[John Mason]

The Age of Consequences: The Foreign Policy and National Security Implications of Global Climate Change

Report available here at the Center for Strategic & International Studies:

http://www.csis.org/component/option,com_csis_pubs/task,view/id,4154/type,1/  

Authors: 

Kurt M. Campbell is CEO and co-founder of the Center for a New American Security and former
deputy assistant secretary of defense for Asia and the Pacific.

Leon Fuerth is a research professor of international affairs at The George Washington University,
and former national security advisor to Vice President Al Gore.

Jay Gulledge, Ph.D., is the senior scientist and program manager for science and impacts at the
Pew Center on Global Climate Change.

Alexander T. J. Lennon is the editor-in-chief of CSIS’s flagship journal, The Washington Quarterly.
J.R. McNeill is a professor of history at Georgetown University.

Derek Mix is a research associate in the CSIS Europe Program.

Peter Ogden is senior national security analyst at the Center for American Progress.

John Podesta is president and CEO of the Center for American Progress and former chief of staff
for President Bill Clinton.

Julianne Smith is the director of the CSIS Europe Program and the Initiative for a Renewed
Transatlantic Partnership.

Richard Weitz is a senior fellow and director of program management at Hudson Institute.

R. James Woolsey is a vice president for Booz Allen Hamilton and former director of the CIA.

Some interesting insights into the future! Don't shoot the messenger 666

Cheers - John 

[andre]

Thanks, John for pointing that out that publication. However nice the building though, it will collapse though if the fundaments are rotten. I searched for the word "evidence":

Quote

....The mandate of the exercise was, on its face, very straightforward: employ the best available evidence and climate models, and imagine.....

But haven't we just seen that the models are no good in predicting the atmospheric profiles?

and

Quote

It is prudent, both intellectually and practically, to accept that the atmosphere and oceans are indeed warming, as the evidence tells us, and that this trend will accelerate in the decades ahead.

Which evidence is there that proves the accellerating trend? On the contrary, historically it is shown that all climate warmings were followed by cooling, I'd say

Quote

The proxy evidence used for the reconstruction of climate history— palynology, foraminifera, oxygen isotopes, and other tools—can give a good but not precise idea of past temperature and precipitation patterns.

I'd say that evidence gave us fraudulent hockeysticks, CO2 lagging the isotopes, hypotheses contradicting evidence (North Siberian Mammoths during the LGM) and evidence of negative feedback instead of the oh-so needed positive feedback. It's not that people are ignorant, it's that they know so much that ain't so.

For an alternative view here:

Quote

When did the global warming hoax die? Historians are likely to pinpoint 2007. It will take another decade to insure it cannot be revived, but the avalanche of scientific studies and the cumulative impact of scientists who have publicly joined those who debunked the lies on which it has been based will be noted as the tipping point.

It took some forty years to unmask the Piltdown Man hoax that began in 1912 alleging that the skull of an ancient ancestor of man had been found in England. Any number of British anthropologists unwittingly contributed to the hoax by confirming the authenticity of the skull until it was found that the jaw of an orangutan had been cunningly attached. The unmasking of “global warming” has taken less than half that time....cont'd

I think that it will probably take a lot longer than that decade before we have recovered from the withdrawal symptoms.

[John Mason]

Classy stuff on that link Andre 666

Methinks the debate will go on and on and on, whilst you have the likes of Gore sitting on one end of the seesaw, guys like that author on the other end, and most of us somewhere in the middle! 

Cheers - John 

[Peter H]

Quote

andre - 30/12/2007 11:19

Thanks, John for pointing that out that publication. However nice the building though, it will collapse though if the fundaments are rotten. I searched for the word "evidence":

Quote

....The mandate of the exercise was, on its face, very straightforward: employ the best available evidence and climate models, and imagine.....

But haven't we just seen that the models are no good in predicting the atmospheric profiles?

and

Quote

It is prudent, both intellectually and practically, to accept that the atmosphere and oceans are indeed warming, as the evidence tells us, and that this trend will accelerate in the decades ahead.

Which evidence is there that proves the accellerating trend? On the contrary, historically it is shown that all climate warmings were followed by cooling, I'd say

Quote

The proxy evidence used for the reconstruction of climate history— palynology, foraminifera, oxygen isotopes, and other tools—can give a good but not precise idea of past temperature and precipitation patterns.

I'd say that evidence gave us fraudulent hockeysticks, CO2 lagging the isotopes, hypotheses contradicting evidence (North Siberian Mammoths during the LGM) and evidence of negative feedback instead of the oh-so needed positive feedback. It's not that people are ignorant, it's that they know so much that ain't so.

For an alternative view here:

Quote

When did the global warming hoax die? Historians are likely to pinpoint 2007. It will take another decade to insure it cannot be revived, but the avalanche of scientific studies and the cumulative impact of scientists who have publicly joined those who debunked the lies on which it has been based will be noted as the tipping point.

It took some forty years to unmask the Piltdown Man hoax that began in 1912 alleging that the skull of an ancient ancestor of man had been found in England. Any number of British anthropologists unwittingly contributed to the hoax by confirming the authenticity of the skull until it was found that the jaw of an orangutan had been cunningly attached. The unmasking of “global warming” has taken less than half that time....cont'd

I think that it will probably take a lot longer than that decade before we have recovered from the withdrawal symptoms.

The word 'hoax' mean a 'malicious deception'. Lies means, well, lies.

Andre, how would you react if I posted a piece of claptrap claiming sceptics like yourself were part of a hoax and were liars?

Do tell us :) because I think your link adds jack sh*t to the debate.

[andre]

[QUOTE]Peter H - 31/12/2007 12:30 The word 'hoax' mean a 'malicious deception'. Lies means, well, lies.[/QUOTE]

As always never shy of another fallacy.

[quote]hoax      /ho?ks/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[hohks] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun

1.	something intended to deceive or defraud: The Piltdown man was a scientific hoax.

–verb (used with object)

2.	to deceive by a hoax; hoodwink.

[/quote]

The word malicious is missing, making that remark a straw man fallacy. The AGW hoax is more like the noble cause corruption:

[quote]Noble cause corruption is an act which is usually illegal and almost certainly unethical used to reach to justify reaching an end result that may seem like it is noble and justifiable. Simply put the concept is known as “the means to justify a end”.[/quote]

Now we have discussed the We-have-to-get-rid-of-the-medieval-warm-period E-mail of Jon Overpeck to David Deming over and over again, as well as the unfounded storm scare press release of which caused Chris Landsea's resignation.

Another example of such a fraud is:

[quote]At an IPCC Lead Authors' meeting in New Zealand, I well remember a conversation over lunch with three Europeans, unknown to me but who served as authors on other chapters. I sat at their table because it was convenient.

After introducing myself, I sat in silence as their  discussion continued, which boiled down to this: "We must write this report so strongly that it will convince the US to sign the Kyoto Protocol." [/quote]

Now to the alarmists this may sound perfectly normal, to real scientist this should sound horrifying. pushing a polical agenda while mis-using an apparant thrustworthy scientific aura. The most excellent example of noble cause corruption, which is nothing else than a hoax, something intended to deceive. 

[snow hope]

Well Peter, if we have been hoodwinked by the IPCC and others how will you feel? The question goes both ways you know.

That is why it is good to be sceptical and not to accept everything you are fed by various "authorities".

[Peter H]

Quote

andre - 31/12/2007 15:37

Quote

Peter H - 31/12/2007 12:30 The word 'hoax' mean a 'malicious deception'. Lies means, well, lies.

As always never shy of another fallacy.

And you never shy of an ad hom? And where do such jousts get us?

But, yes, since you clarify which defintion of hoax you mean then, OK, you're only calling it a deception not a malicious deception - big deal...

 

Quote

Quote

hoax /ho?ks/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[hohks] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun

1.	something intended to deceive or defraud: The Piltdown man was a scientific hoax.

–verb (used with object)

2.	to deceive by a hoax; hoodwink.

The word malicious is missing, making that remark a straw man fallacy. The AGW hoax is more like the noble cause corruption:

Quote

Noble cause corruption is an act which is usually illegal and almost certainly unethical used to reach to justify reaching an end result that may seem like it is noble and justifiable. Simply put the concept is known as “the means to justify a end”.

Now we have discussed the We-have-to-get-rid-of-the-medieval-warm-period E-mail of Jon Overpeck to David Deming over and over again, as well as the unfounded storm scare press release of which caused Chris Landsea's resignation.

Another example of such a fraud is:

Quote

At an IPCC Lead Authors' meeting in New Zealand, I well remember a conversation over lunch with three Europeans, unknown to me but who served as authors on other chapters. I sat at their table because it was convenient.

After introducing myself, I sat in silence as their discussion continued, which boiled down to this: "We must write this report so strongly that it will convince the US to sign the Kyoto Protocol."

Now to the alarmists this may sound perfectly normal, to real scientist this should sound horrifying. pushing a polical agenda while mis-using an apparant thrustworthy scientific aura. The most excellent example of noble cause corruption, which is nothing else than a hoax, something intended to deceive.

Ahh, bless, the word fraud is back as well o| :(

Oh, and I am alarmed by what the changes to the atmosphere might produce but, alarmist has become just another of the ad homs used these days.

 

 

[Peter H]

Quote

snow hope - 31/12/2007 15:53 Well Peter, if we have been hoodwinked by the IPCC and others how will you feel? The question goes both ways you know.

Why would I be hoodwinked and not you? But, of course, I see the question works both ways.

Quote

That is why it is good to be sceptical and not to accept everything you are fed by various "authorities".

Indeed. You're surely not trying to suggest I just accept what the 'authorities' feed me unthinkingly ;) . Think again :).

I don't generally buy what I'm fed by people who write about hoaxes, frauds and lying though, such things don't hoodwink me.

So, as ever, we have very different view o|

 

[andre]

Peter, once more, you're use of the addition "malicious" for hoax could be explained as an attempt to attribute me an untainable position. That's a trick known as the strawman fallacy. Now an ad hominem is a personal attack on somebody mentioning some IRRELEVANT properties of that person like agendas and funding. Exposing your attempt was highly RELEVANT and hence cannot be defined as an ad hominem attack but merely as.. exposure.