Global Warming bullshit

[losCHUNK]

Is bullshit :]

Yet the leaked report makes the extraordinary concession that the world has been warming at only just over half the rate claimed by the IPCC in its last assessment, published in 2007.

Back then, it said that the planet was warming at a rate of 0.2C every decade – a figure it claimed was in line with the forecasts made by computer climate models.

But the new report says the true figure since 1951 has been only 0.12C per decade – a rate far below even the lowest computer prediction.

The 31-page ‘summary for policymakers’ is based on a more technical 2,000-page analysis which will be issued at the same time. It also surprisingly reveals: IPCC scientists accept their forecast computers may have exaggerated the effect of increased carbon emissions on world temperatures – and not taken enough notice of natural variability.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... rong.html#

[Transient]

Half of terrible is still bad...

[DTS]

The Daily Mail is all bullshit

[Don Carlos]

Daily Fail

[seremtan]

this story may be accurate, but it's credibility is compromised by appearing in a really shit newspaper

i'll reserve judgement until i see what non-morons have to say about this

[losCHUNK]

Half of terrible is still bad...

Removing the extreme warming makes it look like a natural occurence, falling in line with expected warming / cooling by removing that stupid hockey stick Al Gore came up with.

By halving the data per decade the prediction has turned from a dead Earth in 100 years to 100s of years, which gives the Earth plenty of time to cool down like it has done in the past. Which is what I've been saying

this story may be accurate, but it's credibility is compromised by appearing in a really shit newspaper

i'll reserve judgement until i see what non-morons have to say about this

Observation

There's shitloads floating around the net though, click the top one if you can't be arsed to look. -

https://www.google.co.uk/#psj=1&q=globa ... s&safe=off

I touched on it in a thread about methane n all when I showed a graph of warming over the last 10 yrs, no one believed me

I'll post this one again though -

[lvlshot]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... ations.png[/lvlshot]

[seremtan]

the problem with the debate over global warming is that everyone believes what they want to believe, and the issue has become a casualty of the tedious 'culture wars': politicised and subject to tribal mudslinging

[Transient]

Every scientist agrees global warming exists. Every scientist agrees humans play a role in its acceleration. This isn't a debate like it was 10 years ago when not many people knew about global warming. It's real. Get your head out of the sand and join me in reality.

[losCHUNK]

You can't just say words and make them real

Every scientist may agree that Global Warming is natural but there's plenty of debate about who's causing it with most of the recent data suggesting, as usual, I was right

Even the media is waking up to the horseshit

[Transient]

There Is. NOT. A. Debate.

[losCHUNK]

More words

Sixteen prominent scientists recently signed an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal expressing their belief that the theory of global warming is not supported by science.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/3824/ ... s-not-real

The green party just got the upper hand thanks to media fear mongering

[GONNAFISTYA]

lol

I'm sorry but when I woke up this morning was it 1987?

[losCHUNK]

lol, if this supported data youd all be wanking in my hand

and I wouldn't have a leg to stand on or a pot to piss in

[Transient]

More words

Sixteen prominent scientists recently signed an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal expressing their belief that the theory of global warming is not supported by science.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/3824/ ... s-not-real

The green party just got the upper hand thanks to media fear mongering

Let's look at the list of who signed:

1) Claude Allègre has no peer reviewed published work on climate change. It's not his field of expertise. From Wikipedia: In 2010, more than 500 French researchers asked Science Minister Valérie Pécresse to dismiss Allègre’s book L’imposture climatique, claiming the book was "full of factual mistakes, distortions of data, and plain lies". Swedish paleontologist Håkan Grudd called the changes that Allègre made in hand-redrawing a graph of his, misleading and unethical.

2) J. Scott Armstrong works in marketing and advertising! He's not a climate scientist! His views have been rebutted by other scientists constantly. From Wikipedia: Armstrong has published articles and testified before Congress on forecasts of polar bear populations, arguing that previous estimates were too flawed to justify listing the bear as an endangered species. In an evaluation of Armstrong and other authors’ criticism of polar bear population forecasts, Amstrup and other authors, writing a response in the journal Interfaces, concluded that all of the claims made by Armstrong, which included lack of independence of the USGS, were either mistaken or misleading.

3) Jan Breslow, a PHYSICIAN, has written no peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Breslow's name appears dozens of times in the Legacy Tobacco Documents Library. The tobacco documents reveal that RJ Reynolds tobacco company paid Jan Breslow for research with a 1987 gift.

I stopped doing your research for you at this point, when I found this tidbit: Media Transparency reported on the Op-Ed, concluding that most of the scientists have never published articles in peer-reviewed journals on the subject of climate change. They also contacted economist William Nordhaus who had been cited by the article, and he said that the WSJ was guilty of a "Complete Mischaracterization Of My Work." Source: http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/0 ... ery/184002

You should know better than to trust the media to give you real information. It's in their interest to feed you misinformation and lies. You should also check your sources to make sure they're credible. Not to mention the article you referenced is an op-ed, that means it's an opinion piece. Not science. Tsk.

[losCHUNK]

Thanks for doing my research but you really didn't need to do that though, it only took 2 secs on Google cos you weren't playing ball and ignoring the presented data :]

I'll find you some peer reviewed work if you wish, by NASA predicting global cooling ?

Seeing as you chose to rip their credentials n all I thought i'd post the full list found through a link in the article

Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris; J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting; Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University; Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society; Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences; William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton; Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT; James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University; Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences; Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator; Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem; Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service; Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva.

Not everyone providing information is a climate scientist in the IPCC n all, data is gathered from a variety of sources.

[Transient]

Media Transparency reported on the Op-Ed, concluding that most of the scientists have never published articles in peer-reviewed journals on the subject of climate change. They also contacted economist William Nordhaus who had been cited by the article, and he said that the WSJ was guilty of a "Complete Mischaracterization Of My Work."

[losCHUNK]

The IPCC are being accused of the exact same thing... listen

[Transient]

I find it difficult to respond to your posts because you don't seem to quite get it...

I don't give a fuck what the IPCC said. By looking at independent studies performed by climate scientists, I can form my own opinion that climate change caused by humans is a real and present danger. When I look at these studies, I make sure that they are peer reviewed by other climatologists and that their findings aren't disputed by the scientific community. I also make sure that the expert who wrote the article doesn't have any ties to conflicting organisations or companies, and that they're qualified to write a paper on the subject to begin with. Lastly, I don't rely on a single article, graph, chart or finding to form an opinion, nor do I rely on a single news source to find that information.

If you want to convince me to take another look at climate change, then show me some articles. Show me that they are peer reviewed and that the authors are unbiased. I will read the article before forming an opinion.

[losCHUNK]

I find it difficult to respond to your posts because you don't seem to quite get it...

I don't give a fuck what the IPCC said. By looking at independent studies performed by climate scientists, I can form my own opinion that climate change caused by humans is a real and present danger. When I look at these studies, I make sure that they are peer reviewed by other climatologists and that their findings aren't disputed by the scientific community. I also make sure that the expert who wrote the article doesn't have any ties to conflicting organisations or companies, and that they're qualified to write a paper on the subject to begin with. Lastly, I don't rely on a single article, graph, chart or finding to form an opinion, nor do I rely on a single news source to find that information.

If you want to convince me to take another look at climate change, then show me some articles. Show me that they are peer reviewed and that the authors are unbiased. I will read the article before forming an opinion.

I get it, you havn't shown me shit ?. The IPCC report is what is being discussed and no one has changed subject, the UN uses this report for prediction to combat climate change. I provided information outside the report that was ignored then you chose to attack the reputation of people instead of the data. Which I can do with the IPCC report, Mike Hulme is a contributor and states that information can be mis represented, because his information has and that the 15,000 signatures may or may not agree because global warming means different things to different people.

And why don't you provide me with some ?, I've already provided the IPCC which you don't give a fuck about but the UN does

[GONNAFISTYA]

It appears losCHUNK is on the same path of self-destruction that Nightshade went through. Soon, after being ridiculed mercilessly beyond belief, he'll disappear from the forum entirely, only to return periodically to reinforce the bitterness that caused him to run away in the first place while completely dismissing everyone else.

[losCHUNK]

lol calm down buttercup, I think transient is closer to the melt down cos he seems to think he's won cos he said so

[Transient]

You're the one trying to convince me that global warming is BS, remember? I don't need to provide sources; the burden of proof lies on you. And I dismissed your second source because it didn't meet my criteria of credible information. I even went so far as to show you why it's not credible. As far as the IPCC findings go, I'll reserve judgement until I actually read their findings, not The Mail's interpretations of it. Don't forget, they also said:

Despite the many scientific uncertainties disclosed by the leaked report, it nonetheless draws familiar, apocalyptic conclusions – insisting that the IPCC is more confident than ever that global warming is mainly humans’ fault.

It says the world will continue to warm catastrophically unless there is drastic action to curb greenhouse gases – with big rises in sea level, floods, droughts and the disappearance of the Arctic icecap.

You seem to be drawing the conclusion that because the IPCC numbers were off by nearly half, that they must not know what they're doing. I am more inclined to believe that even though they were off by half, they still agree that it's a problem that needs to be curbed. We just have more breathing room than we did before. Think critically, dude, don't just jump to kneejerk conclusions.

[losCHUNK]

You're the one trying to convince me that global warming is BS, remember? I don't need to provide sources; the burden of proof lies on you. And I dismissed your second source because it didn't meet my criteria of credible information. I even went so far as to show you why it's not credible. As far as the IPCC findings go, I'll reserve judgement until I actually read their findings, not The Mail's interpretations of it. Don't forget, they also said:

Despite the many scientific uncertainties disclosed by the leaked report, it nonetheless draws familiar, apocalyptic conclusions – insisting that the IPCC is more confident than ever that global warming is mainly humans’ fault.

It says the world will continue to warm catastrophically unless there is drastic action to curb greenhouse gases – with big rises in sea level, floods, droughts and the disappearance of the Arctic icecap.

You seem to be drawing the conclusion that because the IPCC numbers were off by nearly half, that they must not know what they're doing. I am more inclined to believe that even though they were off by half, they still agree that it's a problem that needs to be curbed. We just have more breathing room than we did before. Think critically, dude, don't just jump to kneejerk conclusions.

The IPCC report was released in 07, it was deemed bullshit :], which is what I am arguing against and have provided information about. I offered to provide information from NASA that predicts a new cooling cycle. The 2nd source contained signatures from reputable sources even if you chose to single out certain ones and dis crediting, of which the IPCC has been accused of the exact same things.

If you have better sources then I am willing to hear, but all you said so far is 'I win' and I can't argue against something that hasn't been brought to my attention.

Also about kneejerk reaction, if someone has a small memory they should remember me saying these exact same things like 1 or 2 years ago ?, before anyone had any idea what this report would say.

Also the distinction needs to be made, I believe global warming is happening just like the 15,000 who provided information towards the IPCC report, we don't necasarily all agree that the data used constructs their view on climate change.

[HM-PuFFNSTuFF]

Los Chunk has seriously derpressed me.

[losCHUNK]

Wanna talk about methane ?