Climate Hoax

NOVA

U. S. NAVY Veteran
Will the pinheads like Cypress ever get it...????

===============
The global-warming establishment took a body blow this week, as the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change received a stunning rebuke from a top-notch independent investigation.

For two decades, the IPCC has spearheaded efforts to convince the world's governments that man-made carbon emissions pose a threat to the global temperature equilibrium -- and to civilization itself. IPCC reports, collated from the work of hundreds of climate scientists and bureaucrats, are widely cited as evidence for the urgent need for drastic action to "save the planet."

But the prestigious InterAcademy Council, an independent association of "the best scientists and engineers worldwide" (as the group's own Web site puts it) formed in 2000 to give "high-quality advice to international bodies," has finished a thorough review of IPCC practices -- and found them badly wanting.


Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinio...onsensus_G0kWdclUvwhVr6DYH6A4uJ#ixzz0yQpciNuP
 
Meanwhile. the earth is currently experiencing what is called a "major extinction event" - only 3 others in the 3 billion year+ history of the planet.

This "climate hoax" stuff is such a distraction. When the debate is finally over, it'll just be some of us humans, cockroaches, microbes & maybe some cats....
 
Meanwhile. the earth is currently experiencing what is called a "major extinction event" - only 3 others in the 3 billion year+ history of the planet.

This "climate hoax" stuff is such a distraction. When the debate is finally over, it'll just be some of us humans, cockroaches, microbes & maybe some cats....

since you're a reasonable guy on the climate change issue.....

what say you to the prior ice ages? to the prior climate changes? '

i'm sure you've made your point before, but i want to know your view as of now.
 
The method of the AGW religion:
Criticize the reference, not the science:
"wildly out of date" I guess physics changes with the political climate. And the "out of date" is getting rather ridiculous itself. But 2002 "wildly out of date"? Shows the desperation of the faithful in refusing any contrary data.

"bad science" I thought the requirement was peer reviewed science. Turns out the real requirement is "peer reviewed by AGW scientists that agrees with AGW scientists."

"It costs money to view, therefore it does not exist." (child with closed eyes, fingers in ears chanting "I can't hear you! I can't hear you!") Here is a hint: libraries - especially college or university libraries - are chock full of reference materials and scientific journals that don't need paid subscriptions to view. Ever wonder how students did research BEFORE GOOGLE?

In short, there isn't a single reference acceptable to the AGW religion. You'll have an easier time convincing a hard core biblical literalist that the earth is older than the 6000+ years derived from the Pentateuch.


And what do we get in return? Links to non-scientific papers extolling how well researched AGW is, how smart their scientists are and how stupid are scientists who disagree with them. WHERE IS THE ACTUAL RESEARCH? How about a few actual research papers instead of all the pseudo-scientific rhetoric?

Where is the research that proves we know what caused the last ice age. Where is the research showing we know what brought us out of the last ice age? Where is the research showing we know why there were no ice caps 1 million years ago? (ie: if we do not understand the NATURAL causes of climate change, how the hell can we differentiate between natural and man-made?)

WHY is the available research limited to a climatic model which is truncated at around 600,000 years ago? WHY does the available research ignore paleoclimatic data prior to ice core data? (ie: how do they defend the claims of "unprecedented" temperatures and CO2 levels when BOTH are known to have been mucch higher than today naturally?)

Articles that brag about how smart AGW scientists are do not answer these questions. IF such research actually exists, why is it not referenced when these questions are brought forth? Why is it these questions are always answered by referencing articles which simply claim they are answered without providing any of the actual answers?

In short: deny contrary data and research, use rhetoric in place of science. Those is the methods we see here. Nothing will change because we are quite literally looking at a new type of religious fanaticism.
 
Meanwhile. the earth is currently experiencing what is called a "major extinction event" - only 3 others in the 3 billion year+ history of the planet.

This "climate hoax" stuff is such a distraction. When the debate is finally over, it'll just be some of us humans, cockroaches, microbes & maybe some cats....
So which is the actual distraction? AGW theory, or those who object to the politicization of the science behind it all? Do we get ourselves ready for what will happen anyway (thus vastly increasing the chances that humans will be among the survivors), or do we try shoveling back the tides with a teaspoon, just in case human activity is somehow contributing to a multi-billion-year-old cycle?
 
The InterAcademy Report on the IPCC: A Rebuke of the IPCC? Or, Just Another Holiday Destination for Climate Skeptics Deniers?


Posted by BRAVO:

“the prestigious InterAcademy Council….. has finished a thorough review of IPCC practices – and found them badly wanting.!!

Thanks for posting some editorialized article from a right wing New York tabloid.

“Badly wanting?” ?? That's an interesting choice of words by your Rupert Murchod New York Tabloid

I suggest you read what the Chairman of the InterAcadmy Council to review IPCC said, rather than what some Rupert Murdoch tabloid tells you to think……..
”Overall, IPCC’s assessment process has been a success and served society well. The assessments have put IPCC on the world stage, raised public awareness of climate change, and driven policymakers to consider options for responding to climate change. Indeed, these were among the reasons IPCC was awarded a share of the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007.”

From: U.N. Press Conference
Aug. 30, 2010
Opening Statement by
Harold T. Shapiro, Chairman
of the InterAcademy Council Committee to Review the IPCC
The InterAcademy Report recommended improved processes and procedures. It was an administrative review. It did not look at, challenge, or debunk the science. The science and core findings synthesized by the IPCC has previously been upheld and validated by both the Dutch Government, and the U.S. National Research Council….

”Before I get to our key recommendations, I would like to note what our charge was and how we approached our task. We were asked by the Secretary-General and the IPCC Chair to focus on the processes and procedures of the IPCC, and to make recommendations aimed at strengthening the process by which future climate assessments are managed and prepared. We were not asked to re-referee the last IPCC assessment or to review the basic science of human-caused climate change”.

From: U.N. Press Conference
Aug. 30, 2010
Opening Statement by
Harold T. Shapiro, Chairman
of the InterAcademy Council Committee to Review the IPCC

The Chairman of the InterAcademy Council goes on to state that their administrative recommendations will allow IPCC to continue (his word) to provide “truly authoritative assessments” (again, the chairman’s own words). So the chairman recognizes that IPCC has been doing “truly authoritative work”, and feels that with the InterAcademy’s recommendations, IPCC will continue to do so.

Although we believe our recommendations will strengthen the assessment process, we also understand that in the end, the quality of the results depends on the quality of the leaders at all levels who guide the assessment process. It is only by continuing to engage the energy and expertise of a large cadre of distinguished scholars, as well as the thoughtful participation of government representatives, that high standards are maintained and that truly authoritative assessments continue to be produced. IPCC deserves credit for adapting to lessons learned in past assessments, and we hope that it will remain flexible and creative in moving forward. Thank you. We will be glad to take your questions now.

From: U.N. Press Conference
Aug. 30, 2010
Opening Statement by
Harold T. Shapiro, Chairman
of the InterAcademy Council Committee to Review the IPCC

http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/OpeningStatement.html


To Summarize:

The Chairman of the Report Bravo is referring to, reports that:

1) IPCC has done, overall, a successful and admirable job.

2) The InterAcademy recommends changes in administrative process and procedures. The InterAcademy did not assess the science of climate change.

3) IPCC has in the past done “truly authoritative assessments” (the Chairman’s own words), and if they adopt the InteraAcademy’s recommendations IPCC will continue to be highly credible and authoritative.

To read what the InterAcademy Report on the IPCC was really about, visit:

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=701591&postcount=32

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=701433&postcount=23



For actual credible science on climate change, supported by an migraine-inducing amount of links and science from the world’s most prestigious science organizations and the planet’s top climate scientists, visit:

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=683374&postcount=1
 
Last edited:
So which is the actual distraction? AGW theory, or those who object to the politicization of the science behind it all? Do we get ourselves ready for what will happen anyway (thus vastly increasing the chances that humans will be among the survivors), or do we try shoveling back the tides with a teaspoon, just in case human activity is somehow contributing to a multi-billion-year-old cycle?

I don't think it's a "just in case" situation. The debate will rage about AGW, which to me is unfortunate, because even if we are 100% behind AGW, there really isn't a way to stop it at this point (and certainly not with weak measures like token improvements in car performance).

There is no doubt whatsoever that man's activity is contributing to the mass extinctions going on, which will have extremely far-reaching effects. I'm not technically a Gaiaist, but I supposed I think like one: if we treat the planet only like it's a resource for us to use as we please, we're basically a parasite, and eventually the planet will find a way to eliminate that parasite.

"Unsustainable" is a popular buzzword, but it applies. The way we live know is completely unsustainable, and not even in the long term. I'm not optimistic that we'd make any of the changes that need to be made - when was the last time a politician brought up population control in a speech? - but if everyone really took a look at what is going on, I think there would be some agreement that a revolution of sorts is needed.
 
Meanwhile. the earth is currently experiencing what is called a "major extinction event" - only 3 others in the 3 billion year+ history of the planet.

This "climate hoax" stuff is such a distraction. When the debate is finally over, it'll just be some of us humans, cockroaches, microbes & maybe some cats....

really? What major extinction event is that?
 
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38976860/ns/technology_and_science-science/

It's all "chicken little" stuff until someone actually loses an eye...

LMAO... there was NO substance to that article at all. Just a few quotes regarding 'oh my god, the sky is falling'. No evidence presented, just pure speculation. It does mention an article on the topic was written up in Science, but did not link to it.

I will use your same source (MSNBC) so that I don't get any of the typical 'that is a right wing blog' bullshit....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20109284/

The National Science Foundation’s “Tree of Life” project estimates that there could be anywhere from 5 million to 100 million species on the planet, but science has only identified about 2 million.

hmmm... that is a MASSIVE range and even if it is the very low end of the range, we still have only identified 40% of the species. Which leads us to...

“We’ve only touched the surface of understanding animal life,” said entomologist Brian Fisher of the California Academy of Sciences. “We’ve discovered just 10 percent of all living things on this planet.”

We have very little understanding of species on this planet. Yes, we can always point to specific species that are in danger of extinction. An estimated 30-150 go extinct every day. Some due to changes man has caused to be certain (ie... deforestation is likely the largest cause)

While we should do what we can to limit our impact on the planet, the chants of population control and the fear mongering on the fraudulent global warming fiasco are a detriment to the discussion.

We can fit the entire human population of the earth in TX and we produce more food than we need. While you and I agree that there are many things we can do to improve our impact (ie, reduction in fossil fuel usage, more R&D in alt/clean energy etc...) all this chicken little crap needs to stop.
 
LMAO... there was NO substance to that article at all. Just a few quotes regarding 'oh my god, the sky is falling'. No evidence presented, just pure speculation. It does mention an article on the topic was written up in Science, but did not link to it.

I will use your same source (MSNBC) so that I don't get any of the typical 'that is a right wing blog' bullshit....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20109284/



hmmm... that is a MASSIVE range and even if it is the very low end of the range, we still have only identified 40% of the species. Which leads us to...



We have very little understanding of species on this planet. Yes, we can always point to specific species that are in danger of extinction. An estimated 30-150 go extinct every day. Some due to changes man has caused to be certain (ie... deforestation is likely the largest cause)

While we should do what we can to limit our impact on the planet, the chants of population control and the fear mongering on the fraudulent global warming fiasco are a detriment to the discussion.

We can fit the entire human population of the earth in TX and we produce more food than we need. While you and I agree that there are many things we can do to improve our impact (ie, reduction in fossil fuel usage, more R&D in alt/clean energy etc...) all this chicken little crap needs to stop.

Eh - get back to me in about 30 years.

If you can't see what's going on, I can't do much for you. People like to talk about all of the "chicken little" predictions that didn't come true, but coral reefs are dying en masse, habitat is being lost en masse, there is a dead zone in the gulf that is incomprehensibly huge, the oceanic food chain is dangerously close to the tipping point, etc. etc. etc.

What planet are you looking at? The one I'm seeing is screaming "unsustainable."
 
Onzies, I think you are nuttier than Prissy!

Wow - what a well-constructed, devastating argument (and an outstanding contribution to the thread, I might add).

Oh, wait; I forgot. This is science. Not exactly one of your strong suits (remember "but what did the arm evolve FROM?!!!!!)

LOL
 
Eh - get back to me in about 30 years.

If you can't see what's going on, I can't do much for you. People like to talk about all of the "chicken little" predictions that didn't come true, but coral reefs are dying en masse, habitat is being lost en masse, there is a dead zone in the gulf that is incomprehensibly huge, the oceanic food chain is dangerously close to the tipping point, etc. etc. etc.

What planet are you looking at? The one I'm seeing is screaming "unsustainable."
Left wing fear mongering....its what they do best........

30 years ???? Maybe you'll remember the fear mongering by the lefty nuts just 30 years ago.....

Earth Day Predictions, April 22, 1970

"We have about five more years at the outside to do something."
-- Kenneth Watt, ecologist

"Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind."
-- George Wald, Harvard Biologist

"We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation."
-- Barry Commoner, Washington University biologist

"Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction."
-- New York Times editorial, the day after the first Earth Day

"Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years."
-- Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

"By...[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s."
-- Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

"It is already too late to avoid mass starvation."
-- Denis Hayes, chief organizer for Earth Day

"Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions....By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine."
-- Peter Gunter, professor, North Texas State University

"Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support...the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution...by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half...."
-- Life Magazine, January 1970

"At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it's only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable."
-- Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

"Air pollution...is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone."
-- Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

"We are prospecting for the very last of our resources and using up the nonrenewable things many times faster than we are finding new ones."
-- Martin Litton, Sierra Club director

"By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate...that there won't be any more crude oil. You'll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill 'er up, buddy,' and he'll say, `I am very sorry, there isn't any.'"
-- Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

"Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct."
-- Sen. Gaylord Nelson

"The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age."
-- Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

Fear mongering nuts from30 years ago.....make you laugh today with the nonsense they predicted...
The same is happening today and the fools like Cypress and Onecell buy it all over again, hook, line and sinker....how pathetic
 
Eh - get back to me in about 30 years.

If you can't see what's going on, I can't do much for you. People like to talk about all of the "chicken little" predictions that didn't come true, but coral reefs are dying en masse, habitat is being lost en masse, there is a dead zone in the gulf that is incomprehensibly huge, the oceanic food chain is dangerously close to the tipping point, etc. etc. etc.

What planet are you looking at? The one I'm seeing is screaming "unsustainable."

LMAO... try reading your OWN links...

"They don't seem to do well when there's a big environmental change," he explained. "It's possible that future reef builders won't be corals at all. At different times in the past, reefs have been built by such organisms as sponges and clams."

Coral reefs have come and gone in the past. This chicken little crap is exactly the type of knee jerk reactionary bullshit that is detrimental to accomplishing any real strides in improving the environment. Because people like you garner the attention of the media and they hype these overly sensationalistic bullshit scenarios (see Al Gore's propaganda piece) and then normal people tune out real problems and real potential solutions when the overly glorified potential 'catastrophes' don't happen. (see 'mo hurricanes than ever before' Al Gore)

There is a great deal that can be done, but most people will tune out the environmentalists as long as they continue to let the lunatics run the asylum.
 
LMAO... try reading your OWN links...



Coral reefs have come and gone in the past. This chicken little crap is exactly the type of knee jerk reactionary bullshit that is detrimental to accomplishing any real strides in improving the environment. Because people like you garner the attention of the media and they hype these overly sensationalistic bullshit scenarios (see Al Gore's propaganda piece) and then normal people tune out real problems and real potential solutions when the overly glorified potential 'catastrophes' don't happen. (see 'mo hurricanes than ever before' Al Gore)

There is a great deal that can be done, but most people will tune out the environmentalists as long as they continue to let the lunatics run the asylum.

Why are you cherrypicking coral reefs, and ignoring the rest? Do you want more? I can put a few dozen on that list.

What do you think the death of the CURRENT structure of coral reef is doing to the oceanic food chain? Have you read about that food chain in general...are you aware of the nature of demand vs. supply when it comes to the ocean? Btw, most of what I have read has come from fishermen & those in that industry....not greenie "wackos".

Do you think that the way we're living, with exponential population growth, is sustainable...yes or no?
 
Nice cherrypicked list on bravo's part, btw - take the most extreme stuff you can find.

Why don't you dig up the predictions that have been spot on - coral reefs disappearing, accelerated extinction of species, massive loss of habitat, disruption of the oceanic food supply & impending scarcity of the oceanic food supply, massive loss of coastline, significant increase in "dead" areas like the Gulf dead zone, whole fishing areas rendered useless from pollution, toxic indexes in most major cities for air quality safety, etc.

Nah - all of those greenies were just soooooo wrong. Everything is fine; the water is pure, the air is breathable & we've got food to last for centuries....
 
Wow - what a well-constructed, devastating argument (and an outstanding contribution to the thread, I might add).

Oh, wait; I forgot. This is science. Not exactly one of your strong suits (remember "but what did the arm evolve FROM?!!!!!)

LOL

Well see, you're a different species than me, so your arm obviously evolved from a chicken wing. Mine was always an arm, since the day God created me. Yes, I admit, I am not bound by the religious faith of science, I recognize science as a useful tool God has given man to understand the universe around him, but as is often the case with fallible humans, some of them think they are smarter than God, and adopt a faith-based view of science over God.
 
Back
Top