Indian Government Marginalizes UN IPCC

[Lindley]

and its being shown that a large part of the data that has been used to reach that consensus has been manipulated to reach a predetermined conclusion and in light of this agencies have been back tracking from those conclusions.

When faced with new information which calls into question the validity of theories and data underpinning previous results, adjusting the conclusions accordingly is actually forward progress, not "backtracking". At least from a scientific standpoint.

It's like if I have a bunch of small blue spheres, and a bunch of big red cubes, and I conclude from this that red things are bigger than blue things. But then later I get some small red cubes and big blue spheres; I must adjust the conclusion, so that I now suspect that blue things are more likely to be round than red things. But at the end of the day it's still just a prediction; it may need further refinement as more data becomes available. That a prediction is shown to be wrong only demonstrates that the underlying model is flawed, not that it's entirely junk.

The key here is that some of the data and conclusions have been called into question. Not all of it. But, as happens all too often, doubts raised about 5% of a conclusion tend to undermine the 95% which is perfectly valid as well.

 

[RJDiogenes]

^^ Exactly. Those who ideologically oppose the idea of a Human component to climate change (or the fact of climate change) will jump on any opportunity to undermine the overwhelming evidence.

Meanwhile, back on the real Earth, the whole man-caused global warming, er, Climate Change agenda is ideological and not scientific.

No, it's really happening. Unless you're actually now claiming that the ice caps aren't collapsing, glaciers retreating, sea levels rising, et cetera. These are not obscure numbers buried in an SQL database on a laptop. These are things that are happening in the real world.

The money is made through Cap and Trade or other taxes. Of course 'scientists' who tow the line get very nice grants.

A lot of people get grants. Nobody is getting rich from trying to correct climate change. A lot of people are getting rich from changing the climate.

Cool, bringing it down to the personal level. Good job.

I'm not making it personal. These are the arguments you use.

and its being shown that a large part of the data that has been used to reach that consensus has been manipulated to reach a predetermined conclusion and in light of this agencies have been back tracking from those conclusions. In other words, just because chicken little convinced a bunch of people that the sky was falling, turns out that they realized it wasnt true.

But it is true. Are you contesting the claim that there is a Human component to climate change or are you actually claiming that climate change is not occurring?

Links were asked for to support the contention that the data is fraudulent. Marc proposed his hypothesis. I said its a possibility, but it needs to be confirmed. Now you are saying that no evidence is needed simply because you believe it to be true? That's what this thread is about. Claims made with out data and the people who go along with such claims. So having to provide truth is very relevant. The question is do you (the general type) want to use data or emotionalism to discuss the topic?

I'm not using emotionalism. I'm pointing out that the "debate" is science versus money.

And there is an entire industry built up around the ideal that AGW is indeed man made. That industry would collapse if it turns out that the data is wrong. So they are doing their best to protect their position. So it cuts both ways.

What industry is built around the idea that climate change is man made, and how will it collapse if climate change turns out to be 110% natural? Or, again, are you contesting the actual fact of climate change?

 

[Locutus of Bored]

Part of the problem is that the argument against climate change itself changes every five minutes in an effort to create a sense of doubt. The argument doesn't have to make any sense (and frequently doesn't), it just has to cast doubt on the process. It's the Chewbacca Defense applied to global issues. For example:

Climate change is happening but it's not man-made (it's the Sun, Earth's natural climate cycles, whatever). Okay, but if we can we'd still want to counteract its most damaging effects anyway regardless of the ultimate cause, right?

Climate change is a vast liberal conspiracy. But wait, I thought climate change was a natural phenomenon? So, why would you need to have a conspiracy to falsify what's already happening?

If these liberal conspiracists are willing to make up a completely false global phenomenon, clearly they're totally unethical. So, why not side with the oil billionaires and their corporations which could pay you vastly greater sums of money right now to argue their position than investment in some potential green technology down the road ever could?

What do the scientific organizations involved in oil research and nations who depend on oil exporting for a significant portion of their economic well-being have to gain by supporting or at least remaining neutral about climate change?

Why with such a massive conspiracy involving millions of people of all backgrounds are some STOLEN emails which don't even talk about falsifying data - but rather prettying up the existing results to further support their point (unethical, but not false) - the only actual "evidence" of said conspiracy so far? How do millions of people keep something like this secret? How did they manage to create the false effects of "natural climate change" that are easily observable around the world to sell their point, if they're just making it all up?

The ridiculous conspiracy theories about climate change make the Moon landing hoax and 9/11 controlled demolition conspiracies seem downright plausible by comparison, but the same people who would rightly dismiss those conspiracies as crazy talk are perfectly willing to buy into a vastly greater and less logically motivated conspiracy at the drop of a hat.

 

[Gertch]

^^ Exactly. Those who ideologically oppose the idea of a Human component to climate change (or the fact of climate change) will jump on any opportunity to undermine the overwhelming evidence.

Yes, those who ideologically support the idea of a Human component to Climate Change will jump on any opportunity to create supporting evidence.

No, it's really happening. Unless you're actually now claiming that the ice caps aren't collapsing, glaciers retreating, sea levels rising, et cetera. These are not obscure numbers buried in an SQL database on a laptop. These are things that are happening in the real world.

Ice Caps (those darned faulty sensors):
Arctic
"Arctic Sea Ice Underestimated - Missed ice-block the size of California -I’m sure it’s just another honest mistake, but notice how the mistakes always occur in one direction"

Antarctica:
CICERO: No Antarctic melt proven

Glaciers:
New Scientist: Oops, the glaciers won’t have melted by 2035

Sea levels rise and fall all the time but if you have a link I'll read it for what it's worth.

I haven't heard of anyone concerned about the et ceteras but I'm sure they are doing just ducky as well.

The above stories are good examples of stories in the news lately concerning Climategate. If anyone didn't hear about them I'd suggest changing your news sources.

A lot of people get grants. Nobody is getting rich from trying to correct climate change. A lot of people are getting rich from changing the climate.

The lack of accurate proof of climate change, and any human involvement therefore, shows people cannot be getting rich from supposed changes. But people can certainly get rich from perpetrating this hoax.

I'm not making it personal. These are the arguments you use.

Yeah you're right, this isn't getting personal. Between this and the other mods post above I guess the 'post not poster' rule of thumb is gone. Hopefully it works both ways.

No, you're connected to Talk Radio and fringe web sites and Right Wing mailing lists, which are driven by extremist ideology

 

[Marc]

The ridiculous conspiracy theories about climate change make the Moon landing hoax and 9/11 controlled demolition conspiracies seem downright plausible by comparison, but the same people who would rightly dismiss those conspiracies as crazy talk are perfectly willing to buy into a vastly greater and less logically motivated conspiracy at the drop of a hat.

Or why is, that many of those who don't believe AGW/climate change is taking place decry the evidence that's presented yet that same time profess deep believe in a supreme deity for which no evidence of existance has ever been present mere a book that's said to be the word of God but written by man.

Does money trump faith except when it's convienent?

 

[Locutus of Bored]

Yeah you're right, this isn't getting personal. Between this and the other mods post above I guess the 'post not poster' rule of thumb is gone. Hopefully it works both ways.

What the hell?

Show me where in the post "above" (the one that's about the topic of climate change and not the mod action which you were told not to address here) I...

a) Quoted anyone from this thread or the board.

b) Named anyone from this thread or the board.

c) Made any personal comments about anyone from this thread or the board.

Does disagreeing with your position now count as making personal "post, not poster" insults? If you're going to ignore my unofficial posts, then ignore them. Don't take little potshots in your posts - and especially ones that aren't even true - when I didn't even address you (or anyone else) personally and was just making a general comment about the logical problems inherent in a lot of anti-climate change arguments.

 

[T'Girl]

Is India really ditching the IPCC because of concerns over it's accuracy or it is forming it's own that will be more ameniable to the aims of the Indian Government.

India government is embarrassd because the head of the UN IPCC is an Indian citizen, he's already admitted he's wrong and the 230 himalayan glaciers aren't going to melt away in 25 years, the original announcement caused a political uproar.

The IPCC report was based on a 8 year old New Scientist magazine article, the acticle was based on 1999 phone interview with a Indian scientist named Syed Hasnain about a report he never published. The IPCC became aware of the New Scientist article when it as mention in some World Wildlife Fund campaigning literature from the year 2005.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6991177.ece

None of this information was peer reviewed.

Neither the China nor India governments want to cut back on their carbon emissions because of the economic and social damage it would do their countries. As sovereign nations they need no justification for their decisions, however the dwindling confidence in the causes, speed and ultimate outcome of climate change will give both of them a face saving justification.

I don't know if India was involved but there were a number of articles published basically putting th blame for the failure of Copenhagen on China's doorstep as it lead a group of developing nations making certain demands

From what I read and heard not just China, but the African nations especially and others nations too, wanted the "developed nations" to pay them endless billions not to develop industries in the future. The developed nations refused.

Does anyone think the planet cares if carbon emissions come from a developed or non-developed nation?

 

[Marc]

Is India really ditching the IPCC because of concerns over it's accuracy or it is forming it's own that will be more ameniable to the aims of the Indian Government.

India government is embarrassd because the head of the UN IPCC is an Indian citizen, he's already admitted he's wrong and the 230 himalayan glaciers aren't going to melt away in 25 years, the original announcement caused a political uproar.

The IPCC report was based on a 8 year old New Scientist magazine article, the acticle was based on 1999 phone interview with a Indian scientist named Syed Hasnain about a report he never published. The IPCC became aware of the New Scientist article when it as mention in some World Wildlife Fund campaigning literature from the year 2005.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6991177.ece

None of this information was peer reviewed.

At the same time even when data is reported with people with a scientiic background and there is review, it's not alwasy being reported accurately in the media. In some instances the credentials and refernces are not mentioned at all.

http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com...theaustralian/comments/the_wwf_seeks_redress/

YOUR report ("More flaws emerge in climate alarms”, 1/2) claims incorrectly that the WWF report “The Global Review of Forest Fires” published in 2000 and from which the IPCC sourced its information on the future of the Amazon rainforest was written by “green campaigners who had no scientific expertise”. The report’s author, Peter Moore, has a PhD in fire management and is an internationally recognised expert in the field.
In the article journalist Jonathan Leake states that the claims in the WWF report were based on a study from Nature that did not look at rainfall. However, the abstract for that article clearly states that it examined drought and the effects of the dry season, both related to rainfall. It’s hard to imagine how Leake could have missed this if he had read the
abstract. It should be noted that “The Global Review of Forest Fires” had more than 170 references with the great majority of these being to original scientific papers.

So while the we get news reports about supposedly fraudenlent data etc, the question needs to be asked - just how accurately is the media reporting this stories.

Neither the China nor India governments want to cut back on their carbon emissions because of the economic and social damage it would do their countries. As sovereign nations they need no justification for their decisions, however the dwindling confidence in the causes, speed and ultimate outcome of climate change will give both of them a face saving justification.

Yet at the same time, both countries have massive populations and massive pollution issues. Air quality in Bejing was a major concern for people in the lead up to the 2008 Olympics.

I belive the response from the Chinese government was to have factories shut down in the leadup to the games to reduce the amount of crap being released in the atmosphere. So while these countries demand the right to pollute as much as the developed nations, what happenes then pollution great exceeds the levels the U.S, Canada, Germany etc etc.

I don't know if India was involved but there were a number of articles published basically putting th blame for the failure of Copenhagen on China's doorstep as it lead a group of developing nations making certain demands

From what I read and heard not just China, but the African nations especially and others nations too, wanted the "developed nations" to pay them endless billions not to develop industries in the future. The developed nations refused.

Does anyone think the planet cares if carbon emissions come from a developed or non-developed nation?

[/QUOTE]

That can only be described as a bit of blackmail and worked out nicely for the Chinese but what's going to happen them in the long run?

 

[gturner]

Today's big scandal is that the IPPC report said African crop production could be cut in half by 2020 due to climate change. Upon investigation, there was no supporting scientific evidence for the claim.

link

Getting back to the glacier scandal, the Globe and Mail said:

Worse still, the Times has discovered that Mr. Pachauri's own Energy and Resources Unit, based in New Delhi, has collected millions in grants to study the effects of glacial melting – all on the strength of that bogus glacier claim, which happens to have been endorsed by the same scientist who now runs the unit that got the money. Even so, the IPCC chief is hanging tough. He insists the attacks on him are being orchestrated by companies facing lower profits.

Until now, anyone who questioned the credibility of the IPCC was labelled as a climate skeptic, or worse. But many climate scientists now sense a sinking ship, and they're bailing out. Among them is Andrew Weaver, a climatologist at the University of Victoria who acknowledges that the climate body has crossed the line into advocacy. Even Britain's Greenpeace has called for Mr. Pachauri's resignation. India says it will establish its own body to monitor the effects of global warming because it “cannot rely” on the IPCC.

 

[Misfit Toy]

Getting back to the glacier scandal, the Globe and Mail said:

Worse still, the Times has discovered that Mr. Pachauri's own Energy and Resources Unit, based in New Delhi, has collected millions in grants to study the effects of glacial melting – all on the strength of that bogus glacier claim, which happens to have been endorsed by the same scientist who now runs the unit that got the money. Even so, the IPCC chief is hanging tough. He insists the attacks on him are being orchestrated by companies facing lower profits.

Until now, anyone who questioned the credibility of the IPCC was labelled as a climate skeptic, or worse. But many climate scientists now sense a sinking ship, and they're bailing out. Among them is Andrew Weaver, a climatologist at the University of Victoria who acknowledges that the climate body has crossed the line into advocacy. Even Britain's Greenpeace has called for Mr. Pachauri's resignation. India says it will establish its own body to monitor the effects of global warming because it “cannot rely” on the IPCC.

It should be noted that the above is from an opinion piece, not a news story.

 

[gturner]

Would you prefer a couple of dozen news stories?

How about a hundred page scientific paper examining the problems with the ground based temperature records, which concludes that they can't be relied on because of station and station data manipulation, traced to NOAA, USHCN, GISS, and CRU?

 

[Misfit Toy]

I don't really care one way or another - I'm just pointing out that the link that you chose was to an opinion piece.

 

[gturner]

Thank you for pointing that out.

Coincidentally, the IPCC AR4 report has also turned out to be an opinion piece, if not completely science fiction.

 

[Hoser]

I know, I was just reading that the Arctic ice was receding faster than the report said it should be.

 

[RJDiogenes]

Yes, those who ideologically support the idea of a Human component to Climate Change will jump on any opportunity to create supporting evidence.

It's like talking to Eliza....

Ice Caps (those darned faulty sensors):
Arctic
"Arctic Sea Ice Underestimated - Missed ice-block the size of California -I’m sure it’s just another honest mistake, but notice how the mistakes always occur in one direction"

Another tinfoil-hatted website. Try a legitimate source. Now explain to me how the Vast Left Wing Conspiracy is faking satellite imagery.

Antarctica:
CICERO: No Antarctic melt proven

Another tinfoil-hatted website. Try a legitimate source. The piecemeal collapse of the Antarctic shelf has been documented for quite a few years.

Glaciers:
New Scientist: Oops, the glaciers won’t have melted by 2035

And another link to a tinfoil-hatted website-- that doesn't even say anything.

Sea levels rise and fall all the time but if you have a link I'll read it for what it's worth.

Here's a little compendium for you. Feel free to follow the links to the legitimate sources.

The above stories are good examples of stories in the news lately concerning Climategate. If anyone didn't hear about them I'd suggest changing your news sources.

To tinfoil-hatted websites? How's the Moon Landing Hoax investigation coming?

Yeah you're right, this isn't getting personal. Between this and the other mods post above I guess the 'post not poster' rule of thumb is gone. Hopefully it works both ways.

If you're going to claim to have credibility because you're not being paid, despite continually using links to fraudulent, incoherent, Right Wing extremist editorials as "evidence," then you need to expect to be called on it. That is not getting personal.

 

[Gertch]

To tinfoil-hatted websites? How's the Moon Landing Hoax investigation coming?

Cute. Do your own searches if you're actually interested then. There should be enough keywords in those stories.

I would also suggest taking the DATE into account. Your Arctic story was almost a full year BEFORE the sensor glitch was discovered.

If you're going to claim to have credibility because you're not being paid, despite continually using links to fraudulent, incoherent, Right Wing extremist editorials as "evidence," then you need to expect to be called on it. That is not getting personal.

I'll remember that next time someone who hangs around left wing extremist sites posts in a thread about homosexuality.

I realize you're not ever going to take my word for anything. So I'll leave you with a piece from someone you'd probably listen to - a Kennedy.

RFK, Jr. 15 months ago: Global warming means no snow or cold in DC

​

 

[Locutus of Bored]

I'll remember that next time someone who hangs around left wing extremist sites posts in a thread about homosexuality.

You think people have to resort to using "left wing extremist sites" to support lifting Don't Ask, Don't Tell or gay marriage bans? Right, because that never gets any support in mainstream media sources.

 

[RJDiogenes]

I would also suggest taking the DATE into account. Your Arctic story was almost a full year BEFORE the sensor glitch was discovered.

True. It's worse now. But I didn't want to waste a lot of time. Unless your sensor glitch somehow negates all the satellite imagery and the eyewitness accounts and so on.

I'll remember that next time someone who hangs around left wing extremist sites posts in a thread about homosexuality.

Uh, okay, that's fine. Although why anyone would go to an extremist site for information that readily available at any number of legitimate sources, I can't guess.

RFK, Jr. 15 months ago: Global warming means no snow or cold in DC

Well, okay, then. Why didn't you say so to begin with? There's nothing like a snowy weekend in the nation's capital to prove that those ice shelves in Antarctica never collapsed, that the Arctic Sea isn't on the verge of clearing, that the sea levels haven't risen, that glaciers in Alaska and Greenland and so on haven't receded, that mountain peaks haven't been clear of snow and ice for the first time in Millennia, that ocean temperatures and currents haven't changed, that animal migration patterns and plant distribution patterns haven't changed dramatically in the past half century, etc. We're lucky RFK made that speech and exposed this vast conspiracy of scientists, hippies and amateur naturalists who made these observations and collected this information all these decades-- not to mention the conspiracy moles within the general population who have also claimed to have seen such things with their own eyes.

 

[Marc]

I would also suggest taking the DATE into account. Your Arctic story was almost a full year BEFORE the sensor glitch was discovered.

True. It's worse now. But I didn't want to waste a lot of time. Unless your sensor glitch somehow negates all the satellite imagery and the eyewitness accounts and so on.

I'll remember that next time someone who hangs around left wing extremist sites posts in a thread about homosexuality.

Uh, okay, that's fine. Although why anyone would go to an extremist site for information that readily available at any number of legitimate sources, I can't guess.

RFK, Jr. 15 months ago: Global warming means no snow or cold in DC

Well, okay, then. Why didn't you say so to begin with? There's nothing like a snowy weekend in the nation's capital to prove that those ice shelves in Antarctica never collapsed, that the Arctic Sea isn't on the verge of clearing, that the sea levels haven't risen, that glaciers in Alaska and Greenland and so on haven't receded, that mountain peaks haven't been clear of snow and ice for the first time in Millennia, that ocean temperatures and currents haven't changed, that animal migration patterns and plant distribution patterns haven't changed dramatically in the past half century, etc. We're lucky RFK made that speech and exposed this vast conspiracy of scientists, hippies and amateur naturalists who made these observations and collected this information all these decades-- not to mention the conspiracy moles within the general population who have also claimed to have seen such things with their own eyes.

and to think - it wasn't for a high preasure system over parts of Canada that pushed the cold weather system with all the snow back into the U.S it would of come down north of the border.

In the meantime it just reminds us how some people can't don't know the difference between climate and weather.

 

[gturner]

In the meantime it just reminds us how some people can't don't know the difference between climate and weather.

Unless you cleverly run the headline

Report: Harsh winter a sign of climate change