Remember when we were told time and time again that the science surrounding man caused global warming was settled, that the time for debate was over, that the time for action was now? Well, as each week goes by, we learn more and more why climate alarmists did not want to debate or actually discuss the science
The impact of global warming has been exaggerated by some scientists and there is an urgent need for more honest disclosure of the uncertainty of predictions about the rate of climate change, according to the Government’s chief scientific adviser.
John Beddington was speaking to The Times in the wake of an admission by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that it grossly overstated the rate at which Himalayan glaciers were receding.
Professor Beddington said that climate scientists should be less hostile to sceptics who questioned man-made global warming. He condemned scientists who refused to publish the data underpinning their reports.
He said that public confidence in climate science would be improved if there were more openness about its uncertainties, even if that meant admitting that sceptics had been right on some hotly-disputed issues.
What we have seen is a severe lack of honest disclosure. In fact, we have seen quite a bit of false data used, manipulated data used, and scare tactics based on fantasy. Why? Money, prestige, and/or power. It’s that simple. And so many folks, mostly on the Left, bought into this nonsense, and refused to question the science. Most of the rest of us understand that global warming, as caused mostly by Nature, is real, and fought back using Reality Mode.
Hopefully, the time will soon be here when we can honestly discuss true environmental issues on an adult playing field with these alarmists, as well as the need for alternative energy sources without the AGW hysteria.
Elsewhere:
- There are huge lines of ships waiting to pick up coal due to the cold weather need for heating energy.
- The top 10 signs that AGW is the same kind of alarmism that surrounded SARS, Y2K, and the swine flu.
- Another UN IPCC scientist admits that the IPCC reports were spun to make it look much worse than it was
- One climahysteric thinks dear old dad should stop flatulating so much in order to save the Earth
- Cool! You can see from space what England looks like under lots of snow
Teach,
You are confusing so many different issues here, and are definitely making a mountain out of a mole hill.
1. The science is indeed settled on the fact that man is the primary cause of recent warming.
2. This was one paragraph in a 938-page report by the second Working Group. Do you know what the scope of their report was?
3. While this was a regrettable mistake, it does not in least bit call into question the IPCC’s general assessment of ice caps on the whole, which is that they are declining all around the world:
4. Finally, this small paragraph had nothing to do with the CAUSE of warming, but rather with the extent of its effect. Your insinuation that somehow anthropogenic global warming is now called into question is completely bogus.
What has not been disclosed?
And you are doing exactly like I wrote, refusing to question the science because of narrow minded dogma. You religiously adhere to a belief that, somehow, it must be mostly Man’s fault, despite tenuous and nebulous links ginned up by people who have something at stake, such as $$$, prestige, and power.
Again and again, we are seeing that the UN IPCC and other organizations “science” is full of it. Wake up.
Again and again, you take very small discrepancies and blow them up in an effort to distort the science of climate change, rather than actually proving any real scientific points through scientific research. What happened was regrettable, but again, it did not disprove AGW. Neither did the emails, or the hockey-stick, etc., etc. But you guys just keep coming up with all kinds of red herrings and other distractions from the science.
It amazes me how you can be so blind. You decry the scientists who want money, power, and prestige, all the while ignoring those who really stand to make ENORMOUS profits by ensuring that any legislation to fight global warming fails.
That’s hilarious. You folks take minor blips, not to mention every warm weather event and environmental problem, and blame it on AGW. You have kooks on your side blaming earthquakes and volcanos on AGW. Priceless. And you want to talk about distractions? How about blaming the release of greenhouse gases for potentially wiping out a Peruvian mountain tribe because it has been unusually cold? That is the kind of mule fritters your side pushes.
Your precious little hockey stick has been discredited. The emails showed that the data was being manufactured and spun, and there is still more coming out. Wear blinders much? TFMo points out much more below, so, I won’t repeat it.
And your side still hasn’t proven your religious doctrine that the warm trend, which occurred shockingly after a cool period, is caused mostly because of Mankind. What you have basically done is
1. leaves die and drop in the Fall
2. kids go back to school in the Fall
3. therefore, it is the kids’ fault that the leaves die and fall.
You’ve created a false causal relationship, and your blind adherence to the doctrines of your new religion keep you from actually applying scientific principles and methods. I suspect if someone came out with a study saying that it was a complete pantload, and proved it, you would still believe it.
I see the JackASS is back.
So basically, Reassic is pulling a Dan Rather; sure the evidence was fraudulent, but it’s still the truth!
Lie after lie after lie is being exposed. It seems like every two weeks there’s a brand new scandal.
Hiding the decline.
Can’t reconcile the LACK of temperature increase.
Admission of blacklisting and blackmailing to suppress opposition.
Admission of fudging proxy data.
Trying to ignore the very relevant MWP.
Destroying/losing the raw data.
Destroying pertinent information to avoid FOIA requests.
Trying to reinvent the peer review process to exclude opposition.
Cherry picking proxy data to fit the desired outcome.
Temperatures shown to have DROPPED rather than increased over the past several years.
Unpredicted winter storms in various parts of the globe.
The Himalayan Melt hoax.
Etc.
Etc.
Etc.
Ad nauseum.
Once again, you prove yourself little more than a left-wing rah-rah kool-aid drinker.
Thanks, Otter. Good to see you too.
lol, TFMo. All of your “evidence” has been proven false, but what would you care? Do you even know what “hide the decline” means? I’ve already explained for you that no “raw data” was destroyed or lost. I’ve already explained that the emails showed no wrongdoing on the part of any scientists. Temperatures over the last several years are still on an upward trajectory. Etc., etc., etc… But what would you care? You have the information that you agree with, so you’ve stopped there.
Proven false, when?
Are you saying that these things WEREN’T admitted in the CRU e-mails? Are you saying that there hasn’t been any attempt to hide the MWP? Are you saying that the IPCC DIDN’T admit overstating the Himalayan Melt for political purposes? Are you saying there HASN’T been any of these winter storms?
YOU’VE already explained. Oh, well, that certainly resolves it, right? Other than the fact that you’re dead wrong.
No wrong-doing? Doofus, destroying data to avoid an FOIA request is wrong. Lying about your findings is wrong. Ditching data that doesn’t agree with a preconceived outcome is wrong.
And bilking the various countries of the world (particularly the US, since we are ALWAYS expected to pay more than anyone else) out of trillions of dollars based on information that is, at the very least, questionable is WRONG.
There IS no proof that man-made CO2 is killing the planet. There is no proof that ANY of the CO2 levels we currently hold and are projected to have will kill the planet.
The only PROOF that has been presented is that the loudest voices in pushing this thing have been proven as frauds, and most often BY THEIR OWN WORDS and lately, BY THEIR OWN ADMISSIONS.
Teach,
First of all, you’re talking to me, not whatever kooks you’re imagining in your head, so let’s not put words in my mouth. The only religion I believe in is Christianity. I believe Jesus Christ was crucified and raised from the dead.
What I find most funny here is how you are all of the sudden the “weather is not climate” police. You have been confusing weather and climate forever. Now, you’re going to criticize others? Right… I have never made such claims, so I’m not sure why you bring them up to me. Ah, hypocrisy.
You have fun with your huge international conspiracy, and I’ll stick to the science.
Greenhouse gases are increasing. We are the cause of the increase. Increased concentrations of greenhouse gases equals increases in temperature. That’s basic atmospheric physics. Scientists have studied the various possibilities, and determined that greenhouse gases are the primary cause of recent warming. Do you have another alternative explanation?
SOME scientists have come to this conclusion. SOME do not believe that Man is the cause of any of the weather patterns we’ve been seeing, hot or cold. Also, the definition of “greenhouse gas” has become skewed, thanks to the EPA deciding that CO2 is a horrible horrible poison that’s going to kill all life on the planet think of the children OH NOES!!
As to confusing weather and climate, are you claiming that weather has nothing to do with climate? Is weather not a part of climate? Does a rise or decrees in temperature NOT fall into the weather category?
TFMo,
No, The VAST MAJORITY of climate scientists and their research points to this conclusion. Only a very small minority disagree. SOME vs. SOME implies equality, which is definitely not the case.
I noticed you did not state which of the statements I made you disagreed with and why. I’d be very interested in which of the statements you disagree with, as well as any supporting evidence you have for said dispute.
No, the definition of “greenhouse gas” is still the same. It just means a gas that absorbs and emits infrared radition. Very simple. The EPA did not change that.
Of course weather and climate are related. Weather contributes to climate. However, weather does not EQUAL climate. Short term variations in temperature or precipitation, on daily or even seasonal levels, are weather events. Long term changes in temperature, around 30 years, are climate events. It is projected that a warming climate will result in more wild fluctuations in weather events, but no one can point to any one weather event (a cold winter blast, or summer heat wave, for instance), and claim that it is the result of global warming. The same goes for hurricanes, droughts, floods, etc. Over long periods of time, global warming should increase the occurrance of such events, but no one can point to any specific event and claim that it is the result of global warming.
However, there ARE reliable climate-related signs of warming in our midst, such as reductions in ice caps, ice sheets, sea ice, and increasing sea levels, across the board.
This is what is so mind-boggling for me about these red herrings you guys glom onto. We have a scientific theory that dates back to the late 19th century, via Fourier, Tyndall, and Arrhenius, that greenhouse gases cause warming. Only recently, have we had the ability to collect a significant amount of data to test that theory, and have found that it is indeed true — not only that the planet is warming, but that greenhouse gases absorb and emit IR (via infrared spectroscopy). We have ground, sea, and even satellite-based temperature measurements, all of which show warming, as well as the other climate indicators I mentioned earlier. And yet somehow, you guys think all of this is bunk, based on a paragraph in the IPCC report about the rate of decline in ONE ice cap?! Seriously?
Oh, and I’d like to see your alternate explanation. What is causing global warming?
I didn’t bother answering all your nonsense because it’s been answered. Repeatedly. Ad nauseum. You bring nothing new to the discussion; just the same old tired left-wing tree-hugger BS.
My alternate explanation? How about EARTH? We do not live in a fixed environment. The planet does not follow the exact same path around the sun year after year, the rotation of the planet does not follow the exact same path, could formation fluctuates constantly, the Earth produces CO2 and other trace gases at varying levels, the ocean rises and falls, the moon slips back and forth in its orbit, the amount of radiation the sun gives off changes constantly, ambient energies floating around throughout the universe changes, ice melts and reforms, and on and on and on. It has done so before there were humans on this planet, before humans developed civilizations, before the Industrial Period, and it will continue to do so long after we and all our works are dust, until the sun goes nova and the Earth is no more.
And considering that we can’t accurately predict what the weather is going to be doing in two weeks, beyond a general “It’s January so it’s probably going to be cold,” let alone predict the temperature in two years, or twenty, or fifty, or a hundred, I tend to doubt that the CRU and the rest of the hippies have found a magic formula to do so.
And don’t give that tired crap about how predicting climate trends has nothing to do with predicting the weather. Flip your argument and see how ludicrous it is; if ANYONE had the ability to predict weather patterns beyond a few days, whether it’s by applying climate data or tea leaves, do you honestly think the meteorological community WOULDN’T be using it?
Case in point: If NOAA had such ability, then right now Dallas would be experiencing freezing rain and ice, and the temperature would be in the upper twenties. This is what they were predicting as recently as YESTERDAY. Right now, it’s 39 degrees with light rain. That’s a disparity of ten degrees in under 24 hours. Your guys are predicting anywhere from a few points of a degree to 7 degrees change in the next 50 to 100 years.
But by all means, keep f****** that chicken, Reassic. By the laws of probability, eventually you’ll get SOMETHING right.
TFMo,
Ah, so you subscribe to the “the climate has always changed, and so this is no different” theory. I’ll tell you what’s different: humans. Never before has there been an industrialized presence on this planet, which could produce greenhouse gases in such large quantities. I know the total AMOUNT of greenhouse gases and temperature increase do not look any different from any time in the past, but if you look at the RATE of increase in greenhouse gases and temperature on a long term scale, you will see that they MUCH faster than at any time in the past. THAT is what is so alarming about recent climate change. In the past, large changes in climate took thousands of years.
Are you serious? NWP weather models are entirely different from GCM climate models. One tries to predict chaotic weather patterns over a period of days, while the other takes years of existing climate data to determine future POSSIBLE projections, given various scenarios. You should seriously talk to a climate scientist. Even a skeptical one. Call Richard Lindzen or Roy Spencer. If you’re going to debate a scientific subject, at least make some effort to understand what you’re talking about.
Let’s see…nope….nope…nope…nope…
Nope, sorry. You’re still a lefty tool.
lol, wow. just wow.