UN climate report: IPCC admits glacier forecast was wrong

1. 60

   sannyasinmanposted 14 years ago

   The great global warming propaganda hoax is melting away and the truth beneath is starting to show, and there is a need for a reform of the way the IPCC collects and reviews data.
   
   What do you think?
   
   http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/e … 991177.ece
   
   http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content … ot-melting
   
   http://www.terradaily.com/afp/100118190 … s3k91.html

   replyreport
   1. 51

      opitposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Glaciers are a special case, anyway. They gain and lose mass due to humidity content of the air moving over them : something affected by the jet stream, el Nino, etc.
      As far as AWG goes, I only seriously investigated the 'naysaying' over it 6 weeks ago...and found it compelling.
      CFACT, Global Research.ca. Climategate ( it's a website as well as a controversy ) are full of interesting ideas : which postulate an ice age with at least as much enthusiasm as global warming.
      I found a rather wild article at LaRouche when working on the dysfunctional NPT foreign policy : which promotes wildcard use of nuclear generating plants more than it will ever promote compliance...which it penalizes. It was worth a couple of posts. Here's my first AWG entry
      http://opitslinkfest.blogspot.com/2009/ … stems.html

      replyreport
2. 72

   KingDrewposted 14 years ago

   I am shocked! lol j/k  I'm glad they're starting to admit it now though

   replyreport
3. 0

   A Texanposted 14 years ago

   I think you are going to have all the Global Warming shills on this thread in no time at all.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      sannyasinmanposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      A good choice of words. A definition of "shill" from the dictionary:
      
      Shill: "One who poses as a satisfied customer or an enthusiastic gambler to dupe bystanders into participating in a swindle".

      replyreport
      1. 0

         A Texanposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Yes, I know, lots of shills on hubpages.

         replyreport
         1. 95

            Sally's Troveposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            Amen. sannyasinman's post takes good information and puts it into an alarmist context. Alarmist meaning, let's flame.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               sannyasinmanposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               Quote from the news article:
               "When finally published, the IPCC report did give its source as the WWF study but went further, suggesting the likelihood of the glaciers melting was "very high". The IPCC defines this as having a probability of greater than 90%".
               
               The report read: "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".
               
               This is global warming alarmism par excellence - and now they admit it's false, but it has still played its part in convincing the world that humans are to blame. Just like the seas rising by 20 feet, and polar bears disappearing. These are emotive subjects that help to spread fear. And as we know, people are most easily manipulated when they are afraid.

               replyreport
4. 83

   donotfearposted 14 years ago

   I can't get the link to come up. What's the deal?

   replyreport
   1. 60

      sannyasinmanposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      It works fine for me. I have just added a link to a second article confirming the same thing. Try that one.

      replyreport
5. 60

   Sterling Sageposted 14 years ago

   I'm a firm believer in the reality of climate change.
   
   We do have a responsibility to be good scientists, and this looks like a real mess. I'm going to ask some of the experts I have worked with for some more details about what's going on.
   
   Thank you for bringing this to my attention.

   replyreport
6. 65

   BristolBoyposted 14 years ago

   Not sure where in your second article there is proof that it is a hoax.  This claims that what has been interpreted wrong is data on the effects of global warming in one particular area; and that "climate change is "unequivocal" and poses a major threat -- remain beyond reproach".

   replyreport
7. 0

   A Texanposted 14 years ago

   Told ya!

   replyreport
8. 60

   jfreemonposted 14 years ago

   You're probably going to see a lot of this, inf act you probably already have. What I'm talking about is scientists flipping and flopping on their results.
   
   For example, glaciers normally melt and, if I remember correctly, some have existed for hundreds of thousands of years. For them to melt now is a big deal.
   
   Except that the Earth has been around for what.. 4.54 billion years old? So they got there some way.
   
   There's also the fact that while people have changed the environment, they need to recognize that they have. As we begin to become a larger percentage of the world, we will affect it more.
   
   But I'm not also saying we should be arrogant about it.

   replyreport
   1. 57

      yoshi97posted 14 years agoin reply to this

      I believe we are truly causing ecological damage, but not at the rate of speed that has been calculated. However ... if we ignore the small change now it will grow to a big change as the process accelerates.
      
      Now ... here's the problem. What if all of this occurs several thousand years into the future and we need to act now to prevent it. Will we work to preserve a future we won't be any part of?
      
      I think this is the core issue scientists are facing with global warming ... making today's populous care about a nother populous generations away. And in doing so, I do believe some scare tactics and misinformation are being used to exaggerate the claims to get us all to act now ... instead of waiting until then. After all, the best way to avoid tragedy is to prevent it from occurring.
      
      I think the best of intentions are behind the exaggerated figures, but by scientists eroding their own credibility we create a scientific environment where few will be believed ... and that's more dangerous than global warming itself, as it provides a populous that not only doesn't believe in global warming, but one that will never be able to be convinced. After all, if they exaggerate their claims now, who is to say people won't think they are doing it again when the real danger approaches.
      
      If we look back into the Earth's history we can see many wild climactic swings ... many of which that are not very productive to life as we know it. If anything, we should be analyzing deeply what holds the environment where it's at today and doing our best not to let it sway in a direction that could do us all harm.
      
      That's why - regardless of whether or not there is truth to global warming today, we must do what we can to prevent it from slowing down any chance it might occur ... allowing our technology the chance to develop and leap to our rescue, should the need ever occur ...

      replyreport
   2. 95

      Sally's Troveposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Exactly, results being flipped and flopped, not by scientists, but by those who have an agenda and who use that diversity of scientific data to their own ends.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Madame Xposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         I'd say as much

         replyreport
9. 60

   sannyasinmanposted 14 years ago

   yoshi97 - I agree with most of what you say. To live more lightly on the Earth, and be more ecologically aware, is something we can all do to decrease pollution and improve our quality of life on the planet.   
   
   As for global warming, the more I research it, the more I realise that the scientists do not even agree that there is global warming. There is a lot of evidence of global cooling.
   
   Secondly, it is clear that there is a huge political and monetary agenda at play here, with many people staking their reputations and livelihoods on proving man-made global warming. It has become an industry in itself, and this is why Mr Altruism, AG is insisting that the debate is over. It is not.
   
   Thirdly, on the back of the global warming scare, citizens and governments the world over will be subjected to massive increases in taxation, loss of sovereignty (see the Copenhagen Treaty), and more erosion of their freedoms and civil rights.
   
   Fourthly, the development of poor countries, especially in Africa, will be stopped in its tracks, and millions will die if they are prevented from burning fossil fuels.
   
   Despite what AG says,
   - it is not proven and scientists do not agree
   - there are the hundreds of Climategate emails which clearly show collusion amongst key scientists to “massage” the data, and which go up to 2009, despite AG saying on national TV that there were only a few insignificant emails from 10 years ago
   - independent scientists wanting to examine the raw data which went into the computer models have been refused access 
   - there are glaring errors and exaggerations in the AG film, which have now been exposed
   - many scientists around the world, including IPCC panel members are now speaking out and disagreeing with the official line, despite being ridiculed and threatened
   
   Ask yourself, are you willing to give up your rights, your democracy, your national sovereignty, and submit to enormous taxation on the basis of this scare?

   replyreport
10. 57

    yoshi97posted 14 years ago

    I'd like to see a lessening in pollution.

    replyreport
    1. 0

       A Texanposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       We all would! But I don't want an increase in what I have taken from me by the federal government based on bullshit.

       replyreport
       1. 57

          yoshi97posted 14 years agoin reply to this

          I agree ... let's lessen pollution where it has made an impact on health (Los Angeles) and do it without taking anything away from anyone.

          replyreport
          1. 0

             A Texanposted 14 years agoin reply to this

             We are on the same page.

             replyreport