Magox Posted February 8, 2010 Posted February 8, 2010 Another Global warming threat bites the dust.... First it was the purposeful manipulation of data to back their evangelistic crusade on "Global Warming" on the "Climate Gate" issue, then we find out that their claims on the Himalayans ice caps melting was utter bull ****, now this. It’s not just the threat of Himalayan glaciers disappearing by 2035. Now another headline grabbing IPCC scare story is melting away. A report in Sunday’s London Times highlights new humiliations for the IPCC. “The most important is a claim that global warming could cut rain-fed north African crop production by up to 50% by 2020, a remarkably short time for such a dramatic change. The claim has been quoted in speeches by Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, and by Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary-general.” There is however one teensy-weensy little problem. As Professor Chris Field, the lead author of the IPCC’s climate impact team has now told reporters that he can find “no evidence” to support the claim in the IPCC’s 2007 report. There’s more. When the glacier story broke, IPCC apologists returned over and over again to a saving grace. The bogus glacier report appeared in the body of the IPCC document, but not in the much more carefully vetted Synthesis Report, in which the IPCC’s senior leadership made its specific recommendations to world leaders. So it didn’t matter that much, the apologists told us, and we can still trust the rigorously checked and reviewed Synthesis Report. But that’s where the African rain crisis prediction is found — in the supposedly sacrosanct Synthesis Report. So the Synthesis Report contains a major scare prediction — 50% shortfall in North African food production just ten years from now — and there is no serious, peer-reviewed evidence that the prediction is true. But there’s more. Much, much more. Readers of the Times and the Telegraph are watching the IPCC’s credibility disappear before their eyes. The former head of IPCC has publicly said the organization risks losing all credibility if it can’t clean up its act. The head of the largest British funder of environmental research has joined the head of Greenpeace UK in criticizing the IPCC. (At Greenpeace, they want Pachauri to resign.) The Dutch government has demanded that the IPCC correct its erroneous assertion that half of the Netherlands is below sea level. Actually, it’s only about a quarter. A prediction about the impact of sea level increases on people living in the Nile Delta was taken from an unpublished student dissertation. The report contained inaccurate data about generating energy from waves and about the cost of nuclear power (this information was apparently taken without being checked directly from a website supported by the nuclear power industry). The deeply environmentalist Guardian carries a story documenting the decline in both public and Conservative Party confidence in the need to address global warming.
DC Tom Posted February 8, 2010 Posted February 8, 2010 Another Global warming threat bites the dust.... First it was the purposeful manipulation of data to back their evangelistic crusade on "Global Warming" on the "Climate Gate" issue, then we find out that their claims on the Himalayans ice caps melting was utter bull ****, now this. I wish to reiterate: the IPCC is a political body, not a scientific one. In a sane world, stories like this would have no impact on the science itself, as in a sane world people would understand the IPCC is not just full of ****, but is mandated to be full of ****. In THIS world, however...people assume the IPCC is a scientific body.
Magox Posted February 8, 2010 Author Posted February 8, 2010 I wish to reiterate: the IPCC is a political body, not a scientific one. In a sane world, stories like this would have no impact on the science itself, as in a sane world people would understand the IPCC is not just full of ****, but is mandated to be full of ****. In THIS world, however...people assume the IPCC is a scientific body. The only problem is people like Ban Ki-Moon repeat these claims to push their agenda, which in all actuality would have a tremendous impact on the global economy.
DC Tom Posted February 8, 2010 Posted February 8, 2010 The only problem is people like Ban Ki-Moon repeat these claims to push their agenda, which in all actuality would have a tremendous impact on the global economy. And let me reiterate: the IPCC is a POLITICAL organization that is full of **** by mandate. Of course Ban Ki-Moon repeats their claims - the IPCC lobbies to him, according to their mandate of pushing the idea of man-made climate change to the expense of any and all other possible explanations. LaDumbass would call that scientific FRAUD [sic]. Fact is, it's not even science, it's policy. The IPCC does not "do" any science, it "consumes" (so to speak) science and generates policy...and is the worst example of how to derive public policy from science. Now, is that a "problem"? Not within the context of the IPCC itself, since it does exactly what it was created to do.
Magox Posted February 8, 2010 Author Posted February 8, 2010 And let me reiterate: the IPCC is a POLITICAL organization that is full of **** by mandate. Of course Ban Ki-Moon repeats their claims - the IPCC lobbies to him, according to their mandate of pushing the idea of man-made climate change to the expense of any and all other possible explanations. LaDumbass would call that scientific FRAUD [sic]. Fact is, it's not even science, it's policy. The IPCC does not "do" any science, it "consumes" (so to speak) science and generates policy...and is the worst example of how to derive public policy from science. Now, is that a "problem"? Not within the context of the IPCC itself, since it does exactly what it was created to do. But but they won the Nobel Peace Prize along side Al Gore. That's got to count for something. You're right though, they only base their conclusions not on any sort of discoveries that they find but on peer review and published scientific literature.
/dev/null Posted February 9, 2010 Posted February 9, 2010 Heretics! Repent or the Earth shall do unto us as was done to Haiti for our lack of faith in Copenhagen. Have you not read the Gospel of Danny Glover?
DC Tom Posted February 9, 2010 Posted February 9, 2010 You're right though, they only base their conclusions not on any sort of discoveries that they find but on peer review and published scientific literature. Not even, by the looks of what we're finding out.
IDBillzFan Posted February 9, 2010 Posted February 9, 2010 Another Global warming threat bites the dust.... First it was the purposeful manipulation of data to back their evangelistic crusade on "Global Warming" on the "Climate Gate" issue, then we find out that their claims on the Himalayans ice caps melting was utter bull ****, now this. Looks like Barry has had enough, and will tackle Global Warming on his own. Administration Proposes New Agency to Study Climate Change WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration on Monday proposed a new agency to study and report on the changing climate, which has drawn concern among many scientists in recent years. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke and Jane Lubchenco, head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, announced NOAA will set up the new Climate Service to operate in tandem with NOAA's National Weather Service and National Ocean Service. "Whether we like it or not, climate change represents a real threat," Locke said Monday at a news conference. Lubchenco added, "Climate change is real, it's happening now." She said climate information is vital to the wind power industry, coastal community planning, fishermen and fishery managers, farmers and public health officials. NOAA recently reported that the decade of 2000-2009 was the warmest on record worldwide; the previous warmest decade was the 1990s. Many atmospheric scientists believe that global warming is largely due to human actions, adding gases to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels such as coal and natural gas. Researchers and leaders from around the world met last month in Denmark to discuss ways to reduce climate-warming emissions, and a follow-up session is planned for later this year in Mexico. But a U.N. report that preceded the conference in Copenhagen has been widely disputed after much of the data in it was found to have been gathered unscientifically. "More and more people are asking for more and more information about climate and how it's going to affect them," Lubchenco explained. So officials decided to combine climate operations into a single unit. Portions of the Weather Service that have been studying climate, as well as offices from some other NOAA agencies, will be transferred to the new NOAA Climate Service. The new agency will initially be led by Thomas Karl, director of the current National Climatic Data Center. The Climate Service will be headquartered in Washington and will have six regional directors across the country. Lubchenco also announced a new NOAA climate portal on the Internet to collect a vast array of climatic data from NOAA and other sources. It will be "one-stop shopping into a world of climate information," she said. Creation of the Climate Service requires a series of steps, including congressional committee approval. But if all goes well, it should be finished by the end of the year, officials said. In recent years, a widespread private weather forecasting industry has grown up around the National Weather Service, and Lubchenco said she anticipates growth of private climate-related business around the new agency. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Alaska Darin Posted February 9, 2010 Posted February 9, 2010 Looks like some more of the "Change" we've been sold that's actually wrapped up in "**** we've been doing and can't afford". A new agency. Huge surprise.
DC Tom Posted February 9, 2010 Posted February 9, 2010 Looks like Barry has had enough, and will tackle Global Warming on his own. So let's see if I have this straight: We already have NOAA's NWS and NOS, and NASA, and the NSF, and the GCRP created by the GCRA Act of 1990 that includes DOD, HUD, DOE, HHS, USAID, the EPA, and DOT all studying and reporting on climate change. So the clear and obvious solution to climate change is to create another !@#$ing government agency???? Funny thing is, it's a better jobs creation program than his actual jobs creation program.
Frit0 Bandit0 Posted February 9, 2010 Posted February 9, 2010 Meanwhile, can someone figure out a solution for Plastic soup in our ocean
Alaska Darin Posted February 9, 2010 Posted February 9, 2010 Meanwhile, can someone figure out a solution for Plastic soup in our ocean That's pretty much the argument I've been making all along. If envirohippies were serious about the environment, they'd demand that all this money that's going toward this garbage science be used to deal with real environmental problems.
LaDairis Posted February 9, 2010 Posted February 9, 2010 DC Tom is trying to weasel-wordsmith his way out of the truth that he both believed The FRAUD and pushed it here. The FRAUD was always a FRAUD, an OBVIOUS ONE at that. Nobody worth a salt in science was ever fooled by it.
DC Tom Posted February 9, 2010 Posted February 9, 2010 DC Tom is trying to weasel-wordsmith his way out of the truth that he both believed The FRAUD and pushed it here. The FRAUD was always a FRAUD, an OBVIOUS ONE at that. Nobody worth a salt in science was ever fooled by it. You and conner really have to get together and discuss my pro/anti-global warming leanings. I'd pay money to watch that argument.
Gary M Posted February 9, 2010 Posted February 9, 2010 But but they won the Nobel Peace Prize along side Al Gore. That's got to count for something. You're right though, they only base their conclusions not on any sort of discoveries that they find but on peer review and published scientific literature. And they promoted the "scientific consenus" which was a group of climbers.
/dev/null Posted February 9, 2010 Posted February 9, 2010 Senator Jim Demint R-SC tweets: It's going to keep snowing in DC until Al Gore cries "uncle" http://thehill.com/blogs/twitter-room/othe...ore-cries-uncle
Magox Posted February 9, 2010 Author Posted February 9, 2010 Senator Jim Demint R-SC tweets:It's going to keep snowing in DC until Al Gore cries "uncle" http://thehill.com/blogs/twitter-room/othe...ore-cries-uncle I saw that
Alaska Darin Posted February 9, 2010 Posted February 9, 2010 DC Tom is trying to weasel-wordsmith his way out of the truth that he both believed The FRAUD and pushed it here. The FRAUD was always a FRAUD, an OBVIOUS ONE at that. Nobody worth a salt in science was ever fooled by it. There is a policy on this board about crusading. I'm giving you a very public warning because you seem to need it.
DC Tom Posted February 10, 2010 Posted February 10, 2010 There is a policy on this board about crusading. I'm giving you a very public warning because you seem to need it. Please...not until he explains my unabashedly pro-global warming stance. You may as well just ban him now. You know he's going to respond to your warning with something akin to "My dad can beat up your dad!"
LaDairis Posted February 10, 2010 Posted February 10, 2010 Please...not until he explains my unabashedly pro-global warming stance. You may as well just ban him now. You know he's going to respond to your warning with something akin to "My dad can beat up your dad!" You specifically ripped me for claiming GW is a fraud. You said it was not a fraud. Well, you were wrong. Different day, same result...
Recommended Posts