Remember me
▼ Content

Good paper on the ethics of climate change research and policy


Good paper on the ethics of climate change research and policy24-12-2014 22:26
mywifesatan
★☆☆☆☆
(59)
http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2014/12/Lee-Ethics-climate-change.pdf

anyone wishing to discuss their opinion on ethical standards on this issue from both sides....i am interested
26-12-2014 13:03
Abraham3Profile picture★★☆☆☆
(256)
There are two sides arguing these issues, but the science has only one.

For a discussion of the ethical standards of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (your source), visit http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Global_Warming_Policy_Foundation

or

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming_Policy_Foundation

ps, you can make a url in your post an active link - as I've done with the two above - by enclosing it in the tags [url] and [/url], either manually or by using the first URL button below your editing box. This prevents your readership having to cut and paste your link into a new browser tab.
Edited on 26-12-2014 13:04
26-12-2014 13:30
mywifesatan
★☆☆☆☆
(59)
lol you only have to highlight the link and left click...not cut a paste
26-12-2014 13:38
mywifesatan
★☆☆☆☆
(59)
you still seem to think big oil or right wing think tanks control the debate. you give me another wikapedia page...what about all the other research besides these evil right wingers and big oil? who funds them and how are they ethical and non bias and have no conflict of interest whatsoever. You don't have a reasonable point of view on the ethics of this topic..not to mention any valid sources

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest
26-12-2014 14:27
Abraham3Profile picture★★☆☆☆
(256)
mywifesatan wrote:
lol you only have to highlight the link and left click...not cut a paste


lol, you have only to make your link active as any grade schooler would do.
26-12-2014 14:41
Abraham3Profile picture★★☆☆☆
(256)
mywifesatan wrote:
you still seem to think big oil or right wing think tanks control the debate.


I know for a fact that ExxonMobil funds and controls the GWPF. ExxonMobil provides 98.5% of their funding. They are the absolute epitome of a false front operation. This is another lesson the fossil fuel industry has taken from the tobacco industry: make believe research organizations to espouse the company line.

mywifesatan wrote:
you give me another wikapedia page.


I gave you a link to SourceWatch, not Wikipedia. And its going to be a great long while before you will have earned the right to criticize my sources. You're still the champion of unsubstantiated assertions in this neighborhood.

mywifesatan wrote:
..what about all the other research besides these evil right wingers and big oil? who funds them and how are they ethical and non bias and have no conflict of interest whatsoever. You don't have a reasonable point of view on the ethics of this topic..not to mention any valid sources


Taking ethics advice from the GWPF is akin to going to the Rwandan Hutus for lessons in tolerance.

The most poorly supported Wikipedia article I've ever seen is orders of magnitude superior to ANYTHING you have brought us: Most of your absurd claims aren't supported here by so much as a piece of punctuation.
26-12-2014 16:04
mywifesatan
★☆☆☆☆
(59)
The models predicted that the Earth would continue to warm and it did not.... The whole point of experimentation in science is to test a hypothesis... If the predictions don't match the actual results.. then the hypothesis cannot be called valid... But with agw all that goes out the window. Whether the results of the experiment support the hypothesis or not.. the hypothesis is declared valid.. and there is "something else" going on that isn't identified or understood, but accounts for the discrepancy nevertheless. And that's how you get "settled science" that is horses...t

who funds most of agw research? that is a simple question you will not answer the answer doesn't suit your standpoint. you cannot prove any funded research is bias or unethical...i do not disagree that studies funded by big oil are unethical..however you fail to explain how the vast majority of research not to mention the projections and climate policy are proved to be ethical in every way. You are willing to state that all research separate of big oil or republicans is ethical research? That would be the vast majority of research on this topic not to mention all the research the ipcc uses.

somehow all that research is "science separate of the bias" all research and policy separate of big..oil..republicans..or shawn hannity....is "real science" give me a break. I will give this issue 5 years. before..becoming an skid mark in the history of science..if this website is still up...I will come back...of course you will be gone by then
26-12-2014 20:47
Abraham3Profile picture★★☆☆☆
(256)
Have you noticed the common form of our conversations? You make several unsubstantiated assertions. I refute them with demonstrable facts, obvious conflicts, logical errors and reputable sources. You then reply along some completely different line making no reference whatsoever to your recently refuted claims.

Like this:
mywifesatan wrote:
The models predicted that the Earth would continue to warm and it did not....


[img][/img]

I just lost a good 90 minutes work to this website crashing.

mywifesatan wrote:
The whole point of experimentation in science is to test a hypothesis...


Yep

mywifesatan wrote:
If the predictions don't match the actual results.. then the hypothesis cannot be called valid...


There are two problem with that idea: 1) How will you know when a model accurately reflects a global application of the theory? and 2) How will you measure the accuracy with which it models actual behavior?

mywifesatan wrote:
But with agw all that goes out the window. Whether the results of the experiment support the hypothesis or not.. the hypothesis is declared valid..


How about you show us some examples of the refutation of any of the basic tenets of AGW being ignored?

mywifesatan wrote:
and there is "something else" going on that isn't identified or understood, but accounts for the discrepancy nevertheless. And that's how you get "settled science" that is horses...t


The vast majority of climate scientists accept AGW as a valid description of the behavior of Earth's climate in the face of human deforestation and GHG emissions. That makes it settled science and not horseshit.

mywifesatan wrote:
who funds most of agw research?


Democratically elected governments.

mywifesatan wrote:
that is a simple question you will not answer the answer doesn't suit your standpoint.


Really? And what is my standpoint?

mywifesatan wrote:
you cannot prove any funded research is bias or unethical...


All research is funded in one way or another. Perhaps you had something else you wished to add to that... ?

mywifesatan wrote:
i do not disagree that studies funded by big oil are unethical..


Why? Did someone prove it to you?

mywifesatan wrote:
however you fail to explain how the vast majority of research not to mention the projections and climate policy are proved to be ethical in every way.


What makes you think I have any need to do so? Your latest fixation on ethics is simply the latest permutation on the generally unacceptable suggestion that a vast conspiracy exists among climate scientists to maintain their research grant funding by all pushing the same lies about man-made global warming.

mywifesatan wrote:
You are willing to state that all research separate of big oil or republicans is ethical research?


Where did you ever get that idea?

mywifesatan wrote:
That would be the vast majority of research on this topic not to mention all the research the ipcc uses.


The vast majority of research conducted on this topic and published in peer reviewed journals is ethical. The vast majority of what purports to be research self-published by fossil fuel-funded pseudo science organization (like GWPF) is not.

mywifesatan wrote:
somehow all that research is "science separate of the bias" all research and policy separate of big..oil..republicans..or shawn hannity....is "real science" give me a break.


I did give you a break. You kept asking for more. And, as you do here, clearly demonstrating your weakness in the field of logic. Accusing ExxonMobil of being deceitful is not to state that everyone but ExxonMobil is honest.

mywifesatan wrote:
I will give this issue 5 years. before..becoming an skid mark in the history of science..if this website is still up...I will come back...of course you will be gone by then


Of course I will. I'm a liberal with an education, aren't I.
Edited on 26-12-2014 20:48
27-12-2014 12:23
Abraham3Profile picture★★☆☆☆
(256)
mywifesatan wrote:
The models predicted that the Earth would continue to warm and it did not....


mywifesatan wrote:
If the predictions don't match the actual results.. then the hypothesis cannot be called valid...


Abraham4 wrote:
There are two problem with that idea: 1) How will you know when a model accurately reflects a global application of the theory? and 2) How will you measure the accuracy with which it models actual behavior?


I'd like to elaborate and elucidate that last comment a bit.

Climatologists have a theory, commonly termed AGW. That theory involves a fairly simple concept: greenhouse warming acting on a gas emitted by humans. But that theorized effect is taking place in a very large, very complex system, with a large number of other factors acting to both enhance and ameliorate the effect. Laminar flow is determinate, a turbulent regime is not. The precise, intimate and exact details of the behavior of the Earth's climate will never be fully known. But the broader one looks, the more accurately estimates may be made. In regard to this question: whether or not AGW is taking place, it is not necessary to be able to accurately predict the local weather in every city on the planet a century hence, to conclude that the theory is correct.

The two problems I was attempting to put across were that: 1) without perfect knowledge of how the Earth's climate functions, it is not possible to create a model that will perfectly portray how AGW will affect its processes. We approach that point but we will never get there. And 2) there is no obvious, predefined and perfect method to measure how well a model has performed in its projections. There are as many ways to measure as there are parameters in its outputs, but which of those, or which combinations of those, or which statistical parameters calculated from which combinations of those are the proper choice with which to judge, is more than a little up in the air.

So, when someone makes the blanket statement that all GCMs have failed, you need to ask of them what they actually mean by that. You also need to be aware of the ease with which models may be misrepresented. Looking down, the upper image (from the IPCC's AR5) and the lower image (from the blog of Dr Roy Spencer) involve essentially the same set of GCMs and the same set of observations. The reason the graphics differ is explained at http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/02/roy-spencers-latest-deceit-and-deception.html and does not reflect well on Dr Roy Spencer.





Given all of this, it would be very easy for you to argue that the models don't tell us enough that we can safely base policy decisions on them. But that would be false. As I stated above, the broader one looks, the more accurately models can project current trends and predict what will happen to significant climatic parameters: global temperature, precipitation, ice volume, average wind speed and so forth. When 90 different models, run thousands of times, ALL predict rising temperatures, it is very safe to assume that temperatures will rise and act accordingly. That, of course, is the case. Failing to act would be a mistake of the highest order.
Edited on 27-12-2014 12:26




Join the debate Good paper on the ethics of climate change research and policy:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Something To Make itn feel Good2226-07-2018 18:15
Ideas for my seminar paper?123-06-2018 10:14
VERY Good video1111-05-2018 01:28
New Research Again Proves Warmies Wrong.614-03-2018 02:48
I miss my good friend Spot613-03-2018 22:25
Articles
Appendix A - Tracing China's Climate Policy
Analysis - Explaining China's Climate Policy
The Dependent Variable - How Ambitious Is China's Climate Policy
John McCain: Remarks on Climate Change Policy
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2017 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact