Quake3World

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.

Transient wrote:Half of terrible is still bad...

seremtan wrote: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

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.

losCHUNK wrote: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

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.

Transient wrote: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."

Transient wrote: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.

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.

Transient wrote: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.