Comments on: Just Released: A Call For Cumulative CO2 Limit http://westcoastclimateequity.org/2009/06/10/just-released-a-call-for-cumulative-co2-limit/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=just-released-a-call-for-cumulative-co2-limit Climate science and climate change information - West Coast Climate Equity is dedicated to providing facts about the causes of climate change and the evidence for global warming. We report the latest climate science news, information, research and studies to educate about the true impact of dangerous climate change on our world. Mon, 30 Jan 2012 19:25:24 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Dorothy http://westcoastclimateequity.org/2009/06/10/just-released-a-call-for-cumulative-co2-limit/comment-page-1/#comment-3491 Dorothy Thu, 03 Feb 2011 23:14:48 +0000 http://westcoastclimateequity.org/?p=3192#comment-3491 Yes, N, I have biases, and here's what they are: I believe, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, that there's hope of saving our biosphere. And by biosphere, I mean not just the flora and fauna of our planet, but, in spite of much evidence to the contrary, human beings themselves. And I believe that as well as cutting GHG emissions to zero in the next few years, which in spite of all you may have heard, must be done, we will also find a way to remove the many megatonnes of excess carbon that now burden our atmosphere and threaten our future. In other words, I believe we can save ourselves and our world from mega-warming and uncontrollable global climatic disruption. I do seek out experts who clearly understand the emergency situation into which we have allowed ourselves to drift. It is the courage and concern of members of the scientific community who understand the problem and speak out about it that gets me up in the morning and gives me hope. And I do take a low-dose aspirin every day, for "prevention." We could all use a lot more "prevention" in our lives and in our political and economic systems. Yes, N, I have biases, and here’s what they are:
I believe, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, that there’s hope of saving our biosphere. And by biosphere, I mean not just the flora and fauna of our planet, but, in spite of much evidence to the contrary, human beings themselves.
And I believe that as well as cutting GHG emissions to zero in the next few years, which in spite of all you may have heard, must be done, we will also find a way to remove the many megatonnes of excess carbon that now burden our atmosphere and threaten our future.
In other words, I believe we can save ourselves and our world from mega-warming and uncontrollable global climatic disruption.
I do seek out experts who clearly understand the emergency situation into which we have allowed ourselves to drift. It is the courage and concern of members of the scientific community who understand the problem and speak out about it that gets me up in the morning and gives me hope.
And I do take a low-dose aspirin every day, for “prevention.” We could all use a lot more “prevention” in our lives and in our political and economic systems.

]]> By: N http://westcoastclimateequity.org/2009/06/10/just-released-a-call-for-cumulative-co2-limit/comment-page-1/#comment-3483 N Sun, 30 Jan 2011 23:15:45 +0000 http://westcoastclimateequity.org/?p=3192#comment-3483 @ harbinger It might be worth pointing out to you that if a person has chosen a career in a particular subject matter it will usually be a subject in which that person has a particular interest. Thus this person will form both a personal and a professional opinion. Having a personal opinion, doesn't prevent that person from a) presenting unbiased professional views and b) from being subjected to peer review by other scientists with professional opinions, who in the base of bias, should point this out. Or do you propose that people are unable to differentiate between their professional and personal opinions? In which case, as you have not stated YOUR biases, what leads you believe that your comment should be received with any less scepticism than what you purport to be necessary of the opinions of others? Where is your peer review and transparency? Or are you proposing that the whole scientific community is colluding, supporting each other with biased peer reviewed reinforcements? If this is the case, why shouldn't you equally question the medical research community? Tell me, do you approach aspirin with the same scepticism? Just a thought. @ harbinger

It might be worth pointing out to you that if a person has chosen a career in a particular subject matter it will usually be a subject in which that person has a particular interest. Thus this person will form both a personal and a professional opinion. Having a personal opinion, doesn’t prevent that person from a) presenting unbiased professional views and b) from being subjected to peer review by other scientists with professional opinions, who in the base of bias, should point this out.

Or do you propose that people are unable to differentiate between their professional and personal opinions? In which case, as you have not stated YOUR biases, what leads you believe that your comment should be received with any less scepticism than what you purport to be necessary of the opinions of others? Where is your peer review and transparency?

Or are you proposing that the whole scientific community is colluding, supporting each other with biased peer reviewed reinforcements? If this is the case, why shouldn’t you equally question the medical research community? Tell me, do you approach aspirin with the same scepticism?

Just a thought.

]]> By: harbinger http://westcoastclimateequity.org/2009/06/10/just-released-a-call-for-cumulative-co2-limit/comment-page-1/#comment-719 harbinger Thu, 11 Jun 2009 19:16:51 +0000 http://westcoastclimateequity.org/?p=3192#comment-719 From Meinshausen's Potsdam web page: "Since 2000, Freelance consultancy for government bodies and environmental NGOs on climate policy issues" He is a political advocacy scientist who studied at Myles Allen's Oxford Institute, where there is a rapidly expanding, publicly funded, warming network developing, with close links of personnel and data with the Tyndall Centre via Myles Allen and Potsdam via Tyndall and via Meinshausen and via government funding departments. As recently as December 2008 he was telling his Oxford college website that: "I now work on the issue of climate policy at the UN Climate Change Conferences for Greenpeace International."He has a history of political action with Greenpeace and WWF as shown here: Sinks in the CDM http://www.iisd.ca/climate/cop8/enbots/asc/enbots1105e.txt Tuesday, 29 October 2002 Malte Meinshausen, Greenpeace, highlighted the Protocol's requirement that all CDM projects result in "real, measurable and long-term benefits". He has also co-authored with Jennifer Morgan, ex-Climate Director of WWF: http://www.foejapan.org/climate/doc/tokyoconf/09b_MORGAN.pdf (2004) He is now at Potsdam with Bill Hare, who until at least as late as August 2008, was still described on the Greenpeace web site as Greenpeace International Director of Climate Policy, a position he has held since 1992, whilst at the same time having been at Potsdam as a "visiting scientist" since 2002 and an AR4 lead author with IPCC. He must have one of the biggest carbon footprints in the Universe, having attended just about every conference on the climate over the last 20 years, running into several hundreds. How disgraceful that there is no disclosure of interest in any of the publications that these people have been appearing in, in order to impact on the politicians in Copenhagen. It is dishonest, but biologist Stephen Schneider, also a signatory above, has a history of dishonesty in climate matters, going back to the cooling scares of the 70's. Objective science? I think not. From Meinshausen’s Potsdam web page: “Since 2000, Freelance consultancy for government bodies and environmental NGOs on climate policy issues”

He is a political advocacy scientist who studied at Myles Allen’s Oxford Institute, where there is a rapidly expanding, publicly funded, warming network developing, with close links of personnel and data with the Tyndall Centre via Myles Allen and Potsdam via Tyndall and via Meinshausen and via government funding departments.

As recently as December 2008 he was telling his Oxford college website that: “I now work on the issue of climate policy at the UN Climate Change Conferences for Greenpeace International.”He has a history of political action with Greenpeace and WWF as shown here:

Sinks in the CDM
http://www.iisd.ca/climate/cop8/enbots/asc/enbots1105e.txt
Tuesday, 29 October 2002
Malte Meinshausen, Greenpeace, highlighted the Protocol’s requirement that all CDM projects result in “real, measurable and long-term benefits”.

He has also co-authored with Jennifer Morgan, ex-Climate Director of WWF: http://www.foejapan.org/climate/doc/tokyoconf/09b_MORGAN.pdf (2004)

He is now at Potsdam with Bill Hare, who until at least as late as August 2008, was still described on the Greenpeace web site as Greenpeace International Director of Climate Policy, a position he has held since 1992, whilst at the same time having been at Potsdam as a “visiting scientist” since 2002 and an AR4 lead author with IPCC.

He must have one of the biggest carbon footprints in the Universe, having attended just about every conference on the climate over the last 20 years, running into several hundreds.

How disgraceful that there is no disclosure of interest in any of the publications that these people have been appearing in, in order to impact on the politicians in Copenhagen. It is dishonest, but biologist Stephen Schneider, also a signatory above, has a history of dishonesty in climate matters, going back to the cooling scares of the 70′s.

Objective science? I think not.

]]>