Global Warming w/o Tiggy

[Augustine2004]

Spiegel, the German magazine, takes a gawk, and essentially takes Glenn's side http://www.spiegel.de/international/...757713,00.html

[sylas]

The problem with an incorrect citation is that it suggests the citer either hasn't read the original, or doesn't want anyone else to. The actual reference is v357, pp609-613.

Roy, thanks for the corrected citation.

Two forms of the citation for the same paper, Myers 2001

However, given that I am concerned about prejudicial assumptions, I have to point out that the technically incorrect citation is simply a reference to the advance online preprint of the journal article. It looks like the paper was delayed from volume 356 to 357 sometime after the advance online publication.

A copy of the online version from the Royal Society itself is here: Myers 2001, pdf preprint. (Link goes to a copy kept at Myer's own pages at Duke)

The print version of the article, at the journal pages, is here (and open access): Journal page for Myers 2001.

A number of papers, including those by Professor Myers himself, give the citation to volume 356 using page numbers from the preprint given by the Royal Society in it's advance online copy (placed on the web Oct 2001).

The print version eventually appeared in volume 357, in April 2002.

Content of Myers 2001, or other work on numbers of environmental refugees in the present

The estimates for 2010 are not based on global warming concerns, but on prevailing conditions and expectations for population pressure. That is a matter of record and perfectly plain in the paper itself -- which is open access.

The major issues with numbers are actually to do with how "environmental refugee" is defined. That is an ongoing focus being considered by many bodies, including the UN, and at this point no formal definition exists. What numbers you get depends largely on this matter of definition.

However defined, there are certainly many millions of people displaced in the present by environmental changes. This is not a new thing. The major factor behind large numbers to date is the large population Earth currently supports.

There is indeed an expectation for a large increase on the way in the numbers of people that are likely to be displaced by environmental changes. Myers himself tends to use 2050 as reference point for what might be in store as the planet heats up in coming decades.

That, however, is not the basis for the 2010 estimates.

Cheers -- sylas

[Augustine2004]

A blogger crowed about his victory: 'Basically the UEA[University of East Anglia, U.K., where the notorious Climatic Research Unit operates] were [sic] trying to use the PCC[The U.K.'s Press Complaints Commission] as a way of gagging this blog from speaking unpalatable truths about the shoddy goings-on in its notorious Climatic Research Unit.' He said 'we' won. 'They' lost.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...n-the-morning/

[grmorton]

• Edited by a Moderator •

Moderated By: T-Shirt Ninja

Glenn, do not argue with moderation in the thread. Go to the Psychotherapy forum for that.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

[grmorton]

Spiegel, the German magazine, takes a gawk, and essentially takes Glenn's side http://www.spiegel.de/international/...757713,00.html

Everyone but • Edited by a Moderator • thought it was a UN prediction. • Edited by a Moderator • can't even remember that he himself revealed his name and he can't seem to remember that everywhere on the web and in the news the prediction was credited to the United Nations. • Edited by a Moderator •

Moderated By: T-Shirt Ninja

Again with the name. As I said earlier, since you have an issue about this take it to the Psychotherapy Room.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

[Challenger Grim]

Everyone but • Edited by a Moderator • thought it was a UN prediction. • Edited by a Moderator • can't even remember that he himself revealed his name and he can't seem to remember that everywhere on the web and in the news the prediction was credited to the United Nations. • Edited by a Moderator •

Oh Sylas isn't too bad.

Now rubbing that in on Tiggy on the other hand...

[sylas]

Thanks Challenger.

My post was specifically referring to THIS prediction, the one being raised in this thread, and which was associated with a deleted graphic. THAT was not a UN graphic. It was not produced by, or for the UN. It was used once (with permission and acknowledgment to the image source) as far as I know, in one UN report, which doesn't deal with estimating numbers of refugees at all; the image was used for identifying regions that are at risk of particular kinds of environmental problem, right now. The graphic does not actually fit the description of the database, given its provenance; it is -- or was -- an oddity in the database in that respect.

The source of the 50 million people in the context of the deleted graphic was not any comment on the matter by any UN related body. It was a reference to a paper by Norman Myers, writing on his own behalf as an independent Oxford academic.

It certainly IS repeated all over the net that the deleted graphic was something about covering up UN predictions. It's being passed on from blog to blog and pundit to pundit, and no-one seems to have taken the basic steps of looking at what was actually deleted and whether it related to the UN reports. It does not.

I have made no attempt to enumerate, or deny, any UN reports on refugee numbers. All I doing is pointing out that what was deleted doesn't fit the spin. There's no UN prediction being hidden. There's a map deleted, which was not for or by the UN, and which refers to predictions not by or for the UN.

The nonsense about cover-ups and so on is just that -- pernicious nonsense. It merely derails any serious on the topic look at the substance of the writings on numbers of people displaced by environmental events or changes. If people want to see what UN bodies have said on the matter, they are welcome! None have been deleted. None have been covered up. The graphic removed had no reference or connection with any of the various writings from UN bodies on the matter.

Cheers -- sylas

[Roy]

Everyone but • Edited by a Moderator • thought it was a UN prediction. • Edited by a Moderator • can't even remember that he himself revealed his name and he can't seem to remember that everywhere on the web and in the news the prediction was credited to the United Nations.

Such impeccable fallaciousness. I wonder how long it would take to complete the whole set on TWeb?

Roy

P.S. • Edited by a Moderator •

Moderated By: Tiggy

Do NOT do this! Notifications of problems with the TWeb software should be posted to the LSD forum. You have been warned!

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

[FLovell]

Global Warming Inevitablist here. Here's a report from a website I just learned about called SKEPTICAL SCIENCE: GETTING SKEPTICAL ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING SKEPTICISM titled "Lindzen Illusion #1: We Should Have Seen More Warming":

http://www.skepticalscience.com/lind...e-warming.html

Even though I am a Global Warming Inevitablist who is profoundly skeptical of the truth of the (rarely explicit but pretty-much frequently and ubiquitously implicit) claim that global climate average temperature would stay pretty doggone close to where it is now pretty-much indefinitely [at least, indefinitely with respect to all practical concerns humans need to worry about, it seems] if only it were not for human contributions (primarily CO2 emissions) of warming influences on current Global Climate dynamics which presently are on the verge of rapidly ruining life as we've grown accustomed to life for most of humanity, I find it odd that there is a skeptical group who is skeptical of ANY skepticism of ANY ASPECT of the claims of AGW (as distinct from the kind of plain ol' natural GW&C that characterizes the last 600+ million years of pre-human history of the biosphere) and (increasingly preemptively) lumps ALL skepticism about ANY ASPECT of evidence, modeling and IMPLICATIONS of what we presently know and understand about global climate dynamics into the one and only trashcan of AGW skepticism. Still, it may be worth considering what these folks say (I think we should take advocates of calamitous AGW a lot more seriously than they seem willing to take ANY skeptic of ANY ASPECT of claims of AGW as distinct from GW&C), so I offer this particular report above for consideration, analysis and comment by any here of a mind to do any of those in this forum (or elsewhere, for that matter, please just let me know if analysis/comment on this report appears elsewhere so I and others here can follow it with interest).

-- Frank

PS: Yes Sylas, I know -- what I just wrote above is nothing but a plumb pitiful pile of putrid pelosi [a.k.a. equine-hockey]; nonetheless, I'd like your comment on that entry at that URL too, if you read it and have a mind to comment about it here.

[Augustine2004]

Such impeccable fallaciousness. I wonder how long it would take to complete the whole set on TWeb?

Roy

P.S. • Edited by a Moderator •

Moderated By: Tiggy

Do NOT do this! Notifications of problems with the TWeb software should be posted to the LSD forum. You have been warned!

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

I don't believe, Tiggy! Whose idea it was to make him moderator! Quick, where's the smiley for boil-him-in-oil?

[Challenger Grim]

I don't believe, Tiggy! Whose idea it was to make him moderator! Quick, where's the smiley for boil-him-in-oil?

Yeah... according to the bottom of the forum top it is:
Moderators of this Forum

• Frogwarrior
• Sparko
• T-Shirt Ninja

Did one of them impersonate Tiggy, or is this a hack?

[Augustine2004]

I would not be at all suprised it's all Tiggy's doing. On the other hand, I just don't know.

[Xru]

I read the first few posts to this thread and I am encouraged by the objectivity in the dialogue. I have no expertise in climatology, but I do have a great interest in following the debate about Global Warming for a couple reasons.

1) I have a great deal of concern and love of the natural environment and wish to minimize any unintended effects from Man/Woman's activities. Notice I say unintended effects. If we as decide to manage the environment a certain way then fine, but poison the atmosphere with some of the things we have is an abomination.

2) Spending billions to reduce emissions for the sole purpose of preventing Global Warming is a noble thing of course. But are those billions well spent? I support reducing emissions in general, but there are other things the money could be used for of course if the warming we are seeing is but part of a natural cycle.

So . . . I'm going to read through this thread . . . all 29 pages at this time. Thank you.

[Challenger Grim]

Things like this is what concerns me most about a lot of AGW talk...
http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=3797

“Genghis Khan’s bloody conquests scrubbed 700million tons of carbon from the atmosphere as depopulated land returned to forest.”

Especially when someone like Tiggy starts talking about all the good for other people they want to do...

[Augustine2004]

So . . . I'm going to read through this thread . . . all 29 pages at this time. Thank you.

1/2 of 58 pages?