Liverpool said:
true. now we have an eminent Daily Mail journo being sceptical about the information being peddled to the masses.
-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Global Warming
- Thread starter Disco08
- Start date
true. now we have an eminent Daily Mail journo being sceptical about the information being peddled to the masses.
IPCC AR5 draft shows almost complete reversal from AR4 on trends in drought, hurricanes, floods and is now consistent with scientific literature
IPCC AR5 Draft: “we have high confidence that natural variability dominates any AGW influence in observed/historical TC records”
Draft IPCC Ch2 bottom line on extremes: “generally low confidence that there have been discernable changes over the observed record”
on lack of trends in extremes, exceptions are trends seen in temperature extremes and regional precipitation (but not floods)
On XTCs “unlike in AR4, it is assessed here..there is low confidence of regional changes in the intensity of extreme extratropical cyclones”
Bottom line IPCC trop cyclones same as SREX: “low confidence that any reported long term increases in tropical cyclone activity are robust”
More IPCC draft Ch2 on trop cyclones: “current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency”
IPCC on trop cyclones “AR4 assessment needs to be somewhat revised with respect to the confidence levels associated with observed trends”
IPCC draft Ch2 on drought: “The current assessment doehss not support the AR4 conclusions regarding global increasing trends in droughts”
More IPCC Ch2: “low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale”
More IPCC draft report: Ch2: “there is currently no clear and widespread evidence for observed changes in flooding” except timing of snowmelt
We are close to the end of the madness. Only the true warmists will deny what cannot be disputed. Temperatures are flatlining on the back of increased co2 emissions - this wasnt supposed to happen. ...!!!!!
IPCC AR5 Draft: “we have high confidence that natural variability dominates any AGW influence in observed/historical TC records”
Draft IPCC Ch2 bottom line on extremes: “generally low confidence that there have been discernable changes over the observed record”
on lack of trends in extremes, exceptions are trends seen in temperature extremes and regional precipitation (but not floods)
On XTCs “unlike in AR4, it is assessed here..there is low confidence of regional changes in the intensity of extreme extratropical cyclones”
Bottom line IPCC trop cyclones same as SREX: “low confidence that any reported long term increases in tropical cyclone activity are robust”
More IPCC draft Ch2 on trop cyclones: “current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency”
IPCC on trop cyclones “AR4 assessment needs to be somewhat revised with respect to the confidence levels associated with observed trends”
IPCC draft Ch2 on drought: “The current assessment doehss not support the AR4 conclusions regarding global increasing trends in droughts”
More IPCC Ch2: “low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale”
More IPCC draft report: Ch2: “there is currently no clear and widespread evidence for observed changes in flooding” except timing of snowmelt
We are close to the end of the madness. Only the true warmists will deny what cannot be disputed. Temperatures are flatlining on the back of increased co2 emissions - this wasnt supposed to happen. ...!!!!!
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-12-10/climate-change-conforming-to-un-predictions/4417644
Climate change conforming to UN predictions: scientists
Updated Mon Dec 10, 2012 12:55pm AEDT
A new report has confirmed the world is warming at a rate consistent with a 22-year-old prediction from the United Nations' science body.
In 1990, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) forecast the rate at which temperatures would rise over a 40-year period.
Doha climate talk decisions
A report published today in the journal Nature Climate Change says that at the halfway mark, the rate of warming is consistent with the original predictions.
Professor Matt England from the University of New South Wales says the findings send a message to doubters.
"Anybody out there lying that the IPCC projects are overstatements or that the observations haven't kept pace with the projections is completely off line with this ... the analysis is very clear that the IPCC projections are coming true," he said.
"We've sat back and watched the two decades unfold and warming has progressed at a rate consistent with those projections."
Recent climate change reports have shown global emissions are increasing by 3 per cent per year, with emissions now sitting at 58 per cent above 1990 levels.
Professor England says the IPCC has prepared forecasts for low levels of emissions right through to the high end.
"At the moment we are tracking at the high end in terms of our emissions and so all of the projections that we look to at the moment are those high-end forecasts," he said.
"Without any action on greenhouse gas emissions, it will be those high-end IPCC scenarios that are extremely costly to society in terms of extreme events bearing out in time."
The finding has been released in the wake of the latest climate talks in Doha, Qatar, which some critics say achieved little.
At the marathon talks, which had to be extended due to lack of consensus, almost 200 nations, including Australia, agreed to extend the Kyoto protocol till 2020.
But the world's worst emitters, such as the US and China, are not part of that agreement.
Green groups say the Doha talks delivered a weakened Kyoto Protocol and no new money for helping poorer nations achieve cuts in emissions.
But Climate Change Minister Greg Combet says the talks were a stepping stone towards striking a deal by 2015 that will include biggest polluters.
"The science is telling us very clearly that we need a wider international agreement including all the major emitters, including the US and China, they're the biggest polluters in the world," he said.
"At this conference we've taken further steps towards having those countries included in a wider agreement.
"The Kyoto protocol is just a stepping stone on that path."
Climate change conforming to UN predictions: scientists
Updated Mon Dec 10, 2012 12:55pm AEDT
A new report has confirmed the world is warming at a rate consistent with a 22-year-old prediction from the United Nations' science body.
In 1990, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) forecast the rate at which temperatures would rise over a 40-year period.
Doha climate talk decisions
A report published today in the journal Nature Climate Change says that at the halfway mark, the rate of warming is consistent with the original predictions.
Professor Matt England from the University of New South Wales says the findings send a message to doubters.
"Anybody out there lying that the IPCC projects are overstatements or that the observations haven't kept pace with the projections is completely off line with this ... the analysis is very clear that the IPCC projections are coming true," he said.
"We've sat back and watched the two decades unfold and warming has progressed at a rate consistent with those projections."
Recent climate change reports have shown global emissions are increasing by 3 per cent per year, with emissions now sitting at 58 per cent above 1990 levels.
Professor England says the IPCC has prepared forecasts for low levels of emissions right through to the high end.
"At the moment we are tracking at the high end in terms of our emissions and so all of the projections that we look to at the moment are those high-end forecasts," he said.
"Without any action on greenhouse gas emissions, it will be those high-end IPCC scenarios that are extremely costly to society in terms of extreme events bearing out in time."
The finding has been released in the wake of the latest climate talks in Doha, Qatar, which some critics say achieved little.
At the marathon talks, which had to be extended due to lack of consensus, almost 200 nations, including Australia, agreed to extend the Kyoto protocol till 2020.
But the world's worst emitters, such as the US and China, are not part of that agreement.
Green groups say the Doha talks delivered a weakened Kyoto Protocol and no new money for helping poorer nations achieve cuts in emissions.
But Climate Change Minister Greg Combet says the talks were a stepping stone towards striking a deal by 2015 that will include biggest polluters.
"The science is telling us very clearly that we need a wider international agreement including all the major emitters, including the US and China, they're the biggest polluters in the world," he said.
"At this conference we've taken further steps towards having those countries included in a wider agreement.
"The Kyoto protocol is just a stepping stone on that path."
KnightersRevenge said:
Just a few questions...
Aren't they referring to a study published in 1990. Wasn't there another IPCC release in 2007?
Did that differ in any way from the original in any way?
Now there is another updated release scheduled for next year, isn't there?
From the Wall Street Journal
Link http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html
No Need to Panic About Global Warming
There's no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to 'decarbonize' the world's economy.
Editor's Note: The following has been signed by the 16 scientists listed at the end of the article:
A candidate for public office in any contemporary democracy may have to consider what, if anything, to do about "global warming." Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed.
In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: "I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: 'The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.' In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?"
In spite of a multidecade international campaign to enforce the message that increasing amounts of the "pollutant" carbon dioxide will destroy civilization, large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share the opinions of Dr. Giaever. And the number of scientific "heretics" is growing with each passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts.
Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 "Climategate" email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.
The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections—suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2.
The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere's life cycle. Plants do so much better with more CO2 that greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations by factors of three or four to get better growth. This is no surprise since plants and animals evolved when CO2 concentrations were about 10 times larger than they are today. Better plant varieties, chemical fertilizers and agricultural management contributed to the great increase in agricultural yields of the past century, but part of the increase almost certainly came from additional CO2 in the atmosphere.
Corbis
Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse. They have good reason to worry. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job.
This is not the way science is supposed to work, but we have seen it before—for example, in the frightening period when Trofim Lysenko hijacked biology in the Soviet Union. Soviet biologists who revealed that they believed in genes, which Lysenko maintained were a bourgeois fiction, were fired from their jobs. Many were sent to the gulag and some were condemned to death.
Why is there so much passion about global warming, and why has the issue become so vexing that the American Physical Society, from which Dr. Giaever resigned a few months ago, refused the seemingly reasonable request by many of its members to remove the word "incontrovertible" from its description of a scientific issue? There are several reasons, but a good place to start is the old question "cui bono?" Or the modern update, "Follow the money."
Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow. Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure for big donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet. Lysenko and his team lived very well, and they fiercely defended their dogma and the privileges it brought them.
Speaking for many scientists and engineers who have looked carefully and independently at the science of climate, we have a message to any candidate for public office: There is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to "decarbonize" the world's economy. Even if one accepts the inflated climate forecasts of the IPCC, aggressive greenhouse-gas control policies are not justified economically.
Princeton physics professor William Happer on why a large number of scientists don't believe that carbon dioxide is causing global warming.
A recent study of a wide variety of policy options by Yale economist William Nordhaus showed that nearly the highest benefit-to-cost ratio is achieved for a policy that allows 50 more years of economic growth unimpeded by greenhouse gas controls. This would be especially beneficial to the less-developed parts of the world that would like to share some of the same advantages of material well-being, health and life expectancy that the fully developed parts of the world enjoy now. Many other policy responses would have a negative return on investment. And it is likely that more CO2 and the modest warming that may come with it will be an overall benefit to the planet.
If elected officials feel compelled to "do something" about climate, we recommend supporting the excellent scientists who are increasing our understanding of climate with well-designed instruments on satellites, in the oceans and on land, and in the analysis of observational data. The better we understand climate, the better we can cope with its ever-changing nature, which has complicated human life throughout history. However, much of the huge private and government investment in climate is badly in need of critical review.
Every candidate should support rational measures to protect and improve our environment, but it makes no sense at all to back expensive programs that divert resources from real needs and are based on alarming but untenable claims of "incontrovertible" evidence.
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.
Link http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html
No Need to Panic About Global Warming
There's no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to 'decarbonize' the world's economy.
Editor's Note: The following has been signed by the 16 scientists listed at the end of the article:
A candidate for public office in any contemporary democracy may have to consider what, if anything, to do about "global warming." Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed.
In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: "I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: 'The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.' In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?"
In spite of a multidecade international campaign to enforce the message that increasing amounts of the "pollutant" carbon dioxide will destroy civilization, large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share the opinions of Dr. Giaever. And the number of scientific "heretics" is growing with each passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts.
Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 "Climategate" email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.
The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections—suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2.
The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere's life cycle. Plants do so much better with more CO2 that greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations by factors of three or four to get better growth. This is no surprise since plants and animals evolved when CO2 concentrations were about 10 times larger than they are today. Better plant varieties, chemical fertilizers and agricultural management contributed to the great increase in agricultural yields of the past century, but part of the increase almost certainly came from additional CO2 in the atmosphere.
Corbis
Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse. They have good reason to worry. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job.
This is not the way science is supposed to work, but we have seen it before—for example, in the frightening period when Trofim Lysenko hijacked biology in the Soviet Union. Soviet biologists who revealed that they believed in genes, which Lysenko maintained were a bourgeois fiction, were fired from their jobs. Many were sent to the gulag and some were condemned to death.
Why is there so much passion about global warming, and why has the issue become so vexing that the American Physical Society, from which Dr. Giaever resigned a few months ago, refused the seemingly reasonable request by many of its members to remove the word "incontrovertible" from its description of a scientific issue? There are several reasons, but a good place to start is the old question "cui bono?" Or the modern update, "Follow the money."
Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow. Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure for big donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet. Lysenko and his team lived very well, and they fiercely defended their dogma and the privileges it brought them.
Speaking for many scientists and engineers who have looked carefully and independently at the science of climate, we have a message to any candidate for public office: There is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to "decarbonize" the world's economy. Even if one accepts the inflated climate forecasts of the IPCC, aggressive greenhouse-gas control policies are not justified economically.
Princeton physics professor William Happer on why a large number of scientists don't believe that carbon dioxide is causing global warming.
A recent study of a wide variety of policy options by Yale economist William Nordhaus showed that nearly the highest benefit-to-cost ratio is achieved for a policy that allows 50 more years of economic growth unimpeded by greenhouse gas controls. This would be especially beneficial to the less-developed parts of the world that would like to share some of the same advantages of material well-being, health and life expectancy that the fully developed parts of the world enjoy now. Many other policy responses would have a negative return on investment. And it is likely that more CO2 and the modest warming that may come with it will be an overall benefit to the planet.
If elected officials feel compelled to "do something" about climate, we recommend supporting the excellent scientists who are increasing our understanding of climate with well-designed instruments on satellites, in the oceans and on land, and in the analysis of observational data. The better we understand climate, the better we can cope with its ever-changing nature, which has complicated human life throughout history. However, much of the huge private and government investment in climate is badly in need of critical review.
Every candidate should support rational measures to protect and improve our environment, but it makes no sense at all to back expensive programs that divert resources from real needs and are based on alarming but untenable claims of "incontrovertible" evidence.
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.
Article is old and was posted and 'discussed' a long time ago willo. Its deja vue all over again.
tigersnake said:
Well it's dated Sunday December 16, 2012 so obviously it still has some relevance, even if it was an article that had been discussed before.
It's funny how a study and prediction made 22 years ago are claimed to be on track and are relevant. Yet when it is dispelled in more current times and has a lineup of eminent scientists, professors etc not supporting it are not deemed worthy of having their views listened to by the pro
But when such
There will always be sceptics and supporters from both sides, quoting whatever facts they believe support their views.
willo said:
This has been done to death willo. The scientific consensus is overwhelming. There are skeptics yes, as there are on any scientific theory, but they are a tiny minority given voice by a sympathetic press. There are no '2 sides'.
As I've said a thousand times, why do people feel compelled to reject the scientific consensus on this issue and not other issues? If a family member needs an operation involving new technology, only a kook says 'no way, there are a few scientists in Bulgaria who are skeptical of its effectiveness'. I just don't get it, everything to gain and nothing to lose by acting on the compelling scientific consensus.
You've obviously made your mind up though.
willo said:
Yes there will but the preponderance of supported published reviewed evidence is on one side, the few dissenting, non-expert, voices are on the other, the article I posted quotes the peer reviewed scientific journal Nature. The other is from a financial paper. Yes those who would like to pretend that 120 years of mechanisation and pollution hasn't affected the atmosphere are free to do so, but that doesn't make them scientists or experts. The article starts with a reference to a physicist and concludes with a long list of people who ARE NOT climate scientists. These articles always claim to be supported by "respected scientists" the problem is that they are almost never "respected" in the field they are commenting on. I've had the argument too many times on here. Why should a physicist's word be taken over that of a climate scientist? Would I take his word over that of a neurosurgeon if I had a brain injury? So why should it be relevant here? Simply put. It isn't.
And yet again the article uses trumped up language about "destroying the world" and "CO2 is not a pollutant". Just like all chemicals, it depends on the dose. Arsenic won't kill you in a small enough dose. Does that mean it isn't a poison? I return to same tired and beaten path. People are free to choose to believe whatever pseudo-science they like. But it doesn't make sense to me to argue the science on a forum like this. 99% of the people on here, including me, don't have the relevant qualifications to make any cogent statements in relation to the evidence or the science. What a sensible person would do is ask the experts. And they AGREE. Is the Wall Street Journal a peer reviewed scientific journal? Is the physicist a climate scientist? Is Livers? Is Merveille? Is Freezer? Are you Willo?. Nope? Neither am I. So I will refrain from trying to interpret data and take the word of the people who study it for a living, and not the use the bible of the people who almost single handedly destroyed the entire planet's banking system, something they should be expert on, when thinking about climate science.
KnightersRevenge said:
The experts don't all agree, thats the point.
And then when an expert doesn't agree with you and the other "we're all going to die when the water rises within 10 years even though they said that 20 years ago" crowd, their views are dismissed as nutjobs, lunatics, or in bed with the oil companies >
.....while the climate change 'experts' that agree with what you want to believe are all honest and above board with no relationship to Greenpeace, government aid, or any other affiliations that help their own careers :angel:Right?
You only have to read Freezer's last posts (#1937 and #1938) where we have scientists (and data) disagreeing with your "experts" and there will always be scientists disagreeing with the interpretation of data and models that they use.
Liverpool said:
Has anyone claimed such a devastating impact will be evident within 10 years? The changes happening are over a long period...but they are happening no matter how they're interpreted or how much they're embellished with emotion and red herrings.
Liverpool said:The experts don't all agree, thats the point.
And then when an expert doesn't agree with you and the other "we're all going to die when the water rises within 10 years even though they said that 20 years ago" crowd, their views are dismissed as nutjobs, lunatics, or in bed with the oil companies >
Right?
You only have to read Freezer's last posts (#1937 and #1938) where we have scientists (and data) disagreeing with your "experts" and there will always be scientists disagreeing with the interpretation of data and models that they use.
Sorry where have proved a relationship between all of the overwhelming evidence that 120years of industrialisation has affected the atmosphere and collusion with green groups? Typical over the top language and fauxtrage from you unfortunately. Feel free to post a link to where I have said "we're all going to die". You may well have data and scientists. What you don't have is anything like the number of qualified, published scientists. It only takes one dissenting voice to make an argument, but that doesn't give the argument any weight. And it isn't a compelling reason to flip years of consensus on it's head.
And the point remains the same. It is nonsensical to argue the science from a position of ignorance. Argue the response if you like. Argue the policy. Argue the economics, but to argue the science is ludicrous.
WRONG. LIES. Are you able to be a part of this discussion without using sensationalist claims? He did not say WOULD. Your link doesn't provide any context. What Al Gore was talking about was the doubling of the ice melt around Greenland over a ten year period. Which was real, he went on to talk about what MIGHT be the consequence IF 1/2 of Greenland were to melt. The resulting catastrophes were the subject of the video.Liverpool said:
Here it is in context:
[youtube=560,315]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=1KkrlhoFbBM#![/youtube]
