It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Global warming? Meh, not so much. . .

page: 3
10
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 05:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Curious and Concerned
Why is the data set that shows the most dramatic increase in temperature the only one in bold (along with the next most dramatic increase, which is in 'stand out' black.)?


It only shows what you consider a 'dramatic increase' because borehole data has poor resolution. Tree-ring data is better a showing temperature changes at smaller timescales (yearly data), so it's pretty variable to the eye. Borehole data can't show such fine temporal detail/resolution and so looks less variable over time (a smoother change).

Why grey bold? Probably because it's a different style of data. Or maybe they ran out of colours, lol. Sooo many hockey sticks...


Originally posted by Curious and Concerned
It wouldn't be intentionally trying to exagerate any warming

Originally posted by melatonin
(along with obfuscation, misrepresentation, willful ignorance etc etc).
would it?



The data is clearly labelled PS2004, and in the IPCC report from which the figure is taken is even better labelled and referenced.

You're really just falling back on a claim of dishonesty here ('intentionally exaggerate'), with absolutely no evidence apart from the fact you didn't know that data is a just another dataset, when it's clearly labelled as such.

If that data was meant to be a data summary, it would say so.

I'll answer the other later.

[edit on 16-10-2009 by melatonin]




posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 05:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Curious and Concerned
Sadly, there are people who doubt that there is such a thing as natural variation. I have eccountered some of them on this very website. And I disagree that showing that the climate has changed naturally in the past is inane, considering that many believe that recent warming cannot be accounted for by natural variations, although I do agree that it is no "slamdunk" point for anything.


As I said earlier, I do mean no-one of note.

It's not a belief that natural variations fail to fully account for the changes. The evidence shows so.


A lot more people might be inclined to believe any evidence of human impacts if it wasn't riddled with fallacies


Right. It's a fallacy that, for example, the well-established (over 100 years of physics) phenomena of greenhouse gases and their radiative forcing can't account for a positive forcing of climate.


And I trust I also don't need to tell you how flawed the processes and methodologies of the political body known as the IPCC are. Yet governments around the world are rallying behind their projections as if it's gospel.


They are just projections. We can change the outcome. The IPCC just summarises the science.


I'm not sure exactly what your line of belief is, but you must agree that the majority of "solutions" to AGW are nothing more than an appropriate transfer of wealth for the bankers and traders (along with so called "green" politicians) to gain further wealth/control/profit. This is the problem many have with AGW.


I'm sure that some prescient people will make money from future technology and behaviour. Are you not a capitalist? Some people make money from the status quo, the same and other people will make money in the future.

So what?

None of that changes the science.

Again, what's the problem with innovation and capitalism? Are you a communist? However, this is just a side issue and not really relevant to the thread. You're just arguing from consequences now.


Yes we are having an effect on our environment. Where, how and to what extent could be argued forever. But the reality is, many people disagree that cap and trade is THE solution to avoid inevitable disaster due to greenhouse gases, yet this is what our governments are forcing us to believe.

Just like the recent bail outs, we are being led to believe the TINA theory. There Is No Alternative.


Again, arguing from consequences. Cap and trade worked well for SO2 emissions.

Your ideological issues are shining through. I couldn't care less. If we want to do nothing, fine, we can. But burying our head in the sand and challenging the issue because we don't like the consequences is rather pathetic.

If you have better solutions push them. But the main stance of your ideological brethren is just anti-science. And the 'Gore is fat' comment focuses on the signs of ideological motivation. For some reason people seem to think that attacking Gore is another slamdunk idea.


[edit on 16-10-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 08:08 AM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


you are so worried about being right that you are missing the argument. How about you stop with the condesending smarter than thou attitude for just a second, and look at what people (even people you don't think are important) are saying.

1. nobody doubts that we just went/are going trough a warming period. We don't need tree ring data to view from the last 100 years because we had paper and pencils to record the data.

2. nobody is arguing the point that factories, car emmisions, general poution, and deforestation are bad for the environment.

Knowing that number 1 and 2 are agreed by both sides, why is helping to clean up the earth a partisan issue? Let me guess, because Democrats care about the earth and Republicans don't. Whenever you decide to look at all the data, you will see things that indicate our earth has gone through climate changes without our help in the past. You cannot discount the fact that this has happened and then claim that this time it's our fault 100%. You seem to think that if we weren't here at all then this warming period would have never happened. That is BS. The earth is a big place and will be here long after we turn into oil deposits.

My argument with people like you is you refuse to admit that man made Global Warming might not be as it was initially reported. And until we as a planet understand the true reasons we need to help our planet be a better place, there will be two sides arguing against why the sky is blue. It just is. Now lets keep it that way.



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by network dude
you are so worried about being right that you are missing the argument. How about you stop with the condesending smarter than thou attitude for just a second, and look at what people (even people you don't think are important) are saying.


I thought your 'argument' was that climate has changed before without man, therefore man isn't changing climate now.

Your argument is obvious. It's like a big fat sticky out thing shouting 'Look at me!'


1. nobody doubts that we just went/are going trough a warming period. We don't need tree ring data to view from the last 100 years because we had paper and pencils to record the data.

2. nobody is arguing the point that factories, car emmisions, general poution, and deforestation are bad for the environment.


I actually think that 1 is questionable, hence why certain groups attack NASA-GISS. I agree the more rational tend to see the data for what it says. But your argument is based around the cause. Science suggests an important human influence, you say 'no ways! Either humans cause all climate changes or none!'.


Knowing that number 1 and 2 are agreed by both sides, why is helping to clean up the earth a partisan issue? Let me guess, because Democrats care about the earth and Republicans don't. Whenever you decide to look at all the data, you will see things that indicate our earth has gone through climate changes without our help in the past. You cannot discount the fact that this has happened and then claim that this time it's our fault 100%. You seem to think that if we weren't here at all then this warming period would have never happened. That is BS. The earth is a big place and will be here long after we turn into oil deposits.


lol, you're still arguing the same point. I know what your argument is, it's just a totally fallacious argument.

It isn't a partisan issue. There is science, and certain people of particular ideological persuasion have an issue with parts of it.


My argument with people like you is you refuse to admit that man made Global Warming might not be as it was initially reported. And until we as a planet understand the true reasons we need to help our planet be a better place, there will be two sides arguing against why the sky is blue. It just is. Now lets keep it that way.


Why would I admit something I don't accept? (ABE: in fact, the science is stronger and more worrying than even 5 years ago)

Jeez, man, you can't even see how logically inept your argument is, why would I worry about the problems you have with me?

ABE: and when I say no-one of note, I mean no-one in the scientific arena or perhaps the mitigation arena. You can't be expecting me to account for every random individual misunderstanding/misrepresentation of particular areas of science. Hence, their opinions are of no note. I'm sure the same people are very important in other ways. For example, while Obama is president of the US, he is no-one of note in the field of climate science, but is of note in the areas that matter for mitigation. It's a relative term.

[edit on 16-10-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
It only shows what you consider a 'dramatic increase' because borehole data has poor resolution.

No. I consider it to be a 'dramatic increase' because it starts below the other data sets, then rises above them. This is glaringly obvious because it's in bold. Maybe, they did just run out of colours (
) though, that's ok.


Originally posted by melatonin
You're really just falling back on a claim of dishonesty here ('intentionally exaggerate'), with absolutely no evidence apart from the fact you didn't know that data is a just another dataset, when it's clearly labelled as such.


I'll admit I didn't know what it represented, other than the fact it's different from all the other data sets, as it is in bold. You said yourself that the resolution is 'a bit naff'. But I made no such claims. There was clearly a '?' at the end of the sentence, which generally implies a question, not a claim. Who's being dishonest now?


Originally posted by melatonin
Right. It's a fallacy that, for example, the well-established (over 100 years of physics) phenomena of greenhouse gases and their radiative forcing can't account for a positive forcing of climate.

I never said that there was no such thing as a greenhouse gas. Properties of greenhouse gases have been examined for over 100 years. However, climate science is much more than greenhouse gases. There are many forcings and feedback systems which we do not fully understand, which is why our climate models are so flimsy.

But when groups such as Gore and co, and the IPCC have been known to intentionally exaggerate their claims of disastrous warming, with a political agenda in mind, then Yes. I do believe that to be fallacious.


Originally posted by melatonin
They are just projections. We can change the outcome. The IPCC just summarises the science.

Correct. They summarise only the science that agrees with their pre-determined conclusion. This has been shown time and time again, with many of the reviewers leaving due to the political influence's.
1st Co Chair of IPCC admits politics rules not science
So if those projections are exagerated or incorrect, we can't change the outcome. But we are being forced to accept this


Originally posted by melatonin
I'm sure that some prescient people will make money from future technology and behaviour. Are you not a capitalist? Some people make money from the status quo, the same and other people will make money in the future.

So what?

So what? So our money is being syphoned off to pay for a solution that will do next to nothing to help our environment. This has nothing to do with being a communist or a capitilist. I am not happy to watch wealth going into the hands of others over fallacious claims.

The UN has intended to intoduce a global pollution tax(carbon tax) for years, to further a global governance agenda, not reduce climate change. This is not conspiracy theory, but laid out in their own reports, as shown here.

Cap and trade may have worked for SO2, but the effects and consequences are far, far more consequential for CO2.


Originally posted by melatonin
If you have better solutions push them. But the main stance of your ideological brethren is just anti-science. And the 'Gore is fat' comment focuses on the signs of ideological motivation. For some reason people seem to think that attacking Gore is another slamdunk idea.

Nah, attacking Gore just shows the irony of your claim

"Actually expected better from your goodself, Oz. From others here, I do expect statistical and scientific naivete (along with obfuscation, misrepresentation, willful ignorance etc etc).

when it happens on both sides of the fence, by the people who are pushing an agenda. Saying that my "ideological brethren"(whoever they are) are "anti-science" is bollocks. The real science suggests that claims from many of the AGW crowd are exagerated, or misrepresented.
No ideologies neccessary.

A better solution would be to promote a better standard of living for many people, which doesn't focus purely on the emmisions of a trace atmospheric gas. IMO, there are far more important things we should be looking into to improve our living conditions, but these won't generate enough profit for the people pushing AGW.






[edit on 16-10-2009 by Curious and Concerned]

[edit on 16-10-2009 by Curious and Concerned]



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 11:07 AM
link   


Perhaps we have had rouge dust storms on Earth that have contributed to these patterns.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by network dude


Perhaps we have had rouge dust storms on Earth that have contributed to these patterns.


That is the most pathetic and child-like representation of data I think I've seen in a long time. It's so obviously been pulled out of an ass, or several asses. I do like the judeo-christian references, lol

When did 'Harris & Mann' publish this data? Who are Harris & Mann? I predict they are a pair of shysters.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 03:11 PM
link   
I answered this once already t'other day, but the site decided to fix stuff and reject my comment...it's not worth another hour of my time. A quick blast...


Originally posted by Curious and Concerned
No. I consider it to be a 'dramatic increase' because it starts below the other data sets, then rises above them. This is glaringly obvious because it's in bold. Maybe, they did just run out of colours (
) though, that's ok.


Yet, if we extend it a few decades in the past it isn't 'below' the others, if we look a few decades on from the start it isn't 'below'. In fact, at just after 1800 a couple of dendro plots show a real dramatic increase from a minima, while the borehole is middling. It isn't even as dramatic in it's trend as the modern observational data. The dataset is clearly labelled as just another set of data.

You're just trying to suggest an intention to deceive from some barely noted data plot. Hence the continuous inane references to it being in bold, lol. This borehole dataset is all but ignored by deniers and others, it could be in fluorescent pink with flashing stars, it would still have had little impact. These people are too busy showing their derangement towards Michael Mann and Keith Briffa.

Don't know what you're worrying about, not as if most of you would have even bothered to read the IPCC report.


I'll admit I didn't know what it represented, other than the fact it's different from all the other data sets, as it is in bold. You said yourself that the resolution is 'a bit naff'. But I made no such claims. There was clearly a '?' at the end of the sentence, which generally implies a question, not a claim. Who's being dishonest now?


Nope, you're making the claim. You've been trying to support it, and still are now. You can try to be cute, but you're transparent.


But when groups such as Gore and co, and the IPCC have been known to intentionally exaggerate their claims of disastrous warming, with a political agenda in mind, then Yes. I do believe that to be fallacious.


And now the claim makes a full explicit appearance. As I said, transparent. The IPCC is very conservative in its summary of the science.

It actually goes science --> policy. The science has been around for over 100 years. Unless you think Arrhenius was trying to underpin Gore's supposedly nefarious money-making motives.


Correct. They summarise only the science that agrees with their pre-determined conclusion. This has been shown time and time again, with many of the reviewers leaving due to the political influence's.
1st Co Chair of IPCC admits politics rules not science
So if those projections are exagerated or incorrect, we can't change the outcome. But we are being forced to accept this


And now we have another claim of dishonesty. You're just another anti-science ideologue. That's fine, of course. You'll find good company on ATS.

Houghton admitted no such thing. The IPCC summarises the science for policymakers. Indeed, the IPCC is very conservative and the current science is much more extreme than IPCC-science-by-committee.

Every major scientific organisation knows the score. Not just the IPCC.


So what? So our money is being syphoned off to pay for a solution that will do next to nothing to help our environment. This has nothing to do with being a communist or a capitilist. I am not happy to watch wealth going into the hands of others over fallacious claims.


More claims of dishonesty. However, the claims are not fallacious but are well-supported science. We therefore need to make a choice. We can ignore the science and decide not to act for all I care, I love experiments. We only have a sample size of one and we depend on it for our existence, but lets go for it.


The UN has intended to intoduce a global pollution tax(carbon tax) for years, to further a global governance agenda, not reduce climate change. This is not conspiracy theory, but laid out in their own reports, as shown here.


You are misrepresenting the article. It doesn't say what you say it does. The HD article says:


global taxation may become necessary in any case to achieve the goals of global human security.


May =/= intend.

Indeed, cap and trade is favoured by many. Carbon tax by others.


Cap and trade may have worked for SO2, but the effects and consequences are far, far more consequential for CO2.


Again, arguing from consequences. Cap and trade worked well with little economic impact. Similarly, reliable estimates of the impact of CO2 cap and trade also show minimal impact. And I don't mean the made up scheidt from the right-wing blogosphere.


Nah, attacking Gore just shows the irony of your claim

"Actually expected better from your goodself, Oz. From others here, I do expect statistical and scientific naivete (along with obfuscation, misrepresentation, willful ignorance etc etc).

when it happens on both sides of the fence, by the people who are pushing an agenda. Saying that my "ideological brethren"(whoever they are) are "anti-science" is bollocks. The real science suggests that claims from many of the AGW crowd are exagerated, or misrepresented.
No ideologies neccessary.


Whatchoo on about?

I consider Oz a friend on here, and knowing a bit about his background was a bit perplexed by his inane comments and opinions.

You are anti-science. You clearly express it. And the scientific illiteracy here is on show each day.


A better solution would be to promote a better standard of living for many people, which doesn't focus purely on the emmisions of a trace atmospheric gas. IMO, there are far more important things we should be looking into to improve our living conditions, but these won't generate enough profit for the people pushing AGW.


The 'people pushing AGW' is just scientists producing the data. Most rational people tend to use evidence to determine behaviour. Should they lie to satisfy your ideology? You see, it wasn't the scientists gagging right-wing oil-drunk politicians and altering their reports. And here you just show more of your anti-science credentials.

It's a noble sentiment to want to improve living conditions for others. However, I'm sure the Bangladeshis might prefer to be above water than to have Wifi and laptops. But, hey, perhaps I'm wrong.

I'm bored of your scattergun BS. The thread is about recent trends in climate.

[edit on 18-10-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 

Well said.
Interesting how many "climate scientists" we have here on ATS,
that admittedly haven't even read the science!


Ironically, we 'probably' couldn't understand a scientific report if we
were made to actually read it!
But we sure all seem to have a steadfast opinion about it!


Quit making us feel guilty for planetary rape, will you?!

Great post M!


[edit on 18-10-2009 by dodadoom]



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 04:02 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Just thought I would stop by to let everyone in on a little development in the arena of Global Warming.

Masqua has started a thread concerning a rebuttal documentary to the infamous An Inconvenient Truth that is being shown tonight at 8:00PM Eastern. I thought it might prove interesting if those interested in this debate were to view it with the same scrutiny we have viewed Mr. Gore's plea for money, er, I mean documentary.

The thread is here: Documentary - Not Evil Just Wrong

I now return you to your regularly scheduled discussion.


TheRedneck

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Just thought I would stop by to let everyone in on a little development in the arena of Global Warming.


Groundbreaking new science?

Is it the new study in Science showing that 15 million years ago when CO2 levels were last as high as currently temperatures were much warmer and sea levels much higher?...


Submitted on June 26, 2009
Accepted on September 28, 2009

Coupling of CO2 and Ice Sheet Stability Over Major Climate Transitions of the Last 20 Million Years

Aradhna K. Tripati 1*, Christopher D. Roberts 2, Robert A. Eagle 3

* To whom correspondence should be addressed.
Aradhna K. Tripati , E-mail: aradhna.tripati@gmail.com

The CO2 content of the atmosphere has varied cyclically between ~180 and ~280 ppmv over the last 800,000 years, closely coupled with temperature and sea level. For earlier periods in Earth’s history, pCO2 is much less certain and the relationship between pCO2 and climate remains poorly constrained. We use boron/calcium ratios in foraminifera to estimate pCO2 during major climate transitions of the last 20 million years (myr). During the Middle Miocene, when temperatures were ~3 to 6°C warmer and sea level 25 to 40 meters higher than present, pCO2 was similar to modern levels. Decreases in pCO2 were synchronous with major episodes of glacial expansion during the Middle Miocene (~14 to 10 million years ago; Ma) and Late Pliocene (~3.3 to -2.4 Ma).


...or is it the data showing that positive feedbacks to current warming may be more extreme than we realise?...


Science 9 October 2009:
Vol. 326. no. 5950, pp. 248 - 252

Research Articles
Ice Age Terminations
Hai Cheng,1 R. Lawrence Edwards,1,* Wallace S. Broecker,2 George H. Denton,3 Xinggong Kong,4 Yongjin Wang,4 Rong Zhang,5 Xianfeng Wang1

230Th-dated oxygen isotope records of stalagmites from Sanbao Cave, China, characterize Asian Monsoon (AM) precipitation through the ends of the third- and fourthmost recent ice ages. As a result, AM records for the past four glacial terminations can now be precisely correlated with those from ice cores and marine sediments, establishing the timing and sequence of major events. In all four cases, observations are consistent with a classic Northern Hemisphere summer insolation intensity trigger for an initial retreat of northern ice sheets. Meltwater and icebergs entering the North Atlantic alter oceanic and atmospheric circulation and associated fluxes of heat and carbon, causing increases in atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic temperatures that drive the termination in the Southern Hemisphere. Increasing CO2 and summer insolation drive recession of northern ice sheets, with probable positive feedbacks between sea level and CO2.

....


Masqua has started a thread concerning a rebuttal documentary


...oh, I see...just noise.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 05:37 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

reply to post by melatonin

Aw, Mel, not even a nice "hello" first? Oh, well...


Groundbreaking new science?

No, it is supposed to be a rebuttal to propaganda. Time will tell whether that rebuttal focuses on facts or more propaganda.


Is it the new study in Science showing that 15 million years ago when CO2 levels were last as high as currently temperatures were much warmer and sea levels much higher?...

...or is it the data showing that positive feedbacks to current warming may be more extreme than we realise?...

No, it is supposed to be a rebuttal to propaganda. Time will tell whether that rebuttal focuses on facts or more propaganda.


...oh, I see...just noise.

I must admit, you certainly seem to have become almost omnipotent since the last time we spoke. You already know everything about the film and it won't premiere for another hour and a half?

I am impressed!

(NOT! The first rule of science is to look at all the information before coming to a conclusion.)

TheRedneck

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
I must admit, you certainly seem to have become almost omnipotent since the last time we spoke. You already know everything about the film and it won't premiere for another hour and a half?

I am impressed!


Ha, what are expecting? It's just a documentary, a piece of media fluff. A rehash of the same old rancid denier's memes that have been circulating for years.

You watching it will be almost narcissism, lol.


(NOT! The first rule of science is to look at all the information before coming to a conclusion.)

TheRedneck


You expect a documentary to contain new science? This is the problem, though, RD, you're waiting on some silly documentary when you don't even bother with much of the information out there. You want the packaged ideological memes to stroke your ego and regurgitate.

I just posted a very recent scientific study using GRACE measurements of ice mass, showing accelerating ice mass loss for Greenland and Antarctica (along with one showing similar in 2006). Yet your peddling the same old BS, half-truths, and misrepresentations you've been peddling since I've been here.

Did you miss that study in your hunt for 'information'? Do you even know where the Science website is?


[edit on 18-10-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 06:33 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

reply to post by melatonin

Ha, what are expecting? It's just a documentary

Actually, I am expecting a documentary that will attempt to rebut An Inconvenient Truth.

I really don't remember stating that this will be the end-all-be-all of the debate. I simply stated that a rebuttal documentary was to be aired.

You appear to be the only one with a closed mind here.
Are you worried, perhaps? A bit insecure?

TheRedneck

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


Aw, he's had this same agenda here ever since I first stumbled on ATS. I'd feel safe in betting money that he wouldn't be interested in paying attention to anything that might conflict with that.

I was hoping to get a chance to see it, but I'm getting a cached IP address from their site.

Do you know if it will be available to view later on Youtube or Google video etc?



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 07:37 PM
link   
Maybe we can move past the Globalist Agenda and focus on real environmental issues now. I'd like to start the list off with;

1. The indiscriminate dispersal of depleted uranium munitions and other toxic weapons.
2. The unabated, shameless clear cutting of rain forest and old growth forest. (yes this is still happening)
3. The deliberate poisoning of our municipal water supplies with toxic industrial waste. e.g. fluoride and others.
4. Banning the use of certain toxic plastics.
5. Increase the federal budget spent on renewable energy solutions to the same level they spend on NASA.
6. Gosh I could go on for several pages.

All of you Global warming proponents must realize that it has only become a distraction and a rotten diversion. You really should have been spending your energy on debating the issues of the environment instead of forcing this disgusting globalist agenda on everyone. We need real solutions not more theft and power grabbing by the elitist garbage at the UN or EU.

Will you sacrifice your pet global warming theory in order to get down to the business of solving our common problems now?

[edit on 18-10-2009 by Smack]



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 07:53 PM
link   
Not Evil Just Wrong broadcasting a live premier right now at

www.ustream.tv...



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 08:26 PM
link   
sorry if i am going off topic a bit but this made me


CNN says Arctic ice to vanish in summer, report says of course they say it
www.cnn.com...

more fear mongering with a cute picture that says
As the Arctic sea ice melts, polar bears face extinction.


but on wikipedia it says PB are (Vulnerable) which means

A vulnerable species is a species which is likely to become endangered unless the circumstances threatening its survival and reproduction improve. The following is a very small, non-representative fraction of the 8,566 species listed as vulnerable on the IUCN Red List.


Oh my CNN never gives up



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Don't know what you're worrying about, not as if most of you would have even bothered to read the IPCC report.
...
And now the claim makes a full explicit appearance. As I said, transparent. The IPCC is very conservative in its summary of the science.

It actually goes science --> policy. The science has been around for over 100 years. Unless you think Arrhenius was trying to underpin Gore's supposedly nefarious money-making motives.
...
Houghton admitted no such thing. The IPCC summarises the science for policymakers. Indeed, the IPCC is very conservative and the current science is much more extreme than IPCC-science-by-committee.

Every major scientific organisation knows the score. Not just the IPCC.


Like the U. of CO?

(from Chris Landsea, Univ. of Colorado)

Dear colleagues,

After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.

sciencepolicy.colorado.edu...

Or, Dr. Vincent Gray, UN IPCC Expert Reviewers Panel, to Professor David Henderson, New Zealand Climate Science Coalition:


Over the years, as I have learned more about the data and procedures of the IPCC I have found increasing opposition by them to providing explanations, until I have been forced to the conclusion that for significant parts of the work of the IPCC, the data collection and scientific methods employed are unsound. Resistance to all efforts to try and discuss or rectify these problems has convinced me that normal scientific procedures are not only rejected by the IPCC, but that this practice is endemic, and was part of the organisation from the very beginning. I therefore consider that the IPCC is fundamentally corrupt. The only "reform" I could envisage, would be its abolition.

The two main "scientific" claims of the IPCC are the claim that "the globe is warming" and "Increases in carbon dioxide emissions are responsible". Evidence for both of these claims is fatally flawed.

nzclimatescience.net...




More claims of dishonesty. However, the claims are not fallacious but are well-supported science. We therefore need to make a choice. We can ignore the science and decide not to act for all I care, I love experiments. We only have a sample size of one and we depend on it for our existence, but lets go for it.



The HD article says:


global taxation may become necessary in any case to achieve the goals of global human security.


May =/= intend.

Indeed, cap and trade is favoured by many. Carbon tax by others.


And Carol Browner, the U.S. climate Czar (formerly of Socialist International), as speaker at the XXIII Congress of the Socialist International, Athens:

Global Solidarity - The courage to make a difference 30 June – 02 July 2008

"ACTING NOW ON CLIMATE CHANGE: To achieve a sustainable world society"

(PANEL TWO - How do we strengthen the multilateral architecture for a sustainable future?)

Securing an international system able to respond to the challenge requires leadership and mutual respect between developing and developed nations, which will require a much greater degree of solidarity than has been displayed thus far. In this regard, an essential aspect of realising a more fair and effective form of global governance is reform of the United Nations, which means that UN member states must redouble efforts to revitalise and reshape this indispensable institution based on democratic interaction between nations and stronger, more coordinated, multilateral responses to the challenges the world faces today.


www.socialistinternational.org...

Science, not politics?

Not really.

jw



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 04:47 AM
link   
We'll go through these one by one, j.

People might like to think I represent some form of closed-minded agenda, but I'm more interested in veracity of information and presenting the current science. I know its disappointing that all you can do is lie and misrepresent to bolster your ideological viewpoints, but that's life. If you didn't spout such obvious tripe which can be shown to be erroneous so easily, then all would be well. Closed-mindedness is effectively closing your mind to evidence, I've seen almost every denier argument, and all are BS. Given people here spout the same old crap even when corrected by scientific evidence, suggesting a closed-mind por moi is merely projection.

But, hey, ATS is the center of the down-is-up universe.

But I digress...

Chris Landsea is a butthurt scientist who was a little peeved that his pet scientific position was not accepted by a lead IPCC scientist (Trenberth) who signified a different position from hisself when giving a talk. Landsea says no effect on hurricanes, others like Kerry Emanuel say there might well be (which Trenberth agrees with). Given a tad more evidence supports some effect on hurricanes when we take a weight of evidence, Trenberth was perfectly fine in making that statement - however, the evidence is complex and still could go either way, IMO. The IPCC merely state they suspect (more likely than not) a future effect of warming on hurricanes, which is supported by evidence.

Landsea's ego was hurt, and dummy was thrown with a hysterical whine. Poor babes. I assume he thinks everyone should bow down to his work and ignore all others just because he contributed to previous IPCC reports. He's like some rather pathetic jealous lover.

Moreover, Landsea isn't the spokesperson for the University of Colorado. Just a representative of his own work. Contrarians are fine, and hopefully Landsea will continue his search to show that warming oceans won't influence hurricanes in any way.

I'm sure you can find lots of contrarians (Landsea likes to work with Pat Michaels and the Pielkes, a shill and two contrarians respectively), shills, and kooks, but 'no major scientific organisations' really speaks to the fact that not a single major scientific organisation (like the AAAS) holds a contrarian position on the main issues. Not one. Not even the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, who were the final flatearth group.

And contrarians like Landsea accept the main issues. He's no denier.

'Dr' Vincent Gray is no doctor. He has no PhD. He has no training in climate science. He's just a random person who signed up to review the IPCC reports and represents a group of backwards downunder deniers. Anyone can do so, even you can. Ability to understand basic science is not a prerequisite. Who cares what he thinks?

And the last one you present is a political appointee in the US government and previously a member of a political organisation. So, errrm, yeah, she has a political position, lol. No crap sherlock.

[edit on 19-10-2009 by melatonin]



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join