Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

32,000 scientists dissent from global-warming “consensus”

Re: the political nature of the IPCC.

The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate
Click to expand...

http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cach...ble+human+influence"&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=ca


That wording was changed by the IPCC to '"there has been a discernible human influence on global climate."

-Kerr: UN to Blame Global Warming on Humans. Science Now, 25 April:1


In a new draft, the wording was changed yet again, to: "it is likely that increasing concentrations of anthropogenic greenhouse gases have contributed substantially to the observed warming over the last 50 years."

-IPCC 2001a Summary For Policymakers:5


But the official summary went even further: "most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations."

-IPCC 2001d Summary for Policymakers 6

When questioned as to why the wording was changed, the IPCC spokesman admitted that there was no new science driving the wording change. He made the following honest admission:

There was no new science, but the scientists wanted to present a clear and strong message to policy makers," says Tim Higham of the UN Environment Programme.
Click to expand...

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg16922750.300-we-are-all-guilty.html

So in other words, the IPCC scientists had no new science to justify the stronger language, but they just wanted to deliver a 'punchier message'.

That's what politicians do, and scientists are supposed to avoid.
 
Signal 11 said:
You do not present an argument. You just do the Gish Gallop through all the usual misconceptions about the subject, in the hope that people won't be bothered to refute it for the nth time, so that you would be able to mislead anyone who might be as ignorant as you.

.
Click to expand...

You've got it ass backwards.

What the majority here have done is simply accepted the party line, then shouted down any dissenters, and posted pictures of tinfoil hats.

I'm providing citations from scientific literature and from the IPCC itself, to show how much uncertainty exists, and to show how the media has painted a doomsday scenario in order to sell papers, and in the process, has created a panic amongst the uninformed public.

p.s call me all the names you like. My factual assertions speak for themselves.


pps. When I get the energy, I'll show how there has been a campaign of namecalling and demonization put into effect against those who speak out against the received wisdom on this topic, done in order to silence dissent and debate.

With your namecalling, you are continuing in this repressive tradition.
 
Signal 11 said:
There was some debate about the exact wording of the 2001 report! Amazing!

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

There was lots of debate, and they took the first statement, re there being discernable evidence, on a balance of probabilities, and changed it into
'most of the warming...is likely to have been caused'.

You might not appreciate the difference in what that wording means, but believe me, there is a difference.

And the difference was put there for political reasons.
 
Johnny Canuck2 said:
What the majority here have done is simply accepted the party line
Click to expand...
Loaded language. This is nothing to do with parties. Not being an expert in climate science I have accepted what the experts in that field say.

Johnny Canuck2 said:
I'm providing citations from scientific literature and from the IPCC itself, to show how much uncertainty exists
Click to expand...
No, you tried to claim the IPCC had hidden the amount of uncertainty that exists, when in fact they have been totally open about it.

Johnny Canuck2 said:
and to show how the media has painted a doomsday scenario
Click to expand...
No, you claimed the IPCC had done so, but you have provided no evidence that they had.

Johnny Canuck2 said:
p.s call me all the names you like. My factual assertions speak for themselves.
Click to expand...
So far they have all been shown to be false.
 
Johnny Canuck2 said:
Perhaps in your head, but not out here in the real world.:)
Click to expand...

bknight1.jpg
 
Don't forget, that was also back when I thought it was the IPCC who made the 2 - 7 foot sea level rise claim, when it actually turned out to be the EPA. I guess they're the guilty ones.:)
 
Al Gore, a man who believes that the threat posed by the internal combustion engine is not only the gravest peril mankind faces, but that defeating it is a moral imperative equal to stopping the Holocaust.

Gore is both serious and consistent on this point. In his 1992 book Earth in the Balance, he wrote that “today the evidence of an ecological Kristallnacht is as clear as the sound of glass shattering in Berlin.” He repeatedly refers to the unfolding “ecological holocaust” and invokes Martin Niemoller’s famous quote (“When the Nazis came for the Communists, I remained silent; I was not a Communist. ... When they came for the Jews, I did not speak out; I was not a Jew. ...”) to label himself and other environmentalists “the new resistance.”

In An Inconvenient Truth and in interviews, Gore sticks to his guns. He quotes Churchill’s warning about the gathering storm of fascism and declares: “The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to a close. In its place we are entering a period of consequence.”

In interviews, Gore calls global-warming skeptics “deniers” with an acid surely intended to conjure comparison to Holocaust deniers.

Of course, Gore isn’t alone. The people of good will who raise relevant and sober-minded questions about global-warming scaremongering are subjected to vicious character assassination on a daily basis. Scott Pelley of 60 Minutes recently asked why he should interview skeptics of the new environmental groupthink: “If I do an interview with Elie Wiesel, am I required as a journalist to find a Holocaust denier?”
Click to expand...

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDE3ZTkyOWYxYTEzYmUwZmQ0ZjNmOTViM2Q1ZWM5ODA=
 
he Weather Channel’s most prominent climatologist is advocating that broadcast meteorologists be stripped of their scientific certification if they express skepticism about predictions of manmade catastrophic global warming. This latest call to silence skeptics follows a year (2006) in which skeptics were compared to "Holocaust Deniers" and Nuremberg-style war crimes trials were advocated by several climate alarmists.

The Weather Channel’s (TWC) Heidi Cullen, who hosts the weekly global warming program "The Climate Code," is advocating that the American Meteorological Society (AMS) revoke their "Seal of Approval" for any television weatherman who expresses skepticism that human activity is creating a climate catastrophe.
Click to expand...

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=32abc0b0-802a-23ad-440a-88824bb8e528
 
the Ellen Goodman quote is only the beginning of what is already becoming one of the largest campaigns of vilification of decent people in history -- the global condemnation of a) anyone who questions global warming; or b) anyone who agrees that there is global warming but who argues that human behavior is not its primary cause; or c) anyone who agrees that there is global warming, and even agrees that human behavior is its primary cause, but does not believe that the consequences will be nearly as catastrophic as Al Gore does.

If you don't believe all three propositions, you will be lumped with Holocaust deniers, and it would not be surprising that soon, in Europe, global warming deniers will be treated as Holocaust deniers and prosecuted. Just watch. That is far more likely than the oceans rising by 20 feet. Or even 10. Or even three.
Click to expand...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/on_comparing_global_warming_de.html
 
The Bishop of Stafford has compared people who ignore the effects of climate change to the Austrian child sex monster Josef Fritzl. The Very Rev Gordon Mursell, claimed people who refuse to face the truth about global warming were as “guilty as” Fritzl of destroying the future of youngsters. […]

In a hard-hitting letter to parishioners, Bishop Mursell maintained those who refused to accept the climate change argument shared a “common philosophy of life” to Fritzl, who imprisoned his daughter in a cellar for 24 years during which he sexually abused her and fathered her seven children.
Click to expand...

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3359
 
I guess this scientist didn't read the IPCC report.

"Tremendous redistribution in where one would be able to have agriculture, tremendous changes in storm patterns. You could very well see sea level rises on the order of several feet and perhaps even several tens of feet," Paul Mayewski, director of the Climate Change Institute at the University of Maine, said. "If sea level were to rise it would be tremendous changes, immense migrations."
Click to expand...

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeff-p...al-warming-special-hosted-reporter-who-likene
 
I suspect there are some here who will read the above quotes and agree with them.

If that is you, recognize that you are no different, and no better, than a christian fundamentalist, or an ultra right wing nationalist, or any other species of closeminded zealot.
 
Johnny Canuck2 said:
I'll show how there has been a campaign of namecalling and demonization put into effect against those who speak out against the received wisdom on this topic, done in order to silence dissent and debate.

With your namecalling, you are continuing in this repressive tradition.
Click to expand...
crybaby.jpg
 
Johnny Canuck2 quoting US EPA said:
The IPCC estimates that the global average sea level will rise between 0.6 and 2 feet (0.18 to 0.59 meters) in the next century (IPCC, 2007).http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/effects/coastal/index.html
Click to expand...
April 2008: IPCC position on predicted sea-level rise.
BBC said:
The IPCC was unable to include the contribution from "accelerated" melting of polar ice sheets as water temperatures warm because the processes involved were not yet understood.Anyway - we can expect higher sea levels once land-ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica have melted. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7349236.stm
Click to expand...
2008 Position of majority of scientists studying ice-sheet/ice-melt:
New Scientist said:
Melting glaciers, disappearing ice sheets and warming water could lift sea levels by as much as 1.5 metres by the end of this century, displacing tens of millions of people. That's the conclusion of a new prediction of sea level rises that for the first time takes into account ice dynamics.
http://environment.newscientist.com...1-sea-levels-will-rise-15-metres-by-2100.html
Click to expand...
Reuters said:
Steve Nerem from the University of Colorado says that there is now a lot of evidence out there that does indeed support an increase of about a meter by 2100, but that rise will not be uniform around the globe.
http://www.reuters.com/article/blog...69bC&bbParentWidgetId=B8dTgJxsl2aP4igJ50LB7l1
Click to expand...

Hope that clears up the misunderstandings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Spymaster
First Space Launch From UK Soil Today
2 3 4 5
Replies
131
Views
5K
T & P
T & P
Sasaferrato
Time started from the Big Bang? Why
Replies
13
Views
513
Signal 11
Signal 11
Pickman's model
scientists piss about with genes, making sure only desired sex is born
2
Replies
36
Views
1K
ddraig
ddraig
StoneRoad
URGENT [Another] petition to protect Bees from neonictiniods / pesticides
Replies
3
Views
266
bcuster
bcuster
H
Carbon-neutral fuel made from sunlight and air
Replies
1
Views
289
HAL9000
H
Back
Top Bottom