GLOBAL WARMING

[Park Life 71]

What's coming is much much worse than a little global warming. That I reckon is just the holding position for now.

[Gemmill 44864]

LSD for Christmas, Parky?

[Park Life 71]

LSD for Christmas, Parky?

 

Jesus loves acid.

[AgentAxeman 178]

"Claims by the world's leading climate scientists that most of the Himalayan glaciers will vanish within 25 years were last night exposed as nonsense.

 

The alarmist warning appeared two years ago in a highly influential report by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

 

At the time the IPCC insisted that its report contained the latest and most detailed evidence yet of the risks of man-made climate change to the planet.

The Himalayas

 

But the experts behind the warning have now admitted their claim was not based on hard science - but a news story that appeared in the magazine New Scientist in the late 1990s.

 

That story was itself based on a telephone conversation with an Indian scientist who has since admitted it was little more than speculation.

 

The revelation is a major blow to the credibility of the IPCC which was set up to provide political leaders with clear, independent advice on climate change.

 

It follows the 'Climategate' email row in which scientists at the University of East Anglia appeared to have manipulated data to strengthen the case for man-made climate change.

 

Dr Benny Peiser, of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, said: 'The IPCC review process has been shown on numerous occasions to lack transparency and due diligence.

 

'Its work is controlled by a tightly knit group of individuals who are completely convinced that they are right. As a result, conflicting data and evidence, even if published in peer reviewed journals, are regularly ignored, while exaggerated claims, even if contentious or not peer-reviewed, are often highlighted in IPCC reports.

 

'Not surprisingly, the IPCC has lost a lot of credibility in recent years. It is also losing the trust of more and more governments who are no longer following its advice - as the Copenhagen summit showed.'

 

The flawed claim appeared in chapter ten of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, which stated: 'Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate.'

 

Rather than being based on a peer-reviewed, published scientific study, the claim was borrowed from a 2005 report by the campaigning green charity WWF.

 

The WWF, in turn, took the claim from a 1999 report in New Scientist. The magazine based its story on a phone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi.

 

Dr Hasnain now says the comment was 'pure speculation'.

 

The gaffe is a major embarrassment for the IPCC.

 

Yesterday Prof Murari Lal, who edited the section on glaciers in the IPCC report, told a Sunday newspaper: 'If Hasnain says officially that he never asserted this, or that it is a wrong presumption, than I will recommend-that the assertion about Himalayan glaciers be removed from future IPCC assessments.'"

 

 

oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.............

[Happy Face 29]

Daily Mail Axeman

[Park Life 71]

It's all unravelling.

 

Punkawallah claims monkeys type the Bahgwad Gita.

[AgentAxeman 178]

Daily Mail Axeman

 

 

aye, its from the mail but its still pretty damning tho.

[AgentAxeman 178]

It's all unravelling.

 

Punkawallah claims monkeys type the Bahgwad Gita.

 

 

You and your CRAZY!! conspiracy theories!

 

[Happy Face 29]

Daily Mail Axeman

 

 

aye, its from the mail but its still pretty damning tho.

 

That's the point of propaganda though.

 

What's happened is the scientific community has corrected one of its own more spurious hypotheses because the evidence isn't there. That's what's good about science.

 

 

Undoubtedly, it makes the IPCC look foolish to have printed such an unchecked claim in the first place, but for the sake of balance The Telegraph is in less of a rush to suggest climate conspiracy...

 

It’s the best news of the decade so far, but not for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the official ultimate authority on climate science, for it poses a much greater threat to its credibility than the much-hyped “Climategate” emails and puts further questionmarks over its embattled chairman, Dr Rajendra Pachauri.

 

Reports today suggest that the IPCC may soon retract one of the more alarming predictions in its latest massive review of climate science, that the glaciers of the Himalayas are very likely to disappear by 2035, after it was found to be unjustified. That is emphatically good news for the world. At least three quarters of a million people in the most populous part of the planet depend on the glaciers for water: their rapid disappearance would be an unimaginable catastrophe.

 

Leading glaciologist Prof Graham Cogley of Ontario’s Trent University – who says that, at current rates, the melting might take ten times longer – has been worried for some time about the prediction. At one stage he thought IPCC had wrongly transposed two figures in the date from a 1996 scientific paper that forecast the glaciers’ disappearance by 2350. But the truth is even more embarrassing. It goes back to a story published in New Scientist in 1999 by its excellent environment specialist, Fred Pearce, which reported an Indian glaciologist Syed Husnain as saying they could be gone by 2035. This was mentioned six years later in a campaigning document by the environment group, WWF, and the IPCC then picked it up.

 

This is serious, as the authority of the IPCC rests on meticulously basing its reports on peer-reviewed literature and, indeed, on taking a conservative view. Traditionally it has erred on the side of caution, sometimes excessively so. In the same report, for example, it grossly underestimated future sea-level rise, by excluding contributions form melting ice from the Greenland and Antarctic ice-sheets, though these would be major factors: last December a highly authoritative report suggested that its forecast level should be doubled.

 

Dr Pachauri may be even more damaged, thanks to his reported reaction to an Indian paper late last year which suggested that the glaciers were not disappearing rapidly, leading the country’s environment minister, Jairem Ramesh to accuse the IPCC of being “alarmist”. Pachauri was widely reported as dismissing the paper as “voodoo science”, adding: “We have a very clear idea of what is happening” in the Himalayas.

 

Pachauri’s judgment has been questioned, and the finances of the Energy and Resources Institute, which he heads, have come under critical scrutiny not least in The Sunday Telegraph. As it happens, he became chairman largely as a result of lobbying for him by the Bush administration, which was determined to get rid of his predecessor – the highly respected Dr Robert Watson, now chief scientist at Defra – after Exxon complained that Dr Watson was “too aggressive” and sent a memorandum to the White House specifically asking for him to be “replaced at the request of the US”.

 

The affair has much more potential to undermine IPCC than the “Climategate” e-mails. A definitive view on them must await the inquiries now being carried out, but the most quoted - in which Prof. Phil Jones, of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit, described using a “trick” to “hide the decline” – has been widely misinterpreted to suggest that he was trying to cover up a much-touted fall in world temperatures since 1998, an abnormally hot year. In fact it was written in 1999 and referred to anomalous data from tree rings in Siberia in the 1960s which suggested that the world was cooling when the thermometer accurately showed it to be warming.

 

The saving grace for climate science is that the sloppiness of the IPCC’s treatment of the Himalayan glaciers has been exposed from within the community. Prof Cogley, moreover, confirms that the glaciers are melting as the world warms up, if not as fast, and says that the mistake does not in any way invalidate the case for global warming. He says that, “in its totality” the evidence for climate change “is compelling”, adding: “There is no room for reasonable doubt that glaciers in the Himalayas and Karakoram are losing mass, and it is quite probable that the rate of loss has accelerated recently.”

 

If he is right, ironically, his correction may strengthen the case for action. If the glaciers indeed had indeed been due to disappear by 2035, the world might have found that next to impossible to prevent in time. A much slower melting gives a chance for realistic timetables for reducing carbon emissions to take effect.

 

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geoffrey...ate-scientists/

[Park Life 71]

What has science solved? The planet is overpopulated and we're running out of food and water and oil.....Yet we stil don't have those levitating cars like in the Jetsons.

Edited January 18, 2010 by Park Life

[AgentAxeman 178]

What has science solved? The planet is overpopulated and we're running out of food and water and oil.....Yet we stil don't have those levitating cars like in the Jetsons.

 

 

aye, fuckin scientists! they PROMISED i'd be living on the moon, wearing bacofoil trousers and eating all my food in pill form by now. barstewards1!1!

 

[Happy Face 29]

What has science solved? The planet is overpopulated and we're running out of food and water and oil.....Yet we stil don't have those levitating cars like in the Jetsons.

 

 

aye, fuckin scientists! they PROMISED i'd be living on the moon, wearing bacofoil trousers and eating all my food in pill form by now. barstewards1!1!

 

 

I think you're confusing science and make believe stories.

 

A bit like the Daily Mail.

[Park Life 71]

I blame the Romans.

[snakehips 0]

What has science solved? The planet is overpopulated and we're running out of food and water and oil.....Yet we stil don't have those levitating cars like in the Jetsons.

 

aye, fuckin scientists! they PROMISED i'd be living on the moon, wearing bacofoil trousers and eating all my food in pill form by now. barstewards1!1!

 

 

But believing them didn't mean you had to start wearing the bacofoil trousers now, man!! I've seen you. You look ridiculous.

 

 

The cold snap in UK resulted in one or two Doubting Thomases asking what happened to Global Warming. As a balance to that argument, I was talking to a Canadian friend a couple of days ago (he lives on the east coast) and asked him what the weather was like at home. He said that ordinarily he would be 'up to his armpits' in snow, yet they had hardly had a flake this year. Global warming, like the Lord, works in mysterious ways!

[Happy Face 29]

Global warming, like the Lord, is over 90% certainly man-made.

 

FYP

[ChezGiven 0]

Global warming, like the Lord, is over 90% certainly man-made.

 

FYP

 

And just like the Lord, people think it is better to err on the side of caution and believe in global warming / God as they are all protagonists of Regret Theory.

 

In fact, the 'just in case' camp are remarkably similar in both contexts.

Edited January 18, 2010 by ChezGiven

[Park Life 71]

Global warming, like the Lord, is over 90% certainly man-made.

 

FYP

 

And just like the Lord, people think it is better to err on the side of caution and believe in global warming / God as they are all protagonists of Regret Theory.

 

In fact, the 'just in case' camp are remarkably similar in both contexts.

 

As with all belief systems where the facts are disputed.

 

On this topic I notice the word hypnosis continues with changes in the popular lexicon to do with global warming - climate change...Sceptic - denier.

[AgentAxeman 178]

Scientists exaggerated impact of climate change, says Government's chief adviser

 

 

Professor John Beddington: Scientists should be more open about uncertainty

 

Scientists have exaggerated the impact of climate change and need to be more honest about how difficult it is to predict, the Government’s chief scientific adviser said today.

 

Professor John Beddington added that experts should be less hostile to sceptics who question man-made global warming.

 

And he condemned those who refuse to publish full report data, adding that public confidence in climate science would be boosted by greater honesty about its uncertainties.

 

Professor Beddington was speaking in the wake of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) admission that it had made a mistake by claiming that Himalayan glaciers could melt away by 2035.

 

That followed the 'Climategate' row over whether researchers at East Anglia University manipulated evidence to support a theory of man-made global warming.

 

An investigation is now looking at leaked email exchanges to see if there is any evidence of manipulation or suppression of data which would call into question the research findings of the university's Climatic Research Unit.

 

The centre's director Professor Phil Jones has stood down from the post while the inquiry takes place.

 

‘I don’t think it’s healthy to dismiss proper scepticism. Science grows and improves in the light of criticism,’ Professor Beddington said.

 

'There is a fundamental uncertainty about climate change prediction that can’t be changed.’

 

He said that the false claim in the IPCC’s 2007 report revealed a wider problem with the way that some evidence was presented.

 

‘Certain unqualified statements have been unfortunate. We have a problem in communicating uncertainty,’ he told The Times.

 

‘There’s definitely an issue there. If there wasn’t, there wouldn’t be the level of scepticism. All of these predictions have to be caveated by saying, “There’s a level of uncertainty about that”.’

 

Himalayan glaciers: Claims they will melt by 2035 were not backed up, the UN said

 

Professor Beddington also said that large-scale climate modelling using computers resulted in ‘quite substantial uncertainties’ that should be communicated.

 

He said: ‘It’s unchallengeable that CO2 traps heat and warms the Earth and that burning fossil fuels shoves billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere. But where you can get challenges is on the speed of change.

 

‘When you get into large-scale climate modelling there are quite substantial uncertainties. On the rate of change and the local effects, there are uncertainties both in terms of empirical evidence and the climate models themselves.’

 

Urging scientists to release their data to their critics, he said: ‘I think, wherever possible, we should try to ensure there is openness and that source material is available for the whole scientific community.

[Christmas Tree 4725]

Depeche Mode --- The climate change song

 

 

 

 

The CRU claim our planet's nearly dead,

And I couldn't give a fuck, I couldn't give a fuck,

Their data's all a con, you can't believe a thing they said,

And I couldn't give a fuck, I couldn't give a fuck,

 

The climate's changing, they say it's our fault,

But I really just can't give a fuck,

 

They just won't recognise their data's incomplete,

And I couldn't give a fuck, I couldn't give a fuck,

They castigate for driving cars and even eating meat,

And I couldn't give a fuck, I couldn't give a fuck,

 

They say that CO2 will kill us all,

But I really just can't give a fuck,

 

I couldn't give a fuck,

. . .

I couldn't give a fuck...

 

And when it rains, it's shown on BBC,

And I couldn't give a fuck, I couldn't give a fuck,

They claim the deluge is down to you and me,

And I couldn't give a fuck, I couldn't give a fuck,

 

The climate cycles as it always does,

And I really just can't give a fuck,

 

I couldn't give a fuck,

Repeat to the end of the world....

[Happy Face 29]

Scientist reports outcome of experiments show 90% liklihood of Global Warming being man made - The sceptics dismiss it.

 

Scientist reports we can't be 100% about it - The sceptics are all over it.

 

 

Most of us see that both reports are factual.

[Park Life 71]

Scientist reports outcome of experiments show 90% liklihood of Global Warming being man made - The sceptics dismiss it.

 

Scientist reports we can't be 100% about it - The sceptics are all over it.

 

 

Most of us see that both reports are factual.

 

Scientist have been wrong about almost everything since day one.

[Happy Face 29]

Scientist reports outcome of experiments show 90% liklihood of Global Warming being man made - The sceptics dismiss it.

 

Scientist reports we can't be 100% about it - The sceptics are all over it.

 

 

Most of us see that both reports are factual.

 

Scientist have been wrong about almost everything since day one.

 

Aye, we know.

 

That rocket never got anyone to the moon. It was a Roger Corman production.

 

[Park Life 71]

Scientist reports outcome of experiments show 90% liklihood of Global Warming being man made - The sceptics dismiss it.

 

Scientist reports we can't be 100% about it - The sceptics are all over it.

 

 

Most of us see that both reports are factual.

 

Scientist have been wrong about almost everything since day one.

 

Aye, we know.

 

That rocket never got anyone to the moon. It was a Roger Corman production.

 

 

The rocket was built by Germans during wartime. Litte to do with science more to do with survival.

[Guest alex]

Scientist reports outcome of experiments show 90% liklihood of Global Warming being man made - The sceptics dismiss it.

 

Scientist reports we can't be 100% about it - The sceptics are all over it.

 

 

Most of us see that both reports are factual.

 

Scientist have been wrong about almost everything since day one.

 

Aye, we know.

 

That rocket never got anyone to the moon. It was a Roger Corman production.

 

 

The rocket was built by Germans during wartime. Litte to do with science more to do with survival.

No it wasn't. It was built by German rocket scientists after the war. It took them a long time to perfect it and it was borne out of the Cold War Space Race.

[Park Life 71]

Scientist reports outcome of experiments show 90% liklihood of Global Warming being man made - The sceptics dismiss it.

 

Scientist reports we can't be 100% about it - The sceptics are all over it.

 

 

Most of us see that both reports are factual.

 

Scientist have been wrong about almost everything since day one.

 

Aye, we know.

 

That rocket never got anyone to the moon. It was a Roger Corman production.

 

 

The rocket was built by Germans during wartime. Litte to do with science more to do with survival.

No it wasn't. It was built by German rocket scientists after the war. It took them a long time to perfect it and it was borne out of the Cold War Space Race.

 

Whatever, just a big firework innit.