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.'"
Come on people -- when you think of clean water, clean air, and sustainable living, doesn't your mind immediately jump to India? ;)
Perhaps their new research group could use this as a slogan: "India: #1 In Environmental Stewardship Since The Bhopal Disaster".
I'll BUILD someone to replace you. Some kind of gamma-powered monster, with a heart as black as coal!
And in related news, ~97% of the worlds workers at auto manufacturers say that everyone should believe in cars. . ..
No, I don't think anyone thinks that a 3000 page set of documents can be invalidated by a handful of errors.
Ding ding ding! Talking point broken; you get a cookie! On to the next one:
The problem is that you (and people like you) try to make the reductive claim that all that was wrong with the documents were "a handful of errors." That is being disingenuous, and I am pretty sure you know it.
The obvious implication of your notion that there's more than just a handful of errors is that either all of the scientists whose work is being misquoted don't care that it's being misquoted, or that neither the scientists nor anyone who knows bothered to read the single most influential summary of science in their field -- even the mere sections where their work was mentioned.
Yeah. Sure.
I'll BUILD someone to replace you. Some kind of gamma-powered monster, with a heart as black as coal!
oh fuck, it's an AC, why am I bothering. Oh well...
[citation fucking needed] you lying piece of shit.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Yeah, that's called argumentum ad hominem. Fine, India has a ton of issues - water, poverty etc.
Then it's not ad hominem. It's a real issue. India has a huge issue with making environmental and health irresponsibility in engineering and growth decisions. Worse than China.
I'll BUILD someone to replace you. Some kind of gamma-powered monster, with a heart as black as coal!
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.
Yes, it's completely unproven, except for the millions of spectra taken of the molecule, which show its resonance in the infrared part of the spectrum. Science, bitches -- it works. Now, had you said something about the AMOUNT of heat it traps and whether that amount is significant, then we could be having an actual debate. I'll be bringing my physics Ph.D. with me, how about you?
I bring the entire combined knowledge of the world that says "We don't know, we haven't tested it yet. LoL!" which nullifies your point. A spinning mirror could keep as much light in as it can keep out. Until you take it upon yourself to test whether carbon dioxide particles trap more solar heat than they block out, (you'll be the first one to do it that will admit to it!), then your PhD in physics is as useful to this argument as a PhD in jumping jacks.
The first of course, belonging to the humble humanitarian who has never pulled any political stint or canvassed bullshit as science to make himself money, Al Gore.
And here you reveal the biases that inform your decision -- not against the science based on any understanding of physics and chemistry, but because one of the advocates is someone with which you disagree politically. Pathetic.
WRONG. I revealed the biases that have taken it upon themselves to inform YOUR opinion -- self-serving interest groups, the greediest men in the world, and non-reviewed assumptions based on groupthink, conjecture, time-travelling corollation, and stock holdings. We have a word for the types of people who would believe such tales of grandeur on these merits alone: Suckers.
I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
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!
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
Occam's razor shows that we should go with #2 until you can support your opposition to 50 years of climate research with something more substantial than the latest easily debunked [realclimate.org] talking point.
It has been shown that large subsets of the the base data is bogus, that leading 'scientist' have manipulated their data, and intimidated competing scientist. A motive has been shown for those pushing the warming movement. You claim 50 years of research, but 30 years ago the big scare was global cooling.
How do you debunk that a large subset of the data is based on bullocks (http://surfacestations.org). There is no way to "correct" corrupted primary data. Attempting to do so will have to involve the hubris that you knew what the reading were supposed to be in the first place.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
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.
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.
See this brings up the whole point - though doth protest too much sir. One would think that science impacting us all could be discussed and not shoved down our throats. But go ahead and continue, you're helping your cause I'm sure.
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