Thursday February 16, 2012

World's top scientists to review climate panel

World ( 44 )

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Back to top

Order by Time Order by Popularity

44 Comments

Login to comment

  • 0

    samwatters

    I admit I'm not a scientist but I remember in the 1970's having a science magazine (Omni, I believe) that was warning the world about the coming Ice Age....

  • 0

    Gurukun

    I'm also no scientific expert, but it always baffles me when you hear all the reports on Global Warming for the last decade or so, and then get news eports of "the coldest temperatures in the city in 80 years." How can that be?

  • 0

    brotokyo

    Friends from the Atlantic Coast, USA emailed several times this winter telling how busy they have been shoveling yet another foot or so of global warming off the sidewalk or driveway.

  • 0

    SushiSake3

    What's there to review? The last 10 years have been the warmest on record.

    Guruken - "the coldest temperatures in the city in 80 years." How can that be?"

    This is no surprise at all. Climate change brings extreme weather events, not just a warming phenomenom.

    Hurricane Katrina is a case in point - that wasn't exactly 'warm' (although the strength of the hurricane was increased when it crossed over the unusually warm waters of the Gulf of Mexico).

  • 0

    skipthesong

    Well, I look at this like this - I hope the gore types have been right. I've along with others have invested a lot on what they have found in the past. If this proves all to be some finding blown out of proportion, I'm gonna be pissed. The latest scandal was scary enough to make my wife get pissed at me, saying not enough research has been put in to it. I hope she's wrong.

  • 0

    proxy

    Any rich country that signs on to any UN binding treaty is just plain stupid.

  • 0

    Wasabi67

    Global warming doesnt exist.. its a way for liberals to add more taxes.. see Europe... and now that there is so much snow all over America when it should be warming up... they changed their tune and now they call it ... Climate change.. whatever Al Gore.. you freakin idiot

  • 0

    SushiSake3

    Wasabi67 - "there is so much snow all over America when it should be warming up..."

    That statement clearly doesn't have a lot of insight behind it.

    Global warming refers to the general warming of the planet - which is clearly happening.

    Climate change refers to other climate-related events - such as extreme weather events - hurricanes, droughts, extreme snow storms, etc.

    The latter includes the former.

    Al Gore is right.

    And I'd like at least one Climate Change Denier to show me how - exactly - Al Gore is benefitting from talking about the dangers of climate change.

    So far, a lot of Climate Change Deniers have said Al Gore 'must be profiting from it' - and yet not a single one of them can put up any proof.

    Kind of interesting....

  • 0

    HeyLars

    Wasabi67, they had to start using the term "climate change" because dumb people think that an extremely complicated difficult to analyze global pattern can actually be summed up in two words that define the entire process. When are so foolish they actually judge a book by its title, that title has to change because fools won't.

    Don't think any of that precludes the possibility that believers in man-made climate change might also be fools though. I really don't know and I am not afraid to admit I don't know when I don't. But I do know the whole deal cannot be properly summed up in two words. A rose by any other name...

  • 0

    skipthesong

    And I'd like at least one Climate Change Denier to show me how - exactly - Al Gore is benefitting from talking about the dangers of climate change."

    I'm not a denier. However, to ask a question as to how Gore is benefitting, is nuts. Do you realize what he has his hands in?

  • 0

    some14some

    But several mistakes have been discovered in the second of the four climate research reports produced in 2007,

    scientists making scientific blunders not the Mother Nature...climate change, panel change...back to WMD = Weather May Destroy (universe?).

  • 0

    SushiSake3

    HeyLars - "Wasabi67, they had to start using the term "climate change" because dumb people think that an extremely complicated difficult to analyze global pattern can actually be summed up in two words that define the entire process."

    There's clearer understanding in simplicity.

    Here's some interesting images the Climate Change Deniers would probably rather not see -

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060914-arctic-ice.html

    and these ones from NASA are lovely -

    www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/1023esuice.html

    • but they're probably Photoshopped or something like that..... :-)

    The fact is, the debate about whether or not climate change is happening is long over, and it's only those who really, really, really want to cling on to some pretty weird ideas that it's all an Al Gore-manufactured hoax who are still willing to question it.

    The British government is beginning to seriously invest in offshore wind farms - and this is just one major government that is doing so.

    They are seeing the effects of climate change (droughts in the southeast), as are people here in Japan (good climate to grow rice and mikan is moving north), and heck, the British are now growing tea.

    That said, it's always entertaining to watch the Climate Change Deniers battle it out among themselves about how wrong Al Gore is or whether the recent cold weather in the U.S. is actually "proof that climate change isn't happening" or some other ill-informed claptrap.

  • 0

    SushiSake3

    skip - " However, to ask a question as to how Gore is benefitting, is nuts. Do you realize what he has his hands in?"

    Please explain?

  • 0

    proxy

    Al Gore stands to make billions. Generation Investment Management LLP (Blood and Gore)

    The Chicago Climate Exchange which owns half of the European Climate Exchange is owned 10% by GIM and 10% Goldman Sucks.

  • 0

    SushiSake3

    "Al Gore stands to make billions.

    Well, does he or doesn't he?

  • 0

    skipthesong

    ss3: proxy beat me to it.

  • 0

    Molenir

    The fact is, the debate about whether or not climate change is happening is long over, and it's only those who really, really, really want to cling on to some pretty weird ideas that it's all an Al Gore-manufactured hoax who are still willing to question it.

    Sorry, but for the hysterics the debate may be over, but for rational intelligent people, there is a great deal of debate over the idea of global warming. Now that we've discovered that the top people involved were in fact lying, and covering up data that gave them the wrong results. Manipulating the peer review process to prevent any potentially challenging studies from getting publication. Oh, and of course the complete and total lack of direct evidence.

    Then there is the fact that they went from global warming, to climate change. The one, suggests that the earth is heating up, and despite no evidence to back this up, they point to Venus and say, look, greenhouse, we're going to turn into Venus... Its irreversible unless we act now. (Chicken Little scenario) However they discovered that the earth wasn't heating up the way they wanted it to, and so, changed the term to be climate change. That way, regardless of weather, regardless of result, everything is evidence of a changing environment.

    Al Gore was wrong. In his most recent article defending his climate hysteria, he got multiple things wrong, either that or he deliberately lied, thinking that people wouldn't read closely and pick out his lies. But then as others have pointed out, he profits from the hysteria.

    At this point, anyone who buys into the hysteria, is quit simply, either like Skip and working for the 'green' energy conglomerate, or an idiot. I don't blame Skip, its a job, its an investment. I do blame the scientists who in always seeking funding have turned what should be a scientific endeavor, into a way to create a lifetime or work.

  • 0

    LostinNagoya

    Wasabi67, you should stop thinking "locally" and instead, take a look globaly. US has had the strong winter in decades, THIS YEAR. However what about the rest of the decade, and the previous years when people started realising winters are getting shorter and warmer, in general, even before this UN-panel findings? You, in Japan, should know better: it was recently published by Japanese government that winters are getting shorter, according to their research. Think globally: while US is having this strong winter in 2010, the rest of the world in the southern hemisphere is having the warmest summer in years too, and records being broken year by year. What I suggest to you in denial is: learn another language other than English. Chinese, Spanish, Arab languages and you will discover that there a lot of things happening in the world that don't come to the surface in English news.

    Did you know for instance that this summer, Amazon had its warmest summer ever and giant rivers went dry. And that at the same time an are the size of Tokyo turns into smoke every summer in Brazilian Amazon and Indonesia, killing animals and plants that could be new medicines to serious diseases? And that only an international consensus could stop these two countries?

    So, again, travel a little around the world. Leave your controlled temperature room and discover that yes, we're destroying our world.

  • 0

    SushiSake3

    I think Climate Change Deniers need to tell us why the media in a whole lot of advanced and not-so-advanced countries, are reporting occurences of highly unusual and extreme weather patterns from pole to pole, that effectively back up Al Gore's hypothesis that the earth is, in fact, getting warmer and that we should expect more extreme weather.

    Does Al Gore control the world press?

    This is just one area that torpedoes the Climate Change Deniers' argument.

  • 0

    skipthesong

    ss3: look, Al better be right. Oh my wife is going to look him AND YOU down. I was a big camper in your camp. Our scientists in the lead have let us down recently. Al's all we got now.

    I haven't made a dime out this in over two years

  • 0

    adaydream

    Al Gore stands to make $Millions. "Big Deal"

    Is that what drives the decisions on global warming and climate change; whether Al Gore makes money in it?

    I wish the "george bush Memorial War in Iraq" had really ask "what will cheney and bush reap out of it?" cheney reaps $Billions from Halliburton because of Iraq.

    We need to look no farther than Canada to see more effects from global warming. Canada is losing trees because of the Spruce Budworm. Where it used to die off or go dormant in winter, it's gotten so warm in Canada that it doesn't slow down in winter anymore.

    But that's not the problem. The problem is whether Al Gore makes money off global warming. < :-)

  • 0

    Molenir

    I too have found unusual correlation between those hysterical over global warming, and those who are extremely gullible. Amazing how the two seem to go hand in hand. If you're a gullible person, you'll believe the hysteria, if you're not, if you have a bit of common sense, and of course, aren't profiting from the hysteria, then its amazing how little evidence there is to support the hysterics claims. Even more so when you start looking at the data the hysterics have been deliberately ignoring. Still, thats why they quit pushing global warming and started using climate change. I mean, since the earth has been cooling for more then a decade now, they were starting to have trouble covering that up, but switch to pushing climate change, and that covers every contingency. Since... the climate is always changing.

  • 0

    LostinNagoya

    I mean, since the earth has been cooling for more then a decade now

    You mean you are going to show us examples of this cooling? Or c+v serious links? Or is it just you being hysterical yourself?

  • 0

    adaydream

    I'd like to see that data myself.

    It was reported already that this is the warmest decade on record. < :-)

    http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20100121/

  • 0

    LostinNagoya

    Thanks adaydream. That's what is called solid argument!!

    It's pathetic reading people saying Earth is cooling because this ONE winter has been so cold. In the southern hemisphere, my Brazilian boyfriend who is Rio told me that for the first time in recorded history, Rio temperatures reached a glowing 45 Celsius (gaahh!) this last week and that 15 of their major cities issued an UV alert, asking people to avoid sunlight during peak hours. I wonder how temperatures are in now in India, Australia, South Africa...

  • 0

    GJDailleult

    Molenir's comment uses some form of the word hysteric 5 times and gullible twice. It contains backed-up facts and evidence that support his position zero times.

    As usual, a denier is demanding evidence that man-made climate change / global warming is actually happening, while conveniently ignoring the fact that they have NO evidence that it is not.

  • 0

    Wolfpack

    After all of the recent evidence that global warming is a fraud perpetrated by ideologically motivated and politicized "scientists", isn't it evident that the real deniers are Al Gore's statist minions. Phil Jones, one of the lead quasi-scientists espousing anthropological global warming, recently admitted that there has been "no statistically significant" global warming over the last 15 years (see his BBC interview). Despite Michael Mann's famous "hockey-stick" graph which basically won Al Gore a Nobel Prize, Jones admitted that warming during medieval times may have been greater than any recent warming - as if knowledge of Vikings farming in Greenland is a recent development.

    There is no consensus on global warming. However, there is an emerging consensus that a cabal of leading world scientists have stupidly risked their reputations by pushing a political agenda and ignoring scientific principles by destroying data and bullying other scientists and scientific journals in order to make it appear that their is a consensus supporting man made global warming. This has to be the biggest scientific scandal since Eugenics.

  • 0

    Molenir

    GJ, LotsinNagoya, aday - Molenir's comment uses some form of the word hysteric 5 times and gullible twice. It contains backed-up facts and evidence that support his position zero times. (Sorry, I used 1 quote to refer to all of you, since you were all essentially saying the same thing.)

    I see you guys have trouble with google. Heres a link that quotes some of your own hysterics, and from the BBC of all things. There are lots more out there, feel free to find them yourself.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8299079.stm

    Of course the hysteric pseudo-scientist quoted in this article, claim its just a temporary thing, it will start heating up again any time now. And considering that the climate really does change, all the time, some years cooler, some warmer, thats quite possible. On the other hand it could keep going the other way too. We'll see. What is far less certain, is the AGW theory that has been pretty much debunked as having any solid foundation.

    What you hysterics don't seem to realize, is that most so called 'skeptics' actually have an open mind on the subject. Its possible people can be effecting the environment, but its neither the most likely cause, nor is there any firm evidence to support it at this time. And the Venus Hockey Stick idea has no basis in reality at all.

  • 0

    LostinNagoya

    As I said some posts before, I advise people like you Molenir and Wolfpack, to stick your heads out of your small, tiny, English world. Go to other coutries, learn other languages, so you will see what really lays beyond those political reports that are written with the purpose of attacking Al Gore (call it envy!) instead of dealing with what is happening around us. You call us hysterics, I call you blind.

  • 0

    Molenir

    You call us hysterics, I call you blind.

    Actually, I believe I called you gullible. People who buy into the hysteria fall into 2 basic categories. Those who have something to gain from the hype, and those who are naive enough to believe the pronouncements of so called authorities without actually thinking about the evidence or lack thereof, behind it. The more people know about the subject, the less inclined they are to believe it. Particularly when you consider how the so called scientists, have acted. You know theres a problem when people who should be impartial and devoted to finding the truth instead become cheerleaders for one side, and completely ignore and attempt to prevent any contradictory evidence from coming to light.

    To be honest, I actually feel sorry for anyone who still believes this.

  • 0

    GJDailleult

    There is nothing hysteric about pointing out the giant black hole in the deniers' argument. The deniers like Molenir are claiming that people are hysteric and gullible for believing in what they claim is an unproven scientific theory is when their own position is itself scientifically unproven and unprovable. It is scientifically IMPOSSIBLE to say that man-made global warming is not happening. When deniers state that climate change is a natural phenomenon, they are saying that because change has always occured then the change now is the same as what would have happened naturally without any human effect. Quite a leap of logic that. There is no control group or way to measure the natural change, it's a known unknown, and without that knowledge the deniers' position is unprovable.

    Does that mean the deniers are factually wrong about climate change? Nope, what it means is the most they can say scientifically is that the evidence in favor of the thesis is inconclusive. And if it is inconclusive, then by definition the possibility of mad-made client change exists and anybody who denies that is "hysteric" and "gullible".

  • 0

    GJDailleult

    Oops, climate....Man-made client change? That sounds serious.

  • 0

    Molenir

    There is nothing hysteric about pointing out the giant black hole in the deniers' argument.

    What makes this hysteria is that you proponents and those so gullible as to believe them, don't have any proof. There is nothing. Theres trends, theres data, but no evidence linking x to y. Its all speculation, and the firm belief that mankind is bad, thus people are the problem. You look at a clear blue sky and scream that the sky is falling. There is however a great deal of evidence to the contrary.

    Your argument that "deniers" position is scientifically unprovable, is simply wrong. In fact all of history stands against your position. The fact that throughout history there have been warm periods and cold periods speaks against mankind being responsible for the changing climate. And what is it that you have going for you? Unproven hypothesis, and a suggestion that because Venus is the way it is, and has been for millions of years, the CO2 we are putting out will turn us into Venus. Its a nonsensical argument that anyone with even a shred of reason can see is ludicrous. You might as well talk about how we're all sinners and that because of that God is smiting the earth and changing the weather. Thats what they would have said hundreds of years ago, and theres just as much evidence to back that up, as there is to say the less then 3% of the total CO2 emitted per year, that humans are responsible for, is so significantly changing the planet.

    But go ahead and keep talking. Keep proving that you are in fact either in the pay of the "green" conglomerate, or just a gullible fool. You're pretty much one or the other.

  • 0

    LostinNagoya

    Here's a sad example of how climate change is damaging nature:

    "Birds are getting tinier, smaller due to climate change" http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earthnews/newsid8560000/8560694.stm

  • 0

    GJDailleult

    I'll say it more simply then. The idea that man-made climate change is NOT happening may be correct, but it is NOT provable. That is undeniable.

    As for being in a the pay of the "green" conglomerate and/or being a gullible fool, that charge would be a lot more credible if it wasn't being made by gullible people who believe government is always the problem, jobs should be shipped off to China, and that markets are efficient. If climate change is a con job, so what, what isn't? People come up with bogus nonsense all the time so they can line their pockets, it is how the world works.

  • 0

    Molenir

    I'll say it more simply then. The idea that man-made climate change is NOT happening may be correct, but it is NOT provable. That is undeniable.

    Thank you for coming around to my point of view. You've just admitted the problem with the climate change hysteria. The simple fact that they can't link man caused CO2 to global warming. As you said, its undeniable. I'll throw one back to you too. This doesn't mean that the climate isn't changing, because it is. It always is. However the fact that the climate is constantly changing, does not mean we should spend trillions of dollars and bankrupt our economies, which are already bankrupt, to somehow save the planet from a menace that is completely unproven. That however is precisely what we're being asked to do. To destroy the world economy on the basis of an unproven pseudo scientific hypothesis.

  • 0

    Wolfpack

    LostInNagoya says:

    As I said some posts before, I advise people like you Molenir and Wolfpack, to stick your heads out of your small, tiny, English world. Go to other coutries, learn other languages, so you will see what really lays beyond those political reports that are written with the purpose of attacking Al Gore (call it envy!) instead of dealing with what is happening around us. You call us hysterics, I call you blind.

    How can you assume that people who simply disagree with you have not traveled and lived in different countries (non-English speaking) and have not learned other languages? Isn't that a pretty arrogant statement on your part? I have traveled a great deal and speak a foreign language (although not as well as I would like to). What is blind is to ignore different scientific evidence and viewpoints; which is why the real "deniers" are Al Gore and those who follow him so blindly that they are unable to objectively view the scandalous state of current climate science.

    Man caused global warming theory is currently undergoing a serious re-thinking due to the very unscientific and politically motivated actions of it's leading proponents. Al Gore has made so many baseless assertions on the "science" that he now looks silly. Gore refuses to even debate people who disagree with him about AGW theory. This simply demonstrates that he is unable to make a factual defense of it. Those that attack skeptics do so based on closed mindedness and ideological fervor. Open your mind, if the science is settled, why so much bullying and lack of sientific rigor on the part of Phil Jones, Michael Mann, the IPCC's Rajendra Pachauri, and so many others?

  • 0

    Wolfpack

    GJDailleult says:

    I'll say it more simply then. The idea that man-made climate change is NOT happening may be correct, but it is NOT provable. That is undeniable.

    Molenir says:

    Thank you for coming around to my point of view. You've just admitted the problem with the climate change hysteria. The simple fact that they can't link man caused CO2 to global warming. As you said, its undeniable.

    Just as a matter of logic, Molenir is completely correct. GJDailleult - the attempt to link human action and CO2 levels to warming has not succeeded because "correlation does not prove causation." It does not make much sense to make economic and public policy decisions based upon mere correlations. For example, just because I wake up just before the sun rises everyday doesn't prove that by waking up, I cause the sun to rise.

    At this point, those that believe in man-made global warming do so based upon faith. Even leading evionmental scientists are among the faithful and have gone so far as to seek only to prove their hypothesis correct, and are not open minded enough to accept evidence proving it to be false. This belief is so fervent that non-believers are branded heretics; or in the words of the faithful, "deniers."

Back to top

Login to leave a comment

OR

Follow us

Facebook
Twitter

More in World

View all

View all