UN Panel "Regrets" Exaggeration of Himalayan Thaw
- Thread starter Alpha_Geek
- Start date
Oh, great. This is going to give the climate-change deniers something else they can distort as an excuse for doing nothing. Whether the time frame was exaggerated or not, that doesn't mean the process isn't happening and isn't dangerous. Given the stakes, after all, it hardly seems wrong to err on the side of caution. Better to exaggerate the risks and take more protective action than you need than to understate or ignore the risks and take too little action.
The IPCC and a number of CRU's did fudge data. Unfortunately when you fudge data, you lose your credibility regardless of what your intentions were.
No, exaggerating risks makes people not pay attention to you, it is the worse thing you can do for anything you want to get serious attention.
Wolf!
There is still however a shitload of data out there supporting the issue of the climate change.
Groups the the CRU and IPCC are faced with a big problem - funding to do their research properly.
There was a post recently (unfortunately I think it was in TNZ) showing donations and funding for pro and anti-AGW groups.
The pro-side got some government money but for the period referred to it was about $US2.7mil.
For the same period anti-groups got in the vicinity of $US26mil though the was a caveat that some of those supporting the anti-argument did lobby in some related areas so it was hard to 100% quantify their donations to anti-AGW groups.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8470962.stm
Who'd a thunk it was a "model"? Looks nothing like Naomi Campbell.
Looks like the temptation to "sex up" the results got the better of some people. The tarnish spreads by association.
It's perfectly acceptable for science to lie rather than thoroughly investigate? And you hold a PhD
Face it, manmade climate change is total BS.
Science doesn't lie.
Sometimes scientists do, and sometimes the science is misinterpreted, but the science itself is (by definition) factual.
There are things going on with the climate that we don't fully understand. (If there weren't, we'd have perfect weather forecasting.) The notion that humans might be contributing to those changes in an adverse manner is one means of interpreting the data. I'm sure there are others.
What I can't help wondering is, why are people so lazy as to embrace the notion that everything's a-okay? It's avoidance of responsibility----or even suspected responsibility----on a massive scale. Even if we aren't contributing to climate change, we sure as hell are contributing to urban pollution, so why not embrace "green" technologies on that basis alone? Is it just too much effort to be bothered?
Sometimes scientists do, and sometimes the science is misinterpreted, but the science itself is (by definition) factual.
There are things going on with the climate that we don't fully understand. (If there weren't, we'd have perfect weather forecasting.) The notion that humans might be contributing to those changes in an adverse manner is one means of interpreting the data. I'm sure there are others.
What I can't help wondering is, why are people so lazy as to embrace the notion that everything's a-okay? It's avoidance of responsibility----or even suspected responsibility----on a massive scale. Even if we aren't contributing to climate change, we sure as hell are contributing to urban pollution, so why not embrace "green" technologies on that basis alone? Is it just too much effort to be bothered?
You mean "Can anyone confirm that changes to the climate can be attributed to human activity?"
All Seeing Eye
Admiral
Climate change is a natural Earth cycle and there's nothing we can do about it.
The world isn't run by honest scientists, it's run by billionaires who have their fortunes to protect -- for about as long as they will live -- which is perhaps as far into the future as caring goes for them. Since climate change happens over longer time scales than one person's lifetime, it's beyond the scope of economic thinking.
Do you realize this would imply that terraforming other planets is impossible?
Yes, but mainly due to the difficulty in getting to them. We have all kinds of theories about how it could be done if we had easier access.
Besides which, I was referencing some of Tachy's previous threads on the subject.
In the mean time we have this report from NASA.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...es-unabated-nasa/story-fn3dxity-1225822553104
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...es-unabated-nasa/story-fn3dxity-1225822553104
All Seeing Eye
Admiral
I'm sure we could Terraform a planet eventually but even other planets likely have cycles which might mess up the process or undo much of what was terraformed.
On a side note I have an idea for terraforming Venus if anyone wants a recap.
RobertScorpio
Pariah
It is partly-cloudy here in San Diego. Yesterday it was raining pretty bad. I can see snow up on the nearby mountans, and there wasn't snow there yesterday either.
I just went outside for a moment and it the wind had pretty much settled down. Yesterday it was really raining.
And that all happened in less than 24 hours. We're supposed to be up to the mid 80s by this time next week.
So, yes, climate change is happening more than we want to admit. Rush Limbaugh be damned!
Rob