More proof that Anthropogenic Global Climate Change is utter bull ...
The high stakes of melting Himalayan glaciers
Just two years after that article and four years after the report, Mother Earth debunks the IPCC...The glaciers in the Himalayas are receding quicker than those in other parts of the world and could disappear altogether by 2035 according [MannyIsGod's almighty] 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report.
Himalayan glaciers not melting because of climate change, report finds
Himalayan glaciers are actually advancing rather than retreating, claims the first major study since a controversial UN report said they would be melted within quarter of a century.
I think you're wasting your time. the true believers aren't interested in facts.More proof that Anthropogenic Global Climate Change is utter bull ...
The high stakes of melting Himalayan glaciers
Just two years after that article and four years after the report, Mother Earth debunks the IPCC...
Himalayan glaciers not melting because of climate change, report finds
Oops. A peer-reviewed study by non-pseudoscientists. What are we to make of this information?
That is indeed a rather glaring -up on the part of the IPCC.More proof that Anthropogenic Global Climate Change is utter bull ...
The high stakes of melting Himalayan glaciers
Just two years after that article and four years after the report, Mother Earth debunks the IPCC...
Himalayan glaciers not melting because of climate change, report finds
It also highlights and supports the main assertion of the OP.Dr Pachauri, head of the Nobel prize-winning UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has remained silent on the matter since he was forced to admit his report's claim that the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035 was an error and had not been sourced from a peer-reviewed scientific journal. It came from a World Wildlife Fund report.
The main impetus of climate change skepticism is not a concern about the science, it is purely ideological, and as such tends to be dogmatic.
The fact that no one professing to be skeptical of man-made climate change/warming has admitted:
1) There is data that suggests that recent es in CO2 concentration in our atmosphere is warming the planet,
2) there is data that suggests that human activity is the cause of this increase in CO2, and
3) there is data that suggests that this warming can have some very profoundly negative consequences for our civilization.
... says volumes.
To that end I will readily accede:
1) There is data that suggests recent es in CO2 concentration is having no effect on the overall global temperatures.
2) There may be some data that suggests humans are not responsible for recent CO2 es (I haven't seen any yet, but allow for the possibility it exists)
3) There is data that suggests warming might have some good consequences.
4) The scientists studying this stuff WILL get things wrong on occasion.
Any real scientist would say essentially the same. One has to allow for the possibility that they are wrong. The IPCC takes some pains to admit there is a lot they *don't* know, especially about how the system of our earths climate interacts.
In this thread I have been pretty much unable to get honest, straight answers from anybody who professes to be a skeptic of man-made climate change.
The fact that one side admits they *might* be wrong, and the other side *won't* pretty much shows to anybody with common sense who is being honest.
It is, indeed.
PV costs are coming down, oddly enough because China has pushed renewable tech, and incubated its own PV industries.
Shocker.
As fossil fuels get closer their mathmatically certain depletion, the countries and areas with mature renewable energy sectors will benefit most.
I don't think that will be the US at this point. We will end up being an "also ran", which is sad because the need for renewables is so obvious and predictable, AGW aside.
That is, for me, the ultimate irony. Regardless of whether CO2 is warming the planet overall, we would still benefit economically from reducing our emissions, which is something else skeptics say we shouldn't do.
So, you're saying there is a good case for skepticism. No need for this thread then and no need for the term "deniers" or "pseudoscience".
/thread
Not at all.
I said "there is data".
From what I understand the data pretty much overwhelmingly shows CO2 to be the main cause of warming trends.
Taking what data there is, blowing it far out of proportion in terms of how much weight it should be given, and failing to acknowledge the shortcomings of that are quite the hallmarks of pseudoscience.
Nice try at spin though. THAT kind of intellectual dishonesty is the kind of thing that proves the premise of the OP.
/thread.
LOL Darrin finds a study that agrees with him and shows that the IPCC might have been wrong in an instance but ignores the thousands that don't agree with him. Amazing.
lol -- A study
How does CO2 correlate with tempreature vs total solar irradiance?
Go check and get back to me.
Oh, here's a peer-revied study
https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~wsoon/m...mpGRLfinal.pdf
It's okay RG, I used to believe that too.
Maybe the "real" climate science just needs better marketing.
Britons going cold on global warming: Number of climate change sceptics doubles in four years
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...l-warming.html
Good. As I said, I am sure there are some out there like this. I would be surprised if there wasn't.
By the by, did you actually notice the blurb at the end...?
Or did you choose to leave that rather pertinent bit out?This scientific research was supported by generous grants from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, American Petroleum Ins ute, and Exxon-Mobil Corporation.
lol..they also fund NPR.
Indeed they do.
I cannot logically dismiss any such scientific papers simply because they are funded by trillion dollar industries, and just happen to confirm how blameless those industries might be for a certain potential problem.
I can however, ask to see studies backing those up from more independent sources.
Time will tell though. Given that the next 24 years or so will see CO2 emissions equal to the last century or so, I can expect the evidence for/against CO2 as a warming factor to get much more stark.
All I really need to do is wait to see who is right. We live in the test tube.
We don't need certain knowledge however, to take some prudent risk-avoiding steps, while we wait to firm up our knowledge of the processes and overall system, as I have pointed out.
Such a conservative approach though, is eschewed by the people who would liberally accept risks that I do not.
lol...it's almost Pavlovian...when I read Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, I immediately thought of NPR.
You can certainly find studies that are at odds with aspects of AGW theory. Thats nothing new, and nothing to be unexpected. My point from earlier still stands, Darrin. You're cherry picking to find whatever suits your conformation bias. It is what it is.
Also, your cherry picking is ing horrible. The author of the peer reviewed paper you linked above has been discredited in the peer review process in several scientific journals. Feel free to do some research on him and his research.
Furthermore, when temperature goes up, so does CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. If you want to know why this isn't the case at the moment, you can look at the past rises in temp and tell me what the time frame was for CO2 rises and whether or not we currently fit into that pattern.
Willie Soon... sounds like a knock knock joke.
Knock knock..
who's there?
Willie Soon
Willie Soon who?
Willie Soon be writing scientific papers?
FWIW, the scientific critique of Darrin's given article.
Seems the evidence Soon used was less suited to temperature, and more suited to determining moisture/drought.
Astonishing what the peer review process actually does.First, in using proxy records to draw inferences about past climate, it is essential to assess their actual sensitivity to temperature variability. In particular, the authors say, Soon and Baliunas misuse proxy data reflective of changes in moisture or drought, rather than temperature, in their analysis.
Thats not the 2006 paper Darrin linked, RG.
from RG's prev post
7 July 2003
AGU Release No. 03-19
For Immediate Release
Contact: Peter Weiss
+1 (202) 777-7507
[email protected]
Leading Climate Scientists Reaffirm View that Late 20th Century Warming Was Unusual and Resulted From Human Activity
Read this. It's a very good paper and NOT funded by evil capitalist overlords.
Ah.. fair enough.
That is a good one, IMO.
While our results agree with the climate scientists findings in some
respects, our methods of estimating model uncertainty and accuracy are in
sharp disagreement.On the one hand, we conclude unequivocally that the evidence for a
”long-handled” hockey stick (where the shaft of the hockey stick extends
to the year 1000 AD) is lacking in the data. The fundamental problem is
that there is a limited amount of proxy data which dates back to 1000 AD;
what is available is weakly predictive of global annual temperature.The proxies for estimating past temperatures are only weakly predictive.Nevertheless, the temperatures
of the last few decades have been relatively warm compared to many of the
thousand year temperature curves sampled from the posterior distribution
of our model.
I can accept that rather unsurprising conclusion.
Even so, the authors point out something that occurred to me in my reading:
Given the increasing amount of modern satellite and measuring station data, we don't quite have to rely on such reconstructions to determine the issue one way or the other.Nonetheless, paleoclimatoligical reconstructions cons ute only
one source of evidence in the AGW debate.
Lastly:
Why did you not lead with links like this, and instead rely on ad hominems, and strawmen logical fallacies?
Not sure you noted that bit, but I think we can all agree it is getting a bit warmer at this point, yes?
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
