deny out of fear of global warming. This is why it is important to be vigilant in remaining skeptical to any information coming out of the IPCC; and why India forming its own, sovereign commission (even though it seems to essentially agree with the IPCC) to perform climate research for India, by India is very important. Its a kick in the face to the established institutions that are trying to shove these claims and their solutions down our throats. Remember, the more local the government, the better.

The economic consequences would be disastrous. Poly Cello emits CO2. Could you imagine if a world government told Canada to pass legislation forcing companies like Poly Cello to cut its CO2 emissions? Poly Cello costs would jump, their prices would jump, their profits would drop and people would be laid off to make up for it. What would the labor do? They might then have more motivation to unionize now..but what do you think that would cause poly cello to do? This would happen EVERYWHERE.

Chris said...

LOL,
No practical solutions, just "the end of the world because of The Government". Man, they are just shoveling the shit into your brain.

Chris said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrR0--psfMw

2500 scientists! And you think that one wonky scientist somehow makes all the data wrong! Wow.

Chris said...

Also, nice try, Dad, but reason does not work here. It is critical analysis that is propelling people like Josh forward, but instead doctrine.

Furlong said...

Yes, and those 2500 scientists are associated with an organization that has been deceiving the public for at least 20 years...so what does that say about them?

Furlong said...

"And you think that one wonky scientist somehow makes all the data wrong!"

The one wonky scientist that is the head of the IPCC and was awarded the Nobel Prize...

Furlong said...

"No practical solutions, just "the end of the world because of The Government". Man, they are just shoveling the shit into your brain."

Once solutions start being offered that aren't a blatant power grab, I just might start taking them a bit more seriously. Until then, their deception, their use of fear tactics, and their attempt to use this issue as a medium to implement a global government will leave me skeptical an unsupportive of their doctrine.

Chris said...

Science isn't a doctrine.

Furlong said...

You're right, science is the quest for truth.

The IPCC spouts a doctrine.

Chris said...

No, sorry, the 3000 climatologists worldwide are not "spouting a doctrine".

Furlong said...

"No, sorry, the 3000 climatologists worldwide are not "spouting a doctrine"."

Then they should remove themselves from association with the IPCC, because the IPCC spouts a doctrine.

Sheldon Furlong said...

Wow you think I am doom and gloom!

Sorry I do not see such dire conclusions. If you and i agree that our activities are contributing to planet degradation then we should collude in trying to find ways to reduce this destruction. Government will follow us not restrict us.

Forget about the IPCC and world government domination for a minute. You are an individual. You know what actions are in your control that contribute to planet degradation. What should you do? Wait for things to get so bad your dire predictions come to pass or take action today and freely make better choices?

If people reduce the amount of plastic packaging they consume the VOC's Poly Cello emits will continue to be reduced and companies like Poly Cello are freely doing all they can to take responsible steps but if consumers want their product they will simply make more. That is how the free market works and we should use it to make change!

I believe if we do not, as individuals attempt to think about this in the context of our own daily decisions then eventually your dooms day scenario is probable!

Sheldon Furlong said...

"Also, nice try, Dad, but reason does not work here. It is critical analysis that is propelling people like Josh forward, but instead doctrine."

It is not just a nice try. If we continue to consume as thoughtlessly as we do then the dire predicitons of government, forcing it on us are,I beleive, the eventual outcome. Not necessarily due to climate change but just too many of us and dwindling resources.

The climate change debate is a red herring debate that evades the elephant in the room that no one wnats to deal with. No one really wants to give up going to Walmart!

Sheldon Furlong said...

"Once solutions start being offered that aren't a blatant power grab, I just might start taking them a bit more seriously."

The above encapsulates the problem with our attitudes. We as individuals abdicate our day to day responsibility. Solutions start with concious decision making at the individual level.

We should not wait for someone to legislate us turning down our thermostats or rationing our electricity and water.

Chris said...

"Then they should remove themselves from association with the IPCC, because the IPCC spouts a doctrine."

Nope. The IPCC is a broadcast tool for those 3000 climatologists' conclusions.

Chris said...

"The climate change debate is a red herring debate that evades the elephant in the room that no one wnats to deal with. No one really wants to give up going to Walmart!"

This is garbage thinking. If the corporations decided to stop using packaging or were forced to stop using packaging, it could be done. It is BECAUSE of the free market that the packaging of products will continue, even though an unpackaged, healthy system of distribution is definitely possible.

"We should not wait for someone to legislate us turning down our thermostats or rationing our electricity and water."

Very nice, but unfortunately the majority will continue on consuming this and that. C'mon, Sheldon, you have already admitted that this hasn't worked, and probably will not work. You are only making these arguments to feel good about yourself. The retarded "denialist" politics that have stalled the IPCC (which is a form of censorship, IMO; the denialist politics, that is) are the same politics that keep consumer society and free market ideology in full swing.

Sheldon Furlong said...

"This is garbage thinking. If the corporations decided to stop using packaging or were forced to stop using packaging, it could be done. It is BECAUSE of the free market that the packaging of products will continue, even though an unpackaged, healthy system of distribution is definitely possible. "


Your response is stupid and not well crafted. Corporations will only make decisions for the good of the corporations. It is consumers who have to make the first move. Individuals can make a decision to either consume as is or look for alternatives. The free market will follow our better choices.


"Very nice, but unfortunately the majority will continue on consuming this and that. C'mon, Sheldon, you have already admitted that this hasn't worked, and probably will not work. You are only making these arguments to feel good about yourself. The retarded "denialist" politics that have stalled the IPCC (which is a form of censorship, IMO; the denialist politics, that is) are the same politics that keep consumer society and free market ideology in full swing.'


Me thinks thou doth protest too much. You deny your own responsibility to take any action and throw up your hands and say it does no good and blame others and their politics! That is denial on steriods!
Doing the right thing is always the right thing and when one does it one can feel good about oneself. Right remains right no matter how many embrace it!
You may feel better critising and accusing me of having self-serving motives but me thinks you should look in the mirror!
We have a planet with a population/resource problem. It does makes me feel good to catch rain in rain barrels to water the garden or decide to dig a garden with a shovel vs a tractor. There is no sin in one feeling good about ones good actions. It is our thoughtless everyday acts that are most damaging.

Little uncomfortable with your use of my first name. How about just calling me Dad, Father, Old Man etc etc

Furlong said...

"Government will follow us not restrict us."

And I live in a ginger bread house. My commentary is simply a observation as to what those who use global warming as a political fear tactic are attempting to do. They are trying to restrict us. they are not trying to follow us.

"You know what actions are in your control that contribute to planet degradation. What should you do? Wait for things to get so bad your dire predictions come to pass or take action today and freely make better choices?"

This is a brand new question and nothing to do with your original question. Your original question was in regard to policies. I spoke toward those policies which are being pushed the strongest. The answer to this new question is obvious.

"If people reduce the amount of plastic packaging they consume the VOC's Poly Cello emits will continue to be reduced and companies like Poly Cello are freely doing all they can to take responsible steps but if consumers want their product they will simply make more. That is how the free market works and we should use it to make change!"

Agreed.

"I believe if we do not, as individuals attempt to think about this in the context of our own daily decisions then eventually your dooms day scenario is probable!"

While I do believe morally we all have a responsibility to treat our environment with respect, I do not believe any attempt by the individual to reduce their CO2 emissions will stop the attempts of those who still see an opportunity to use Global Warming as a vehicle to global government.

Furlong said...

"The climate change debate is a red herring debate that evades the elephant in the room that no one wnats to deal with. No one really wants to give up going to Walmart!"

Yea, I'm not sure we should be focusing on not going to Walmart. As an individual, I'm going to utilize the cheap goods I can obtain at Walmart today to try to ensure I will still have a better tomorrow when Walmart is gone, either due to the death of the western consumer, or due to an energy crisis.

Furlong said...

"The above encapsulates the problem with our attitudes. We as individuals abdicate our day to day responsibility. Solutions start with concious decision making at the individual level.

We should not wait for someone to legislate us turning down our thermostats or rationing our electricity and water."

You need to read what I say and then respond appropriately. This response is you going onto a tangent, attempting to disagree with something you think I said, when I said no such thing. The individual absolutely has a responsibility in regard to the environment that should not be abdicated. It doesn't matter if we face an energy crisis or a climate crisis, we need to treat our earth with respect because it what provides us life and will be providing us life for thousands of more year.

However, I do not trust information given by politicians whose sole motive is political power. So, if you read my post correctly, you'd understand it is the people spouting climate change propaganda I will not trust until the motives and "solutions" change.

Furlong said...

"Nope. The IPCC is a broadcast tool for those 3000 climatologists' conclusions."

Then they choose to allow their broadcasts to be tainted by corruption and lies and therefore their credibility is nil.

Furlong said...

"If the corporations decided to stop using packaging or were forced to stop using packaging, it could be done. It is BECAUSE of the free market that the packaging of products will continue, even though an unpackaged, healthy system of distribution is definitely possible."

See Dad, Chris wants the government to force Poly Cello out of business instead of allowing market forces to determine a more economical form of packaging. And not only does he want businesses like Poly Cello to go out of business by government edict, he wants everyone else to have to pay more (and therefore become poorer) for the packaging of the items they purchase because the government has decided plastic is bad.

Furlong said...

"which is a form of censorship, IMO"

LOL...the people censoring a government organization...lol..IF ONLY! You obviously do not understand what censorship is.

"are the same politics"

I'm not disagreeing, but you're consistent generalizations and broadstroking of politics and ideologies really annoys me.

Furlong said...

"Your response is stupid and not well crafted."

Now, now old man, you're the one that's supposed to be above name calling.

"Corporations will only make decisions for the good of the corporations. It is consumers who have to make the first move. Individuals can make a decision to either consume as is or look for alternatives."

These differentiations of people when speaking on economics bugs me. Corporations are people who consume and are individuals. ITS ALL THE SAME. What's good for a corporation is good for: employees, owners, and customers. Employees, owners, and customers are all individuals who consume.

"The free market will follow our better choices."

Agreed. However the choices are manipulated by the price of oil. The price of oil is artificially low because the US dollar is used as the reserve currency of the world, and oil is prices in US dollars. Remove the US dollar as the reserve currency (as many countries are working to do) and remove it as the currency which is used to purchase oil (as many countries are working to do) and the price of oil will increase sharply, increasing the cost of many oil based products and affecting the decisions individuals make within a free market.

"Little uncomfortable with your use of my first name. How about just calling me Dad, Father, Old Man etc etc"

Sure thing Sheldon.

Sheldon Furlong said...

"Your response is stupid and not well crafted."

Now, now old man, you're the one that's supposed to be above name calling."

I was just trying it on to see how it felt. Nope, it never added a positive thing to my arguement.

Furlong said...

Indeed it does not.

Chris said...

"Your response is stupid and not well crafted."

I'm not here to write Shakespeare. I write on many different forums and hence write first-draft responses AS A RULE.

"Corporations will only make decisions for the good of the corporations. It is consumers who have to make the first move. Individuals can make a decision to either consume as is or look for alternatives. The free market will follow our better choices."

Lol, somebody is living in Cotton Candyland.

"Me thinks thou doth protest too much."

Methinks your politeness leads to political catharsis for the right wing.

"You deny your own responsibility to take any action and throw up your hands and say it does no good and blame others and their politics! That is denial on steriods!"

Nope, I agree that individuals should be taking responsibility, but deny your assertion that all individuals will take responsibility to change the system. I am emphatically denying your "feel good" alternative for what it is: rubbish. We have gone through 70 years of people arguing conservative principles in order to get rich. This movement continues to dominate and will not "take responsibility" to change the system.

"We have a planet with a population/resource problem. It does makes me feel good to catch rain in rain barrels to water the garden or decide to dig a garden with a shovel vs a tractor. There is no sin in one feeling good about ones good actions. It is our thoughtless everyday acts that are most damaging."

Yes, but in relation to your anti-regulatory stance, they are merely keeping the current system in place. All political systems need a little bit of opposition to stay legitimate. Barney Frank for example..

"Little uncomfortable with your use of my first name. How about just calling me Dad, Father, Old Man etc etc"

This is argument, Sheldon. Stop, drop, and think. Your feel good approach to solving the problem is not going to solve the problem; instead, it is going to perpetuate it, as it has for the last 70 years.

"While I do believe morally we all have a responsibility to treat our environment with respect, I do not believe any attempt by the individual to reduce their CO2 emissions will stop the attempts of those who still see an opportunity to use Global Warming as a vehicle to global government."

lol, I wonder when Skeletor is going to take over..

Chris said...

"We should not wait for someone to legislate us turning down our thermostats or rationing our electricity and water."

This is a straw man, Sheldon. Electric and solar cars are a reality and would cut down on a huge chunk of the Co2 pollution.

Chris said...

"However, I do not trust information given by politicians whose sole motive is political power. So, if you read my post correctly, you'd understand it is the people spouting climate change propaganda I will not trust until the motives and "solutions" change."

Nor the 3000 climatologists, which pisses me off, because what you are saying is that science should change the facts to meet your retarded view of government.

Chris said...

"See Dad, Chris wants the government to force Poly Cello out of business instead of allowing market forces to determine a more economical form of packaging."

There is no economical form of packaging. Products should not be packaged individually.

"And not only does he want businesses like Poly Cello to go out of business by government edict, he wants everyone else to have to pay more (and therefore become poorer) for the packaging of the items they purchase because the government has decided plastic is bad."

Bulk systems are cheaper than individually packaged monstrosities. This is a fact.

Chris said...

"LOL...the people censoring a government organization...lol..IF ONLY! You obviously do not understand what censorship is."

Censorship is the censoring of content by a power base within society. Censorship can happen without government, Josh.

Chris said...

"I'm not disagreeing, but you're consistent generalizations and broadstroking of politics and ideologies really annoys me."

A generalization is okay when the generalization is true. Are you denying that denialists are almost always free market retards?

'These differentiations of people when speaking on economics bugs me. Corporations are people who consume and are individuals. ITS ALL THE SAME. What's good for a corporation is good for: employees, owners, and customers. Employees, owners, and customers are all individuals who consume. "

That is because you are a retard. The corporations are a form of economic organization that have the power to pay wages and tell employees what to do. Therefore, they are not just "a collection of consuming individuals". That sort of think it is epitome of stupid.

Chris said...

"I was just trying it on to see how it felt. Nope, it never added a positive thing to my arguement."

In the context of debate it felt like nothing, and in fact is a positive value, because it means you are participating honestly.. Now, if you were to do it face-to-face with accompanying anger, that would be different.

Furlong said...

"Lol, somebody is living in Cotton Candyland"

No. See, he has actually worked within a corporation. He has managed a department. He understand decisions corporations make aren't based on "greed", but are based on the health of the corporation, which also happen to benefit its customers and its employees.

"We have gone through 70 years of people arguing conservative principles in order to get rich. This movement continues to dominate and will not "take responsibility" to change the system."

Yes, so lets limit CO2 emissions and force society back to the standard of living experienced 70 years ago when noone was rich!

"All political systems need a little bit of opposition to stay legitimate. Barney Frank for example.."

How is Barney Frank opposition? Huh? And in your world opposition = stupidity. You don't respect opposition. Anything that differs from your perspective has no place in the world. You're an authoritarian.

"lol, I wonder when Skeletor is going to take over.."

Al Gore...

"This is a straw man, Sheldon. Electric and solar cars are a reality and would cut down on a huge chunk of the Co2 pollution."

Unfortunately, they cannot be made at a profit yet because the price of oil is too low. Does that mean we should all be taxed to manufacture something people don't want yet? I guess in your world...

"Nor the 3000 climatologists, which pisses me off, because what you are saying is that science should change the facts to meet your retarded view of government."

Yes. Science has been manipulated throughout history to suit political needs and I do not believe that the times we live in are exempt. There doesn't need to be a central world-wide authority regulating CO2 emissions.

"There is no economical form of packaging. Products should not be packaged individually. "

Unless the buyers and sellers want them to be packaged individually and can afford to so...

"Bulk systems are cheaper than individually packaged monstrosities. This is a fact."

But obviously businesses find value in individually packaging their products that is worth the cost involved. The business weight the cost/benefit and makes a decision. Noone else can do it for them.

"Censorship is the censoring of content by a power base within society. Censorship can happen without government, Josh."

Censorship occurs by force. Without force, the means to impose your censorship does not exist. There is only one institution that has a monopoly on force.

"A generalization is okay when the generalization is true. Are you denying that denialists are almost always free market retards?"

Maybe so, but they don't all believe in bombing Iran.

"That sort of think it is epitome of stupid."

Corporations are not made up of individuals?

"In the context of debate it felt like nothing, and in fact is a positive value, because it means you are participating honestly.. Now, if you were to do it face-to-face with accompanying anger, that would be different."

Translated: Online its ok to call people names because you can hide behind your computer and not get punched in the face.

Chris said...

"Corporations are people who consume and are individuals."

Corporations are not people.

Furlong said...

"Corporations are not people."

Hmmm...who invests in a corporation? Who manages a corporations? Who purchases a corporations services and products? Who works for a corporation?

Sorry. A corporation is simply a collective of people working for a common goal, voluntarily.

Chris said...

"Hmmm...who invests in a corporation? Who manages a corporations? Who purchases a corporations services and products? Who works for a corporation?

Sorry. A corporation is simply a collective of people working for a common goal, voluntarily."

Yes, that is right: A corporation IS a collection of people working to making money for the owners. However, IT IS NOT A PERSON.

Furlong said...

"Yes, that is right: A corporation IS a collection of people working to making money for the owners. However, IT IS NOT A PERSON."

It's a group of people...