Society/Culture UN wrongly linked global warming to natural disasters

[Hawkamania!]

All you, and your fellow deniers, are doing is sandpapering the edges of a very robust structure.

Sorry george, but at this stage it is more of a case of skeptics sandpapering the sawdust remains of the un's political based ipcc while the alarmists try to maintain a facade of a "structure" out of said sawdust.

Its time to disband the ipcc and allow climate scientists to get on with actual studies based on true scientific methods and transparent peer review processes.

 

[GeorgeGrljusich]

They make many. Do you expect a line by line review?

Isn't that what you are doing?

Nowhere have I said they are all wrong. I have no idea if many of them are not what.

Yet you jump over anything, like measles, on any tiny little crack to justify your position.

What can be said with certainty is that a number are.

And that can be said for both sides meds. The difference is that I can admit it.

 

[HarryTiger]

There is yet to be one deniers claim that cuts to the heart of this debate.

Maybe you need to define for us what you see as the heart then.

Man emits CO2 -> CO2 enhances warming -> Warming is destructive

That last one there takes a hit when claims like these are knocked on the head.

That's not to say I think we shouldn't prevent artificial warming if we can help it. Usually best to leave nature alone. I still call the AGW jury out though.

 

[medusala]

Yet you jump over anything, like measles, on any tiny little crack to justify your position.

Tiny crack? It is a series of rifts. Take the issue of this thread ie natural disasters. The Stern report just adjusted by 1% gdp the effect of hurricanes on the US economy.

Noone with a clue would say that 1% gdp is a tiny little crack.

And that can be said for both sides meds.

Yet you can admit it? Give it up. You talk of tiny little cracks.

That is not an admission

That is apologism.

 

[GeorgeGrljusich]

Maybe you need to define for us what you see as the heart then.

Man emits CO2 -> CO2 enhances warming -> Warming is destructive

That last one there takes a hit when claims like these are knocked on the head.

That's not to say I think we shouldn't prevent artificial warming if we can help it. Usually best to leave nature alone. I still call the AGW jury out though.

Tiny crack? It is a series of rifts. Take the issue of this thread ie natural disasters. The Stern report just adjusted by 1% gdp the effect of hurricanes on the US economy.

Noone with a clue would say that 1% gdp is a tiny little crack.



Yet you can admit it? Give it up. You talk of tiny little cracks.

That is not an admission

That is apologism.

Look, I have already declared my allegiances on this issue.
And I have openly announced a tertiary qualification in science.
However, I have never proclaimed expertise in the field that this topic covers, nor could I. Hence my bit part role.
This whole debate, regardless of the thread, is a cut and paste exercise in bullshit.
You two guys are fighting valiantly for your belief, yet have not yet cracked, let alone scratched, the shell of the believers argument IMO.
I know that you believe that you have and are high fiving ecstatically.
bp is a warrior, who seems to have an inexhaustible array of sources to back up his argument. You guys google like hell, just as he does, and find a fault.
Never the twain shall meet.
Around and around and around we go.
If you guys are so vehement in your argument, then how about you provide the real reasons behind your dogma?
My guess is that it is financial and some sort of NIMBY thing.

 

[AndSmithMustScore]

I was always told closed minded people were bad.

And yet it seems when it comes to GW the most closed minded people aren't those who question the validity of all things GW.

It's those who swallow every single word that's put forth to them by the Green Religion and it's money making industry.

Funny how we are told to be always skeptical of oil companies and question anything they say etc.

But how dare anyone question the Green Industry, it's apparently beyond reproach.

Sanctimonious turds.

 

[bit_pattern]

If you look at the details you see the glacier claim was refuted long ago. A change in tide has now allowed the popular press to pick these things up when before they would have been guilty of something tantamount to giving holocaust deniers a voice.

We can play a game now and predict what will be next.

I've got short odds on the coral reef devastation being outed as the next crock. But there's got to be a few more.

LOL, in your fevered, delusional mind maybe. This story actually broke over a month a go, with that NS article - I saw it on their website when it was first published - they learned that the 2035 claim in the WWF report was actually sourced from one of their articles.

But, the glaciers continue melting unabated, and they don't need to melt away to nothing to cause serious water problems in sub-Himalayan regions, like severely reduced flow to that lifeline of India, the Ganges.

And if you think the media hasn't been criticising the IPCC from day one then you haven't been paying much attention, it's just the the amplitude has been notched up since Copenhagen as the PR machine has gone into overdrive.

 

[bit_pattern]

I was always told closed minded people were bad.

And yet it seems when it comes to GW the most closed minded people aren't those who question the validity of all things GW.

It's those who swallow every single word that's put forth to them by the Green Religion and it's money making industry.

Funny how we are told to be always skeptical of oil companies and question anything they say etc.

But how dare anyone question the Green Industry, it's apparently beyond reproach.

Sanctimonious turds.

Another case of people being unable to tell the difference between science and PR spin. You should try following the debates in scientific journals, and not in the media, if you want ot get a eel of where the cold, hard science stands on the issue.

 

[Chief Ten Beers]

I was always told closed minded people were bad.

And yet it seems when it comes to GW the most closed minded people aren't those who question the validity of all things GW.

It's those who swallow every single word that's put forth to them by the Green Religion and it's money making industry.

Funny how we are told to be always skeptical of oil companies and question anything they say etc.

But how dare anyone question the Green Industry, it's apparently beyond reproach.

Sanctimonious turds.

Nice post.

 

[bit_pattern]

You should both read this, if you actually give a s**t beyond laughing at teh st00pid lefties, that is

Published online 20 January 2010 | Nature 463, 284-287 (2010) | doi:10.1038/463284a

The real holes in climate science

Like any other field, research on climate change has some fundamental gaps, although not the ones typically claimed by sceptics. Quirin Schiermeier takes a hard look at some of the biggest problem areas.

Or this even, uncertainty in science does not mean mere guesswork.

More broadly, many aspects of climate science can be looked at in a similar light — especially with respect to our efforts to understand the relative importance of past climate forcing effects, and our projections of future change. We cannot ever know what will happen in the future, for a whole variety of reasons (imperfect knowledge, limitations on our models and our ability to parameterise them, uncertainty about human decisions); likewise, we cannot ever be sure just how important greenhouse gases, ice albedo, dust, volcanoes and the sun were in perturbing past climates, nor how abruptly and markedly they did this. Yet we can still assess, based on multiple lines of evidence, what is more or less likely, and make decisions on energy pathways and other globally significant human activities on this basis, under a risk management framework.

http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/01/22/real-holes-in-science/

 

[HarryTiger]

LOL, in your fevered, delusional mind maybe. This story actually broke over a month a go, with that NS article - I saw it on their website when it was first published - they learned that the 2035 claim in the WWF report was actually sourced from one of their articles.

It was flagged by other scientists as BS long before. The 2035 claim goes back to 1999, do you think it's taken a decade for people in that domain to realise it was crap? Go look through your links and you'll see it was refuted by reputable glacioligists around when it came out.

Why didn't NS or the WWF report the refutations of the outrageous claim?

It wasn't a released paper at the time it was an unknown scientist barking gloom and doom, exactly what they wouldn't to report.

 

[MushroomRocket]

Well we don't know that for certain.

Wasn't there a massive meteorite that hit what is now modern day Raussia once?

That would have changed the landscape/geography/flaora/fauna etc within that area in a very short time.


What about Pompei?

How did that eruption change that area?

Large event, large change, how long did it take the area to recover? did it recover fully? etc.

Certain things will change over a long period, but even in todays world we can see how somethings can also change quite rapidly in very short periods of time.

Tunguska event, June 30 1908 in Western Siberia. no one actually saw the event and the first eye-witness said that he only heard a "sonic" boom or explosion. it is highly likely the meteorite exploded a few hundred feet off the ground and the results as such were replicated in the 60's by russian geologists to great accuracy.

-----------------

People must remember that great rivers like the nile, euphrates-tigris and the ganges didn't exist more than 50000 years ago. 10000 years ago the entire sahara was actually a savanna grassland during the wet period and there were animals like the bush african elephant, barbary lions and all kinds of beasts that went went extinct as the sahara dried out after the wet period.

a lot can change in a 100 years and people will just have to find a way to deal with it.

 

[bit_pattern]

Tunguska event, June 30 1908 in Western Siberia. no one actually saw the event and the first eye-witness said that he only heard a "sonic" boom or explosion. it is highly likely the meteorite exploded a few hundred feet off the ground and the results as such were replicated in the 60's by russian geologists to great accuracy.

-----------------

People must remember that great rivers like the nile, euphrates-tigris and the ganges didn't exist more than 50000 years ago. 10000 years ago the entire sahara was actually a savanna grassland during the wet period and there were animals like the bush african elephant, barbary lions and all kinds of beasts that went went extinct as the sahara dried out after the wet period.

a lot can change in a 100 years and people will just have to find a way to deal with it.

Yeah, but the entirety of human civilisation occurred over the last 5000 years, the Holocene Optimum was very kind to the human species, there is no reason to think that human civilisation as we know it could survive such a radical change in climate. We'd be pretty screwed if the climate that lead to the rise in agriculture suddenly changes in a way that makes agriculture unfeasible, don't you think?

Just because climate changes naturally (and I think you'll find the Sahara etc changed over thousands, not hundreds, of years, bit o a difference) doesn't mean it is a good idea to artificially alter our climate, especially when we don't know for certain just how sensitive the planet is to such changes. I mean, s**t, in 15000 years time we should be back in a glacial period, but quite frankly I'm not concerned about what happens in 10000+ yeas, I'm much more concerned about the world I will grow old in (cross my fingers) and the world my children will inherit.

 

[Hawkamania!]

It was flagged by other scientists as BS long before. The 2035 claim goes back to 1999, do you think it's taken a decade for people in that domain to realise it was crap? Go look through your links and you'll see it was refuted by reputable glacioligists around when it came out.

Why didn't NS or the WWF report the refutations of the outrageous claim?

It wasn't a released paper at the time it was an unknown scientist barking gloom and doom, exactly what they wouldn't to report.

In essence HT, the un ipcc political propaganda spin machine tends to ignore scientific evidence if it contradicts the conclusion they really want.

 

[GeorgeGrljusich]

In essence HT, the un ipcc political propaganda spin machine tends to ignore scientific evidence if it contradicts the conclusion they really want.

No.
The IPCC is, in fact, a body which bases its findings on scientific analysis and evidence. It is patently clear that nufties, such as yourself, are the ones who conveniently ignore the facts to arrive at a, dumbarse, conclusion.

 

[bit_pattern]

What a surprise! More lies from the Murdoch Press. Shameful s**t, and you people swallowed it hook, line and sinker

IPCC Statement On Trends In Disaster Losses

Something that the people who should know, the insurance industry, understand perfectly well:

Statement Nikolaus von Bomhard,
CEO of Munich Re

"The outcome of Copenhagen has left me somewhat stunned. The 2°C goal agreed with China and India at the G8 summit in summer of this year was merely recognised in Copenhagen, with no pledges made. The major industrial countries, along with China and India, have thus retreated behind the lines already established.
At Munich Re, we look closely at a multitude of risks and how to handle them best. Climate change is such a risk, and the need for action is obvious. I therefore find it baffling that so little was achieved during the negotiations in Copenhagen.
Climate change is a fact, and it is almost entirely made by man. It is jointly responsible for the rise in severe weather-related natural disasters, since the weather machine is "running in top gear". The figures speak for themselves: according to data gathered by Munich Re, weather-related natural catastrophes have produced US$ 1,600bn in total losses since 1980, and climate change is definitely a significant contributing factor. We assume that the annual loss amount attributable to climate change is already in the low double-digit billion euro range. And the figure is bound to rise dramatically in future.
What we need now is leadership. It is up to the USA, Europe including Germany, and China to cut the Gordian knot. Progress is likely to be made more easily on a small scale rather than at a climate summit with 193 negotiating partners and thousands of participants. In the light of the Copenhagen experience, I would therefore advocate a rapid resumption of talks with a small party of participants to get the negotiations moving again.
We need a strict climate agreement, and we need it fast. Climate change is a global problem and a challenge for humankind. If the players do nothing but pursue their national interests, we are headed for a climate catastrophe.
Industry is certain to move ahead now and actively develop solutions to curb climate change and prevent its consequences. After all, such solutions make economic sense. One example is the Desertec Industrial Initiative, the huge desert-power project. We at Munich Re will make every effort together with our partners to rapidly turn this vision into reality. In the long run, however, the economy will need a global agreement to prevent a distortion in competitive conditions and relocation of high-carbon production processes and jobs into countries without any regulation mechanisms."

 

[Chief]

Progress is likely to be made more easily on a small scale rather than at a climate summit with 193 negotiating partners and thousands of participants.

No doubt about that. This is a genuine "think local, act global" problem. But incentives need to be altered to aid in the transition.