Climategate!

[sgreger1]

..I believe politicians are using this new crisis (yet again) it to gain more control and transfer wealth from the middle class to the rich via carbon credit trading....

Let me get this straight,
Cap and trade is a transfer of wealth
but
the billion dollars a day we spend on imported oil is not :?: :!:

So you're fine with that transfer of wealth :?: :roll:
What's your solution :?:
Keep printing more fiat dollars until they are worthless :?: :roll:

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/JVp6uxNl6jA&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed>

I have advocated many times here that we need to get off oil, but you saying "oil is a transfer of wealth so that makes it okay for us to do another transfer of wealth" is about as good a strategy as saying "Bush did it, so now we are doing it and blaming it on Bush".



Meanwhile, your beloved IPCC peer reviewed guys are admitting another huge mistake:

http://corner.nationalreview.com/pos...g3ZDAzMTFjZGM=

Via the London Times:

A WARNING that climate change will melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 is likely to be retracted after a series of scientific blunders by the United Nations body that issued it.
Two years ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a benchmark report that was claimed to incorporate the latest and most detailed research into the impact of global warming. A central claim was the world's glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035.
In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC's 2007 report. It has also emerged that the New Scientist report was itself based on a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi. Hasnain has since admitted that the claim was "speculation" and was not supported by any formal research…

…Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, has previously dismissed criticism of the Himalayas claim as "voodoo science".

I thought that everything they did was thoroughly peer reviewed and not in any way based on speculation or fear-mongering?

Also, it's funny how they say it will melt by 2035 and yet they claim that we are actually going into a 30 year cooling trend right after.

I just wish they would admit that the computer models are not sophisticated enough to be able to accurately model what the world will look like decades away from now.
They should change their message to "Let's get off of oil" instead, but of course this whole thing has nothing o do with stopping oil companies, it is just about another tax and more power to the UN and gov in general.

[justintempler]

I get tired of debunking crap that gets posted on blogs

search the terms:
himalaya 2035 2350

do your own research instead of being a parrot

quote me some sources, and actually take the time the read the sources in the footnotes before just assuming they back up what you think they back up.

[sgreger1]

This is not blogs, this is mainstream newspapers.



http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6991177.ece


The fact is that they said the glaciers would melt by 2035 if we don't "act quickly" (read as, pay money), and it turned out that the claim was based on a new scientist magazine article, and the original person who made the comments in the magazine had no data to back it up and says it was pure speculation only.

Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, has previously dismissed criticism of the Himalayas claim as "voodoo science". But now they must retract that given the new details about how the report was not based on any scientific evidence, only here-say and magazine articles.

[sgreger1]

How about the BBC, is that a reputable enough source?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8387737.stm


When asked how this "error" could have happened, RK Pachauri, the Indian scientist who heads the IPCC, said: "I don't have anything to add on glaciers."

The IPCC relied on three documents to arrive at 2035 as the "outer year" for shrinkage of glaciers.
They are:

a 2005 World Wide Fund for Nature report on glaciers;
a 1996 Unesco document on hydrology;
and a 1999 news report in New Scientist.

Incidentally, none of these documents have been reviewed by peer professionals, which is what the IPCC is mandated to be doing.


Murari Lal, a climate expert who was one of the leading authors of the 2007 IPCC report, denied it had its facts wrong about melting Himalayan glaciers.
But he admitted the report relied on non-peer reviewed - or 'unpublished' - documents when assessing the status of the glaciers.


And when they say consensus, they don't mean everyone agrees, it's just a word they throw around

Recently India's Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh released a study on Himalayan glaciers that suggested that they may be not melting as much due to global warming as it is widely feared.
He accused the IPCC of being "alarmist".

Mr Pachauri dismissed the study as "voodoo science" and said the IPCC was a "sober body" whose work was verified by governments.

However, the IPCC got called on it's BS by other scientists, so he had to retract the claim

"Under strict consideration of the IPCC rules, it should actually not have been published as it is not based on a sound scientific reference."

^--- Is this the credible peer reviewed scientific consensus everyone has been talking about?




I mean you can paint this however you want, but the fact is that the more light gets shined on the IPCC and it's associated researchers, the less credible they sound.

[justintempler]

sgreger1

The problem is you don't dig deep enough. You've got all these people going through the IPCC report with a fine tooth comb looking for mistakes and they found a typographical error that transposed 2 numbers (like you've never done that before) and this is your excuse to throw out the other 99% of the data that doesn't have mistakes in it.

If you would do some digging you would know the mistake comes from this quote:

The degradation of the extrapolar glaciation of the Earth will be apparent in rising ocean level already by the year 2050, and there will be a drastic rise of the ocean thereafter caused by the deglaciation-derived runoff (see Table 11 ). This period will last from 200 to 300 years. The extrapolar glaciation of the Earth will be decaying at rapid, catastrophic rates—its total area will shrink from 500,000 to 100,000 km² by the year 2350. Glaciers will survive only in the mountains of inner Alaska, on some Arctic archipelagos, within Patagonian ice sheets, in the Karakoram Mountains, in the Himalayas, in some regions of Tibet and on the highest mountain peaks in the temperature latitudes [p 66]

1999 report
Working Group on Himalayan Glaciology (WGHG)
of the International Commission for Snow and Ice (ICSI)

So someone found a typo on page 493 of 841 pages of part II, Congratulations

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_...ta_reports.htm

[sgreger1]

Yes I read that their excuse is that it was a typographical error.

Mr Cogley says it is astonishing that none of the 10 authors of the 2007 IPCC report could spot the error and "misread 2350 as 2035".



The IPCC relied on three documents to arrive at 2035 as the "outer year" for shrinkage of glaciers.
They are: a 2005 World Wide Fund for Nature report on glaciers; a 1996 Unesco document on hydrology; and a 1999 news report in New Scientist.
Incidentally, none of these documents have been reviewed by peer professionals, which is what the IPCC is mandated to be doing.


It's not that they just typed it wrong somewhere Justin, it's that their 3 sources they used were all not peer-reviewed and they used this number to try and spread more fear based on lies.

[RRK]

You've got all these people going through the IPCC report with a fine tooth comb looking for mistakes and they found a typographical error that transposed 2 numbers (like you've never done that before) and this is your excuse to throw out the other 99% of the data that doesn't have mistakes in it.

I don't think that the point is to throw out or disprove all of the data. The point is to prove that there is pattern of dishonesty that shows that the movement has more of a political agenda then a environmental one. You have to admit that this issue has major implications for the power structure of the world and if one was to want to gain power this would be plausible route.

[justintempler]

The IPCC relied on three documents to arrive at 2035 as the "outer year" for shrinkage of glaciers.
They are: a 2005 World Wide Fund for Nature report on glaciers; a 1996 Unesco document on hydrology; and a 1999 news report in New Scientist.

All you are doing is playing parrot, repeating what you got from someone else. Give me something from the IPCC showing they used 3 sources.

The report used one source WWF.

page 493..
Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other
part of the world (see Table 10.9) 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. Its total area will likely shrink from the present
500,000 to 100,000 km2 by the year 2035 (WWF, 2005).

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-re...-chapter10.pdf


2. :?:


3. :?:

Incidentally, none of these documents have been reviewed by peer professionals, which is what the IPCC is mandated to be doing.

If it's mandated then why is there a whole section dedicated for procedures for documents that haven't been peer reviewed?

ANNEX 2
PROCEDURE FOR USING NON-PUBLISHED/NON-PEER-REVIEWED SOURCES IN IPCC REPORTS

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principl...appendix-a.pdf

[ice]

updated forum software and embed videos should work now as earlier.

[chadizzy1]

updated forum software and embed videos should work now as earlier.

Ok cool, thanks. I was wondering what was going on with that!

[Liandri]

Industry/cars/power plants/etc/whatever rolling hard and strong for 100 years = Bad for the planet

1 volcano erupts, unleashing enough carbon/sulfur/extra crap that is the equivalent of above statement for 1000 years = working as intended, but we all know the reason why that volcano erupted was because of above statement.

My head hurts now.

I wonder how, 300 years ago, people fought forest and brush fire. The kinds that one little hot spot that set ablaze hundreds of thousands of acres, unleashing so much burnt carbon and crap across the world. I guess the planet was still "healthy" back then. And the life smothering ash, ugh who'd want 10 inches of ash on them!

[truthwolf1]

We use to have the car emission testing in Minnesota. They built all kinds of new builidings and hired all kinds of people. In the end it only lasted a few years and has been remembered by many as just a big government scam.

This carbon credit sounds like bigger version of the same idea.

[texasmade]

Industry/cars/power plants/etc/whatever rolling hard and strong for 100 years = Bad for the planet

1 volcano erupts, unleashing enough carbon/sulfur/extra crap that is the equivalent of above statement for 1000 years = working as intended, but we all know the reason why that volcano erupted was because of above statement.

My head hurts now.

I wonder how, 300 years ago, people fought forest and brush fire. The kinds that one little hot spot that set ablaze hundreds of thousands of acres, unleashing so much burnt carbon and crap across the world. I guess the planet was still "healthy" back then. And the life smothering ash, ugh who'd want 10 inches of ash on them!

Toba

and

Krakatau

[Premium Parrots]

Will you guys please stop using the term "Parrot". It makes some of us [duh, me] look bad. :wink:


now I have to proof read everything???

[justintempler]

sgreger1,

And while we are on the subject of glaciers..
And since you like quoting the timesonline as a source for reliable information...

November 8, 2009
Vanishing glaciers jolt smokestack China
AS an expedition from Chinese state television worked its way across the remote Tibetan plateau earlier this year, the explorers were amazed by what they found.

The plateau has been called the world’s third largest ice store after the North and South Poles. Yet according to Chinese scientists, the “third pole” is warming up faster than anywhere else on earth.

The TV team found bare rock where glaciers had retreated. Lakes had dried up. Lush grassland had turned to desert. The livestock was dead, the farmers impoverished.

They brought back a visual lesson in global warming so stark ...(continued at link)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6907919.ece


more glaciers....

Is Antarctica Melting?
01.12.10


The continent of Antarctica has been losing more than 100 cubic kilometers (24 cubic miles) of ice per year since 2002.

There has been lots of talk lately about Antarctica and whether or not the continent's giant ice sheet is melting. One new paper, which states there’s less surface melting recently than in past years, has been cited as "proof" that there’s no global warming.... (continued at link)

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/fea...a_Melting.html