It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


In House testimony, Botkin dismantles the IPCC 2014 report

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 01:19 PM


I want to state up front that we have been living through a warming trend driven by a
variety of influences. However, it is my view that this is not unusual, and contrary to the
characterizations by the IPCC and the National Climate Assessment, these environmental
changes are not apocalyptic nor irreversible.

Daniel Botkin:

Look into this testimony. Every single one of the experts downplayed mans contribution to warming...every single one. Two of them even said warming was't even in the top 10 for environmental problems to worry about.

So these are experts, who the US government has relied on heavily concerning the Governments course for dealing with climate change, flat out downplaying how much man contributes to the warming trend.

I think this is what we are going to see going forward. I think as the models are wronger and wronger, governments are going to have to pull away from the "man made global warming" line of reasoning and on to the "humans must adapt to climate change and we need to pay for that" line. That line I actually agree with.
edit on 2-6-2014 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 01:22 PM
a reply to: raymundoko

I'm all for Anthropogenic Global Warming Scepticism. As a man who doubts AGW myself, I often debate against proponent of this church.

But I must nevertheless ask: can this Daniel Botkin be trusted as a source? Is he republican, or working for the energy department?

EDIT: I'm checking Daniel's background. So far he seems clean. He even received awards:

1995 Elected to Environmental Hall of Fame, at California Polytechnic Institute, Pomona, CA.

1995 Fernow Award for Outstanding Contributions in International Forestry, given by American Forests and the German Forestry Association

Mitchell International Prize for Sustainable Development, 1st prize, 1991

Not bad.

edit on 2-6-2014 by swanne because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 01:38 PM
a reply to: raymundoko

Among the approaches that would improve climate science:
a. Return to the former reliance on science done by individuals and small
groups with a common specific interest and focus.
b. Change the approach from trying to make a complete, definitive model of
every aspect of climate to a different level. See kinds of models that explore
specific possibilities and phenomena.
c. Get out of the blame game. None of the above suggestions can work as
long as global warming remains a moral, political, ideologically dominated topic,
with scientists pushed into, or at least viewed as, being either for or against a
single point of view.

Nine Environmental Issues that need our attention now
Fresh water
Phosphorus and other essential minerals
Habitat destruction
Invasive-species control
Endangered species
Pollution by directly toxic substances

posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 01:53 PM
a reply to: swanne

The other guys were:

"The added greenhouse gases from human activity clearly have a role in increasing the heat content of the climate system from what it otherwise would be", but "there are other equally or even more important significant human climate forcings" and furthermore "We now know, however, that the natural variations of atmospheric and ocean circulation features within the climate system produces global average heat changes that are substantially larger than what was known in 2005. The IPCC models have failed to adequately simulate this effect.


These guys have nothing to do with politics or business. They just do science.

Michael Oppenheimer is actually one of the ones who created the extremely wrong climate models the IPCC uses. He even won a nobel prize...He now admits their numbers were wrong.

He is actually an environmental activist and has been since the 60's. It now looks like he used AGW as a platform to advance his green agenda, but now he is having to admit his numbers were wrong.

This is one of Oppenheimer's predictions from the 90's:

"[By] 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots…[By 1996] The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers." Michael Oppenheimer, published in "Dead Heat," St. Martin's Press, 1990.

posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 01:56 PM
a reply to: raymundoko

I wonder how long it will take for this poor guy Botkin to come into the cross hairs of the AGCC jesuits (if he isn't there already)? They tend to destroy people via attrition by scandal, discrediting, removal of tenure, cancelling or not providing research grants, etc., that do not comply with the BS party line. Maybe next we'll hear about a student that has some accusations or the government will "accidentally" or through data audit at the university, find illegal porn connections on his computer? The AGCC "handlers" are over-zealous and creative ;-)

Cheers - Dave

posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 02:14 PM
Fuel for thought (pun intended)....

The Sky Still Isn't Falling --Top Ten Failed Global Warming Predictions (story from Dec 2010)

By now we should have seen something, we were supposed to begin seeing effects from the "man made global warming. The predictions were all there, and they were made long enough ago that we can figure out if the sky is falling and the Manhattan skyline will be under water a week from Tuesday. So how did the global warming nuts do? Well if you excuse the expression, Not too hot. So don't cancel your trip into Manhattan next month (because Chicken Little was more accurate) and read the top ten dud predictions some are from Fox News, the rest have been covered here at the Lid

Chicken Little said so !!

posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 04:45 PM

Nine Environmental Issues that need our attention now Energy Fresh water Phosphorus and other essential minerals Habitat destruction Invasive-species control Endangered species Pollution by directly toxic substances Fisheries Forests

This is one aspect of the whole AGW fiasco that has always bothered me. How gore and his cohorts co opted the whole environmental movement and put the focus entirely on AGW/co2.

All of the real and pressing environmental issues were overshadowed if not completely ignored by the media ever since.

posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 05:20 PM
Just like I've always said, climate change is real. Man made or not is up for the debate. I'm not surprised that this is just another democratic scam to get us to agree to raise taxes.

new topics

top topics


log in