Post Reply  
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
27-02-2012, 13:25   #16
Turtwig
Censoring your opinion since you posted
 
Turtwig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 25,792
Quote:
Originally Posted by analyst2 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by djpbarry View Post
Name one such scientist.
Dr John Christysaid: “Little known to the public is the fact that most of the scientists involved with the IPCC do not agree that global warming is occurring. Its findings have been consistently misrepresented and/or politicized with each succeeding report.”
John Christy disagrees with the AGW hypothesis. Are you saying he manipulated data and is using evidence by suggesting that the majority of the scientists involved with the IPCC don't agree with AGW hypothesis?
Turtwig is online now  
Advertisement
27-02-2012, 14:05   #17
djpbarry
Registered User
 
djpbarry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 12,760
Quote:
Originally Posted by analyst2 View Post
Dr John Christysaid: “Little known to the public is the fact that most of the scientists involved with the IPCC do not agree that global warming is occurring...
Which scientists? Lets have some names. We'll overlook for the moment the fact that Christy himself does not dispute that the planet is warming.
djpbarry is offline  
02-03-2012, 13:33   #18
Overheal
Covfefe Connoisseur
 
Overheal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 56,023
Send a message via ICQ to Overheal Send a message via Skype™ to Overheal
Quote:
Originally Posted by djpbarry View Post
Which scientists? Lets have some names. We'll overlook for the moment the fact that Christy himself does not dispute that the planet is warming.
How bout instead of this interrogative, threatening style of questioning we just see a polite rebuttal, quoting the findings of multiple investigations into the Climategate scandal?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climati...e_Email_Review

Last edited by djpbarry; 02-03-2012 at 18:23. Reason: Wall of text removed
Overheal is offline  
04-03-2012, 11:41   #19
BettyM
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 62
Half of the USA now believe that the threat of Global Warming has been exaggerated, and fewer Americans are concerned about the threat posed by global warming. In the UK only 31% now believe Climate change is definitely a reality.

Tim Wirth, a former Colorado senator said the scientists who worked on the IPCC report were woefully outmanoeuvred in PR by business groups which have the funds to employ legions of lobbyists and communications experts. "It's not a fair fight," he said. "The IPCC is just a tiny secretariat next to this giant denier machine."

"...in the absence of green leadership from the Prime Minister, the centre of gravity of the Conservative Party has been sliding back to climate-change scepticism..."

Why is the world becoming more skeptical about the issue?
BettyM is offline  
04-03-2012, 13:37   #20
Overheal
Covfefe Connoisseur
 
Overheal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 56,023
Send a message via ICQ to Overheal Send a message via Skype™ to Overheal
You would have to tell us, I suppose.

Do you have a link for your article? You are violating copyright law by plagiarizing your source.
Overheal is offline  
Advertisement
04-03-2012, 14:21   #21
Overheal
Covfefe Connoisseur
 
Overheal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 56,023
Send a message via ICQ to Overheal Send a message via Skype™ to Overheal
With kudos to Mike65,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...iers-mountains

Quote:
The world's greatest snow-capped peaks, which run in a chain from the Himalayas to Tian Shan on the border of China and Kyrgyzstan, have lost no ice over the last decade, new research shows.
The discovery has stunned scientists, who had believed that around 50bn tonnes of meltwater were being shed each year and not being replaced by new snowfall.
The study is the first to survey all the world's icecaps and glaciers and was made possible by the use of satellite data. Overall, the contribution of melting ice outside the two largest caps – Greenland and Antarctica – is much less than previously estimated, with the lack of ice loss in the Himalayas and the other high peaks of Asia responsible for most of the discrepancy.
Bristol University glaciologist Prof Jonathan Bamber, who was not part of the research team, said: "The very unexpected result was the negligible mass loss from high mountain Asia, which is not significantly different from zero."
The melting of Himalayan glaciers caused controversy in 2009 when a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change mistakenly stated that they would disappear by 2035, instead of 2350. However, the scientist who led the new work is clear that while greater uncertainty has been discovered in Asia's highest mountains, the melting of ice caps and glaciers around the world remains a serious concern.
Quote:
The scientists are careful to point out that lower-altitude glaciers in the Asian mountain ranges – sometimes dubbed the "third pole" – are definitely melting. Satellite images and reports confirm this. But over the study period from 2003-10 enough ice was added to the peaks to compensate.
The impact on predictions for future sea level rise is yet to be fully studied but Bamber said: "The projections for sea level rise by 2100 will not change by much, say 5cm or so, so we are talking about a very small modification." Existing estimates range from 30cm to 1m.
This bit I found very interesting:
Quote:
The reason for the radical reappraisal of ice melting in Asia is the different ways in which the current and previous studies were conducted. Until now, estimates of meltwater loss for all the world's 200,000 glaciers were based on extrapolations of data from a few hundred monitored on the ground. Those glaciers at lower altitudes are much easier for scientists to get to and so were more frequently included, but they were also more prone to melting.
The bias was particularly strong in Asia, said Wahr: "There extrapolation is really tough as only a handful of lower-altitude glaciers are monitored and there are thousands there very high up."
The new study used a pair of satellites, called Grace, which measure tiny changes in the Earth's gravitational pull. When ice is lost, the gravitational pull weakens and is detected by the orbiting spacecraft. "They fly at 500km, so they see everything," said Wahr, including the hard-to-reach, high-altitude glaciers.
Quote:
"The new data does not mean that concerns about climate change are overblown in any way. It means there is a much larger uncertainty in high mountain Asia than we thought. Taken globally all the observations of the Earth's ice – permafrost, Arctic sea ice, snow cover and glaciers – are going in the same direction."
While I definitely feel Global Warming is certainly a live issue it's an interesting point, that a lot of the data and estimates we've heard over the years are at least based in part, on pretty wideband extrapolations. According to the article this was done by using data from less than 1% of all glaciers to produce estimates from those glaciers, and as mentioned these glaciers sampled were not in proportion to the conditions found on the majority of earth's glaciers. from that I guess is where scientists say in 100 years we'll be living in Waterworld, or Florida won't exist, etc. /exaggeration

Hardly damning for the science, but it means the figures et all are thrown a bit off. As the article maintains, the data still trends in the direction of Global Warming, though the rate of change is a little less certain. Also bear in mind this study is focused on water levels and ice reserves, not global mean temperature or atmospheric content.
Overheal is offline  
25-03-2012, 10:19   #22
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 18
I suppose to many ordinary people, the situation is they no longer seem to buy it. Perhaps it's because the Chicago Carbon Exchange closed down due to lack of interest, maybe it was the 'climategate' emails which many believe showed that the scientists involved manipulated data, and supressed dissent. Either way ordinary people's confidence that they were being told the truth by these same people, was shaken.

The IPCC was once regarded as the world authority on climate change, but the discovery that its reports could not be relied on and contained predictions based not on science but seemingly on claims simply dreamed up by environmental activists shook many ordinary peoples faith in the IPCC to the extent than many no longer believe its predictions.

Perhaps these events have something to do with many ordinary people feeling mislead by these tactics and why so many simply disbelieve the whole thing as a result.

Last edited by elmex; 25-03-2012 at 10:28.
elmex is offline  
25-03-2012, 15:21   #23
djpbarry
Registered User
 
djpbarry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 12,760
Quote:
Originally Posted by elmex View Post
The IPCC was once regarded as the world authority on climate change, but the discovery that its reports could not be relied on...
You're dismissing the entire series of reports as unreliable on the basis of one error?
djpbarry is offline  
25-03-2012, 17:04   #24
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by djpbarry View Post
You're dismissing the entire series of reports as unreliable on the basis of one error?
I had hoped I had not dismissed anything.

My post was about confidence in the organisations, such as the IPCC, being eroded in the eyes of many, and not about dismissing reports.

It may not be fair, but the drip, drip, drip of claims which were exaggerated, or which were simply false, or which were based on dubious evidence, seems to have eroded confidencr or interest in the issue amongst the public.

While I have little doubts that we can argue the merits of "himalayagate" or "africagate", claims made about the Netherlands being below sea level, the hockey stick graph and so on, thats not the point of my post, which was that many have lost confidence in the issue to the extent they no longer believe what the IPCC says.
elmex is offline  
Advertisement
25-03-2012, 17:40   #25
djpbarry
Registered User
 
djpbarry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 12,760
Quote:
Originally Posted by elmex View Post
I had hoped I had not dismissed anything.
You said the IPCC reports could not be relied upon - that's a dismissal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elmex View Post
It may not be fair, but the drip, drip, drip of claims which were exaggerated, or which were simply false, or which were based on dubious evidence, seems to have eroded confidencr or interest in the issue amongst the public.
Following the discovery of the error relating to Himalayan glaciers, elements of the media, such as the Sunday Times' Jonathan Leake, began scouring the IPCC reports in search of further errors. While Leake and his pears have claimed other inaccuracies exist, all such claims were found to be (largely) baseless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elmex View Post
...many have lost confidence in the issue to the extent they no longer believe what the IPCC says.
I doubt that is the case. I would argue that those who have no confidence in what the IPCC says never had any confidence in what the IPCC ever said, as they do not wish to accept the evidence presented.
djpbarry is offline  
26-03-2012, 07:57   #26
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by djpbarry View Post
You said the IPCC reports could not be relied upon - that's a dismissal.
Following the discovery of the error relating to Himalayan glaciers, elements of the media, such as the Sunday Times' Jonathan Leake, began scouring the IPCC reports in search of further errors. While Leake and his pears have claimed other inaccuracies exist, all such claims were found to be (largely) baseless.
I doubt that is the case. I would argue that those who have no confidence in what the IPCC says never had any confidence in what the IPCC ever said, as they do not wish to accept the evidence presented.
What I said was that the numbers of those who no longer believe it are increasing. Your doubts seem to contradict the findings of a gallup poll last year, which concluded “…Gallup's annual update on Americans' attitudes toward the environment shows a public that over the last two years has become less worried about the threat of global warming, less convinced that its effects are already happening, and more likely to believe that scientists themselves are uncertain about its occurrence. In response to one key question, 48% of Americans now believe that the seriousness of global warming is generally exaggerated, up from 41% in 2009 and 31% in 1997, when Gallup first asked the question…”

It would be good to hear the argument you say you would argue, given the evidence from Gallup that, since 1997, 17% more Americans believe that the threat is generally exaggerated.
elmex is offline  
26-03-2012, 09:32   #27
djpbarry
Registered User
 
djpbarry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 12,760
Quote:
Originally Posted by elmex View Post
...17% more Americans believe that the threat is generally exaggerated.
Unless those Americans are referring specifically to exaggerations from the IPCC, which I don't think they are (based on the use of the term "generally"), then it doesn't really support your previous point.

But anyway, why does it matter? Should public confidence in science be taken as some sort of indicator of legitimacy, regardless of how informed that public may or may not be?
djpbarry is offline  
26-03-2012, 11:50   #28
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by elmex View Post
…many have lost confidence in the issue to the extent they no longer believe what the IPCC says.
Quote:
Originally Posted by djpbarry View Post
I doubt that is the case.
In light of the Gallup poll, do you still doubt that is the case?
elmex is offline  
26-03-2012, 13:54   #29
djpbarry
Registered User
 
djpbarry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 12,760
Quote:
Originally Posted by elmex View Post
In light of the Gallup poll, do you still doubt that is the case?
Eh, yes - I just explained why: the poll doesn't support your claim that many people "no longer believe what the IPCC says".

And I'm also wondering why it matters? You're implying that if people don't believe what the IPCC says, that undermines their reports? Why?
djpbarry is offline  
27-03-2012, 08:45   #30
BettyM
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by elmex View Post
I suppose to many ordinary people, the situation is they no longer seem to buy it.
I read an article in the Guardian which said the same is true for the UK.

"The proportion of adults who believe climate change is "definitely" a reality dropped by 30% over the last year, from 44% to 31%, in the latest survey by Ipsos Mori.

Overall around nine out of 10 people questioned still appear to accept some degree of global warming."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...f-climate-poll
BettyM is offline  
Post Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Remove Text Formatting
Bold
Italic
Underline

Insert Image
Wrap [QUOTE] tags around selected text
 
Decrease Size
Increase Size
Please sign up or log in to join the discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



Share Tweet