Sunday, December 09, 2007

Here we go ...

I have to admit I was actually quite flattered when CC offered me the keys to the joint … after all, while I’ve been a longtime reader, it’s only recently that I’ve become a regular commenter. Having said that, I promise to do my best to keep up the required level of snark and creative swearing. So let’s stroll over to the BTs and see what they’re fucking with now, shall we?

What do we have here? A post titled “Y2Kyoto: The Sound Of Silenced Science”. Christ, is it just me or is SDA just too precious for words? Might as well stay true to form and jump in – everybody into the pool, we’re off to Kate’s crazyfest.

Hmmmm. It appears that Kate, in her tiny, delusional, little mind, has reason to believe that the entire logic behind the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Bali has now been thoroughly debunked based on quoted reports from Andrew Bolt, Ross McKitrick and Professor Paul Reiter. That's certainly enough for me - not. Should we check into her vaunted references?

Bachelor #1 (hey, I can be precious, too), Mr. Andrew Bolt, is an Australian reporter and noted conservative pundit who writes for the Melbourne-based Herald Sun and Brisbane's Sunday Mail – both of which are owned by Rupert Murdoch. Yes, that Rupert Murdoch – rabid Bush supporter, owner of Faux News, Faux Business – basically, a man known not for his truthfulness but more for his truthiness. Mr. Bolt (surprise, surprise) has had his own issues with credibility and was on the losing end of a defamation suit in 2002 for some rather, shall we say, creative reporting. He is also quite skeptical about global warming and the science behind it. I checked out his blog at the Herald Sun – for his last 15 articles, he has 7 which speak against global warming, one of which references our next bachelor – Professor Ross McKitrick. Hello, incestuous much?

Bachelor #2 Ross McKitrick, according to Wikipedia, is a:

“… Canadian environmental economist and global warming skeptic, best known for his statistical reviews of temperature record reconstructions that purport to show dramatic recent global warming relative to history. He is Associate Professor in the Department of Economics at the University of Guelph, Ontario (since 2001) and, since 2002, Senior Fellow of the Fraser Institute, a Canadian free-market policy think tank that opposes the Kyoto Protocol.”

And Bachelor #3 - also according to Wiki:

“Paul Reiter is a professor of medical entomology at the Pasteur Institute in Paris, France. He is a member of the World Health Organization Expert Advisory Committee on Vector Biology and Control. He was an employee of the Center for Disease Control (Dengue Branch) for 22 years. He is a specialist in mosquito-borne diseases such as malaria and dengue fever.”

Huh. This guy actually has some kick-ass credentials. What’s he doing here? Oh wait …

“Reiter says he was a contributor to the third IPCC Working Group II (Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability) report, but resigned because he "found [himself] at loggerheads with persons who insisted on making authoritative pronouncements, although they had little or no knowledge of [his] specialty". After resigning he says he struggled to get his name removed from the Third report.”

But what’s this?

“The UK government has said that Reiter "does not accurately represent the current scientific debate on the potential impacts of climate change on health in general, or malaria in particular. He appears to have been quite selective in the references and reports that he has criticized, focusing on those that are neither very recent nor reflective of the current state of knowledge, now or when they were published”

Whoopsie – maybe he belongs after all. Now that we 've been introduced to our contestants, let’s play.

According to SDA via Bachelor #1:

“The United Nations has rejected all attempts by a group of dissenting scientists seeking to present information at the climate change conference taking place in Bali, Indonesia.

The International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) has been denied the opportunity to present at panel discussions, side events, and exhibits; its members were denied press credentials. The group consists of distinguished scientists from Africa, Australia, India, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

The scientists, citing pivotal evidence on climate change published in peer-reviewed journals, have expressed their opposition to the UN’s alarmist theory of anthropogenic global warming.”

International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) – that’s a rather impressive name. So I did a little research … okay, I Googled them. Strangest thing. There were only 656 hits, and the first 6 all had one thing in common. Can anyone guess what that might be? If you said "Global Warming Denial! No, no ... Skepticism! No, no, wait ... Lies, Lies, Lies!!!!!!", you’d be exactly right.


The 7th hit was for the International Council of Shopping Centers (also the ICSC) but somehow, I don’t think they’re relevant. They do, however, have their own web site. Kate’s ICSC … not so much. And the "group of distinguished scientists from Africa, Australia, India, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States" - not a single name to be found. Curiouser and curiouser.

*Sigh*

If Kate's going to get her panties in a bunch over a group of scientists being denied credentials at the Bali Conference, it might be a good idea to put a little more effort into finding out who they really are. You know, beyond the cutesy title and supposed expert testimony.


Or maybe I'm just being too demanding ...


12 comments:

Paladiea said...

You're being too demanding. Kate has never researched anything in her life. And if it's wrong, she doesn't want to hear about it.

KEvron said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
KEvron said...

your fisrt post!

(waxes avuncular)

(smears blood on lu2's cheeks)

KEvron

Sheena said...

Ewwwww.....gross...
See, Lulu. I told you to cover the tampon tax.

pretty shaved ape said...

welcome aboard lulu! your first post with a byline here at cc's fabulous screed bunker. congrats. why, if we had a shred of legitimacy, it would be just like you'd made it. and look, you've already called suzanne a cunt...i'm getting misty...you're going to make us so proud.

Junker said...

Ummmm, I don't get it.

This whole post is about how a bunch of scientists who are trying to disprove Global Warming don't actually believe in Global warming.

Like I said, I don't get it.

Then again what do I know. I'm just a conservative, therefore I must be a neocon, therefore I must support George Bush - yes THAT George Bush. Also, I'm German, so I'm probably a nazi too.

You've done a great job of validating Kate's title Lulu. The Sound of Settled Science indeed. It's so settled in your mind that you instantly throw away any evidence that might prove contrary to your belief.

Crabgräss said...

Junker, what would you do if you had essentially the entire international scientific community on your side, while your adversaries were busy waving their arms about, boldly naming three(3) science-ish types with obviously vested interests who support their increasingly laughable cement-headed stance?

If you're thinking that you probably wouldn't even bother arguing with them, I am so totally with you.

Anyhooo, I'm off to flog a dead horse... have a good night.

Ti-Guy said...

Junker, what would you do if you had essentially the entire international scientific community on your side, while your adversaries were busy waving their arms about, boldly naming three(3) science-ish types with obviously vested interests who support their increasingly laughable cement-headed stance?

Crabby, the wingnuts don't come to progressive/liberal/lefty blogs to answer queries.

I swear, I can count on two hands the number of times a Conservative has answered a question I've posed in a direct manner. It's the defining characteristic of a wingnut discourse.

Isn't that right, Junker?

Brian Adams said...

I have a blog containing good information on global warming. Ozone has doubled since the mid-19th century due to chemical emissions from vehicles, industrial processes and the burning of forests, the British climate researchers wrote. Carbon dioxide has also risen over that period. History of global warming is very deep since 1850.

CC said...

Junker writes:

"Ummmm, I don't get it."

Yes, Junker, we've established that by now.

Junker said...

"Junker, what would you do if you had essentially the entire international scientific community on your side, while your adversaries were busy waving their arms about, boldly naming three(3) science-ish types with obviously vested interests who support their increasingly laughable cement-headed stance?"

I will absolutely grant you that the majority of said scientific community is on your side. That unto itself, however, is not a valid arguement.

What concerns me, and should maybe concern you a little too, is the increasing number of descenting voices, and the political angle as well, especially regarding the UN, an organization I have zero faith in at this point.

Ultimately only time will tell, right?

As far as individual beliefs in the matter, and I have brought this up before, I can't help but see hypocricy in so called "true beleivers". If you honestly and actually believed human produced CO2 was going to do the kind of collosal damage claimed, the steps you'd take to fight it, in your own personal life, would be equally drastic.

No "believer" I know personally has made anywhere near the effort you'd think such a catastrophe would warrant, and therefore I don't think they honestly believe the hype.

Of course, maybe I'm wrong about you, and you don't own a car, and live in a cave, but I doubt it.

p.s. What's laughable about suggesting that maybe the measuring system is flawed?

lenny said...

"No "believer" I know personally has made anywhere near the effort you'd think such a catastrophe would warrant, and therefore I don't think they honestly believe the hype."

Unsurprisingly, your flawed logic has led you to a flawed conclusion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons