That 97% number, if it ever was valid, is pretty old ays. I doubt thete is a new number as it would hardly be the same.
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
Uh oh.. get ready to panic over global cooling
- Thread starter dogtowner
- Start date
Werbung:
Cruella
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2012
- Messages
- 4,311
Don't presume to know what I watched. It wasn't about global warming or glaciers. Where you and I both live was once covered with glaciers, so what's your point?
If mother nature again decides to destroy all living things, there is nothing you can do about it.
Texas_tea
Well-Known Member
UN climate change report dismisses slowdown in global warming
The Earth has changed in “unprecedented ways” since 1950, the U.N. says, and its scientists are 95 percent certain that humans are responsible.
Yet the planet has largely stopped warming over the past 15 years, data shows -- and a landmark report released Friday by the U.N.’s climate group could not explain why the mercury has stopped rising.
"But a final version of the report
released Friday morning by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) strips out the failure of models and explains away the downward trend."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See, it's all about real science and facts ..... that's how all the sheeple know their right!
The Earth has changed in “unprecedented ways” since 1950, the U.N. says, and its scientists are 95 percent certain that humans are responsible.
Yet the planet has largely stopped warming over the past 15 years, data shows -- and a landmark report released Friday by the U.N.’s climate group could not explain why the mercury has stopped rising.
"But a final version of the report
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See, it's all about real science and facts ..... that's how all the sheeple know their right!
Texas_tea
Well-Known Member
Here are a few reactions to the [IPCC] summary from so-called climate skeptics compiled by blog “Watts Up With That“:
- Andrew Monford, a British global warming critic with the blog Bishop Hill: The general theme of obscurantism runs across the document. Whereas in previous years the temperature records have been shown unadulterated, now we have presentation of a single figure for each decade; surely an attempt to mislead rather than inform. And the pause is only addressed with handwaving arguments and vague allusions to ocean heat.
- Bob Tisdale, Watts Up With That: They’re still misleading the public. Everyone knows (well, many of us know) their models can’t simulate the natural processes that cause surface temperatures to warm over multidecadal timeframes, yet they insist on continuing this myth.
- Dr. Judith Curry, Georgia Tech: Well, IPCC has thrown down the gauntlet – if the pause continues beyond 15 years (well it already has), they are toast. Even though they still use the word ‘most’ in the attribution statement, they go all out and pretty much say it is all AGW: ”The best estimate of the human induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period.” In case you haven’t been paying attention, ‘extremely likely‘ in the attribution statement implies 95% confidence. Exactly what does 95% confidence mean in this context?
- Anthony Watts, Watts Up With That?: When you still push increasing confidence in predictions while the IPCC referenced models fail to model reality, and this has been pointed out worldwide in media, it becomes a “jump the shark” moment where the advocacy speaks far louder than the science.
In Australia radio and TV news, Reports from the UN committee claim that Global warming is real and partly caused by humans. They claim they are more certain of this than in the past. This report is not in the Murdoch newspapers so may not be in the USA media.
They discuss the short period where the rate of global warming did not increase. During the period the world did not cool just did not increase warming. They say this is a short period but every other decade since 1956 it has increase. So the long term trend is still warming.
I can not list all the scientists who support global warming as they are too many. I notice that Texas contributors are all critics, Two contributing to the same book. Where is their scientist or academic qualifications.
They discuss the short period where the rate of global warming did not increase. During the period the world did not cool just did not increase warming. They say this is a short period but every other decade since 1956 it has increase. So the long term trend is still warming.
I can not list all the scientists who support global warming as they are too many. I notice that Texas contributors are all critics, Two contributing to the same book. Where is their scientist or academic qualifications.
Texas_tea
Well-Known Member
Real .... except for the last 15 years ....
What is in the US media is the UN report. Read it for yourself ..... a final version of the report .... if it coincides with your agenda, of course.
Finally you get something right, Aus ..... Well, kinda ..... my quotes are from critics ..... not scientist!
There is a huge entertainment value for the normal thinking people on this subject. The "chicken littles" are in deed hilarious and can be quite entertaining!
OldTrapper
Well-Known Member
Most of the globe at one time was covered by glaciers. However, my point was in regards to the farming in Greenland, and your comment. Sorry if it contradicted your point. And if the program you watched did not address the farming in Greenland today then it must not have been very accurate.
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/business/03/28/13/hotter-better-farmers-greenlands-arctic-valleys
[/quote]If mother nature again decides to destroy all living things, there is nothing you can do about it.[/quote]
Didn't say there was. However, to deny that man has some influence on the environment is really quite stupid.
the report was a bit schizophrenic as it seeks to strenghthen its prior conclusions despite the evidence to the contrary. I wouldnt go to the scientific qualifications of "the scientists" included in that 97% survey. few were associated with any sort of science that examines climate, many were administrative and far and away most had not studied the findings they were agreeing to. in fact scientists associated with east anglia and the 2 or 3 US schools collaboration with east anglia did not agree with what got published.
It is good to see even Texas believes we should cut pollution. Global warming is not a Marxist plot. China has just started to take measures to cut pollution. But not enough yet as it is expanding coal fire stations. Russia has little to fear it is gets warmer. The once that wife suffer most will be Pacific Islands. Countries in the tropics and Countries like the USA who have taken little action against pollution. However those who will suffer most will be future generations not even born yet. I afraid they don't have a vote.
Texas_tea
Well-Known Member
Global Warming is a Marxist plot. It is by design made to tax wealthier nations ..... a global wealth redistribution if you will. Alternative energy has been available for decades but, the pattens are bought up by the energy companies and the government and never heard of again.
And, don't go blaming the rich evil oil companies. Keep in mind it is the government that profits more from oil through taxes than the oil companies themselves!
The USA ..... are you kidding me? Have you by any chance compared our regulations that that of other industrialized nations? Obviously not!
No one argues that less pollution = bad. Less pollution (and the US has done much to reduceits pollution) it is admirable to reduce pollution if for no other reason than to make potable water cheaper to make. Global warming is not a plot, the silly money grabbing scams put forth to address global warming are common theivery. Carbon credits do absolutly nothing but gin up money. The sick aspect is to use pseudoscience as some sort of excuse to rob people. If youre worried about rising oceans feel better that much as the temps have failed to rise as predicted, neither has sealevel risen as predicted.
OldTrapper
Well-Known Member
So is dung until it gets in your drinking water.
Do you even have a grasp on the balance of nature? Unf0rtunately for your kind you can't seem to grasp the concept that the earth, and all of its plant life, can only sequester, or absorb, so much of the CO2 created. After that saturation point it then becomes a pollutant. And as man destroys more, and more, of the plants that were created to filter those gasses then the more that is released into the atmosphere, and equilibrium is then destroyed.
http://www.uvm.edu/rsenr/nr385se/mod2/balance.html
More on CO2 as a pollutant:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Is-CO2-a-pollutant.html
Texas_tea
Well-Known Member
This Is What Happens To Greenpeace Activists in Russia
MOSCOW (AP) — A court in the northern Russian city of Murmansk has sent another Greenpeace activist to jail for two months over a protest at a drilling platform in Arctic waters.
Last week, the court ordered 20 activists and two journalists jailed pending an investigation, but put off the hearings for the remaining eight activists until Sunday.
MOSCOW (AP) — A court in the northern Russian city of Murmansk has sent another Greenpeace activist to jail for two months over a protest at a drilling platform in Arctic waters.
Last week, the court ordered 20 activists and two journalists jailed pending an investigation, but put off the hearings for the remaining eight activists until Sunday.
Werbung:
While the Murdoch newspapers here did not publish the report , it did publish letters to the Editor . These letters Listen to the experts. "we must wise up"and "Change a god bet: the letters point the report is 95"% CONFIDENT THATWE'RE WERE CAUSING GOLBAL WARMING , IT WAS WRITTEN BY 209 LEAD AUTHORS FROM 39 COUNTRIES AFER CONSIDERING 9200 PEER REVIEW SCIENTIFIC PAPERS.IT COVER THE SHORT TERM PAUSE IN CLIMATE WARMING BUT POITS OUT THE LONG TERM TREND.
WHY ARE VESTED INTEREST BETTING ON THE 5% CHANCE THEY ARE WRONG. I MAY NOT SUFFER AS I AM OLD BUT GRAND CHILDREN WILL.
These vested interests include fosil fuel owners, newspapers and even Marxist who consider only the short term. Russia attitude to the GREEN peace activist prove it is not a MARXIST PLOT. just as the action to reduce pollution in the USA mainly California, prove it is not a Capitalist plot The IPCC evidence indicates we should take strong and effective action. I wouldn't bet on the 5% odds and do nothing.
I want my great grandchildren to know I did all I could to give them the chance of a liveable climate.
WHY ARE VESTED INTEREST BETTING ON THE 5% CHANCE THEY ARE WRONG. I MAY NOT SUFFER AS I AM OLD BUT GRAND CHILDREN WILL.
These vested interests include fosil fuel owners, newspapers and even Marxist who consider only the short term. Russia attitude to the GREEN peace activist prove it is not a MARXIST PLOT. just as the action to reduce pollution in the USA mainly California, prove it is not a Capitalist plot The IPCC evidence indicates we should take strong and effective action. I wouldn't bet on the 5% odds and do nothing.
I want my great grandchildren to know I did all I could to give them the chance of a liveable climate.
