The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 28

Thread: UN climate chief admits mistake on Himalayan glaciers warning

  1. #11
    Senior Member Uncle Bill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Rapid City, SD
    Posts
    4,289

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Henry V View Post
    Surprise, surprise, surprise. A congressman from Wyoming is following the oil and gas industry playbook. In the interest of science, please send me a link to the report referenced in your copy and paste.

    UB, Just in case you missed this above.

    Why would I deny you the opportunity to scavenge around for another 'report'? I don't need any further 'reports' from your obvious phoney crowd of hoaxters and huxters.

    BTW, have you been getting in on some of that bread Algore has bilked out of the nation's idiots? Too bad, Henry, you could be wealthier than an oilman by now...certainly, Algore is.

    UB
    When the one you love becomes a memory, that memory becomes a treasure.

  2. #12
    Senior Member Uncle Bill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Rapid City, SD
    Posts
    4,289

    Default

    Holy moly, Henry. Lookee here!...another cut and paste just for you. They just seem to keep on comin'.

    UB

    PS I left the URL in so you can easily find this 'report'.



    Well, it is finally going mainstream media -- just not yet in the US.

    The Sydney Morning Herald is Australia's Newspaper of the Year and this is what they have to say. When you add this to India's withdrawal from the UN IPCC and the media in the UK, AGW is finally collapsing from its own fraudulent science.

    The Sydney Morning Herald

    Climate alarmists out in the cold

    http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/climate-alarmists-out-in-the-cold-20100205-nik5.html

    February 6, 2010

    As the wheels keep falling off the climate alarmist bandwagon, it's suddenly become fashionable to be a sceptic. Out of the woodwork have crawled all sorts of fair-weather friends.

    But where were they when the going was tough, when we were being hammered as Holocaust deniers, planet wreckers, in the pay of the "Big Polluters", bad parents, pariahs, equivalent to murderers? It was pure McCarthyism.

    But now, even the most aggressive alarmists have gone quiet or softened their rhetoric and people who sat on the fence have morphed into wise owls.

    They still think it's acceptable to mock touring British sceptic Lord Christopher Monckton's protruding eyes, a distressing symptom of his thyroid disease, in an effort to marginalise him as a lunatic, rather than address his criticisms. But, when even the British left-leaning, warmist-friendly Guardian newspaper has begun to investigate the fraud involved in "sexing up" climate change science, it's clear the collapse of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's credibility and the holes in the case for catastrophic man-made climate change can no longer be ignored.

    We are witnessing an outbreak of neo-open-mindedness and face-saving from people who brooked no nuance.

    The formerly alarmist British chief scientific adviser, John Beddington, has said: "I don't think it's healthy to dismiss proper scepticism." Hallelujah.

    Australia's Chief Scientist, Professor Penny Sackett, who just three months ago was telling us that we had only five years to stop catastrophic global warming, is similarly less gung-ho these days.

    On ABC television's 7.30 Report this week she expressed concern about "a confusion" between the science and the politics of climate change.

    "I think that we're seeing more and more a confusion between a political debate, a political debate that needs to happen, it's important to happen, and the discussion of the science. I feel that these two things are being confused and it worries me, actually."

    Funny, proponents of the theory of catastrophic man-made climate change never expressed concern about the "confusion", aka politicisation of science, when it was running their way.

    Blows to the climate alarm case keep coming, from fraudulent claims about melting glaciers, increased hurricanes and drought, dying Amazon rainforest, disappearing polar bears and the flooding of half of Holland.

    The latest, most serious, blow was the revelation this week that an influential paper discounting the so-called urban heat island effect was based on vanished and perhaps fraudulent data from remote Chinese weather stations.

    The 1990 paper was co-authored by the besieged director of the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, Phil Jones and a US colleague, who are now accused of a "cover-up".

    Jones, of course, and other leading scientists, have been exposed by their leaked "Climategate" emails, as political partisans who tried to suppress data, subvert freedom of information laws, and blackball journals and scientists who didn't toe the alarmist line.

    Meanwhile, revelations pile up about shoddy references used to sex up the IPCC's Nobel Prize-winning Fourth Assessment Report of 2007.

    Among them is the bogus claim that Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035, based on a speculative interview in a popular science magazine.

    The IPCC lead author of the chapter that contained the reference, Murari Lal, told Britain's Mail on Sunday last week that he knew the glacier claim was wrong but included it to put political pressure on world leaders to cut emissions.

    "We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policymakers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action."

    Because it was in a good cause it was somehow OK for the United Nations' lead climate change body to slant science, cherry-pick data, and base claims on such flimsy references as Greenpeace and WWF propaganda, a student's master's thesis and anecdotes in Climber magazine.

    This sort of ''noble cause'' corruption appears to have permeated climate change science, and set back the legitimate cause of fighting pollution. The dishonesty will have only ensured a generation of people will no longer trust environmental warnings.

    One of the most significant recent revelations is how influential and embedded were environmental activists such as WWF and Greenpeace. Not only were their publications cited in the 2007 report in at last 24 instances as if they were proper peer-reviewed science, but their staffers were in familiar communication with East Anglia climate researchers, and were regarded apparently as "honest brokers" rather than political lobbyists.

    In one email, Alan Markham from WWF writes to climate scientists urging a paper on climate change in Australia be "beefed up".

    WWF "would like to see the section on a variability and extreme events beefed up, if possible," Markham wrote in 1999. "I guess the bottom line is that if they are going to go with a big public splash on this they need something that will get good support from CSIRO scientists."

    In another email to East Anglia scientists, WWF's Stephan Singer offers "a few thousand euros" to write a paper about the economic cost of Europe's 2003 heatwave.

    They got away with it for a very long time.

    Today, the bankruptcy of the climate alarm cause is demonstrated by the fact its highest profile champion is Osama bin Laden. ''Boycott [America] to save yourselves … and your children from climate change", he said in an audiotape released last week.

    Rising in the opinion polls, the opposition leader, Tony Abbott, has found himself on the right side of history. He was even able this week to utter the former heresy that "carbon dioxide is an essential trace gas" and "these so-called nasty big polluters are the people who keep the lights on''.

    But in the game of musical chairs that politics often is Kevin Rudd has found himself with no place to sit.
    When the one you love becomes a memory, that memory becomes a treasure.

  3. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Detroit Lakes, MN
    Posts
    1,506

    Default

    Interesting. You provide a link that includes the word "opinion" and call it a "report". Then, there is no mention that the fundamental science is wrong. "Scientists think skepticism is good" - Wow what a shocker. The fact that political and scientific debates are usually separate but in this case there is confusion. Another shocker. Still no mention that the fundamental science is wrong or the science is confused. Some temperature data from a single study about a few recording stations may not be right and this is some sort of smoking gun, come on.

    I will wait for that report since I could not find it through basic searching. While you clearly and repeatedly find it acceptable to trust the media that prints stuff that only agrees with your point of view (pretty much the definition of sheeple), I like to check the facts and view everything pretty skeptically.

    You know, I have been waiting for many months for someone to present evidence for the theory that elevated CO2 and methane levels will not result in global warming/climate change. If you have any of this evidence for these theories, please send links to that too. I already know about the increased water vapor will increase clouds resulting in negative feedback theory and the plants will consume the extra CO2 theory too. Any others?

    BTW, have you been getting in on some of that bread Algore has bilked out of the nation's idiots? Too bad, Henry, you could be wealthier than an oilman by now...certainly, Algore is.
    Attacking the messenger again.... Maybe you should try something new, but then again your position is bankrupt. Repeatedly insinuating that I have something financially to gain in this is also getting old. You have asked this stupid question before and I have answered directly each time. Go check. Maybe you should have been just as concerned about Senator Barrasso's financial ties when you started this thread.

    Could you try presenting some science in your next response? I am betting you won't, so, if you stick to the playbook, you should now just ask me what I am doing to reduce CO2 emissions since I am so concerned about climate change and make sure to mention Al Gore again as it relates to this issue. I have already answered these questions in previous posts too.

    Have a great day!
    Last edited by Henry V; 02-07-2010 at 10:41 PM.

  4. #14
    Senior Member JDogger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    MRGV New Mexico
    Posts
    3,536

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Henry V View Post
    Interesting. You provide a link that includes the word "opinion" and call it a "report". Then, there is no mention that the fundamental science is wrong. "Scientists think skepticism is good" - Wow what a shocker. The fact that political and scientific debates are usually separate but in this case there is confusion. Another shocker. Still no mention that the fundamental science is wrong or the science is confused. Some temperature data from a single study about a few recording stations may not be right and this is some sort of smoking gun, come on.

    I will wait for that report since I could not find it through basic searching. While you clearly and repeatedly find it acceptable to trust the media that prints stuff that only agrees with your point of view (pretty much the definition of sheeple), I like to check the facts and view everything pretty skeptically.

    You know, I have been waiting for many months for someone to present evidence for the theory that elevated CO2 and methane levels will not result in global warming/climate change. If you have any of this evidence for these theories, please send links to that too. I already know about the increased water vapor will increase clouds resulting in negative feedback theory and the plants will consume the extra CO2 theory too. Any others?


    Attacking the messenger again.... Maybe you should try something new, but then again your position is bankrupt. Repeatedly insinuating that I have something financially to gain in this is also getting old. You have asked this stupid question before and I have answered directly each time. Go check. Maybe you should have been just as concerned about Senator Barrasso's financial ties when you started this thread.

    Could you try presenting some science in your next response? I am betting you won't, so, if you stick to the playbook, you should now just ask me what I am doing to reduce CO2 emissions since I am so concerned about climate change and make sure to mention Al Gore again as it relates to this issue. I have already answered these questions in previous posts too.

    Have a great day!
    Good post Henry, JD
    One cannot reason someone out of something they were not reasoned into. - Jonathan Swift

  5. #15
    Senior Member Hew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,082

    Default

    What's a playa gotta do up in he-ya to see that CO2 graph one mo time?!?
    I'll take the river down to still water and ride a pack of dogs.

  6. #16
    Senior Member JDogger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    MRGV New Mexico
    Posts
    3,536

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hew View Post
    What's a playa gotta do up in he-ya to see that CO2 graph one mo time?!?
    Well then do a search hew. Ya know how. Ya want Henry to hold yer hand? Again?
    One cannot reason someone out of something they were not reasoned into. - Jonathan Swift

  7. #17
    Senior Member Koolaid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    NB, Canada
    Posts
    148

    Default

    About the CO2 thing. Do you guys think that CO2 has no effect on the atmosphere or that the data is fabricated?

  8. #18
    Senior Member Hew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,082

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Koolaid View Post
    About the CO2 thing. Do you guys think that CO2 has no effect on the atmosphere or that the data is fabricated?
    Henry tells us what we're allowed to think about carbon dioxide, Koolaid. Since he hasn't posted his CO2 graph in at least a week I think we're all kinda just stumbling around hoping that someone will lead us out of the desert of ignorance regarding CO2.
    I'll take the river down to still water and ride a pack of dogs.

  9. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    2,860

    Default

    what I want to know is How they measured CO2 a 140 years ago.

    didnt know we were so advanced in 1860
    Pete

  10. #20
    Senior Member badbullgator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    somewhere between Boca Grande and Mims
    Posts
    7,283

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Henry V View Post
    Yeah your right. Citing one bad estimate in a lengthy report, a couple of emails among a few scientists, or a couple of bad citations among hundreds clearly suggests all the other evidence is flawed.

    Please, present some links to peer reviewed scientific evidence for why CO2 has increased the past 140 years, why methane is on the increase, why the oceans are becoming more acidic, why sea level is on the rise, and why the vast majority of glaciers around the world are melting. Or, provide some evidence that any of these is not happening. I am always looking to read more good science related to these topics.
    Come on Henry, add them up. This is just one, but this stuff is coming out almost daily now. IT IS FLAWED SCIENCE
    Views and opinions expressed herein by Badbullgator do not necessarily represent the policies or position of RTF. RTF and all of it's subsidiaries can not be held liable for the off centered humor and politically incorrect comments of the author.
    Corey Burke

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •