Slashdot Mirror
India Ditches UN Climate Change Group
Several readers have told us that the Indian Government is moving to establish its own group to address the science of climate change since it "cannot rely" on the official United Nations panel. "The move is a severe blow to the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) following the revelation parts of its 3000 page 2007 report on climate science was not subjected to peer review. A primary claim of the report was the Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035, but the claim was not repeated in any peer-reviewed studies and rebuffed by scientists. India's environment minister Jairam Ramesh announced that the Indian government will established a separate National Institute of Himalayan Glaciology to monitor climate change in the region. 'There is a fine line between climate science and climate evangelism,' Ramesh said. 'I am for climate science.'"
I wish we had more people like that in government in the US.
"Be prepared, son. That's my motto. Be prepared." --Joe Hallenbeck
... written by hundreds of individuals = "climate evangelism". Apparently.
I'll BUILD someone to replace you. Some kind of gamma-powered monster, with a heart as black as coal!
Sounds like India intends to continue to use coal fired power plants and will not recognize studies that put coal plants in a bad light.
Where have I heard that before?
Wherever You Go, There You Are
India can not keep developing the way it has, and reduce impact on the Climate.
How about the can complain when the water most people beth.sime and drink isn't dangerous.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
This is good news. I hope more countries follow their approach.
In general, the UN is nothing but a scam. It has no accountability, and due to how it panders to politicians and their whims, it should have absolutely no involvement in science.
Frankly, people are fed up with these supranational organizations that do nothing but cause problems. In this case, you have the UN hyping what is perhaps the biggest scientific fraud of all time. Then you have other organizations, like the WHO, hyping false "pandemics" again and again. Then there are all the copyright and IP shenanigans with the WTO. Plus the crap the IMF and World Bank pull.
To hell with those organizations.
Yeah, well I'm gonna make my own climate change group! With blackjack! And hookers! Actually, forget the climate change group...
'There is a fine line between climate science and climate evangelism,' Ramesh said. 'I am for climate science.'
That was nicely worded. The line is not very fine in many cases, however. The biggest difference between a climate evangelist (read: Al Gore) and a scientist is the presence of uncertainty in reporting the state of the climate. It is hard to be preachy when data remains inconclusive.
0 = 1 + e^(Alt something)
I'm sure that most countries, at least most relatively developed ones (and I consider India as such), already have their own group investigating climate change. Besides, I don't see any mention from the article that India is actually "ditching" the UN group. It's just establishing its own group, rather than relying 100% on the UN group to base their national policies and laws upon.
It doesn't appear as though India is pulling out of the IPCC at all. They are just sending a representative (or "minder" depending on how you look at it).
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/site/Story/82542/India/India's+IPCC+'tracker'+soon.html
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/PM-expresses-confidence-in-IPCCs-work-lauds-Pachauris-leadership/articleshow/5540596.cms
I thought that was the fumes of greed, pride, misery and delusion. I could have been mistaken.
That is where you heard it.
Or
Are you another shill?
No brain, no pain.
This doesnt mean they are saying global warming is bad, or desirable. It just means they dont trust the UN panel. Whats funny though, is that they say they dont trust the IPCC because it doesnt do its own science, but they turn around and set up their own IPCC to review science themselves. And speaking of global warming, isn't this this coldest winter on record?
1) Publishing is usually the beginning of peer review. SO finding a discrepency isn't uncommon
2) The person who made that statement was an Indian Scientist. SO the irony of thise story is rich.
3) is doesn't invalidate the peer reviewed papers, or the overall conclusion.
Here is a good write up:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20527434.300-debate-heats-up-over-ipcc-melting-glaciers-claim.html
Be sure to follow the read more link.
Yes, yes, most people want some sort of black and white answer. There isn't one, and if you are truly interested you will
read about this is reputable journal. That way you have a chance to see all the facts that lead up to this.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Sounds like India intends to continue to use coal fired power plants and will not recognize studies that put coal plants in a bad light.
Where have I heard that before?
Sounds like you'd rather have someone waving their arms around chanting some mystical mumbo-jumbo than someone that understands the value and merits of the scientific method.
Because that's exactly what the CRU data is: mystical mumbo-jumbo. That entire set should have been tossed after Berkley discovered that they placed the majority of their instrumentation in areas outside of specification.
"Be prepared, son. That's my motto. Be prepared." --Joe Hallenbeck
If India is out of IPCC, where are people going to call for tech support?
In the US?
Sounds like you don't know shit about this issue.
Get some inforamtion.
A) It has nothing to do with whether or not there is global warming. Only a specif effect of it. Learn the difference.
B) The Indian paper claiming the glaciers aren't melting faster then expecting is not peer reviewed.
C) Know the shouldn't have quoted New scientist as a source for the science part of the paper...and they didn't.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18363-debate-heats-up-over-ipcc-melting-glaciers-claim.html
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
First of all, there were more than just "a couple" of errors. That report is full of just plain shitty science. It's the sort of stuff that no self-respecting scientist would ever want to be associated with, in the slightest way.
It doesn't matter what percentage of scientists "believe" a certain idea. Science isn't built upon "belief". Religion is.
Finally, don't mistake holding scientists to a high standard with ignoring their findings. Nobody is saying that climate change isn't happening. There is just a lot of doubt about whether it is caused by humans, or caused by some other factor (the sun, for instance). We just don't want shitty, politicized "science" being treated as anything more than the crap that it is.
> ...fine line between climate science and climate evangelism...
More of an enormous gulf, IMHO.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
There's a fat, bold, impossible to miss, line between climate science and climate evangelism; the IPCC clambered over it a long time ago.
I'm a Programmer. That's one level above Software Engineer and one level below Engineer.
A primary claim of the report was the Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035, but the claim was not repeated in any peer-reviewed studies and rebuffed by scientists.
Who would blame India for not having faith and carrying out their out climate study with an in-house panel? Did the IPCC not botch the initial rreport because someone did the School of Office Space decimal point shift in the math dealing with the melting factor of the Himalayan glaciers? I guess some counties feel that if they want something done right, they'll do it themselves. Cant' fault India for that.
Wow, that was fast - already modded down.
Well that basically reiterates my point.
Ron
Update - it's been modding back up. Thanks!
Ron
Take Russia. It also regularly disputes AGW claims.
At the same time, it coincidentally happens to be a major oil exporter, and world largest natural gas exporter. Its economy to a large extent depends on worldwide demand for those resources - oil alone accounts for 40% of all exports.
Internally, most (~65%) power is generated by coal and gas plants. The USSR had a long-term program for replacing those with hydro and nuclear, for resource conservation and environmental reasons, but that only got 1/3 way through - and Russia cannot afford to proceed with that anymore, and is actually struggling to maintain the Soviet legacy.
Oh yes, also, if AGW models are actually correct, then Russia will benefit in many ways. One is that warming up Siberia will create large new swaths of habitable lands. Another is that same changes, as well as melting of ice in the Arctic, will provide for much easier access to extremely rich natural resource deposits which are currently very hard (and in many cases economically unfeasible) to develop.
That's quite enough dots to connect them.
Now, I wrote about Russia, because I actually wrote about it - but are China and India any different? At the very least, they all still heavily rely on fossil fuels to power their industrialization, and cannot afford to stop there no matter the consequences. And - surprise! - China historically had been dismissive of AGW. I don't know much about past India stance on this, but it would seem that them joining the club would be expected, purely for political reasons.
Why would any country need the UN's HELP in Monitoring Climate Change? The UN is a fucking joke. India can monitor their own glaciers TYVM. He is not claiming any disbelief in "global warming" or "climate change," he is only saying, "thanks but no thanks, we're better off without you." Can you imagine if India and China and Russia made a climate change coalition and were like "US, WTF join us - don't you believe in climate change?"
Because that's exactly what the CRU data is: mystical mumbo-jumbo.
Just because you're too stupid to read how the data is processed or compare it to what naive processing would yield... oh who the f*** am I kidding? Yes, it's mystical mumbo-jumbo. They're just trying to make the lightning-power that walks through wires into your house and runs your picture box and your clickety email machine cost more. CARBON GOOD!
I'll BUILD someone to replace you. Some kind of gamma-powered monster, with a heart as black as coal!
Is this news? Anything that threatens the "supremacy" of the US will be looked at with suspicion by Americans. The UN, for example. Communism/Socialism is another one.
This is why Americans are so pro-Capitalism and so anti-UN and multilateral collaboration. They don't even think about these issues on their own merit, they just outright reject them.
But the same thing happens in other parts of the world, like Cuba or Bolivia, where capitalism is rejected simply because it is associated with the "evil empire".
People need to grow up and quit the rhetoric and just THINK.
From
http://www.scielosp.org/scielo.php?pid=S0042-96862000000700007&script=sci_arttext&tlng=en
Mobilizing corporate resources
The 1953 meeting proposed that the tobacco companies should put aside their competitive differences and agree on issues of legal, political and social importance to the entire industry, and that they should jointly establish and fund a centre to promote their general public relations interests.
In 1954 the industry established the Tobacco Industry Research Council. Its task was to reassure the public that the industry could responsibly investigate the smoking and health issue and that it could resolve any problems that were uncovered. The Council’s real role, however, was ‘‘to stamp out bush fires as they arose’’. Instead of supporting genuine scientific research into the problems, it spent millions of dollars publicizing research purporting to prove that tobacco did not cause cancer. Its true purpose was to deliberately confuse the public about the risks of smoking. ‘‘Doubt is our product,’’ proclaimed an interna tobacco industry document in 1969. ‘‘Spread doubt over strong scientific evidence and the public won’t know what to believe.’’
By the late 1950s most of the industry already accepted that smoking caused lung cancer: in 1958 three British scientists, after meeting leading officials and scientists of the United States tobacco industry, reported: ‘‘With one exception the individuals whom we met believed that smoking caused lung cancer’’; in April 1970 an interna memorandum in Gallaher Limited, a British tobacco company, commenting on studies conducted on dogs that developed cancer after being exposed to tobacco smoke, reported: ‘‘Auerbach’s work proves beyond all reasonable doubt the causation of lung cancer by smoke’’ (11).
Manufacturing doubt
In 1988 a meeting of the United Kingdom tobacco industry was told of plans by Philip Morris to spend ‘‘vast sums of money’’ on research by scientists who would dispute the health risks of passive smoking. The aim was to ‘‘coordinate and pay scientists on an international basis to keep the environmenta tobacco smoke controversy alive’’. Dropping any pretence that the research would be objective and neutral, a BAT memorandum stated that the scientific proposals would be filtered by lawyers to eliminate areas of sensitivity. The idea was that groups of scientists should produce research or stimulate controversy in such a way that public affairs people in the relevant countries would be able to make use of, or market, the information (12).
Bulletin of the World Health Organization
Print version ISSN 0042-9686
Bull World Health Organ vol.78 no.7 Genebra July 2000
doi: 10.1590/S0042-96862000000700007
Tobacco industry tactics for resisting public policy on health*
Yussuf Saloojee1 & Elif Dagli2
Then modded back up by a greater margin.
The easiest way to get modded up on Slashdot is to claim that someone's going to mod you down for your "controversial opinion". It works 9 times out of 10.
I'll BUILD someone to replace you. Some kind of gamma-powered monster, with a heart as black as coal!
The reason is that we NEED others to check the work. Look, I have little doubt that this is occurring. BUT, this really needs to be checked.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
unfunny
The Bhopal Disaster and the non-cleanup can be laid at the feet of an American company.
"Global warming" is not the problem. "Climate change" or whatever they're calling it this week is not the problem. Deglaciation is not the problem.
The problem is the billions of tons of ancient fossil carbon we're removing from the ground and adding to the atmosphere. All the climate / ocean / ecology effects are symptoms of that problem. That problem doesn't need "more study" or evangelism or scientific consensus, it's a simple obvious fact that anybody with high school education (even a politician or a capitalist) can understand. It's been obvious for decades, since long before "global warming" started getting any traction in public discourse.
The possible effects of the problem range from trivial and insignificant, to serious hardships of various sorts (well publicized by Gore et al), to utter catastrophe. The chances of serious hardship are high enough that we can't afford to dick around with study after study after study of complex chaotic systems trying build a model that can predict exactly, precisely, what is absolutely guaranteed to happen over the next 100 years. The chances of utter catastrophe, while still really unknown and probably very small, are still enough that we should ask ourselves why the fuck we're playing russian roulette with the whole world, when all we have to do is Stop. Putting. So. Much. Carbon. Into. The. Atmosphere.
I guess this attitude makes me an "evangelist" since I'm not advocating that we go full bore status quo until we're absolutely, positively, 100% certain with no doubt whatsoever what precise effects all this new CO2 will have in the long term. The problem is simple, the solution is obvious, the consequences are uncertain but why fuck around when the stakes are so high? How exactly are we benefiting by continuing to burn more and more and more petroleum and coal every year, mindlessly jerking around the delicately balanced ecosystem that keeps us alive?
LOL it was on BBC TV that the "expert that the IPCC got the "data" from was a geography students Dissertation
it was also splattered all over the Telegraph LINK HERE
the IPCC is so full of it that they have to use info from a student , which is not peer reviewed and is just an opinion of a pup in the greater scheme of things.
i think i'll take the word of the Indians and take my hat off to them for taking a stand against the UTTER SHITE that that IPCC spews! just goes to show the sheer desperation of them to use such flimsy nonsense especially after all the leeks showing the gaming of the numbers and the selective use of the Data
is trying to get more money from the west - after it failed in Copenhagen.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Ok, let us peer review the original claims.
Oh wait, the've "lost" all the data, and the programs. Took up too much space: 4 floppies worth, way to much to fit in any reasonable storage space. Just believe their claims. They couldn't possibly have any motive to lie to you, would they? Just make sure you keep sending them money based on their lost research.
Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
My issue is that I'm not convinced that they avoid the problems that you see in economic time series analysis. This guy basically sums up my feelings on the matter.
I've done time series analysis. You have to try a lot of things just to make it "work". In general I find that I get a result with a p value of less than .05 after the 20th or so try. Funny how that works out.
US acquires Canada, lets Mexico manage the 'former' US states of the southwest
Wherever You Go, There You Are
They used two different measuring systems, and diddled the numbers until the graphs overlapped. They used data from measuring stations that were not properly shielded from mundane human activity (I think one was actually near a pub, in Australia?) and whose data could not be normalized using nearby measuring stations. They declined to use proper measuring stations that showed a decline in temperature. And they actively, and conciously, LIED about this.
Carbon good, carbon bad, we don't know. Possibly it's not good, probably we should limit our output of it (can't hurt to be neutral), but to suppose we should spend billions of dollars on fixing a potential non-problem, trusting in what we know to be bad science, that's just fucking bullshit.
Let's look at "fluff.info", shall we?
Here, apophenia kicks in, and after you've seen that BPM and GDP are correlated, you'll have no problem inventing a model for it.
The first problem with that argument is that the hypothesis of CO2 causing warming came from *before* worldwide datasets were even availabl3e. It was first proposed in the late 1800s based on laboratory experiments showing that some gasses absorb heavily in the infrared range but minimally in the visible range. Secondly, "you'll have no problem inventing a model" for how beats per minute of a Billboard 100 song affects GDP? Really? Um, no.
There's also the problem that it is very difficult to write down a model for which there isn't another model with the causation the other way `round
Which is ludicrous in the context of CO2, since we can measure isotopic ratio changes (indicating the change in old carbon versus fresh carbon) and have good accounting for human inputs to the system versus sources and sinks. Is warming supposed to make us want to dig up more coal?
Without a model to say anything about the extra variables
Too bad we have nothing more than first principles itself to rely on...
(Actually, we do have other things beyond first principles as well! But that's another story)
For example, for many types of game, if you have two players repeating the game a thousand times, the distribution of actions that player one took will have nothing at all to do with the distribution of actions that player two took
If you're using that as an analogy for global warming, it corresponds to claiming that the laws of physics have changed. Fat luck with that.
And seriously -- do you honestly think that statisticians aren't involved in these papers? Really?
I'll BUILD someone to replace you. Some kind of gamma-powered monster, with a heart as black as coal!
Not all water that flows through the Ganges is Glacial Runoff; wait till the Monsoons come.
It's hard being right all the time, huh?
"How else does one explain global warming / cooling periods in the past long before modern civilization?"
What does that have to do with the last 30-40 years and the out-of-control spike upwards?
You're the Easter Islander complaining about the whiners who say you need to stop building so many statues and let the trees regrow. Good logs are getting harder and harder to find.
But there have always been good years and bad years. Can the whiners prove you're running out of trees? There's a trend, but there's no evidence that chopping down trees makes them harder to find. And you still have your statues. Everything is perfectly okay.
The correct spelling is "trillions", not "billions".
Let's look at "fluff.info", shall we?
Here, apophenia kicks in, and after you've seen that BPM and GDP are correlated, you'll have no problem inventing a model for it.
The first problem with that argument is that the hypothesis of CO2 causing warming came from *before* worldwide datasets were even availabl3e. It was first proposed in the late 1800s based on laboratory experiments showing that some gasses absorb heavily in the infrared range but minimally in the visible range. Secondly, "you'll have no problem inventing a model" for how beats per minute of a Billboard 100 song affects GDP? Really? Um, no.
All I'm saying is that when I studied time series analysis, I spent a lot of time trying to come up with results that I was told that I was supposed to get. And I found them. I could even make them sound convincing.
Yes, finding several major errors makes the entire document suspect. Especially given the amount of time and money that went into it. The errors that have been found are inexcusable.
That's not correct at all. If the BBC said that, then they are wrong.
The information came from an Indian scientist, reported be New Scientist. No it should not be use as an example of the effects of Global Warming, but it in no way invalidates the science. By the way the people claiming this isn't true are also basing that on a non peer reviewed paper.
See, it's a tad more complex then a simpleton like you can conceive, so you have broken it down to a boolean thinking.
SO tell me, after you read the IPCC which, specifically, part of the science is 'SHITE"? You have read it, right? No? STFU
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I've been modded down enough for expressing scepticism on this issue here on slashdot, so I'm finding these stories extremely interesting (and may I say, amusing). The fact of the matter is that the hubris of those promoting the hypothesis seems to be inversely proportional to the facts of the matter. You can argue "first principles" until you're blue in the face and for as long as the facts on the ground contradict them, I would suggest the implausible chains of inference emanating from those first principles need a little work and a little humility is called for.
Although you mean well you're misrepresenting the science.
The *direct* result of CO2 warming is only about 10% of observed warming. The denialists don't have a problem with the fact that Co2 causes warming and that there is an increase in manmade Co2. The disagreement becomes whether or not it causes an increase in water vapor in the atmosphere (It does) and whether or not that increase in water vapor is a warming or cooling effect (it warms).
How does it play into your point that you've now been modded up? Bitching isn't usually a good way to get upmodded. Maybe there are Other Forces At Work? Like people having an actual opinion?
oh right so the linked article which shows that they used a geography students dissertation and an anecdotal story from a climbing magazine is a nonsense? it's been in many papers, on the BBC news and also on a few other programs too
so the basis of that IPCC report, as stated above, is totally unscientific shite.....
perhaps you should be the one going to the fridge and pouring yourself a nice tall glass of STFU my friend
Have you noticed that all of the complaints are from IPCC WGII and WGIII? Not like you know the difference, so let me explain. WGI is about the science of climate change. WGII is about impacts, while WGIII is about how to avert it.
In all of its reports, the IPCC is explicitly not limited to peer-reviewed materials. They can use, and I quote:
"Peer reviewed and internationally available scientific technical and socio-economic literature, manuscripts made available for IPCC review and selected non peer-reviewed literature produced by other relevant institutions including industry".
(I bolded the last part because you'll never see the deniers complaining about that, so I thought it deserved particular emphasis!). They can quote peer-reviewed material, governmental material, NGO material, and industry studies. The reason for this is because not everything on the planet is peer-reviewed. Peer-review is for science.
WG1 is almost entirely peer-reviewed. It's about science, so that's what you do. WGII is mostly about "news". While a good chunk of what it mentions is peer reviewed, it does include a number of non-peer-reviewed reports. The same goes with WGIII (which has more of a focus on policy and industry).
Most of the IPCC review effort, likewise, goes into WG1. WGII and WGIII review is much less emphasized. But the real key is that if you find something wrong with WGII or WGIII, you're not attacking the science of climate change, because those reports aren't about science. The science is in WGI. And if you find a non-peer-reviewed report anywhere in the IPCC, it is *not* violating its guidelines. WG1 just avoids them.
Sadly, some of the people who know better (Watts, I'm looking at you) love to spread misconceptions about all of this.
I'll BUILD someone to replace you. Some kind of gamma-powered monster, with a heart as black as coal!
-Prof. Jones CRU
The reason people are skeptical of the science of global warming and IPCC is because it is not science. From Wikipedia "scientific method".
Opinion:
Mann, Jones and their cronies have done everything possible to hide the data they used to produce their theories. They have actively set out to destroy documentation and raw data in order to deny anyone who many disagree with them the opportunity to review their work (their words, not mine). Even if they were correct, their theory cannot be taken on their honor alone. If their results were reproducible or maybe even if they publicized their methods that would bring them closer to actual science. But they do not and will not, viz. what they are up to is not science.
The easiest way to get modded up on Slashdot is to claim that someone's going to mod you down for your "controversial opinion". It works 9 times out of 10.
And the easiest way to get modded down is to point out problems with or abuse of moderation. It seems that as soon as someone gets some modpoints, they feel themselves to be a part of an exclusive group whose authority cannot be questioned.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
No they haven't. Sheesh, lost all the data. Yeah, all the data from every scientist and all the studies fit on four floppies. Idiot.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Which is ludicrous in the context of CO2, since we can measure isotopic ratio changes (indicating the change in old carbon versus fresh carbon) and have good accounting for human inputs to the system versus sources and sinks.
Regardless of what you think about climate change, you should reject this particular bad science. The isotopic ratio does not mean what is claimed.
Here is a thought experiment for you: You have a bathtub. The drain is open, the faucet is on. You also have a drip tube putting red colored water into the tub. (This is a vaguely "to scale" stand in for the CO2 in the atmosphere. Large sinks, large sources, tiny human influence.)
You then find that the bathtub is turning red. In fact, almost none of the red dye seems to go down the drain at all! Now consider what that means - does it mean that the drip tube is causing any level changes seen in the water? Obviously, it can't. If all else was equal, you'd expect the drip tube to be diluted by the ratio between the drip tube and the faucet.
The only explanation is that the drip tube's dye must not be absorbed. And, in fact, this has been shown to be true. The carbon isotopes being measured have extremely different properties when is comes to atmospheric scrubbing. So the trace isotopes in the "buried" CO2 are not absorbed, and build up in the atmosphere. Unfortunately, that says nothing about the causes of the overall level change.
I will now be modded down because I disclosed a mistake in one of the arguments commonly used in climate change debates, thus confirming the underlying issues in politicizing science.
while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
The information came from an Indian scientist, reported be New Scientist. No it should not be use as an example of the effects of Global Warming, but it in no way invalidates the science.
*snicker*
If I had a nickel for every time I've heard the warmists use the "does not invalidate the science" line, I'd be retired to a nice, warm climate myself. Like maybe Costa Rica. Considering how many of these studies have turned out to be flawed, just would it take to "invalidate the science"?
Reminds me of the creationists who keep telling us that dinosaur bones don't prove the earth isn't 6000 years old.
American Third Position
Finally, a real choice!
Everything apart from absolute wilderness is near a pub in Australia.
“When the number of factors coming into play in a phenomenological complex is too large scientific method in most cases fails.”
oh right so the linked article which shows that they used a geography students dissertation and an anecdotal story from a climbing magazine is a nonsense? it's been in many papers, on the BBC news and also on a few other programs too
It is not based on a student's dissertation, it is based on a comment made by the leading Indian glaciologist Syed Hasnain to an author for the New Scientist in 1999.
Get your facts straight.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
to suppose we should spend billions of dollars on fixing a potential non-problem, trusting in what we know to be bad science, that's just fucking bullshit.
And not to do anything about a potential catastrophe is fucking bullshit as well. No, to do something without having understanding isn't good but sitting on your ass isn't good either.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Oh gawd! Are you still going on? It seems like every other post of yours is about your persecution complex. Obsessing about it is a sign of mental illness. Just saying.
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
try reading the linked and even copied article above... and possibly weep into the beverage of your choice..........
Why don't you do the same? You link to a newspaper that denies Climate change while I link to a science magazine. Gee, I'll believe in science first. Oh, and I did read the "Telegraph" article.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
The claim was they would melt in 2305 which got misquoted in the report. Peer review missed it. There's nothing scientific about a typo.
also i think you'll find that little things such as the CRU data leak which showed them to be a bunch of number fiddling and lying turds also throw doubt on the human cause of any climate change.
now where you have people fiddling numbers and using dubious sources i think it's not unreasonable to have reasonable doubt.
there also happens to be an ASSLOAD of people making truckloads of money out of ittwinned with a mass of rank hypocrisy
and to top it all and i am going to quote the article you linked to
so there's a remark apparently taken out of context however the person who apparently made the comment cant distance himself enough from it and damns the IPCC for using it.
however i think it you google a little you will find the net awash with 3660 hits for "IPCC student dissertation climbing magazine"
the fact this guy ALSO distances himself and damns the report are just more bullets for my gun as it were my friend
You could have a billion line program that is perfect except for one = having been mistyped as a ! and despite having everything right but that one character the program could be completely useless.
No, no, no, it's a math error. That was supposed to be a 1 + X not 1 - X. So now the sun will not burst into a supernova.
Sent from the SPL
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
The scientific consensus amounts to this: (1) climate is changing (2) human activities contribute to it, (3) nobody can say for sure what fraction of (1) is accounted for by (2), or how much impact we can have by altering human activities.
Are some of the reports and studies contributing to this consensus faulty. Yep. That's always the case.
What we are having though is a political debate disguised as a scientific one. The biggest determinant of position taken outside the scientific community is determined by the following factors;
A. How much you believe climate change will affect you (negative mostly or if you are Russian perhaps positive).
B. How much you believe measures to curb human contributions to climate change will help you or hurt you.
Once you've done the hedonic calculus for this, you either accept the scientific consensus and exaggerate it, or you go shopping for dissidents in the scientific community.
Personally, I suspect that even if we are the lion's share of the cause of climate change we'll never, ever manage to do anything constructive about that until we've run out of fossil fuels, because this is how people with a dog in the fight think.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
ignorant idiots like gary are the reason the US is in such a mess!!! gray buddy do some research about the IPCC study and why it was rejected before you start passing hot air from your mouth!!!!
Yeah because Pubs put out scads of BTUs - all those cold beers create a "cone of warming" - rendering any sensor within 5 miles red hot and of course producing unreliable data.
I though Slashdot folks were rational?
NOAA has several gigs of data publically available via FTP, and some open format like csv. No, I'm not going to again link to them. Want to peer review that? Go for it. Or, since you're so sure that all the data is garbage, feel free to go up to any industry threatened by carbon caps and taxes, and propose them a research program that will demonstrate once and for all (ONCE AND FOR ALL!!) that there is no global climate change. Should be a cinch, right? Imagine: you'll be rich, you'll be famous, you'll be the savior of humanity!
Or, you can bitch on slashdot. Your call.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
"WG1 is almost entirely peer-reviewed."
That's the funniest thing I've read on slashdot this year.
"Excuse me sir, your wife is almost entirely pregnant"
a front organization for the Illuminati.
New Economic Perspectives
lol... it doesn't deny climate change, what it does do it show where source material came from
And my science link didn't sat where it came from? If you want me to believe that then you didn't read it.
also i think you'll find that little things such as the CRU data leak which showed them to be a bunch of number fiddling and lying turds also throw doubt on the human cause of any climate change.
Where did I say anything about CRU? Without googling it I don't even know what the CRU is.
now where you have people fiddling numbers and using dubious sources i think it's not unreasonable to have reasonable doubt.
Oh, I agree. Let's take for instance where deniers are saying we're in a cooling trend. If fact the 2000s were the hottest decade on record. The only way to make it look like there's been some cooling is by using 1998 as the starting date. Because of El Nino that was a hot year and temperatures spiked as shown by this graph. There is no cooling, in fact the 2000s was the hottest decade.
however i think it you google a little you will find the net awash with 3660 hits for "IPCC student dissertation climbing magazine"
And if you google Syed Hasnain new scientist magazine ipcc you'll find about 200,000. The first one is the link I provided with the two following also from "New Scientist". I don't know, maybe they were both used, so I'm willing to let that go for now.
there also happens to be an ASSLOAD of people making truckloads of money out of ittwinned with a mass of rank hypocrisy
And just as above, about "people fiddling numbers", there are lots of people who could make tankers full of money out of disproving Global Warming. Coal, petroleum, and other fossil fuel industries stand to lose a lot of money if their products are regulated and or taxed. Now which has the deeper pockets, Exxon-Mobile or Greenpeace?
Now I'm not saying we have to do whatever it takes to stop Global Warming. I don't even like that term and prefer Climate Change. What I would like to see is alternative energy sources developed and for the US to work on them before we become has-beens. While China is busy building new coal fired power plants they are also busy building massive wind farms and installing solar energy systems. Mexico and the Philippines are using geothermal energy and so can the US. By one estimate, SciAm's A Solar Grand Plan, solar energy can provide 69% of the US's electricity and 35% of it's total energy by 2050 using just a part of the Southwest. And the NREL's Wind Energy Resource Atlas of the Unites States lays out the wind potential of different areas of the US. The Rockies from Canada to northern Texas for instance contain enough potential energy to supply all 48 continuous states with electricity. However they aren't the only places. On the West Coast from British Columbia to Southern CA then east through AZ and NM to west Texas there's good wind sites. To the east from the Appalachians in the south up through the Northeast there is good wind potential both on-shore and off-shore. NIMBYs, notably the deceased Ted Kennedy, did whatever they could to stop offshore wind farms. In 2007 California, already mentioned for solar and wind power, got 4.5% of it energy from geothermal sources.
Also don't
Should there be a Law?
A few months ago on the local radio I heard the talk show host compare global warming skeptics to holocaust deniers.
Yeah.
The cites. The citations are almost all (if not all) from peer-reviewed sources. Browse them yourself if you don't believe me.
I'll BUILD someone to replace you. Some kind of gamma-powered monster, with a heart as black as coal!
And the scientist made the same statement more than once, but not in peer reviewed situations.
wow.. you are entering into a debate about global warming and you don't even know what the CRU is?
well let me inform you, it's the Climate Research Unit..... they pretty much supply ALL the data for global warming enthusiasts world wide.
due to a hefty data breach a massive amount of emails and even some entries made by the poor coder who was commenting how the numbers didn't add up and things were all balls
also the were many many many emails between "respected" climate researchers" which showed them chatting about how they "played the numbers" and 2used tricks" to make up for the fact the global temperatures haven't been going their way and thus they played the numbers, used selected numbers from selected stations and ignored others then conspired.. YEAH they actually did, to perpetuate the falsehood of their finding... heads rolled and resignations came..
a quick google of CRU would have helped
and BTW i live in Scotland, where we have oil BUT we are also pretty much the European leader in renewables and very very high up there in the world stakes
also changing from global warming to climate change is a cop out.
more and more evidence is coming forward that shows a SHIT load of people are blowing smoke out their asses about the human cause of "global warming" and an awful lot more people are profiteering by the spreading of utter FUD about it too.
and the global warming hero Al fucking gore.. the rankest of all the hypocrites... spreading FUD AND a major shareholder in Occidental Petrolium and also making a fortune from the carbon con. ther are some facts about gore that may surprise you
br. always odd how when the smell of bullshit is often along the same path as the smell of hypocrisy and money
Unexciting but useful commentary on the CRU data.
Yea, some plants grow more with more CO2 in the air, like poison ivy which becomes even more poinsonous, but other plants grow slower. Here's an article from "New Scientist" on it, Climate myths: Higher CO2 levels will boost plant growth and food production.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Yes, we're removing large amounts of fossil carbon and releasing it into the atmosphere, but how is that necessarily a problem?
Yes there is a problem. If for no other reason all the CO2 being emitted is acidifying the oceans which are the cradle of life. A majority of the world's population lives on or near the coast and depend on the seas for food. Disregarding overfishing, acidification threatens most of the life in the oceans. There are also all the changes in climate to deal with, some places becoming deserts while others get flooded.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Global warming is happening.
Our fossil fuel emissions are unbalancing the system by a small percentage and causing it.
We are too stupid/greedy to change our ways. (Our emissions growth is still accelerating.)
The United States of America leads the world in this greed, and in the stupidity of
its mainstream population on this issue. But that should not surprise us. A large majority
of its population believes in God and Jesus, and a majority probably don't believe in
evolution.
In 200 years, those people who denied the problem, denied our responsibility, and
prevented necessary changes will be seen as criminals.
I already see you that way.
Well I hope Jesus saves you, because you are incapable of saving yourselves
or the other peoples of the world whose world you are wrecking, or the ecosystems
of the world you are the leaders at destroying.
Yeah. This one gets under my collar. If there was a rational species around here
I would join them.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
Duh, no they don't. Now go back under your bridge troll.
The *direct* result of CO2 warming is only about 10% of observed warming
The *direct* result of CO2 is a +1.66 +- 0.17 W/m^2 forcing "solely due to increases in atmospheric CO2". The total forcing from human-added GHGs is +2.63 +- 0.26.
Let's run down the forcings from other human influences and from feedback effects. Stratospheric ozone forcing is -0.05 +- 0.10 W/m^2. Tropospheric ozone forcing is +0.35 (-0.1,+0.3). Stratospheric water vapor from CH4 is +0.07 +- 0.05. Total direct aerosol is -0.50 +- 0.40. Direct sulphate aerosol is -0.40 +- 0.20. Direct fossil fuel aerosol (organic carbon) is -0.05 +- 0.05. Direct biomass burning aerosol is 0.03 +- 0.12. Direct nitrate aerosol is -0.10 +- 0.10. Direct mineral dust aerosol is -0.10 +- 0.20. Cloud albedo effect is -0.70 (-1.1, +0.4). Surface albedo (land use) is -0.20 +- 0.20. Surface albedo (carbon black on snow) is 0.10 +- 0.10. Persistent linear contrails is 0.01 (-0.007, +0.02). Solar irradiance is 0.12 (-0.06, +0.18).
The biggest non-GHG factor by far is cloud albedo, and unfortunately, it's not well constrained because cloud modelling is a very difficult process. We get better at it each year, including since the AR4 reports, but there's still a good ways to go. So we'll go with the AR4 number, -0.70 (-1.1, +0.4) W/m^2. However, GHGs are by far the largest factor, and of those, CO2 is the largest.
What's the point of all this? Let's just sum up: Your "10% of observed warming" number is garbage.
I'll BUILD someone to replace you. Some kind of gamma-powered monster, with a heart as black as coal!
well let me inform you, it's the Climate Research Unit..... they pretty much supply ALL the data for global warming enthusiasts world wide.
I guess I'm a bit behind, I know what the Climate Research Unit is but I never heard of it referred to as CRU. Thanks for the heads up.
also changing from global warming to climate change is a cop out.
No, this is the cop-out. Global Warming was first used in 1975. Before that "inadvertent climate modification" was used. Climate change did come later but it is more accurate, while some places would warm up others would cool off. And of course if some places cool off those like you can say "see Global Warming" is not real. But you can't easily deny that climate is changing.
more and more evidence is coming forward that shows a SHIT load of people are blowing smoke out their asses about the human cause of "global warming" and an awful lot more people are profiteering by the spreading of utter FUD about it too.
And a hell of a lot more can profit off of proving it is wrong. Exxon-Mobile as much deeper pockets than Greenpeace. So does the Middle East, China, India, and Russia. I bet any scientist who can deinitively prove climate change is false can get paid a lot from these businesses and nations. So why aren't they stepping up with that proof?
and the global warming hero Al fucking gore.. the rankest of all the hypocrites...spreading FUD AND a major shareholder in Occidental Petrolium
I just posted the same thing, except for "spreading FUD", which I do not believe. Like you I think Gore is being a bit of a hypocrite, not disclosing the shares in Oxy. However he didn't buy the stocks himself. His father Al Gore Sr was a friend of Armand Hammer who was the CEO of Oxy and he worked for the company becoming head of the subsidiary Island Creek Coal Company after he lost his senate seat. Further the wiki article says "Albert Gore Jr., however, did not exercise control over the shares, which were eventually sold when the estate closed".
Actually I found out about Gore's connection to Oxy back in the '90s. Back then Oxy wanted to explore and drill for oil in the U'wa tribe's homeland in Colombia. The tribe had threatened to commit mass suicide if the Colombian government allowed them to drill.
always odd how when the smell of bullshit is often along the same path as the smell of hypocrisy and money
Yeap, and that works both ways.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Well this news seems at odds with what the Indian premier is saying Feb 5th
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Indian_PM_backs_UN_climate_panel_999.html
" "Let me reassert that India has full confidence in the IPCC process and its leadership and will support it in every way," said Singh. "
Dude, would you get over it. Man made global warming is REAL, and this site proves it:
http://surfacestations.org
At least in the sense that there are little spots all over the globe made warmer by asphalt and air conditioner exhausts.
8*)
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
All the hand wringing shills for the Hadley CRU?
Sorry, AGW is BUSTED!
http://surfacestations.org
Notice the surface station setting well inside the heat island of the waste water treatment plant.
To keep that beer cold, they need to use a heat exchanger. Many of the stations are located at the exhaust of that heat exchanger...so, yes, the cold beer will in fact cause the surface station to read hot.
The warmist are raising alarms over a few degrees warming over decades, and your dismissing an immediate heating affect of several degrees.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Annual Revenues
Oil industry (Exxon,Shell,BP,Chevron,...) $2,000,000,000,000
Fossil-Fuel-based Major Retail (Wal-Mart,Carrefour,...) $1,000,000,000,000
Automotive Industry (Toyota,Ford,Volkswagen,GM,Daimler,...) $2,000,000,000,000
Yes folks, that's 5 trillion (= 5,000 billion) dollars per year revenue, for industries
directly dependent on continuation of our massive fossil fuel burn.
---
IPCC-related scientists
Assume 4,000 scientists.
Assume average one gets $1,000,000 grant money per year. (Overestimate).
That's $4,000,000,000 at stake, (assuming, falsely, that the money is all or
mostly dependent on their finding that human GHG emissions cause global
warming.)
So let's see.
-Scientists have 4 billion dollars at stake. (Not really at stake,
but we'll imagine it was)
-Directly dependent industries have 5,000 billion dollars at stake.
That's a factor of over a 1000x more money at stake for those whose agenda
is to promote the status quo and to discredit the science.
Just putting things in perspective. Which side do YOU think is going to
have the massive public relations campaign, and massive release
of spun dis-information going on? Hmmmmm.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
The information came from an Indian scientist, reported be New Scientist. No it should not be use as an example of the effects of Global Warming, but it in no way invalidates the science.
*snicker*
If I had a nickel for every time I've heard the warmists use the "does not invalidate the science" line, I'd be retired to a nice, warm climate myself. Like maybe Costa Rica. Considering how many of these studies have turned out to be flawed, just would it take to "invalidate the science"?
Reminds me of the creationists who keep telling us that dinosaur bones don't prove the earth isn't 6000 years old.
But the overlap between creationists and climate change deniers is nearly 100%.
Sounds like you'd rather have someone waving their arms around chanting some mystical mumbo-jumbo than someone that understands the value and merits of the scientific method.
Hang on a sec, you claim the climate scientists are the ones sprouting "mystical mumbo-jumbo" and the denies are the upholders of scientific methods....
It is tragic for society that the fear and uncertainty of climate change inspires such ignorance.
If I had a nickel for every time I've heard the warmists use the "does not invalidate the science" line, I'd be retired to a nice, warm climate myself. Like maybe Costa Rica. Considering how many of these studies have turned out to be flawed, just would it take to "invalidate the science"?
How many studies have been overturned ?
There have been like 2 or 3 mistakes reported in the news, and suddenly the entire 3000 page document is invalidated ?
You do yourself no favors displaying your ignorance.
You missed his point. 'Almost all' being peer reviewed means some were not. That's just plain bad science, as is the whole anthropogenic climate change arguement.
No. Water vapor is the largest greenhouse gas factor by a large margin. It completely swamps any possible CO2 contribution because, unlike CO2, which remains generally stable regardless of atmospheric temperature change (that's most of the basis for the claim that CO2 will incur warming, in fact), the evaporative cooling process accelerates enormously when the atmosphere warms. Warm water goes up, radiates at least half its heat spaceward in energy ranges that CO2 is largely transparent to, and then comes down (much) cooler. This cycle serves as a self-regulating heat pump from surface to space. Heat radiated in this manner is gone forever.
The real question here, especially after the scandals of the tweaked data, the lockout of contrary input, the use of glacial statistics that were entirely false, the unforgivable falsification of the "hockey stick"... the real question is: Can we call AGW good, established science?
To answer that question, one asks: Does the the global warming hypothesis give rise to models with testable predictions? Yes. There have been numerous models.
So, critically, are the results of the models compatible with the predictions made? If so, we have a theory.
But the answer to that is a resounding no. We have this stall in temperature rise; we have the failure of all the models to predict results across all latitudes at once; we have sea level changes that don't match the predicted results; we have wildly varying predictions from different models indicating fundamental disagreement among the AGW hypothesis proponents. In many cases, the models results are not in yet (predictions are for the future, and the future, to be blunt, is not here yet) and so we literally have no results at all -- merely speculation based upon models that have demonstrated themselves to be flawed over and over again. So it tuns out that we have no more than an unsubstantiated idea, a hypothesis with holes in it.
Given this situation, we reasonably can, and we should, ask the proponents of the AGW hypothesis and the resulting models to go back to their workbenches and refine those models until the predictions work out to within a reasonable margin of error. When they get it right (and they may yet do so), that is the time to get behind policy decisions that use the science -- because when the predictions work, then it is science, in the sense that now, finally, one has a theory.
Right now, AGW is a hypothesis, no more, and an entirely unsupported one at that. We don't actually know what our contributions to warming or cooling are, consequently deciding to spend huge amounts of money and effort to further muddy the waters is foolish in the extreme.
Let's put the science back in science fiction.
And, until someone builds a pub there, the wilderness is very likely to remain wilderness.
Let's put the science back in science fiction.
The solar cycle "minimum" reflects a relatively low count of sunspots - areas of magnetic and particulate disruption on the sun's surface. It does not in any way serve as a complete description, or even a reliable indicator, of the amount of thermal energy contributed to the earth's atmosphere by the sun. The earth's atmosphere's response to the solar particulate emission and magnetic field changes wrought by sunspots tends to be more related to radio propagation than anything else. That, and induced electrical currents in susceptible equipment.
The sun could grow 10% in size, emit not a single sunspot, and fry us - thermally - where we stand in very short order. Not that it is likely to, but the point is, the solar cycle that you hear being called the "minimum" is not a thermal transfer indicator.
Let's put the science back in science fiction.
The scientific consensus amounts to this:
You mis-spelled hypothesis up there.
---
What we are having though is a political debate disguised as a scientific one.
By definition, every scientific debate is a political one as well. The scientific process is political. Every hypothesis gets promoted by some, attacked by some, then replicated or torn down. Deal with it.
The entire process is very political.
Deal with it.
Actually, you and gp are just a couple of individuals sputtering this way and that on an online forum.
Society isn't in any real trouble.
Same as it ever was.
If I had a nickel for every time I've heard the warmists use the "does not invalidate the science" line, I'd be retired to a nice, warm climate myself. Like maybe Costa Rica. Considering how many of these studies have turned out to be flawed, just would it take to "invalidate the science"?
It's technically true since what the "warmists" are doing isn't (and hasn't been for some time) science in the first place.
Though claims for "man made warming" could actually be true, for cities and airports... Millions spent to "discover" that the Exhaust Gas Temperature being displayed on the engine monitoring panel of the average jet airliner isn't just there to decorate the cockpit!
Reminds me of the creationists who keep telling us that dinosaur bones don't prove the earth isn't 6000 years old.
However creationists arn't given huge amounts of public money to push their claims. They also tend to be less rude to their critics. Other than that there really isn't that much difference between the two groups.
The claim was they would melt in 2305 which got misquoted in the report. Peer review missed it. There's nothing scientific about a typo.
Did the typo happen before or after this "peer review"?
I thought they spoke English there.
That's totally inaccurate. You forgot to include hoamskoolars, which would bring the triple overlap down to only 97%.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
wow.. you are entering into a debate about global warming and you don't even know what the CRU is?
well let me inform you, it's the Climate Research Unit..... they pretty much supply ALL the data for global warming enthusiasts world wide.
After the leak which showed the CRU was manipulating the data. People started looking into things, turns out that there are only a few data sets and all of them have problems. Including data manipulation, "cherry picking" and even failing to properly site measuring equipment.
Sure, the scientists who are busy researching the matter, as opposed to creating phony "doubter" websites, use only those faulty stations that said doubters managed to find and photograph, and never cross-check these data with other sources.
The front page of surfacestations.org has a funny image: a location photo made in 2000s with a parking lot, a cell tower and its AC exhaust ducts near where the temperature sensor is supposedly hosted, superimposed with the graph from the same sensor that shows a steady rising trend since about 1950s. So all those asphalt coatings over the years, the cell tower installation and so on all conspired to create a neat smooth trend that keeps rising. The asphalt must have been aging without renewal, cars radiate ever more heat, and the ACs are dutifully cranked up a notch every few years. Finally, some solid debunking of climate change.
And I wrote the above even before I did a two-minute Google search that gave me more than enough information as to why surfacestations.org is full of shit.
My exception safety is -fno-exceptions.
Dude, would you get over it. Man made global warming is REAL, and this site proves it:
http://surfacestations.org/
At least in the sense that there are little spots all over the globe made warmer by asphalt and air conditioner exhausts.
This site also shows that only about a tenth of the stations in question are well sited.
In an urban area you have quite a big of warming due to the Heating part of HVAC, internal combustion engines, etc. Which can affect even a well sited monitoring station.
Worldwide a large proportion of monitoring sites are located at airports, which have the same issues as those located in cities, even where the airport is misleadingly classified as "rural".
just would it take to "invalidate the science"?
Proof that CO2 doesn't cause global warming or proof that during the twentieth century, mankind's total CO2 output wasn't enough to have a significant effect on the rate of climate change.
That was fun, ask me another.
They used two different measuring systems, and diddled the numbers until the graphs overlapped. They used data from measuring stations that were not properly shielded from mundane human activity (I think one was actually near a pub, in Australia?) and whose data could not be normalized using nearby measuring stations.
The "normalization" process is also suspect in cases where "nearby" can mean hundreds or even thousands on km away.
Carbon good, carbon bad, we don't know. Possibly it's not good,
Or it's possibly good, for agriculture.
Which is ludicrous in the context of CO2, since we can measure isotopic ratio changes (indicating the change in old carbon versus fresh carbon)
You can get "new" carbon either from meteorites or from neutron irradiation of nitrogen. None of these processes are affected by human activities.
By definition, every scientific debate is a political one as well.
That you define "scientific debate" as "political debate" probably explains why you can't take part in a "scientific debate" as defined by others (notably scientists).
When you say "deal with it" you mean that anybody who wants to have a scientific debate has to do it on your terms. I have no idea where you got that notion.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Which scientist has admitted that it was speculation and not supported by formal research.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/Himalayan-melting-by-2035-Scientists-just-assumed-so/articleshow/5459848.cms
There's also a rumor that that the date was a typo (2350 vs 2035). Granted, even 2350 is worrying and we should be certainly doing something about it. But this kind of hyperbole, doesn't do much to the credibility of climate "scientists".
Society isn't in any real trouble.
And if it was would you care ?
You're hand-waving. The CRU's data is completely unverifiable, you're just going to have to live with the fact that their research can't actually be used. How about this, how about CRU starts over again with the NOAA data and reproduces THEIR findings which demonstrate THEIR claims, and other people can independently verify them. They are the ones making the claims, the burden of proof is on them.
You can never falsify a scientific hypothesis by pointing out that studies are flawed. You would have to do scientific studies that are not flawed that falsify the hypothesis.
Perhaps you could think of it this way: Before Andrew Wiles published his proof of Fermat's Last Theorem, every supposed proof of that theorem was flawed. Pointing out the flawed proofs did nothing to show that the theorem was incorrect. To prove something, you need a correct proof; flawed proofs demonstrate nothing.
This is what the "deniers" never seem to understand. They think that by pointing out flaws it will eventually lead to showing that AGW is not happening. They need their own correct study if they want to prove it isn't happening. So far, I see a handful of climatologists who say that the warming will slow dramatically over the next few decades. If that happens, they'll have some evidence on their side.
Pachauri was pushed as the head of the IPCC by none other than Dubya and his cronies, so he could discredit the IPCC. Why do you think one of the many Climategate Emails that never gets quoted is this little gem? http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=270
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
And i've got your job.
Why is impact exempt from peer review?
So suppose global warming is proven. Ok, no problem. I don't care, I will be comfortable at 2 degree celcius higher temperature after 300 years. Then comes impact of that global warming, which are used to scare laymen. E.g. large cities going under water, agriculture screwed up etc. You are saying any scenarios can be imagined and public can be threatened with them, without them being scientifically proven to be implications of global warming. This is idiotic.
Then comes "how to avert it". I see no reason to exempt this from scientific process either. You could say worship this new God you have created, it will avert Global Warming. I would want scientific proofs that it will indeed avert the global warming, because steps taken to avert global warming might affect my livelihood. Maybe increased prices, inconvenience of day-to-day life etc.
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
Let's take for instance where deniers are saying we're in a cooling trend. If fact the 2000s were the hottest decade on record.
The problem with the brainwashed children of the Church Of Global Warming is the same as with any other religion. They will not admit to any possibilities outside their adopted dogmas.
So, it's usually a waste of time to point out the truth, but if you're interested you could look into the proxy temperature record of the Holocene period. Maybe Wikipedia would be an easy place to start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene
"Holocene" is the name of the period in which we've been living since the end of the last glacial period. "Inter-glacials" such as the Holocene are few and far apart compared to the periods of glaciation. In other words, for the last several million years, ice is normal; these brief warm periods are what has allowed civilization.
Once we came out of the ice 12,000 years ago, we warmed up to a peak temperature about 8,000 years ago. Since then the temperature has been falling (see the graph: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png [Note: Now is on the left]).
PS. "Deniers" is a reference to holocaust deniers. You can do better than to resort to Godwin.
Ah yes, the Groupthink moderation of a dissenting opinion to 'Troll'. Thank you for proving my point, moderators :)
So, Rei allowed a small possibility that some of the citations in WG1 reports were not peer-reviewed. Now, how about exposing the 'bad science' by pointing out any such occurrences? It's a bit harder than trolling on Slashdot, but then you won't simply get modded down for creating useless noise, like you are now.
My exception safety is -fno-exceptions.
The whiners may be right over-all, but if they don't stop fudging their data, nobody is going to believe them.
So, it's usually a waste of time to point out the truth, but if you're interested you could look into the proxy temperature record of the Holocene period. Maybe Wikipedia would be an easy place to start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene
Yes, I know climates change. So what? Nowhere in the wiki article you link to does it say anything about what the CO2 levels were (neither carbon nor co2 even appear in it), or what the rate of change of the climate was. Climate is changing more rapidly than it has previously giving little tyme for ecological systems to adjust to cooler or warmer, and dryer or wetter climates.
Once we came out of the ice 12,000 years ago, we warmed up to a peak temperature about 8,000 years ago. Since then the temperature has been falling (see the graph: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png [Note: Now is on the left]).
Caveats
Not enough data points,
scientific consensus exists
"Given the limited spatial sampling, it is unclear whether the slightly warmer period during the Holocene climatic optimum corresponds to a statistically significant difference."
"it is more reasonably described as a regional rather than a local temperature measurement."
There are 3 more caveats.
PS. "Deniers" is a reference to holocaust deniers. You can do better than to resort to Godwin.
Of the ten results of googling deniers the first 2 are Holocaust deniers. One of the results is the definition of denier, which lists 6 definitions. And the other 7 results are about climate deniers. Your use of "denier" gets 2 results while mine gets 7. Try a better argument.
Falcon
Oh, BTW I don't mean to support or diminish Holocaust Deniers. I met and talked with a concentration camp survivor, she showed us her tattooed number. I like to think if any such thing were to happen again I'd be one of those helping those being persecuted, if I weren't one myself. In the same way I'd want to be one of those who helped during the genocide in Rwanda, during Pol Pot's horrific reign, or one of those who helped the Maya while they were being massacred in Central America, massacred with US support of the regimes doing so.
Should there be a Law?
Yet a recent scientific study that specifically uses the surfacestations.org data to analyze the reliability of surface temperature trends shows if anything a slight negative trend bias from the poorly sited weather stations. The paper is "On the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record" (PDF) by Menne, Williams and Palecki and published in the Journal of Geophysical Research – Atmospheres in 2010. It specifically cites surfacestations.org and Watts.
Yet a recent scientific study that specifically uses the surfacestations.org data to analyze the reliability of surface temperature trends shows if anything a slight negative trend bias from the poorly sited weather stations. The paper is "On the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record" (PDF) by Menne, Williams and Palecki and published in the Journal of Geophysical Research – Atmospheres in 2010. It specifically cites surfacestations.org and Watts. Watts has done the scientific community a service by forcing them to examine the reliability of their measurements more closely and the result is it strengthens confidence in reliability.
That would be a fair point if 90% of the entire country wasn't absolute wilderness.
Here it comes folks!!! IPCC fanboy in 5.4.3.2.1 Behind every GLOBAL WARMING truther (no you can't change the name you phucktard) you find a closet socialist.
Dude, you need to revisit that chart of the Holocent Temperature Variations. If you will, please note that the Temperature Anomaly for the year 2004 is just under 0.5 degrees (NASA reports is was 0.48 degrees). This not only shows a reversal of the declining temperatures since the end of the glacial period, but it's a dramatic change! The global average temperature in 2004 is considerably higher than at ANY POINT IN TIME since the end of the last glacial period.
You have to cite somebody to refute them. It's the rules.
mt
A source of contention in climate science has been the difficulty in amalgamating data from these disparate sources. There have been accusations of "bending" the data to support some people's point of view.
But, as anyone should be able to see from arguments like this, anthropogenic global warming has passed into the domain of religion and politics. Everyone talks past each other. The best idea for anyone is to take a look at both sides rather than jumping on a bandwagon. Do some research.
Yours truly,
Dude
I don't know that they're refuting Watts so much as using the data he collected on surface station quality to help analyze the reliability of their data. Of course Watts doesn't like their conclusions so much.
When more data is in and denial becomes once again the last refuge of the congenitally moronic.
The world will be a little warmer. The attempts at corrective action will be
even more clearly seen to be pathetically inadequate, shackled as they were by the successful lobbying by multi-national corporate super-villains and their flocks of FOX TV-hypnotized sheep supporters riding in their steroidal puffy GM pimpmobiles which are the only ones that will fit their grain-and-corn-syrup-fed @sses.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
Dude, or if you prefer, uassholes, you naturally didn't comment on the chart that you yourself referenced. You used it as some kind of proof (I suppose to show that global temperatures have been declining since the beginning of the Holocene), but instead it shows that in very recent times the temperature has been sharply increasing. Also please reference the Reconstructed Temperature chart shown on the same page as the chart you used in your argument. You can find the bigger version here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png .
This chart shows just the last 2000 years. You can see the alarming change in global temperature since the beginning of the Industrial Age. Note, too, the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age temperatures -- are they wrong too?
So which is it, the data you presented as proof is now wrong and can't be trusted? Or is it, as you seem now to be saying, that no data can be trusted because of proxy measurements and/or Earl the drunk?
You seem to want it both ways. Sorry, but if anything smacks of entrenched ideological beliefs, it's your arguments.
all (ONCE AND FOR ALL!!) that there is no global climate change
Strawman. Though, I agree it is simple to argue against the idiot who says that there is no climate change and I am not surprised you chose to do the simple thing.
There was climate change a billion years ago, and there is ongoing climate change today. Just don't pretend that you, or IPCC, or anyone else know the nature of climate change. Or can predict it reliably, that your precision of their prediction is worth the economic strain.
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
insightful? erm..... how can a guy who fails, to actually understand the significance of "urban heat islands" be marked insightful?
shotgun you do realise that you have just "hot yourself in the foot"?
oops i am typotastic this fine day... "shot yourself in the foot" is what it should have said
those little "heat islands" do not cause actual global warming at all, just the localised heating of the area due to the better heat retention properties of urbanised areas over rural area.
here is a prime example of one such poorly sited weather station in my own city of Edinburgh and this one is on a main bus route situated next to a carpark at my own doctors surgery
and a better street view of it here
Your thought experiment is slightly backwards as the difference is that fossil fuel combustion products contains less C13 than the atmosphere. So therefore it would be analogous to a bath already filled with red dye at 1% and the drips we are adding have less than 1% red dye.
That does not invalidate your thought experiment, but what if we approximately knew the volume of our drips, their dye concentration, the size of the bath and what the concentration has been over the last few thousand years? We can estimate our consumption of fossil fuels quite well and therefore its C13 to C12 ratio. We know the mass of the atmosphere and its composition. We can use proxy measurements from (dare I mention it) tree rings to get the historic C12 to C13 ratio.
This evidence points to a source of carbon which is rich in C12, depleted in C13 and which is only recently started to increase, round about 1850.
The carbon isotopes being measured have extremely different properties when is comes to atmospheric scrubbing. So the trace isotopes in the "buried" CO2 are not absorbed, and build up in the atmosphere.
This is wrong for two reasons, we are emitting less C13 than the concentration of the atmosphere so fossil fuel carbon dioxide should be preferentially taken up by plants as they prefer the lighter isotope. Also the chemical difference between C12 and C13 is tiny and there is about a ~2% preference for plant life to take C12.
I will now be modded down because I disclosed a mistake in one of the arguments commonly used in climate change debates, thus confirming the underlying issues in politicizing science.
Well the mistake is your thought experiment did not contain enough information to calculate the number of drips and you lied slightly to make it sound as if the drips would not go down the drain because it is different than the bath water. In fact if you had the data for your bath that we have for the atmosphere it would be possible to get an idea in the change in the amount of water entering the bath.
The most dangerous drug
Pax681, get your sarcasm detector checked, and then reread my comment 8*).
For my part, I just love to watch the smug warmist squirming as they try to explain such incredibly sloppy and unscientific data gathering.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
ah groovy, take note of the time bud, i am on Scottish - freeze yer nads off time_ it was thus late and my brain was functioning on borrowed time from what should have been a weed induced nap!
Companies do pay taxes, that is corporations like Exxon-Mobile, Shell, and Chevron do. As does Walmart.
The effect on Exxon's bottom line from a new carbon tax will be negligible, because I'll still have to put gas in my tank to get to work
Aha, yes they pass on the cost of taxes to buyers but those buyers will buy less thus lower the petroleum industry's revenue and thus their profits. If people have to pay more for fuel, as they did leading up to the summer of 2008, they buy more fuel efficient vehicles. That's one reason the Detroit big, well except Ford, had to be bailed out. They did not have the fuel efficient vehicles buyers wanted. Looky now, they are all trumpeting how efficient their vehicles are now. Ford has ads for Fusion, it's hybrid, as does Chevy. Chevy even goes further saying a number of it's vehicles have better mileage than Honda, except for the Honda lawn mower.
So even when they pass on the costs of new taxes they lose.
If the US economy goes tits up, and Exxon can't sell their fuel here, they'll sell the fuel to China, or India, or whichever economy is still going.
Haven't you heard, China and India's economy has suffered too. And they both have their own oil companies. Heck there was an uproar a few years back when a Chinese petroleum business put in a bid to buy a US oil company, Chevron I think, let me check... No, it was Unocal. In 2005 before Chevron merged with Unocal the Chinese National Offshore Oil Corporation tried to buy it. It was only after a vote by the US House of Reps that referred the bid to President Bush when the Chinese company dropped it's bid. Heck some in the US is worried China will buy all of Canada's production from the Oil Sands in Alberta, Canada. The article China's oil sands role tests U.S., published in 2004, is about that. Here's another article in the BBC about the Oil Sands, China invests in Canada oil sands.
Please stop using the oil companies as boogey men.
Stop astroturfing for the oil companies.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
This is precisely why I have certain highly insightful/informative people tagged as friends and +6'ed. BTW, I almost never mod down, even when I see something that seriously grates on my nerves; I'm posting this anonymously so I can attempt to reverse some of the people trying to silence informative posts with the bullshit "Troll" and "OffTopic" mods. And yes, I *do* happen to get mod points quite often, thankyouverymuch. Keep up the good fight, and keep those informative links coming! I will always be listening, even if they take my mod privs away.
That's not correct at all. If the BBC said that, then they are wrong.
The information came from an Indian scientist, reported be New Scientist. No it should not be use as an example of the effects of Global Warming, but it in no way invalidates the science. By the way the people claiming this isn't true are also basing that on a non peer reviewed paper.
See, it's a tad more complex then a simpleton like you can conceive, so you have broken it down to a boolean thinking.
SO tell me, after you read the IPCC which, specifically, part of the science is 'SHITE"? You have read it, right? No? STFU
What the fuck ever cocksmear. Please explain how you get relevant, unbiased, aka useful data from instruments placed on tar roofs, near restaurant kitchen exhausts, or on a concrete sidewalk.
I'll tell you which part of the CRU data is SHIT: the entire set. I know so from reading the report UCB put out on their findings of the conditions of the instruments.
I recommend pedaling your snake-oil somewhere other than /. you jackass.
"Be prepared, son. That's my motto. Be prepared." --Joe Hallenbeck