New Climate Change Scandal - Article in Daily Express Newspaper

reply to post by jimmyx

that would be the true way of proving that there is no problem with man-made pollution....put up or shut up.

Who has stated in this thread that they are in favor of air pollution?

No one. What I am in favor of is a scientific approach to the issue. Scientific meaning that it is recognized that there is a difference between airborne particles (soot) and carbon dioxide, as well as between toxic chemicals (SO2, NOx, methane, etc.) and carbon dioxide.

Essentially, your argument is along the lines of: "Water must be poisonous! If you don't believe me, drink some battery acid and see what that does to you."

TheRedneck

Originally posted by budski

In the meantime, governments continue to tax us on the basis of being "greener" (and yet less than 1% of taxes raised by this method go to green projects) and people like gore continue to get rich off the back of it, and the scam that is carbon credit trading.

Exactly. Nothing to do with climate change. Govts will jump on any bandwagon to find an excuse to tax us more. And others will find ways of making personal income out of it. Human nature.

But just because we're taxed doesn't mean that AGW isn't real. Any more than taxes on alcohol and tobacco mean that excessive alcohol and tobacco isn't harmful.

The express article presents new information.

It was not previously known that the research in question was lifted from a magazine article, nor was it known the "scientist" in question was a railway engineer with no formal climate training.

That's new information that strikes at the heart of the IPCCs credibility.



[edit on 19-1-2010 by mnemeth1]

Originally posted by Essan
Given that the prediction was improbable if not impossible, isn't it odd no-one noticed this earlier? Did anyone read the 4AR?

I think they do, but nobody reads the WGII part, lol. WGI is the interesting bit.

It was questioned during draft review apparently - it originally had no citation and someone questioned the veracity of the claim. In the final version the crappy citation appeared.

The reason it was pretty much ignored is because deniers were too busy blowing the BS over a complete storm in a teacup (emails). Now that's off the boil, time to keep the manufactoversy alive - so we see the reappearance of the storm in a teamug.

It is true that the IPCC should be based on the best peer-reviewed science available and the authors made a boo-boo, but it's lulzworthy to see people who rely on work by the likes of the Potty-peer criticise the use of 'grey' literature.

However, it does look like someone (Hasnain or Kotlyakov) confused 2035 with 2350. Someone needs new specs.

The Inquistion is alive and well!

Same as it ever was.

ABE: I also see people are criticising Pauchauri as head of the IPCC. He was actually the Bush government's choice. The removal of Watson was something that Exxon wanted - Bush et al delivered.

Climate scientist ousted

BBC News, April 12, 2002

One of the most outspoken scientists on the issue of global warming has been ousted from his job.

Dr Robert Watson was voted out of the chair of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on Friday and will be replaced by one of the current vice-chairs, Dr Rajendra Pachauri.

Dr Watson's removal will spark a huge political row - environmentalists accuse the US Government of orchestrating a campaign to have the scientist sidelined.

They say Washington disliked Dr Watson's willingness to tell governments what he believes to be the unvarnished truth - that human activities are now contributing dangerously to climate change.

Government representatives attending an IPCC meeting in Geneva, Switzerland, voted 76 to 49 for the engineer and economist Dr Rajendra Pachauri to take the chair.

Dr Pachauri, the director of the Tata Energy Research Institute in New Delhi, was the US administration's favoured candidate.

dinky

And if people want to mislabel him a climate scientist, that's their mistake. Not Pachuari's fault. The IPCC covers more than just fundamental climate science.

[edit on 19-1-2010 by melatonin]

reply to post by melatonin

How sad.

Despite your contorted spin, the IPCC knew this was FUD and proceeded otherwise.

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.

Ooops! IPCC gadfly lies again

World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown
www.realclearpolitics.com...

AGW is as such a collection of anecdotal bad news. That is far from a “scientific consensus” and much less than “settled.”
www.newscientist.com...


Here’s the report; it is as much of a joke as your ‘defense.’
www.ipcc.ch...

I said this in a "cap and trade" thread, Garbage in, garbage out.
www.realclearpolitics.com...

Deny ignorance.

jw

reply to post by melatonin


since you seem to be up on the who is who in the GW science debate, who in your opinion is qualified to give news on this issue and who is not? It seems every scientist on the opposing side is just a windbag, yet anyone who shares your views is golden. I would like to see on the record whom you trust just in case they change sides as the ship lisps to the port side. Attacking the people involved will not erase the information that exists. And nobody is calling for a green light to pollute at will, we just want truth about the situation and not lies about why we need to care and pay.