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.

 

The mini ice age starts here

page: 3
7
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 05:24 AM
link   
Here in Britain we are seeing the coldest weather for 30 years, with temperatures in some locations reaching down to -21.2 degrees C . Now although one could be forgiven for freaking out about this, I dont really see what the big hoo har is about.
For one thing, when my mother was a girl, this sort of weather was a forgone conclusion. Its winter, therefore, its cold. End of , no big dilema. The only reason people are making such a big deal out of this, is because in non rural low lying areas, we have not seen cold weather for a couple of decades. Its not as if its unheard of, or unsurvivable. The only people complaining or worried are just weak . Just utterly pathetic. The only people with a genuine cause for alarm are old folks, who once could have relied upon neighbors to help them out. Of course society has changed an awful lot, and this may adversely affect the community spirit which kept people safe many years ago. But that is a societal issue, its not as if we are all going to die. I heard a great phrase the other day at the bustop, "Only the weak and the stupid can die in weather like this"




posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
I was wondering when you would show up. Have you seen any Iguanas falling out of trees there in the UK?


So the fact that Fox and the Daily Mail are deceptively misrepresenting both the NSIDC and Latif isn't important to you? You just want to quickly move on to the next pile of crap?

Figures.


Take the paraphrasing of NSIDC and Latif out, and there's no deception, really, just an opinion piece interpreting published, peer-reviewed reports of two climate scientists who've noted cooling cycles resulting from natural ocean changes.

I'd guess that it's at least as important as the IPCC's outright, undeniable, misrepresentations about Himalayan glaciology.


Glaciologists are this week arguing over how a highly contentious claim about the speed at which glaciers are melting came to be included in the latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.


So who, exactly, takes stories from popular publications and turns them into “consensus?” IPCC?


In 1999 New Scientist reported a comment by the leading Indian glaciologist Syed Hasnain, who said in an email interview with this author that all the glaciers in the central and eastern Himalayas could disappear by 2035.
Hasnain, of Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi, who was then chairman of the International Commission on Snow and Ice's working group on Himalayan glaciology, has never repeated the prediction in a peer-reviewed journal. He now says the comment was "speculative".
Despite the 10-year-old New Scientist report being the only source, the claim found its way into the IPCC fourth assessment report published in 2007. Moreover the claim was extrapolated to include all glaciers in the Himalayas.

New Scientist: Debate heats up over IPCC melting-glaciers claim

Oops! Distorted, did ye of overriding faith?


Chapter 10 of the report says: "Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world."
The inclusion of this statement has angered many glaciologists, who regard it as unjustified. Vijay Raina, a leading Indian glaciologist, wrote in a discussion paper published by the Indian government in November that there is no sign of "abnormal" retreat in Himalayan glaciers. India's environment minister, Jairam Ramesh, accused the IPCC of being "alarmist".
The IPCC's chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, has hit back, denouncing the Indian government report as "voodoo science" lacking peer review. He adds that "we have a very clear idea of what is happening" in the Himalayas.
The IPCC report sources the prediction to a document published by the environment group WWF in 2005; this document quotes the New Scientist article as its source. The WWF report describes the prediction as "disturbing", without specifically endorsing it.
Nonetheless, the IPCC report goes further, concluding without citing further evidence that the prediction is "very likely" – a term that it says means a likelihood of greater than 90 per cent.
Graham Cogley, a geographer from Trent University in Peterborough, Ontario, Canada, says the 2035 date is extremely unlikely. "At current melting rates it might take up to 10 times longer," he says.
However, the lead author of the IPCC chapter, Indian glaciologist Murari Lal, told New Scientist he "outright rejected" the notion that the IPCC was off the mark on Himalayan glaciers. "The IPCC authors did exactly what was expected from them," he says.
"We relied rather heavily on grey [not peer-reviewed] literature, including the WWF report," Lal says. "The error, if any, lies with Dr Hasnain's assertion and not with the IPCC authors."
But Hasnain rejects that. He blames the IPCC for misusing a remark he made to a journalist. "The magic number of 2035 has not [been] mentioned in any research papers written by me, as no peer-reviewed journal will accept speculative figures," he told New Scientist.
"It is not proper for IPCC to include references from popular magazines or newspapers," Hasnain adds.


"Outright rejected?"

IPCC reliance on "grey literature?"

IPCC authors "did exactly what was expected of them?"

Who's driving the deception and misrepresentation, anyway?

Better switch on the "ignore" so you don't have to address your falsehoods face-on.

Deny ignorance.

jw

[edit on 12-1-2010 by jdub297]



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 09:34 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 





You just want to quickly move on to the next pile of crap?

Wow. You're in a rotten mood today. Lighten up.



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 02:39 PM
link   
I just ran into this and remembered this thread so I thought I'd post it for relevance:

Why is the news media comfortable with lying about science?

It basically references the article cited in the OP.



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueBrit
 


"Only the weak and the stupid can die in weather like this"

Have you actually been outside in -21c ??

I´m a brit who moved to Sweden 15 years ago and I can say that Brits are normally poorly prepared for such harsh weather, its nothing to do with being weak or stupid.

imho



posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 12:33 PM
link   
The New Dark Age

The failure of government schools, the politicizing of science to meet social agendas and reduction in prosperity may put the world on the precipice of a new Dark Age. The previous Dark Age in which religious dogma controlled society instead of science resulted in 600 years of stagnation.

There is much handwringing that the educational system in America fails to produce engineers and other scientist. It should not surprise anyone that oppressive governments do not want a population with critical thinking skills. The unforeseen consequences in producing a more pliable, easily controlled population for their purposes will create a populace that can be controlled by darker forces.

Upon the collapse of the worldwide economy due to the scientists who have been complicit in providing fraudulent data to support a political agenda, religious fundamentalism will be given an additional foothold. As the climate hoax is exposed by reality there will be a general distrust in any scientific inquiry and allow religious zealotry to expand. Unfortunately, the exposing of the climate lies will not occur in time to prevent deindustrialization, creating vast poverty which will push society farther into the belief that one’s misery is the result of scientific conclusions that were purposely falsified. Because of these lies perpetrated on a pliable populace religious fundamentalists can easily sell their dogma that one cannot trust science in the pursuit of truth. Truth can therefore only be found in religious belief whether it be Islamic, Christian, Jewish or Gaian superstition.

The last Dark Age lasted nearly 600 years resulting in stagnation of humankind and lost knowledge that took centuries to rediscover. There are no institutions that have lasted as long as Religions that have delivered so little to the betterment of the species. Hopefully the new Dark Age will not extend human misery and stagnation as long the last one.



posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
 


It was cold in Europe. It is not even considered an ice age by most scientists. Being cold in Europe does not dictate a global warming event for the entire planet.

Do your homework people.

Being cold in North America doesn't dictate an ice age any more then being cold in Antartica.

The skeptics are really really starting to grasp at straws.

Ice ages mean cold summers. This summer is predicted to be hotter then the record breaker of 2005. What are you going to cry then?

[edit on 16-1-2010 by nixie_nox]



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join