Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

BBC back peddling on Climate Change/Global Warming

page: 6
14
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


I did not claim he discussed that. However, that means nothing in the whole of the matter.
Others I have included I linked one above but will lastly do it here.

Prof. Pielke Jr. Analysis of UN IPCC Draft report :
IPCC 'shows almost complete reversal from AR4 on trends in drought, hurricanes, floods'



Pielke Jr.: Of course IPCC AR5 is a draft but the scientific literature it is reporting is available for all to see, and AR5 has it presented accurately.

climatedepot.com... ricanes-floods




I have been critical of past IPCC assessments on the science of extremes. But after SREX and now IPCC AR5 SOD the IPCC is 2 for 2. Nice job!

twitter.com...


rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com...
rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com...

As I said, we just simply disagree, and thats all for now. This is not a game of chess.





posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 

Yes. I read that.
He is taking out of context statements from the reports and grossly distorting what is said.
Read them yourself.

Why do the bloggers have to distort what the IPCC report says instead of presenting evidence to dispute it?
edit on 2/12/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
As climate scientists, the IPCC disagrees with you.


The IPCC is not "climate scientists." It is a political creation of theUN and WMO.


It does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters.
...
The IPCC is an intergovernmental body. It is open to all member countries of the United Nations (UN) and WMO. ...
Governments participate in the review process and the plenary Sessions, where main decisions about the IPCC work programme are taken and reports are accepted, adopted and approved..

www.ipcc.ch...

jw



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 10:10 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 




The IPCC is not "climate scientists." It is a political creation of theUN and WMO.



You left out this part

The IPCC is a scientific body under the auspices of the United Nations (UN). It reviews and assesses the most recent scientific, technical and socio-economic information produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of climate change.



Thousands of scientists from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC on a voluntary basis.



Because of its scientific and intergovernmental nature, the IPCC embodies a unique opportunity to provide rigorous and balanced scientific information to decision makers.

www.ipcc.ch...

No scientists here. Nope:
www.ipcc.ch...

You knew I was going to point that out, didn't you?
edit on 2/12/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 01:27 AM
link   
What bugs me is the people who fight for global warming without knowing what they're doing...

You ask them "Which independantly verified data convinced you anthropogenic global warming is occurring and is a problem", and they just shout 'concensus' (as though science were a democratic process lol...)



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 01:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 
Sifting through opinions and cherry-picking does not transform an "intergovernmental panel" into "climate scientists."

Its chairman is a politically-elected engineer, rather than a "climate scientist."

While scientists "contribute" to its work, "It does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters. "
www.ipcc.ch...

The IPCC is not " climate scientists."

jw

edit on 13-2-2013 by jdub297 because: . n -



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 01:30 AM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 

Fair enough.
Got some "denier" scientists doing original research?



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 01:31 AM
link   
reply to post by cartesia
 




What bugs me is the people who fight for global warming without knowing what they're doing...

Who's fighting for global warming?
"Up with global warming! Hurrah!"



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 01:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by jdub297
 

Fair enough.
Got some "denier" scientists doing original research?


There are no such things as "denier" scientists.""

"Deniers" and "believers" are the descriptors of faith and religion.

jw



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 01:56 AM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 




There are no such things as "denier" scientists.""

Good point.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 02:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 

Who's fighting for global warming?

Albert Gore
Raj Pachauri
Henry Waxman
James Lovelock*
Gavin Schmidt
James Hansen
James Annan^
Michael Mann
Phil Jones
Nick Stern
IPCC

* Lovelock has indicated that, perhaps, he was hasty in his decision:
"The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened. The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now.”
^ Annan has backed-away from the AGW dogma, in part:
“[T]here have now been several recent papers showing much the same - numerous factors including: the increase in positive forcing (CO2 and the recent work on black carbon), decrease in estimated negative forcing (aerosols), combined with the stubborn refusal of the planet to warm as had been predicted over the last decade, all makes a high climate sensitivity increasingly untenable."

How sad for the faithful.

jw



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 02:21 AM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 

Really? All those people are fighting for global warming?
Silly me, I thought they were against it.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 02:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by jdub297
 

Really? All those people are fighting for global warming?
Silly me, I thought they were against it.

No. Like Steven Chu and John Holdren, they are against industrialization. They resort to AGW as justification for their agendas.
Most of them have staked their professional reputations on, and depend upon AGW for their livelihood.
They profess that AGW is an inevitable result of man's use of fossil fuels (by definition, "anthropogenic global warming" is the result of man's use of fossil fuels.).

jw
edit on 13-2-2013 by jdub297 because: /i



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 02:40 AM
link   
reply to post by bigyin
 


its absolutely not a step in the right direction, and this would have many like you fooled, what they are doing is classic bait and switch,,

these "people" have been trying to sway public opinion and thus taxes into programs that will ulimately F the planet up worse trying to fix something that wasnt broken, or at the very minimum do absolutely nothing.

the same crap they have been doing for hundreds of years, talk a big game when it doesnt work out , start covering all tracks so in the future, you can talk a big game again and no one can go back and point to past evidence that they were wrong 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 56, 678 , 67890 times it will always look like its the first time they opened mouth and will get credibilty because no one can remember or find facts pointing to the oppisite.

so its not a step in right direction, they are just white washing, sweeping words under the rugs.. so in the future they can play the game for the next group of STUPID



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 02:41 AM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 




Most of them have staked their professional reputations on, and depend upon AGW for their livelihood.

Interesting.
There are no scientists supported by "big oil" to argue against AGW?



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 02:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by ~widowmaker~
reply to post by bigyin
 
these "people" have been trying to sway public opinion and thus taxes into programs that will ulimately F the planet up worse trying to fix something that wasnt broken, or at the very minimum do absolutely nothing.


Precisely!

There is no man-made "cure" for a warming climate. We should be focused on adaptation. Plants and wildlife adapt. Man adapted before, during and after the ice ages of the past 100,000 years.

As time goes by, more "scientists" see that a different strategy than throwing money at the problem is the wisest response to a changing climate.
jw



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 02:55 AM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 




As time goes by, more "scientists" see that a different strategy than throwing money at the problem is the wisest response to a changing climate.

From what I can see it is scientists who are trying to characterize what is happening to climate and why. It is only politicians who have any ability to do anything about it. So far none seem to have been very successful.

Interesting though, alternative energy sources seem to be coming into vogue. Perhaps because as the technology improves they become competitive with the increasing costs of fossil fuels. Are oil companies pricing themselves out of the market? Is that a bad thing?
edit on 2/13/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 02:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by jdub297
 
Interesting.
There are no scientists supported by "big oil" to argue against AGW?


Faulty logic.
Common sense "argue[s] against AGW."

"Scientists" are supported by governments, foundations, public and private institutions, big oil, big environmentalists, little oil, little environmentalists, NGOs, et c.
Many of them play both "sides" of the AGW funding game.
GE stands to make billions from energy production and from CO2 scrubbing/sequestration.
CO2 producers hope to profit from carbon-trading.
Environmetalists hope to steer funds away from passive CO2 reduction into their favored "programs," none of which have shown an effective reduction of CO2 over the last 20 years; witness the Kyoto Protocol.

jw



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 03:04 AM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


Faulty logic.

Why? You cite scientists being supported by AGW "supporters". But the fact that there are scientists supported by AGW "deniers" is irrelevant?




witness the Kyoto Protocol.

Why? It was gutless without US participation but didn't require full compliance until last year. That is too short a period to show any effect even if the US was involved.
edit on 2/13/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 03:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by jdub297
 
From what I can see it is scientists who are trying to characterize what is happening to climate and why.

And?
Sadly, media and politicians and AGW advocates have little room for scientists whose "characterizations" do not fit the accepted dogma. True scientists do not fear skepticism or falsifiability.

It is only politicians who have any ability to do anything about it.

How sadly narrow-minded. Politicians have generally stood in the way of progress, instead of being in the vanguard.
Ptolemy, Aristotle, Newton, Galileo, Freud, Darwin and Einstein were not politicians; but revolutionized science and society.

So far none seem to have been very successful.

Politicians, by definition, pander to popular opinion, fears and hysteria.


Interesting though, alternative energy sources seem to be coming into vogue. Perhaps because as the technology improves they become competitive with the increasing costs of fossil fuels.

Cost-control is the greatest means of increasing profit margins. Energy is a large component of the cost of production. Conservation and efficiency drive commerce. Manpower gave way to animals; animals gave way to water, water gave way to steam, steam to electricity, et c. Alternative energy will become competitive only after fossil fuel economics/efficiency has reached its limit.


Are oil companies pricing themselves out of the market?

No. At present, U. S. oil subsidies total $2.5 billion. "Renewable" subsidies total $16.9 billion. Government policies are pricing oil "out of the market."
www.cbo.gov...


Is that a bad thing?

Yes. Market distortions due to political preferences are "a bad thing."

jw









 
14
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join