Indian Government Marginalizes UN IPCC

[T'Girl]

The Indian government has established its own body to monitor the effects of global warming because it “cannot rely” on the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change headed by climate scientist Doctor R.K. Pachauri has faced growing criticism ever since as questions have been raised on the credibility of their work and the rigor with which climate change claims are assessed.

Dr Pachauri has had to defend his reputation following the revelation that his most recent climate change report included false claims that most of the Himalayan glaciers would melt away by 2035.

Indian universities report that the glaciers would take 300 years plus to melt and some of the glaciers seem to be advancing.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/en...7590/India-forms-new-climate-change-body.html

The climate is changing. Whether you believe it's natural, natural exacerbated by humans or primarily cause by humans, it does seem that proponents of human caused climate change are shooting themselves in the foot by over stating the effects. Al Gore (not a scientist) claimed years ago that by this time the oceans "could" rise by "as much" as twenty feet, the oceans have rose by millimeters. Does this help? The UN IPCC seems to be using a simular over-statement tactic. Is it necessary to use this tactic to grab the publics attention? Is it just a scare tactic on their part?

 

[TheLonelySquire]

Of course they use scare tactics.

Let's see. Using the wrong data, marginalizing opponents, claiming "the debate is over" <--- THAT'S always a good one!.

The climate changes because it's natural for it to. The drive behind man-mad global warming is $$$. Plain and simple.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Of course they use scare tactics.

Let's see. Using the wrong data, marginalizing opponents, claiming "the debate is over" <--- THAT'S always a good one!.

The climate changes because it's natural for it to. The drive behind man-mad global warming is $$$. Plain and simple.

Got any evidence to back up any of these assertions?

 

[Marc]

Of course they use scare tactics.

Let's see. Using the wrong data, marginalizing opponents, claiming "the debate is over" <--- THAT'S always a good one!.

The climate changes because it's natural for it to. The drive behind man-mad global warming is $$$. Plain and simple.

Got any evidence to back up any of these assertions?

give him time after all he never has it to hand when he makes this claims so has to google it.

 

[Gertch]

Of course they use scare tactics.

Let's see. Using the wrong data, marginalizing opponents, claiming "the debate is over" <--- THAT'S always a good one!.

The climate changes because it's natural for it to. The drive behind man-mad global warming is $$$. Plain and simple.

Got any evidence to back up any of these assertions?

Been watching the news or online science articles for the past 2 months? Climategate is all over the place. No one credible agrees with the few remaining Warmers any more.

 

[Mr. B]

Mmm... good for them, I guess. Regardless of what their own scientists/committee find out, we can be sure the Indian government isn't going to do jack about reducing pollution. They aren't going to do anything that might screw up their economy... neither is China.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Of course they use scare tactics.

Let's see. Using the wrong data, marginalizing opponents, claiming "the debate is over" <--- THAT'S always a good one!.

The climate changes because it's natural for it to. The drive behind man-mad global warming is $$$. Plain and simple.

Got any evidence to back up any of these assertions?

Been watching the news or online science articles for the past 2 months? Climategate is all over the place. No one credible agrees with the few remaining Warmers any more.

I remember hearing about a couple instances where data was faked and/or distorted, but hardly any indication that the entire proposition was false. Got anything to back up this assertion that the mainstream scientific community has abandoned anthropogenic climate change?

 

[Locutus of Bored]

This thread is going to be like a 'Choose Your Own Adventure' book from here on out.

TLS and Gertch, you can choose to either back up your comments with facts from reputable links that can be debated reasonably or you can leave the thread without further comment. If you keep coming back to the thread without backing up your comments from now on, it will result in infractions. That applies to ANY political or hot-button thread in Miscellaneous from now on. Back your posts up, debate them when challenged, and if you are soundly debunked don't keep saying the same thing as if nothing has changed. I've had it with the two of you derailing every political thread in this forum and making them all about you.

Everyone else, if TLS and Gertch fail to do any of the above, do not respond to them, period. T'Girl provided a link and some commentary in her post that can be debated, so I would suggest you stick to debating her or others, and do so reasonably. Gertch and TLS are not the end all and be all of conservative posters on this board, and we just have to ignore the urge to challenge those that shout the loudest or tell the tallest tales. I'm just as guilty, so I'm not saying I'm better than anyone else or admonishing anyone, just saying that we need to find a new way of debating politics in Miscellaneous.

Conservative posters who want reasonable debate, please do not be intimidated by the reaction a couple of posters receive because of their prior history. We welcome those of you who seek reasonable discussion on this and other issues. Personally, I wouldn't want to my political stance represented by the two people who refuse to back anything they say up or engage in a reasonable back and forth dialogue.

 

[Gertch]

If you keep coming back to the thread without backing up your comments from now on, it will result in infractions. That applies to ANY political or hot-button thread in Miscellaneous from now on. Back your posts up, debate them when challenged, and if you are soundly debunked don't keep saying the same thing as if nothing has changed. I've had it with the two of you derailing every political thread in this forum and making them all about you.

Everyone else, if TLS and Gertch fail to do any of the above, do not respond to them, period. T'Girl provided a link and some commentary in her post that can be debated, so I would suggest you stick to debating her or others, and do so reasonably. Gertch and TLS are not the end all and be all of conservative posters on this board, and we just have to ignore the urge to challenge those that shout the loudest or tell the tallest tales. I'm just as guilty, so I'm not saying I'm better than anyone else or admonishing anyone, just saying that we need to find a new way of debating politics in Miscellaneous.

Conservative posters who want reasonable debate, please do not be intimidated by the reaction a couple of posters receive because of their prior history. We welcome those of you who seek reasonable discussion on this and other issues. Personally, I wouldn't want to my political stance represented by the two people who refuse to back anything they say up or engage in a reasonable back and forth dialogue.

Cool, calling me out huh. What a bunch of hogwash. Is this how liberals in positions of power debate - by censoring? (Yes, that's rhetorical.)

Should I adopt the snarky posting style of so many here on the left, you and Squiggy most among them? Squiggy has never supplied me with proof when asked. Simply some snarky redirection.

For people to debate a subject they should know a little about it. The question that I answered showed they didn't have the fundamental knowledge. I'm certainly not going to waste my time educating someone who walked into a discussion without knowledge.

Now get off my back. And no, I'm still not responding to your "non-official" posts until you've learned to keep your snarky remarks to yourself.

 

[FrontLine]

Some additional links regarding the use of faulty or fraudulent data.
Link1

Link 2

Link 3

Link 4

Link 5

Link 6

Link 7

Link 8

Link 9

Link 10

This doesnt mean that climate chance is not occurring. In fact its pretty well established the worlds climate has constantly changed for millions of years. The issue at hand is two fold.

#1, Is the current changes that are occurring the result of man made sources only, natural forces, or a combination of the two

#2 Is the data used to support the contention that climate change is caused by man made sources based transparent data and formulas or is the data based on made up "facts" and statistics by those who may or may not have an agenda / self interest?

For better or worse it appears that a large body of the data used has been tampered with or based on faulty readings and formulas. Then there is the lack of release of said data and methods for using it. There is indeed an entire industry based around the idea of man made climate change. There has been shown numerous instances of Scientists either ignoring data or making the data fit into pre-conceived notions.

Regardless, I think it is desirable that the world does its best to move away from Fossil fuels and on to renewable energy sources. Its the only planet we have and we should be good stewards of it. However to take action based on faulty information is the wrong step to take. To take action that causes more harm than good is the wrong step to take.

 

[Marc]

Regardless, I think it is desirable that the world does its best to move away from Fossil fuels and on to renewable energy sources. Its the only planet we have and we should be good stewards of it. However to take action based on faulty information is the wrong step to take. To take action that causes more harm than good is the wrong step to take.

Problem is that is that (reports aside) is that much of the resistance to green energy etc is coming from those who stand to lose the most from a move to green energy namely oil and coal producers.

If you look at the money that gets pumped into the yes/no sides for the AGW argument much of the no money is coming from the oil companines, mining companies and lobby groups like the Petroluem Institute. According the to figures quote in a place that shall not be named and I think in scitech the no side is being funded at a rate of something like 14:1.

And if they get their way these planet is fucked and they crap on now about the costs of counting climate change, well that cost is nothing compared the cost we'll face down the track when oil goes ballistic as it starts to run out the impact it will have.

 

[Gertch]

Regardless, I think it is desirable that the world does its best to move away from Fossil fuels and on to renewable energy sources. Its the only planet we have and we should be good stewards of it. However to take action based on faulty information is the wrong step to take. To take action that causes more harm than good is the wrong step to take.

I agree with all that. To use solar panels to completely power my house it would cost me $50,000 with the least expensive panels I've been able to find. I'll never see the break even point with those.

Claims that all the people against this scam are connected to oil companies is bogus in my opinion and I'd really like to see some data on that. I'm not connected to any big corporation.

But some Warmers sure did get good money to keep their side going.

 

[Hoser]

But some Warmers sure did get good money to keep their side going.

He got a grant to continue studying the problem. It's not like they handed him a bag full of money.

 

[Marc]

But some Warmers sure did get good money to keep their side going.

He got a grant to continue studying the problem. It's not like they handed him a bag full of money.

unfortunately the claim that scientists researching AGW personally benefit from the grants is one that's repeated by people such as gertch and no matter how much it's pointed that the money goes to institution to pay the ongoing research costs the lie gets repeated.

i'd like to see gertch post some proof to show where an individual scientest personally benefitted (as in could use the grant money basically as income) from their AGW work (and I don't mean if they won something like a Nobel Science prize which is a different kettle of fish).

also point out that I didn't say individual researchers personally benefit from pushing the no case (unliked Lord Monckton where he gets a stipend of $20,000 out of the $100,000 he's getting paid for his Australian tour)

What price climate scepticism? Ever wondered? Well, now we have an answer. With just a few days to go now before the climate sceptic Lord Monckton sets off from his Highlands estate and embarks on his grand tour of Australia to spread the good word, a local newspaper in Queensland called the Noosa Journal has revealed how much Monckton's trip down under is costing his loyal fans. Nice work if you can get it, judging by the comments made by Case Smit, the Noosa resident who has invited Monckton to speak in his home town:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/jan/13/climate-scepticism-talk-lord-monckton

In constrast most scientsts involved in the research aren't paid that much if at all.

"Climate scientists are losing the fight with the sceptics," he said.
"The sceptics are so well funded, so well organised. "They have nothing else to do. They don't have day jobs so they can put all their efforts into misinforming and miscommunicating climate science to the general public, whereas the climate scientists have day jobs and [managing publicity] actually isn't one of them.
"All of the efforts you do in an IPCC report is done out of hours, voluntarily, for no funding and no pay, whereas the sceptics are being funded to put out full-scale misinformation campaigns and are doing a damn good job, I think.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/01/25/2800992.htm

 

[FrontLine]

If you look at the money that gets pumped into the yes/no sides for the AGW argument much of the no money is coming from the oil companines, mining companies and lobby groups like the Petroluem Institute. According the to figures quote in a place that shall not be named and I think in scitech the no side is being funded at a rate of something like 14:1.

That could or could not be true. If there is evidence to that fact then that needs to be brought to light. But regardless of whose side is getting what funding, it does not change the fact that a large part of (if not nearly all) of the data used to support the contention that AGW is taking place and it is caused by man is being shown to be based on false / manipulated data. Even the UN is backpedaling from prior statements of certainty.

As for scientists benefiting, I dont think that there is much monetary gain for them. When was the last time you heard about the scientist with the rock star status, income, and lifestyle? But another way they can benefit is via (for lack of a better term) stroking their own egos and proving their theories are right. It has happened through out history. Then there could always be the cases where scientists have a preconceived notion and will ignore data that disproves that theory or that gets in the way of making the theory come true (link).

 

[T'Bonz]

Now get off my back. And no, I'm still not responding to your "non-official" posts until you've learned to keep your snarky remarks to yourself.

1. Locutus of Bored is a mod in this forum. He is speaking as a moderator, not a general poster. I suggest you back off from this kind of post, unless you wish to be bounced off of this board. When a mod asks you to do something, you need to listen. If it's a problem, see point #2.

2. If you have an issue with what happened, DO NOT POST IT IN THREAD. Work it out privately, and if that fails, via MA or with an admin (including Spiff and I.)

3. For all interested parties, I'm looking at various things including PMs which I've just read. But know this, those of you who like to "play". Playtime will be ending very soon in Misc, meaning if you need to play, you go where it's sanctioned, or you may find yourself out in the cold. My tolerance for this crap is at an end.

Back on topic, no responses in thread, please. My PM box is open and I will discuss any concerns privately.

Thank you.

 

[Marc]

I've just had a thought on the original subject.

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.

Countries like China have argued that as they shouldn't have to meet emission standards until they've reached the same levels of advancement as western countries (i.e the U.S and England were able to pollute as they became economic power houses now developing nations should be allowed to do the same)

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.

Now if the India form their own climate change panel that says nope, nothing happens they can arge there's no need for them wind back on the emissions levels.

 

[RJDiogenes]

Been watching the news or online science articles for the past 2 months? Climategate is all over the place. No one credible agrees with the few remaining Warmers any more.

Meanwhile, back on Earth, the vast majority of scientists acknowledge climate change and civilization's contribution to it. And the vast majority of the dissenters in the general population are motivated by ideology, not science.

I agree with all that. To use solar panels to completely power my house it would cost me $50,000 with the least expensive panels I've been able to find. I'll never see the break even point with those.

Which is why so few people buy them, which is why nobody is making money from the Vast Global Warming Conspiracy.

Claims that all the people against this scam are connected to oil companies is bogus in my opinion and I'd really like to see some data on that. I'm not connected to any big corporation.

No, you're connected to Talk Radio and fringe web sites and Right Wing mailing lists, which are driven by extremist ideology fueled by the meme that environmentalism is part of the Evil Liberal [sic] Agenda which is promoted by big corporations who stand to lose money if climate change is addressed. Therefore you do their work for free while they continue to make big bucks. Good job.

That could or could not be true. If there is evidence to that fact then that needs to be brought to light.

Evidence that oil companies spend obscene amounts of money on publicity that guarantees that they will continue to make obscener amounts of money?

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.

Countries like China have argued that as they shouldn't have to meet emission standards until they've reached the same levels of advancement as western countries (i.e the U.S and England were able to pollute as they became economic power houses now developing nations should be allowed to do the same)

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.

Now if the India form their own climate change panel that says nope, nothing happens they can arge there's no need for them wind back on the emissions levels.

This is exactly what is happening. India fears that addressing climate change will hurt their development. Opposition to addressing climate change is almost universally selfishly motivated.

 

[Gertch]

Been watching the news or online science articles for the past 2 months? Climategate is all over the place. No one credible agrees with the few remaining Warmers any more.

Meanwhile, back on Earth, the vast majority of scientists acknowledge climate change and civilization's contribution to it. And the vast majority of the dissenters in the general population are motivated by ideology, not science.

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

I agree with all that. To use solar panels to completely power my house it would cost me $50,000 with the least expensive panels I've been able to find. I'll never see the break even point with those.

Which is why so few people buy them, which is why nobody is making money from the Vast Global Warming Conspiracy.

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

An Honest IPCC Scientist Warns His Colleagues: Don’t Dismiss ‘ClimateGate’

No, you're connected to Talk Radio and fringe web sites and Right Wing mailing lists, which are driven by extremist ideology fueled by the meme that environmentalism is part of the Evil Liberal [sic] Agenda which is promoted by big corporations who stand to lose money if climate change is addressed. Therefore you do their work for free while they continue to make big bucks. Good job.

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

 

[FrontLine]

Been watching the news or online science articles for the past 2 months? Climategate is all over the place. No one credible agrees with the few remaining Warmers any more.

Meanwhile, back on Earth, the vast majority of scientists acknowledge climate change and civilization's contribution to it. And the vast majority of the dissenters in the general population are motivated by ideology, not science.

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.

That could or could not be true. If there is evidence to that fact then that needs to be brought to light.

Evidence that oil companies spend obscene amounts of money on publicity that guarantees that they will continue to make obscener amounts of money?

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?

This is exactly what is happening. India fears that addressing climate change will hurt their development. Opposition to addressing climate change is almost universally selfishly motivated.

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.