You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, at no cost, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Karori researcher Kesten Green has told MPs there was no need to pass the Government's Climate Change (Emissions Trade and Renewable Preference) Bill - because global warming forecasts are unscientific.
....
He told Parliament's finance select committee that authors of the IPCC fourth assessment report provided sufficient information to observe predic tions violated 72 of 89 accepted principles of forecasting
Which bit of this isn't skeptical about GW?
The above factually dismisses the methods IPCC are using to panic the masses as wholly unscientific. The IPCC's arguments are blown out of the water.
'Skepticism' is an irritating GW put down for anyone who doesn't share their unscientific and deluded 'belief'.
The above factually dismisses the methods IPCC are using to panic the masses as wholly unscientific. The IPCC's arguments are blown out of the water.
'Skepticism' is an irritating GW put down for anyone who doesn't share their unscientific and deluded 'belief'.
It's hardly a put down is it, especially as skeptics refer to themselves as skeptics.
Incidentally there is a world of difference between skeptic and just rejecting the notion, I'm a skeptic (and increasingly so), most of the comments are by people who just out-right deny this is a possible problem, no one on here of knows for sure.
I think it takes a pretty big leap not to accept that there is science on both sides of this arguement. Who are you or I to dismiss what is or isn't scientific, let the experts sort this one out.
My increasing skeptisim is being driven by the revolation, that the earth hasn't warmed much or at all the century, if this is true (and I don't know for sure) then that puts a pretty big hole in the 'rapid warming' that was what made me sit up and listen in the first place.
Do I think this is some huge global conspiracy, no of course not, you'd have to reasonably mad to believe that, do I think they might have just got it wrong, well yes possibly.
Ahhh the beauty of an open mind.
Last edited by Martin2005; 11 April 2008 at 00:23.
It's hardly a put down is it, especially as skeptics refer to themselves as skeptics.
Incidentally there is a world of difference between skeptic and just rejecting the notion, I'm a skeptic (and increasingly so), most of the comments are by people who just out-right deny this is a possible problem, no one on here of knows for sure.
I think it takes a pretty big leap not to accept that there is science on both sides of this arguement. Who are you or I to dismiss what is or isn't scientific, let the experts sort this one out.
My increasing skeptisim is being driven by the revolation, that the earth hasn't warmed much or at all the century, if this is true (and I don't know for sure) then that puts a pretty big hole in the 'rapid warming' that was what made me sit up and listen in the first place.
Do I think this is some huge global conspiracy, no of course not, you'd have to reasonably mad to believe that, do I think they might have just got it wrong, well yes possibly.
Ahhh the beauty of an open mind.
These, so called, experts are lead by a politically motivated organisation called the IPCC. Now that is scary!
Please remember I have been following/studying this for 30 or more years, so call me a skeptic if you wish, but understand I am an informed skeptic.
Based on facts. The IPCC do present "facts" that aren't. Assumption, isn't fact. Consensus, based on assumption, isn't science. Yet the IPCC, and more importantly Al gore, seem to think so.
Who cares if Al's mocumentary, backed up by the IPCC, contains no less than 36 actual, indisputable, unthruths, as long as it's on the tele/interweb and in colour, it has to be true, right?
I'm also a sceptic. The reason being, I see the one-eyed exagerrations and downright BS claims by both 'sides' of the argument. I am gradually coming round to the 'anti' MMGW side though as it seems to me that one side relies on 'computer modelled projections' and the other relies on data to back up their arguments. I'm also fed up to the back teeth with the claims of 'scientific concensus' when it is patently obvious to anyone with access to the internet that there is a host of relevant scientists who disagree.
Dr Roger Daley, who is regarded as pretty much the founder of numerical global weather and climate modelling. He said, in his very well-educated opinion as the scientist who created global atmospheric modelling: “Our systems cannot predict weather much beyond four days, so attempting to predict global changes 100 years from now seems questionable at best.”
Dr Vincent Gray, Cambridge Chemistry PhD, has been a member of the UN IPCC Expert Reviewers Panel since its inception
“Over the years, as I have learned more about the data and procedures of the IPCC I have found increasing opposition by them to providing explanations, until I have been forced to the conclusion that for significant parts of the work of the IPCC, the data collection and scientific parts of the work of the IPCC, the data collection and scientific methods employed are unsound. Resistance to all efforts to try and discuss or rectify these problems has convinced me that normal scientific procedures are not only rejected by the IPCC, but that this practice is endemic, and was part of the organisation from the very beginning. I therefore consider that the IPCC is fundamentally corrupt. The only “reform” I could envisage, would be it’s abolition.” he concluded; “The disappearance of the IPCC in disgrace is not only desirable but inevitable. The reason is, that the world will slowly realise that the ‘predictions’ emanating from the IPCC will not happen. The absence of any ‘global warming’ for the past eight years is just the beginning. Sooner or later all of us will come to realise that this organisation, and the thinking behind it, is phoney. Unfortunately severe economic damage is likely to be done by its influence before that happens.” His feelings were succinctly summed up in a television interview when he said “The claims of the IPCC are dangerous unscientific nonsense. All the science of the IPCC is unsound”
The above factually dismisses the methods IPCC are using to panic the masses as wholly unscientific. The IPCC's arguments are blown out of the water.
By one person!
You will find plenty of people that say the IPCC's finding aren't unscientific.
That doens;t make either one the indisputable truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kalaatu
Based on facts. The IPCC do present "facts" that aren't. Assumption, isn't fact. Consensus, based on assumption, isn't science. Yet the IPCC, and more importantly Al gore, seem to think so.
Who cares if Al's mocumentary, backed up by the IPCC, contains no less than 36 actual, indisputable, unthruths, as long as it's on the tele/interweb and in colour, it has to be true, right?
Nigel Lawson (who is very sceptical) was making this very point the other day on Newsnight.
Nobody doubts that c02 is a greenhouse gas, therefore the debate is about how much man made co2 affects our climate.
Did you not know this
There is even doubt on that point. Noone can model the earths atmosphere in the lab. so that is still theory as well. See Greenhouse Gas Myth Part 1 : June 2007 : ReasonMcLucus : My Telegraph for just one point. Additionally, if you bother to read the articles on CO2 concentrations and temperature back in history you'll find that CO2 rises FOLLOW temperature rises. CO2 concentrations have been many times todays levels and all was hunky dory with the world. The THEORY goes also, that any 'greenhouse' effect is based on a log. scale so increasing amounts have diminishing effects. Did you not know this?
You will find plenty of people that say the IPCC's finding aren't unscientific.
That doens;t make either one the indisputable truth.
Oh the ironing!!
Person? Person?! Make that one (Of many) IPCC scientists! He contributed to the IPCC 4th report. There are many, an ever increasing number of, "scientists" who are "backing away" from the IPCC "model" of "future climate". Strange that the 2005 hurricane "season", apparently a DIRECT result of AWG, hasn't been surpassed, as "climatologists" "predicted"?
Talking of indisputable thruths....in Al Gores mocumentary...there are no less than 36 unthruths. I shall leave you to determine what they are. When you "discover" the unthruths then maybe, maybe, you will grasp the concept of what really is going on with AGW and the IPCC.
He wasn't fighting against accepted science, because there was no science about celesital bodies to argue about.
He actually completed Prinicipia for a wager - As to who could prove the movement of celestial bodies - He could have done a simple equation, but instead produced one of the most amazing works in history - And all of it, theory - None of it proven.
Right - So, does that make everythign the IPCC have ever said wrong? Or does it means that some people have revised thier opnion?
Following that logic, if a well known GW skeptic changes his mind, then all Skeptic opinion becomes invalid - which is patently ridiculous.
Don't talk rot - Much of Prinicpia was proven for hundreds of years. Some of it was proven wrong - But "in the right ball park".
What you are saying, is that Einstiens General theory of relativity is not science. That the age of the universe is not science.
Just because something has not been proven absolutely does not mean that it is not extremely likely.
The Neutron was theorised to exists in the late 1800's - It took another 40 years to actualy prove it existed - But the facts upon which the theory was based absolutely lead to the existance of a Neutron being incredibly likely.
All of Einstiens, Newtons and Hawkings predictions are based on thoeries that support the facts.
You have a series of result and you postulate what the resons for those event sis - That's what a theory is.
If you are suggesting that Science only deals in absolute facts and nothing else, then you are absolutely dead wrong.
Newton was battling with concensus, the consensus of his religious beliefs, and the assumed "belief's" of the time. He broke that "consensus" with his theories, largely proven today.
When you talk of science dealing with absolute fact, you are right. Proven science is absolute fact. However, when you assume "fact" and establish "policy" on "people" based on "assumption", misinformation, propaganda, that is a problem.
There is even doubt on that point. Noone can model the earths atmosphere in the lab. so that is still theory as well. See Greenhouse Gas Myth Part 1 : June 2007 : ReasonMcLucus : My Telegraph for just one point. Additionally, if you bother to read the articles on CO2 concentrations and temperature back in history you'll find that CO2 rises FOLLOW temperature rises. CO2 concentrations have been many times todays levels and all was hunky dory with the world. The THEORY goes also, that any 'greenhouse' effect is based on a log. scale so increasing amounts have diminishing effects. Did you not know this?
Dave
Well let's not get into a row over this.
Co2 is a greenhouse gas, that is an undisputed fact (as far as I know), look at Venus as a great example of the greenhouse effect gone crazy.
Person? Person?! Make that one (Of many) IPCC scientists! He contributed to the IPCC 4th report. There are many, an ever increasing number of, "scientists" who are "backing away" from the IPCC "model" of "future climate". Strange that the 2005 hurricane "season", apparently a DIRECT result of AWG, hasn't been surpassed, as "climatologists" "predicted"?
Exactly.
A few scientists (mostly full time climatologists) who are not part of the 'consensus'
Co2 is a greenhouse gas, that is an undisputed fact (as far as I know), look at Venus as a great example of the greenhouse effect gone crazy.
No-one disputes Co2 is a GHG, so too is water vapour with concentrations of 95% in the atmosphere.
Venus, GH effect gone crazy? Complete and utter rubbish. I wondered how long it would be before someone would mention Venus. The atmosphere on Venus hans't gone crazy. The temperature on Venus is normal for the atmospheric conditions on Venus. You are trying to compare one gas on two very different planets. Co2 on Venus is about 95% of the atmosphere. True Venus is closer to the Sun, but the atmosphere on Venus is significant thicker than on earth (An important fact), add to that significantly higher concentrations of Co2, greater pressure (The most impoartant fact), more heat input from the Sun, it WILL be hotter there. Go study planetary science.
Do you know the concentration of Co2 on Earth, and how much man contributes to that?
When you "discover" the unthruths then maybe, maybe, you will grasp the concept of what really is going on with AGW and the IPCC.
See, I probably won't because I am not going to base my entire opinion of CC on that one documentary.
Nor am I conspiracy theorist, which you have proven to be on a numbe rof subjects.
And whcith regards to "one person" you have completely taken my response out of context (again).
Suresh said that "The above factually dismisses the methods IPCC are using to panic the masses as wholly unscientific. The IPCC's arguments are blown out of the water!
No-one disputes Co2 is a GHG, so too is water vapour with concentrations of 95% in the atmosphere.
Venus, GH effect gone crazy? Complete and utter rubbish. I wondered how long it would be before someone would mention Venus. The atmosphere on Venus hans't gone crazy. The temperature on Venus is normal for the atmospheric conditions on Venus. You are trying to compare one gas on two very different planets. Co2 on Venus is about 95% of the atmosphere. True Venus is closer to the Sun, but the atmosphere on Venus is significant thicker than on earth (An important fact), add to that significantly higher concentrations of Co2, greater pressure (The most impoartant fact), more heat input from the Sun, it WILL be hotter there. Go study planetary science.
Do you know the concentration of Co2 on Earth, and how much man contributes to that?
The point was that HuttonD was disputing this thats why I posted this.
As for Venus, I'm not sure we disagree at all, Co2 levels are 98%, trapping the sun heat within it's atmosphere, a very good example of greenhouse effect I'd say.
As for 'go study planetary science' you are one arrogant m'fcker sometimes aren't you?
This is like an Oxford University student's union debate. When are David Irving and Nik Griffin going to roll up and liven things up a bit?
Go on, tell me to get lost.
Kevin
"The UN's Climate Committee leadership and policies were today challenged
by four scientists, including one Nobel Peace Prize winner, from
around the world to admit that CO2 centred Global Warming theories are
now disproved by observations and to renounced that theory and
associated 'devastating policies' which are weakening the world economy
and increasing food shortages and destruction of forest across the
planet.
Their bombshell letter (below) includes a graph by
Joseph D'Aleo, (Certified Consultant Meteorologist, Fellow of the
American Meteorological Society (AMS), and Executive Director Icecap.us)
based entirely on official figures which shows that while CO2 has risen
dramatically for the last ten years world temperatures have been falling
contrary to the UN (IPCC) predictions.
The writers directly challenge the IPCC to produce observational
evidence for the UN's CO2 driven Global Warming theories which are now
being used to justify anti-CO2 measures and taxes all over the world:
"If you believe there is evidence of the CO2 driver theory in the
available data please present a graph of it" the scientists challenge.
let me throw this not-so-little-morsel into the ring - the manhattan declaration on climate change, march 2008.
naturally unreported by the mainstream media here, particularly unreported by the green party, sorry, BBC news & current affairs. you have to ask yourself why.
consensus on AGW? no. BBC biased? yes. where did the anti-capitalist left wing disappear to after the collapse of communism and the USSR? the green party. are we being duped? the chances are better than even. is the argument for AGW starting to unravel? you decide ...
Sadly I think that although the evidence against AGW seems pretty clear cut if you bother to look at it, the majority of people still listen to the people who shout the loudest.
It's like paedophiles, the danger to our kids is not any worse than it was when we were small, but the perception does not reflect this and so our kids have very little freedom.
Sadly I think that although the evidence against AGW seems pretty clear cut if you bother to look at it, the majority of people still listen to the people who shout the loudest.
Its no more clear cut against than it is for IMO.
In fact I would say that at the moment I am more convinced by the "it is happening" camp than the "no it isn't" one.
Although I try to keep an open mind ont he whole thing.
Yes I know campaigning for the environment is such an ignoble cause
**
it's not an ignoble cause at all, as you well know. but is it not questionable when such an organisation is paid significant sums by the very benefactor that it lobbies? conflict of interest perhaps? heaven forbid a hidden agenda.
