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.

 

UN Climate Expert: MORE Mistakes in Climate Change Data

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 03:03 PM
link   

UN Climate Expert: MORE Mistakes in Climate Change Data


UN Climate Expert: MORE Mistakes in Climate Change Data
 


The Indian head of the UN climate change panel defended his position today even as further errors were identified in the panel's assessment of Himalayan glaciers.

Dr Rajendra Pachauri dismissed calls for him to resign over the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change’s retraction of a prediction that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035.

But he admitted that there may have been other errors in the same section of the report, and said that he was considering whether to take action against those responsible.


"Take action against those responsible..." Heads will roll... Don't you love that?

— Doc Velocity




posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 03:31 PM
link   
It's a comical situation out of 4000 pages of report, one finds a single page of error and grips it and repeats it day and night. What about the rest of 3,999 pages? Nevemind, I know the answer, humans are healing the environment and everything is nice and dandy.



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by December_Rain
out of 4000 pages of report, one finds a single page of error and grips it and repeats it day and night.

If it was a single error being repeated, that would be one thing. But everything about the Manmade Global Warming hoax is falling apart. And these are not minor errors, either... Dating back to Al Gore's fabricated "hockey stick graph" and right up to the present, we've seen many errors and outright lies disseminated to the public from the "climate authorities," those at the heart of the hoax.

Incidentally, for those out there wondering about the recent condition of the Arctic Ice Cap, it has gained over 400,000 square miles of ice so far this year. It's not going away in our lifetimes nor in the lifetimes of our children or grandchildren.

— Doc Velocity



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by December_Rain
 

You're kidding, right?

1st, the entire report is nowhere near the 4,000 pgs you claim. It is larded with filler and paeans to authority and the "consensus."

2nd, Pachauri, the IPCC Chairman, and Lal, chapter author, admit to "outright rejection" of inconsistent theories and endorse the use of "grey literature" as a substitute for the faithfuls' 'peer-reviewed' scientific consensus.

Made-up as they went along on the way to publishing "exactly what was expected from them".

Your insistence on calling it a 'one page typo' is about as transparent as the rest of the "report."

Get a life.

Debate Heats Up Over IPCC Melting-Glaciers Claim


This a one more in a series of jokes perpetrated upon the weak-minded and willing.

deny ignorance

jw



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Doc Velocity
 


Good job on posting this, Star and flag for it. C'mon guys, flag and star if your eyes are opening as to the greatest scam occurring in the 21st century, and which began in the 20th century...

BTW, the head of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, he is no Dr. and shouldn't be called one, goes on the defense and calls us "climate deniers"... What a moron... NO ONE denies NATURAL Climate Change...what is being denied is the lies and scam that is AGW....


He should resign, or should get fired with the lot of them scientists who jumped in the bandwagon without checking the evidence...

Obviously they saw they could make money, and get more power over this and thought they could keep quiet the decent scientists who would decide not to jump in on the AGW scam...


For what other reason is there for this scam to have lived for so long, with the blessings from some like Pachauri?...

Scientists are supposed to check the data, not to accept it blindly because of some preconcieved notion, or because they, or their countries, or groups would gain from such a scam....

BTW...Pachauri is a scientist from India, and the AGW scam would have made India more powerful economically while allowing them to release as much emissions as they wanted, and to keep contaminating the rivers and oceans... I guess that has nothing to do with Pachauri stance on this issue....




[edit on 22-1-2010 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by December_Rain
It's a comical situation out of 4000 pages of report, one finds a single page of error and grips it and repeats it day and night. What about the rest of 3,999 pages? Nevemind, I know the answer, humans are healing the environment and everything is nice and dandy.

the other 3,999 pages are made up of fluff and aknowledgements as well as names of those involved from the company who produced the ink right down to those who supplied the paper.

This is not just about 1 error, this was one of the basis for the summit itself.

How many of the reports from the computer models used this incorrect glacier data?
It is not just about 1 error, but about the compounded errors further down the track



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by December_Rain
 


What is comical is that people like you keep wanting to be blind followers of what has been shown time and again to be a scam....

How many times do we have to tell you?... Since when is the sequestering of atmospheric CO2 going to solve ANY environmental problem?..... In fact sequestering atmospheric CO2 will surely cause the worse environmental problem in history, and it will cause the starvation of billions of people... I guess this has nothing to do with the fact that the rich elites have been trying to find ways to "depopulate the world".... What better way than to starve people out?....

Some people don't seem to get it even when the evidence clearly says it...


Successful indoor growers implement methods to increase CO2 concentrations in their enclosure. The typical outdoor air we breathe contains 0.03 - 0.045% (300 - 450 ppm) CO2. Research demonstrates that optimum growth and production for most plants occur between 1200 - 1500 ppm CO2. These optimum CO2 levels can boost plant metabolism, growth and yield by 25 - 60%.

www.planetnatural.com...

The Earth and all life in it thrives with higher levels of atmospheric CO2 than the measly 380 ppm that exist right now...

Higher levels of atmospheric CO2 increases the yields from harvests which means you can feed more people...

If the level of atmospheric CO2 is too low it stunts the growth of plants, trees, and harvests, and this seems to be the goal that the rich elites have. This is part of the reason for the AGW scam... They get richer off it, and they achieve population reduction since there will be less harvests to feed people with.



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 10:37 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 

Obviously they saw they could make money, and get more power over this and thought they could keep quiet the decent scientists who would decide not to jump in on the AGW scam...

For what other reason is there for this scam to have lived for so long, with the blessings from some like Pachauri?...


OK, here's a couple of issues for the ATS research forum:

How much money was given to support the false 'Himalayan Glacier' premise and conclusions?

How much money was diverted to the 'Himalayan Glacier disaster' due to this report or to "avert" the 2035 "disaster?"

How much has been sought to avert the 2035 Himalayan Glacier disaster?

(note that it has already been confirmed, outside of the IPCC, that Himalayan glacier melt is largely the product of LOCAL (Chinese and Indian) "black soot." They have united in defiance of any 'global standards' for reduction of their emissions)

deny ignorance

jw



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 09:05 AM
link   


OK, here's a couple of issues for the ATS research forum:

How much money was given to support the false 'Himalayan Glacier' premise and conclusions?

How much money was diverted to the 'Himalayan Glacier disaster' due to this report or to "avert" the 2035 "disaster?"

How much has been sought to avert the 2035 Himalayan Glacier disaster?



Ermmm, isnt it logical to consider that it actually attributed to the total consencus of man made global warming? So, yes in some ways money has been payed. Unless you think this is something they fix problem by problem......

*edit for bad spelling and bein Dutch
*

[edit on 23/1/2010 by d0p3d]



new topics

top topics



 
5

log in

join