LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksshouldn't there be more researchingOriginally Posted by ibis
facts?
shouldn't there be more researching
facts?
[SIZE="3"]"The Key To Joy Is Disobedience"[/SIZE]
I can tell you it will be on average both warmer and sunnier than it currently is. The main climate driver will have reversed by then, see. It's pretty predictable.
No, they aren't. They're claiming a range with error bars. There are economists, or contrarians like Lomborg, who use pseudo-precise figures in order to justify claims that we should do nothing.
You were the one arguing for physics...
He's a politician - it's a given.
And a hysteric with primitive economic notions.
Well, there really shouldn't be any problem, because the area is awash with money which can easily be diverted into personal accounts, apparently.IPCC are a shower of intellectual decrepits who are struggling to get by on grantfare... and we've seen their true nature this week
What I want is a real scientist ( or 2) of the first rank... someone as good as say E O Wilson who actually works in the area- have you any names to proffer ?
Yes I've been following this area from the sidelines... but a more fitting analogy would be that we left Dad's Army in charge of the Environmental Issues... and this week especially now that we see their caliber... it's time to bring the real troops back from the frontline to deal with this mess.
And lets take a chap who is currently perhaps in the heat of the battle on the solutions side ... Lord Stern... certainly the most prominent economist to wade in deep that I know of. This fellow fell for the Precautionary Principle also... and as per Wikipedia these are the economists for & against his report
For: James Mirrlees, Amartya Sen, Joseph Stiglitz and Robert Solow
Against: Partha Dasgupta, David Maddison, Robert Mendelsohn, William Nordhaus, Richard Tol,Hal Varian, Martin Weitzman, Gary Yohe, and Kenneth Arrow
That is astonishingly far from consensus
I'm roundly sick of the beardy weirdies claiming fake consensus for reasons of political spin. This is an important area and needs to be got right. Time to clean out Dad's Army and get the bright chaps hard at it.
Seriously, Cyp, it's not going to make a blind bit of difference whether one giant egg-head emerges who you find satisfactory. Personally, I'm happy enough with the legions of working scientists who make up working science. The process is important, not the personalities. You can call for it all you like, or fold your arms and refuse to accept the science until one does. Whatever floats your personal boat - just remember that boat is only notional.
I'm not sure exactly what your issue with the precautionary principle is, but I suspect you wouldn't have turned it down in the case of Mount St Helens, unlike a number of dead people. In this case, I presume it really means that you don't accept the predicted impacts (did you read any of the links?) and are therefore assuming that climate change planning is only taking place on a 'just in case' basis. Again, you're wrong.
Never let the best be the enemy of the good.
Ibis - a simple question: Did these guys rig the data to fit their conclusions - yes or no?
Regards...jmcc
Don't waste your time asking Ibis simple questions like that, you won't get a straight answer. What you will get is pseudo-intellectual masturbation. Ibis and his mini fanclub on p.ie spend most of their time diffusing "deniers" with "science", spin and meaningless garble.
Beware of fearful masters
From the evidence in the emails, no. They didn't use the part of a dataset that has a known issue, one that has been independently discussed in the literature. Obviously, if you believe that the 'hidden' part of that dataset shows the truth, then you'd call that rigging the data, but I have no idea what you'd propose to base that conclusion on.
Never let the best be the enemy of the good.
See, that is why he is called WeaselKid.
Hey boy, is NASA wrong when they say the climate on Mars is changing.
Buy my carbon credit cos I don't need them. I am buying an even bigger car for Christmas.
I hope Santa brings you a lump of coal. Don't burn it to warm yourself. Just suck on it like a bullseye.
Investors.com
Last week, someone (probably a whistle-blower at the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, England) released e-mails and other documents written by Phil Jones, Michael Mann and other leading scientists who edit and control the content of the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
The e-mails appear to show a conspiracy to falsify data and suppress academic debate in order to exaggerate the possible threat of man-made global warming.
The misconduct exposed by the e-mails is so apparent that one scientist, Tim Ball, said it marked "the death blow to climate science." Another, Patrick Michaels, told the New York Times: "This is not a smoking gun; this is a mushroom cloud."
Although I am not a scientist, I know something about global warming, having written about the subject since 1993 and recently edited an 880-page comprehensive survey of the science and economics of global warming, titled "Climate Change Reconsidered," written by a team of nearly 40 scientists for the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change.
The content of the e-mails doesn't surprise me or other skeptics in the warming debate. We have been saying for many years that the leading alarmists have engaged in academic fraud, do not speak for the larger scientific community, and are exaggerating the scientific certainty of their claims.
Investors.com - 'Climate-Gate' Scandal Should Be Wake-Up Call For Press, Politicians
When the truth is found to be lies, and the hope within you dies...What then?
Global warming industry becomes too big to fail | Washington Examiner
Global warming industry becomes too big to fail
By: Timothy P. Carney
Examiner Columnist
November 25, 2009
"I'm in the process of trying to persuade Siemens Corp. (a company with half a million employees in 190 countries!) to donate me a little cash to do some CO2 measur[e]ments here in the UK -- looking promising," wrote Andrew Manning, a climate-science research fellow at the University of East Anglia, "so the last thing I need is news articles calling into question (again) observed temperature increases."
Manning's e-mail, written in October to a colleague at East Anglia University's Climate Research Unit, was one of the thousands of private communiques exposed to public view by a whistleblower or a hacker. The note and others like it reveal the intriguing relationship between industry giants like Siemens and the scientists driving climate change fears. More importantly, though, Manning's e-mail shows the incentives of climate scientists: Convince people there is a climate disaster coming, get more money.
When the truth is found to be lies, and the hope within you dies...What then?
Climategate: sack ‘no longer credible’ Michael Mann from IPCC urges climatologist – Telegraph Blogs
Not everyone shares the BBC’s rosy view of discredited Climategate scientist Michael Mann (inventor of the roundly discredited Hockey Stick graph and unlikely Youtube comedy musical star) (hat tip: Bishop Hill) (Still less will they do so after the gobsmacking revelations by Steve McIntyre that in his latest paper, he’s actually got his data UPSIDE DOWN!)
One of his IPCC co-authors Eduardo Zorita has demanded that Mann should be banned from contributing to future reports because his scientific assessments are “not credible any more.” Zorita also calls for the barring of CRU’s director Phil Jones and another IPCC lead author, Stefan Rahmstorf.
Zorita, who works in the paleoclimate department of the Institute of Coastal Research, has issued a statement on his website in which he complains that the “scientific debate has been in many instances hijacked to advance other agendas.”
When the truth is found to be lies, and the hope within you dies...What then?
UEA Climate Scientist: “possible that…I.P.C.C. has run its course”
27 11 2009
This is a surprise. Professor Mike Hulme of the University of East Anglia suggests that the “I.P.C.C. has run its course”. I agree with him. We really need to remove a wholly political organization, the United Nations, from science.
UEA Climate Scientist: “possible that…I.P.C.C. has run its course” Watts Up With That?
When the truth is found to be lies, and the hope within you dies...What then?
Reply With Quote