Climate Change - the big debate
Discussion
turbobloke said:
TB, or others, do you have a link to the report showing the bias of land-based temperature measurement stations? ie, UHI's in terms of airports, air conditioning ducts, and other heat sources.Can't seem to find it anywhere!
At last Radio 4 now covering the IPCC scandals on Today now.
Edit: Mike Hulme = luke warm stuff on how the IPCC needs to build public trust and operate better, especially in the world of the web (not really saying they are dodgy, just clumsy - but isn't he from UEA?)
Oh dear though, Tony Jupiter is claiming that the IPCC is doing a good job in difficult circumstances - it is under attack from people with a political bias who don't play by the rules of science - the glacier stuff was seized as alleged proof by non scientists ("so called deniers")after real scientists uncovered it!
He keeps banging on about the poor tactics of the deniers; "smear tactics and personal attacks on scientists . . not the way science is supposed to work." etc. - has he not read the CRU e-mails?
Humphreys actually pretty good at having back at him including using Pachauri to argue against him. Shouldn't he resign etc.
Pity they left it to the end of the show and rushed it. For anyone who missed it 'might be worth catching the pod cast/listening via the Radio 4 site.
Edit: Mike Hulme = luke warm stuff on how the IPCC needs to build public trust and operate better, especially in the world of the web (not really saying they are dodgy, just clumsy - but isn't he from UEA?)
Oh dear though, Tony Jupiter is claiming that the IPCC is doing a good job in difficult circumstances - it is under attack from people with a political bias who don't play by the rules of science - the glacier stuff was seized as alleged proof by non scientists ("so called deniers")after real scientists uncovered it!
He keeps banging on about the poor tactics of the deniers; "smear tactics and personal attacks on scientists . . not the way science is supposed to work." etc. - has he not read the CRU e-mails?
Humphreys actually pretty good at having back at him including using Pachauri to argue against him. Shouldn't he resign etc.
Pity they left it to the end of the show and rushed it. For anyone who missed it 'might be worth catching the pod cast/listening via the Radio 4 site.
Edited by Lost_BMW on Tuesday 26th January 09:03
Quite a long report just now on the Today programme on Radio 4 about ocean acidification. Apparently it's gone up by 30% since the industrial revolution and we're all doomed unless something is done. The reporter said that it is the elephant in the room in climate change and that while the world was concentrating on CO2 in the atmosphere acidification could be an even bigger threat.
TB's prediction come true.
TB's prediction come true.
rovermorris999 said:
Quite a long report just now on the Today programme on Radio 4 about ocean acidification. Apparently it's gone up by 30% since the industrial revolution and we're all doomed unless something is done. The reporter said that it is the elephant in the room in climate change and that while the world was concentrating on CO2 in the atmosphere acidification could be an even bigger threat.
TB's prediction come true.
Ha, ha - I missed that piece - obviously set up to diminish the effect of the later article on the IPCC referred to in my post above! Crafty eh?TB's prediction come true.
Eric Mc said:
From what I can see, for the rest of human existence we will be bombarded with propaganda about one made threat after the other. As each one becomes discredited, a new one rises to take its place - a kind of Environmentalist Lobby Hydra.
Always bears repeating...H.L. Mencken said:
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
I dont contribute much to this thread because I am as sceptical of the sceptics as I am of the alarmists.
However I feel compelled to ask this question.
There seems to be a lot of excitement lately about this glaciers that the IPCC said was melting quicker than it is.
Really-what is the big deal about it?
Its one mistake out of hundreds (thousands?) of similar claims. It hardly proves anything other than one of many thousands of IPCC scientists has f
ked up and acted unproffessionally.
Maybe I am missing something that makes the above sentence incorrect.
However I feel compelled to ask this question.
There seems to be a lot of excitement lately about this glaciers that the IPCC said was melting quicker than it is.
Really-what is the big deal about it?
Its one mistake out of hundreds (thousands?) of similar claims. It hardly proves anything other than one of many thousands of IPCC scientists has f
ked up and acted unproffessionally.Maybe I am missing something that makes the above sentence incorrect.
Einion Yrth said:
H.L. Mencken said:
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
blindswelledrat said:
I dont contribute much to this thread because I am as sceptical of the sceptics as I am of the alarmists.
However I feel compelled to ask this question.
There seems to be a lot of excitement lately about this glaciers that the IPCC said was melting quicker than it is.
Really-what is the big deal about it?
Its one mistake out of hundreds (thousands?) of similar claims. It hardly proves anything other than one of many thousands of IPCC scientists has fked up and acted unproffessionally.
Maybe I am missing something that makes the above sentence incorrect.
However I feel compelled to ask this question.
There seems to be a lot of excitement lately about this glaciers that the IPCC said was melting quicker than it is.
Really-what is the big deal about it?
Its one mistake out of hundreds (thousands?) of similar claims. It hardly proves anything other than one of many thousands of IPCC scientists has f
ked up and acted unproffessionally.Maybe I am missing something that makes the above sentence incorrect.
IPCC said:
The Science is settled.
This is beyond contestation.
Nothing we say is wrong - there is a concensus.
Oh, the glacier thing was completely tonto...
...and the bit about natural disaster frequency...
...and the data from every source, which is the foundation on which we are built, is not so much curved as totally bent...
But apart from that, tax, Tax, TAX!!!
HTH.This is beyond contestation.
Nothing we say is wrong - there is a concensus.
Oh, the glacier thing was completely tonto...
...and the bit about natural disaster frequency...
...and the data from every source, which is the foundation on which we are built, is not so much curved as totally bent...
But apart from that, tax, Tax, TAX!!!
No nelly, it doesn't Im afraid.
I know that the IPCC greatly exaggerate thier claims and act like they have proved something that is unprovable.
Just as I know that one tiny little claim about one glacier made by one scientist doesn't unravel everything they say.
It just strikes me as slightly hysterical jumping on this tiny insignificant piece of the puzzle and claiming it is somehow proof that everything the IPCC says in nonsense.
I know that the IPCC greatly exaggerate thier claims and act like they have proved something that is unprovable.
Just as I know that one tiny little claim about one glacier made by one scientist doesn't unravel everything they say.
It just strikes me as slightly hysterical jumping on this tiny insignificant piece of the puzzle and claiming it is somehow proof that everything the IPCC says in nonsense.
blindswelledrat said:
No nelly, it doesn't Im afraid.
I know that the IPCC greatly exaggerate thier claims and act like they have proved something that is unprovable.
Just as I know that one tiny little claim about one glacier made by one scientist doesn't unravel everything they say.
It just strikes me as slightly hysterical jumping on this tiny insignificant piece of the puzzle and claiming it is somehow proof that everything the IPCC says in nonsense.
Ths point is not in that one issue; it is in itself further evidence that the IPCC and supporting organisations are not interested in whether they are really correct- the end is justifying the means. What is worrying is what that end is? So far we have increased taxation helping western governments and the base for large profits from a huge variety of commercial organisations.I know that the IPCC greatly exaggerate thier claims and act like they have proved something that is unprovable.
Just as I know that one tiny little claim about one glacier made by one scientist doesn't unravel everything they say.
It just strikes me as slightly hysterical jumping on this tiny insignificant piece of the puzzle and claiming it is somehow proof that everything the IPCC says in nonsense.
If the IPCC were really focused on the 'danger' of climate change and the causes, it wouldn't dismiss these kind of faults in the evidence- it would be alarmed and openly going through all the research to make sure any errors were removed. Instead, they seem hell bent on dismissing anything that doesn't suit their hypothosis and promoting any tiny thing that does, however innacurate or misleading.
Doesn't that seem strange for a supposedly independent scientific body?
blindswelledrat said:
I dont contribute much to this thread because I am as sceptical of the sceptics as I am of the alarmists.
However I feel compelled to ask this question.
There seems to be a lot of excitement lately about this glaciers that the IPCC said was melting quicker than it is.
Really-what is the big deal about it?
Its one mistake out of hundreds (thousands?) of similar claims. It hardly proves anything other than one of many thousands of IPCC scientists has fked up and acted unproffessionally.
Maybe I am missing something that makes the above sentence incorrect.
To err is human - I have no problems with the IPCC or any other warmist body or clique making mistakes and, more importantly, admitting it when they do.However I feel compelled to ask this question.
There seems to be a lot of excitement lately about this glaciers that the IPCC said was melting quicker than it is.
Really-what is the big deal about it?
Its one mistake out of hundreds (thousands?) of similar claims. It hardly proves anything other than one of many thousands of IPCC scientists has f
ked up and acted unproffessionally.Maybe I am missing something that makes the above sentence incorrect.
My problem is their atitude. They do not WANT anyone to hold opposing views and they insist that they are the correct ones - even when erors or mistakes in their predictions emerge. I can't stand absolutism, of any varirty.
blindswelledrat said:
No nelly, it doesn't Im afraid.
I know that the IPCC greatly exaggerate thier claims and act like they have proved something that is unprovable.
Just as I know that one tiny little claim about one glacier made by one scientist doesn't unravel everything they say.
It just strikes me as slightly hysterical jumping on this tiny insignificant piece of the puzzle and claiming it is somehow proof that everything the IPCC says in nonsense.
The point is it was a little claim (indeed, a throwaway remark) about one glacier made by one scientist that led to the IPCC statement that "The Hymalayan Glaciers will all be gone by 2035".I know that the IPCC greatly exaggerate thier claims and act like they have proved something that is unprovable.
Just as I know that one tiny little claim about one glacier made by one scientist doesn't unravel everything they say.
It just strikes me as slightly hysterical jumping on this tiny insignificant piece of the puzzle and claiming it is somehow proof that everything the IPCC says in nonsense.
Cue all the BS and handwringing about sea levels rising and islands drowning...
Now they've been rumbled and their credibility is being called into question it's reverted to 'just one comment by one scientist etc, etc'.
Eric Mc said:
My problem is their atitude. They do not WANT anyone to hold opposing views and they insist that they are the correct ones - even when erors or mistakes in their predictions emerge. I can't stand absolutism, of any varirty.
I agree 100%, particularly in a subject like this where anyone with half a brain can tell there is no absolute answer. 10 Pence Short said:
Ths point is not in that one issue; it is in itself further evidence that the IPCC and supporting organisations are not interested in whether they are really correct- the end is justifying the means.
I disagree with this entirely. That is my whole point. THis, to me, is evidence of nothing. Or at least nothing other than one idiot scientist making a mistake.10p said:
If the IPCC were really focused on the 'danger' of climate change and the causes, it wouldn't dismiss these kind of faults in the evidence- it would be alarmed and openly going through all the research to make sure any errors were removed. Instead, they seem hell bent on dismissing anything that doesn't suit their hypothosis and promoting any tiny thing that does, however innacurate or misleading.
Doesn't that seem strange for a supposedly independent scientific body?
Again no, not to me. Any massive body like the IPCC has to rely on the findings of its so-called experts. NO organisation of this size of any type in the world is infalliable to mistakes. Why should they be any different?Doesn't that seem strange for a supposedly independent scientific body?
TO reiterate my point- to me,one irrelevant mistake in thousands of similar examples is proof of nothing at all other than the fact that someone made a mistake.
blindswelledrat said:
No nelly, it doesn't Im afraid.
I know that the IPCC greatly exaggerate thier claims and act like they have proved something that is unprovable.
Just as I know that one tiny little claim about one glacier made by one scientist doesn't unravel everything they say.
It just strikes me as slightly hysterical jumping on this tiny insignificant piece of the puzzle and claiming it is somehow proof that everything the IPCC says in nonsense.
The point is that we are constantly told that the IPCC is an independent group of the worlds top climate scientists interested only in scientific truth and everything they say should be regarded as fact.I know that the IPCC greatly exaggerate thier claims and act like they have proved something that is unprovable.
Just as I know that one tiny little claim about one glacier made by one scientist doesn't unravel everything they say.
It just strikes me as slightly hysterical jumping on this tiny insignificant piece of the puzzle and claiming it is somehow proof that everything the IPCC says in nonsense.
They took the glacier claim from WWF campaign literature, not from research.
When told by their own authors is was ludicrous they published it anyway. Later admitting this was because politics was more important than scietific fact.
When the Indian authorities protested they were accused of 'voodoo science' and 'arrogance' for daring to question the IPCC. Even though the IPCC themselves knew their own claim was crap.
So why should anything be taken as true on IPCC authority?
Dr Jekyll said:
When told by their own authors is was ludicrous they published it anyway. Later admitting this was because politics was more important than scietific fact.
Can you substantiate this statement? Ill be suprised if you can.Jekyll said:
When the Indian authorities protested they were accused of 'voodoo science' and 'arrogance' for daring to question the IPCC. Even though the IPCC themselves knew their own claim was crap.
So why should anything be taken as true on IPCC authority?
I don't disagree with this. As stated-Im not defending the IPCC -merely questioning the level of excitement over a mistake.So why should anything be taken as true on IPCC authority?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff