Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: Nickbat on 14 June 2010, 20:52:14
-
I don't post much about global warming these days, but I just HAD to post this: ;)
The IPCC consensus on climate change was phoney, says IPCC insider
The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change misled the press and public into believing that thousands of scientists backed its claims on manmade global warming, according to Mike Hulme, a prominent climate scientist and IPCC insider. The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was “only a few dozen experts,” he states in a paper for Progress in Physical Geography, co-authored with student Martin Mahony.
“Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/06/13/the-ipcc-consensus-on-climate-change-was-phoney-says-ipcc-insider/
Told you so.. ;) ;D
-
Governments will ignore this and keep intoducing greenhouse taxes on all types of fossil fuel usage. It's mana from heaven to increase taxes, to balance the books. Nothing else. Most governments have known its a load of rubbish but obviously avoid informing joe public. A political rip off!!!!
-
I said this many threads ago :y
Sun shines and it's warm and bright.
Sun doesn't shine and it's cold and dark.
Any external body exerting that amount of influence over life on this planet can certainly alter climatic conditions.
Solar scientists are finally overcoming their fears and going public about the Sun-climate connection
Read more: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/05/21/its-the-sun-stupid/#ixzz0qrUCm0Z3
The National Post is now on Facebook. Join our fan community today.
This fact does not exempt us from the responsible stewardship of this planet and its remaining resources however.
-
Told you so.. ;) ;D
Nah, nah, nah nah, naaaah :D :D :D
-
Told you so.. ;) ;D
Nah, nah, nah nah, naaaah :D :D :D
Nah, it goes like this P;
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IV4sB7O97ro&feature=related[/media]
This is not representative of Nick's justifiable riposte to the avalanche of criticism concerning this matter he has received over the recent past, I must add. :y
-
Thanks for your latest comment, Zulu! ;) ;D ;D
-
back to old subjects :-?
I thought I have given enough links..
seems not adequate ;D
-
seriously? this still? ;D ;D ;D
i think you need a new roll of baco-foil for that hat nick ;)
-
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDYxgDO5bCI&feature=related[/media]
-
the full quote Nick....I've read the report - please continue the quote from the word disingenuous or shall I?
as usual right wing climate sceptics taking valid and exhaustive examination of scientific methods, throwing everything away to be left with a quote they can use - I would suggest anyone bothering with this increasingly paranoid line of reasoning actually read the report, and not the edited highlights from some right wing website - please, Nickbat - you may be able to fool some(including Zulu, bizarrely), but I had time on my hands today - you thought no one read this drivel didn't you ;)
http://www.probeinternational.org/Hulme-Mahony-PiPG%5B1%5D.pdf
now, about that full quote - I'll post it for you if you can't find it - bottom of page 10, top of page 11 :y
I've got all day (well, until Portugal play ;D)
-
the full quote Nick....I've read the report - please continue the quote from the word disingenuous or shall I?
as usual right wing climate sceptics taking valid and exhaustive examination of scientific methods, throwing everything away to be left with a quote they can use - I would suggest anyone bothering with this increasingly paranoid line of reasoning actually read the report, and not the edited highlights from some right wing website - please, Nickbat - you may be able to fool some(including Zulu, bizarrely), but I had time on my hands today - you thought no one read this drivel didn't you ;)
http://www.probeinternational.org/Hulme-Mahony-PiPG%5B1%5D.pdf
now, about that full quote - I'll post it for you if you can't find it - bottom of page 10, top of page 11 :y
I've got all day (well, until Portugal play ;D)
I'm so pleased that you're looking out for my welfare BJ :-* :-*
-
glad to be of service ;) :y
-
the full quote Nick....I've read the report - please continue the quote from the word disingenuous or shall I?
as usual right wing climate sceptics taking valid and exhaustive examination of scientific methods, throwing everything away to be left with a quote they can use - I would suggest anyone bothering with this increasingly paranoid line of reasoning actually read the report, and not the edited highlights from some right wing website - please, Nickbat - you may be able to fool some(including Zulu, bizarrely), but I had time on my hands today - you thought no one read this drivel didn't you ;)
http://www.probeinternational.org/Hulme-Mahony-PiPG%5B1%5D.pdf
now, about that full quote - I'll post it for you if you can't find it - bottom of page 10, top of page 11 :y
I've got all day (well, until Portugal play ;D)
I'll post it for you if you can't find it - bottom of page 10, top of page 11
What is your interpretation of this bomb-shell BJ?
-
glad you asked Zulu :y
the report that was quoted states:
"Without a careful explanation about what it means, this drive for consensus can leave the IPCC vulnerable to outside criticism. Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence
on the climate’ are disingenuous. That particular consensus judgement, as are many others
in the IPCC reports, is reached by only a few dozen experts in the specific field of detection
and attribution studies; other IPCC authors are experts in other fields. But consensus-making can also lead to criticism for being too conservative, as Hansen (2007) has most
visibly argued. Was the IPCC AR4 too conservative in reaching its consensus about future
sea-level rise? Many glaciologists and oceanographers think they were (Kerr, 2007;
Rahmstorf, 2010), leading to what Hansen attacks as ‘scientific reticence’.....
IPCC fault here was in not being clear on the numbers of scientists who were experts in different fields, in this case 12 of them were scientists involved in detection and attribution, the other 2038 leading scientists drew the same conclusion - now reading the article Nickbat kindly posted would appear to be showing a leading climate scientist saying that only 12 scientists in the world agree there is a problem.........wouldn't i be right in saying thats maybe a bit disengenuous - the problem of course is taking quotes from respected scientists out of context - i'm sure the website in question didn't mean to ::)
I'm not going round in circles on this, there are some who refuse to believe or hear anything other than what fits with their "guesswork" and political leanings - if the world's foremost scientists can't do it I'll certainly never convince Nickbat or other staunch climate change sceptics, and nor should I - he'll just have to learn the truth eventually :y
-
- if the world's foremost scientists can't do it I'll certainly never convince Nickbat or other staunch climate change sceptics, and nor should I - he'll just have to learn the truth eventually :y
"The data negate increase in CO2 in the atmosphere as a hypothetical cause for the apparently observed global warming. A hypothesis of significant positive feedback by water vapor effect on atmospheric infrared absorption is also negated by the observed measurements."
Ferenc Miskolczi, former Nasa physicist, in Energy & Envrionment, June 2010.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/06/new-miskolczi-paper-co2-not-cause-of.html
Also:
"I would like to start by saying that I am not deaf to those who do not agree with the scientific consensus on man-made climate change.
Nor, indeed, to those who do not agree with the findings - or, in some cases, the existence - of the IPCC.
The IPCC and the scientific community at large should welcome the development of a vigorous debate on the science of climate change."
IPCC chairman R K Pachauri
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8740049.stm
If Pachauri can change his mind and welcome vigorous debate, the question is.....can Banjax? ;)
-
I'm not entirely convinced you know what a debate actually is Nick :o
1) Dig in your entrenched position
2) cut and paste some right wing websites
3) get really upset when anyone points out that maybe on the balance of probability you might, just conceivably not be 100% accurate
i'm quite happy to apply scientific principles and rigour to the argument - i've never seen you do the same in all honesty - IPCC have been guilty of over egging the pudding (i never saw the need) doesnt mean........................christ - i've just remembered its pointless debating with you - what am i doing wasting a perfectly good day? ::)
-
I'm not entirely convinced you know what a debate actually is Nick :o
1) Dig in your entrenched position
2) cut and paste some right wing websites
3) get really upset when anyone points out that maybe on the balance of probability you might, just conceivably not be 100% accurate
i'm quite happy to apply scientific principles and rigour to the argument - i've never seen you do the same in all honesty - IPCC have been guilty of over egging the pudding (i never saw the need) doesnt mean........................christ - i've just remembered its pointless debating with you - what am i doing wasting a perfectly good day? ::)
Is it not telling BJ, that those who propose the AGW theory are so convinced they’re right they will not debate the matter in case the outcome doesn't fit their analysis of the problem?
A position exploited so often by one of the main protagonists in the issue - former Vice-President Gore.
Whether this warming is being caused by human activity or the sun and natural cycles (my choice) is largely irrelevant because anything we try to do about it is pretty pointless.
For anyone to suggest that we, as a species, can alter the planetary weather patterns - especially the global temperature - is debateable in my view when the Coriolis Effect at the very minimum ensures that there is, and will continue to be, a wide difference in weather and temperature between the hemispheres and indeed locally within those areas. Take other phenomena into account and its plain to see that we are really inconsequential in the context of global weather patterns.
What’s the point in debate? – Because those pushing the AGW theory of planetary warming want to adopt extreme measures to try and stop this. When the time comes for you to pay more to simply exist – in terms of increased energy costs, increased commodity costs, altered lifestyle and so on will you be satisfied to accept these changes to your personal circumstances because others have told you that there’s no other option?
Furthermore, this matter should be vigorously debated due to the large number of individuals and bodies scenting the whiff of money in the air, the realisation by governments that this situation affords them the means to push an agenda that strengthens their influence over their citizens – witness the fear that President Obama is likely to peruse a more rigorous path to energy cap and trade measures in the wake of the Gulf oil spill.
If you’re happy enough to sit back and take the medicine spoon-fed by the likes of the IPCC, the United Nations, Al Gore, Tim Yeo, Ed Milliband, Zac Goldsmith, Chris Hunne, David Cameron, President Obama and so on, then I’m surprised.
Nick should be congratulated for his tenacity in this matter because there’s no point complaining after the event - when we’ll be the poorer, in many ways, as a result of this perverted attempt to influence the planets atmospheric behaviour by the blunt means of taxation, pricing and restriction of freedom.
-
I'm not entirely convinced you know what a debate actually is Nick :o
1) Dig in your entrenched position
2) cut and paste some right wing websites
3) get really upset when anyone points out that maybe on the balance of probability you might, just conceivably not be 100% accurate
i'm quite happy to apply scientific principles and rigour to the argument - i've never seen you do the same in all honesty - IPCC have been guilty of over egging the pudding (i never saw the need) doesnt mean........................christ - i've just remembered its pointless debating with you - what am i doing wasting a perfectly good day? ::)
I can't let this latest bout of nastiness lie without comment.
I know perfectly well what a debate is.
I can't recall you ever debating the science with me. Furthermore, I fail to see anything wrong with posting links that support my views.
But, since you desire rigorous debate, tell me why the Pacific Islands are not sinking, why are the ice caps are in a similar condition to 30 years ago (and why there was less ice earlier this century)? Perhaps you can tell me where I can find the tropospheric hot-spot, which is supposed to accompany global warming. Perhaps you can tell me why hurricane activity has not increased in line with CO2. Maybe you even know the effects of station drop-out and urban heat islands on land-based temperature. And, finally of course, maybe you can tell me why the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today.
There you go. I haven't posted any link from an alleged "right-wing" site, or indeed from any site. These are all my own observations. It may be turn out that I am incorrect in any one of my assertions, but the fact remains that there is much doubt about the theory of global warming. Science is not about consensus, it is about discovering the truth and that is why sceptical argument should be welcomed, not stifled or ridiculed.
-
I'm forcing myself to debate, but its too hot.. ;D
so probably I'll pass that..
here is my brief opinion,
no matter who says what , human kind anyway damage everything you see around,
including the ocean, soil and athmosphere..
and weather climate is not an independant subject from those parameters..
end of..
-
the world's foremost scientists
Here are 108 of them, Banjax!
“We, the undersigned, having assessed the relevant scientific evidence, do not find convincing support for the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide are causing, or will in the foreseeable future cause, dangerous global warming."
http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=289
:y :y
-
the world's foremost scientists
Here are 108 of them, Banjax!
“We, the undersigned, having assessed the relevant scientific evidence, do not find convincing support for the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide are causing, or will in the foreseeable future cause, dangerous global warming."
http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=289
:y :y
;D ;D
probably they need to see a a flyin duck start to burn and drop on their head to believe.. ;D
athmosphere is a chemical mixture of gases which have a finite amount..
if you continue to pump CO2 , eventually the mixture wont be the same..
so my conclusion is at least those 108 failed from maths and chemistry ;D
-
the world's foremost scientists
Here are 108 of them, Banjax!
“We, the undersigned, having assessed the relevant scientific evidence, do not find convincing support for the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide are causing, or will in the foreseeable future cause, dangerous global warming."
http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=289
:y :y
;D ;D
probably they need to see a a flyin duck start to burn and drop on their head to believe.. ;D
athmosphere is a chemical mixture of gases which have a finite amount..
if you continue to pump CO2 , eventually the mixture wont be the same..
so my conclusion is at least those 108 failed from maths and chemistry ;D
If you look at the qualifications of those people, I can only think you are being sarcastic. ::)
-
Nickbat, qualifications cant change the result of simple maths..
The reason those people made a declaration is that they want to stop the abuse of "Global Warming" by the system.. And if you carefully analyse the declaration there is still an open door..
" We, the undersigned, having assessed the relevant scientific evidence, do not find convincing support for the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide are causing, or will in the foreseeable future cause, dangerous global warming"
means there are some evidences but we are not convinced enough ;D
"foreseeable future" thats the most funny part..
science depends on mathematical certainites..
foreseeable future ? how many years 5-10-100 ?
I'll say what they depend on , CO2 released today not an important amount in their eyes compared to cubic volume of athmosphere, but civilizations dont stay the same, those amounts increase geometrically and obviously things will change..
-
Nickbat, qualifications cant change the result of simple maths..
The reason those people made a declaration is that they want to stop the abuse of "Global Warming" by the system.. And if you carefully analyse the declaration there is still an open door..
" We, the undersigned, having assessed the relevant scientific evidence, do not find convincing support for the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide are causing, or will in the foreseeable future cause, dangerous global warming"
means there are some evidences but we are not convinced enough ;D
"foreseeable future" thats the most funny part..
science depends on mathematical certainites..
foreseeable future ? how many years 5-10-100 ?
I'll say what they depend on , CO2 released today not an important amount in their eyes compared to cubic volume of athmosphere, but civilizations dont stay the same, those amounts increase geometrically and obviously things will change..
Oh, for goodness' sake, Cem! :o
I am sorry to say it but if you think for one moment that these people do not understand simple maths and that your knowledge of the atmospheric residency of CO2, along with its infra-red absorption spectrum, safe ppm limits and expected increase over the next century, is somehow better than theirs then, frankly, I simply don't buy it. :(
I would have thought that any evidence as examined by these highly-qualified scientists (and they infinitely more qualified than you or I) that our advanced society may NOT be causing dangerous damage to the climate (bio-environment aside) than that must surely warrant a sigh of relief. Unless, of course, you want western society to return to the Stone Age. ::)
-
Nickbat, qualifications cant change the result of simple maths..
The reason those people made a declaration is that they want to stop the abuse of "Global Warming" by the system.. And if you carefully analyse the declaration there is still an open door..
" We, the undersigned, having assessed the relevant scientific evidence, do not find convincing support for the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide are causing, or will in the foreseeable future cause, dangerous global warming"
means there are some evidences but we are not convinced enough ;D
"foreseeable future" thats the most funny part..
science depends on mathematical certainites..
foreseeable future ? how many years 5-10-100 ?
I'll say what they depend on , CO2 released today not an important amount in their eyes compared to cubic volume of athmosphere, but civilizations dont stay the same, those amounts increase geometrically and obviously things will change..
Oh, for goodness' sake, Cem! :o
I am sorry to say it but if you think for one moment that these people do not understand simple maths and that your knowledge of the atmospheric residency of CO2, along with its infra-red absorption spectrum, safe ppm limits and expected increase over the next century, is somehow better than theirs then, frankly, I simply don't buy it. :(
I would have thought that any evidence as examined by these highly-qualified scientists (and they infinitely more qualified than you or I) that our advanced society may NOT be causing dangerous damage to the climate (bio-environment aside) than that must surely warrant a sigh of relief. Unless, of course, you want western society to return to the Stone Age. ::)
;D
2+2=4 neither 5 nor 3..
And I dont need any links to proove that..
as I have stated they understand simple maths , this is why they let the door open.. As I've explained above..
just for a moment, think of athmosphere as a vessel..
you are transferring fossil fuels and all others (including nuclear) from outside the system into the vessel .. and burn all of them in the vessel..
do you think it will be same inside the vessel
before and after the combustion process ?
anyone who says yes, I'm afraid to say, need to tear the diploma and restart from the beginning of school.. ;D