Jump to content

More Nonsense In The IPCC - Who Would Trust Their Reports?

Recommended Posts

World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown




Turns out the "research" that proved all those Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035 was pure hogwash! And the IPCC author in charge of the section on glaciers admits he knows little about glaciers! Yeah, let's trust the "experts!"


"Some scientists have questioned how the IPCC could have allowed such a mistake into print. Perhaps the most likely reason was lack of expertise. Lal himself admits he knows little about glaciers. "I am not an expert on glaciers.and I have not visited the region so I have to rely on credible published research. The comments in the WWF report were made by a respected Indian scientist and it was reasonable to assume he knew what he was talking about," he said.


Unfortunately for the IPCC, the remarks from that "respected Indian scientist" were "speculative," and not based on any real research. Not only were they speculative, they were ridiculous!


Yep, nothing but a pure HOAX! But, let's spend billions of dollars to fix a problem that doesn't exist.


If that wasn't good enough, here is more:


"Last week another row broke out when the Met Office criticised suggestions that sea levels were likely to rise 1.9m by 2100, suggesting much lower increases were likely."


Question for those AGW believers - is the science still settled?? If so, based on what??

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 61
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Yah, not sure we really needed another one of these threads, eh?


It is amusin' when the media bungles the reporting on science and then blames the scientists. But depressing when folks don't exercise a little skepticism on both sides..



Link to post
Share on other sites


Gee, I found it sad that a "scientist" would include such incredulous predictions in a scientific report (which is being passed off as FACT) without doing ANY fact checking on his own! But I guess when the IPCC asks a scientist who admits he doesn't know much about glaciers, to author that part of the report, we shouldn't expect too much, should we.


I am curious, though. Was the "glacier expert" not available the day the report was written, or would such an expert not write the fiction the IPCC needed in order to push their agenda?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually a good reason we might not need another thread on the topic is the inability of folks to argue reasonably.


The first comment out of the chute is simply an insult: " Brent I bet you also get all your news from the Fox network as well, in addition to Rush Limbaugh and Pat Robertson, lol. If nothing else you really are always good for laugh."



The article cited came not from Limbaugh, or Robertson, or Fox. So what was the point of that jab at BrentAllen?

Link to post
Share on other sites

No Brent they are incompetent so called scientists out there, as there are in every profession and when they are exposed that is good. However to dismiss years of research by a myriad of scientists because of one bad one is shortsighted and prejudiced to say the least. Try reading some of the credible research first before you start taking potshots at the whole scientific establishment. That is typical of the kind of reporting Fox and Limbaugh do all the time, condemn before even attempting to learn all the facts, that used to be called "yellow journalism", today sadly it has become the accepted norm.


WAKWIB now you know the reason for my comment to Brent, this is his standard MO.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Uh... I thought the IPCC Reports WERE the most credible pieces of information available. You know, produced and signed by hundreds of the best and brightest climate scientists in the world! The latest is THE REPORT that governments are using to base their cabon reduction plans on. If this isn't credible, then what is?!?!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Frankly, I would welcome more citations of articles of the "credible research" from the "myriad of scientists." In the last lengthy thread on this topic the anti-AGW team in the debate produced a ton of documentation (ie-article citatations and the like), whereas the pro-AGW team told us the evidence was there but did not put out a lot of references. I'm sure there is abundance of sources, they just didn't seem to come into play. In terms of the weight of documentation, the anti-AGW team made a much stronger case.


Also, I would like to see some thoughts on how AGW (assuming the threat is real) would affect the Scouting program. Maybe that should be another thread. But really, I would think that the purpose of this sub-forum should be to discuss "issues and politics" that may directly impact Scouting program and policy.


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the last lengthy thread on this topic the anti-AGW team in the debate produced a ton of documentation (ie-article citatations and the like), whereas the pro-AGW team told us the evidence was there but did not put out a lot of references.


Yah, curious. Are people really bamboozled by that sort of thing? Shout louder and cite a list of obscure references?


It ain't hard to find the mainstream view if yeh try, eh? Isn't it the job of a citizen and scouter to stay mentally awake and informed?


If yeh really want to understand Scouting, don't listen to the people who are emotionally opposed to Scouting or tryin' to advance a political agenda like Scouting for All, eh? And don't listen to the media reports, especially not media that are only presentin' one political view, where scouting is goin' to show up in a bad or awkward light. If yeh do listen only to that kind of source, you'd believe that Scouting was a hotbed of child abuse and illegal discrimination, punctuated by burning down a forest, bullying, and kids gettin' killed. I can cite dozens of articles and such (Merlyn probably has :p).


If yeh want to know what scoutin' is really like, you need to be more discriminatin' in your sources, less emotional, and less connected to a political agenda. Yeh need to read the other side, and listen to real, live, scouts and scouters.


Same with climate change or any other field where yeh have to stay Mentally Awake. Here's just a few organizations of professional scientists who have policy statements and related papers readily available for anyone who is interested:


The National Academy of Sciences

The American Meteorological Society

American Geophysical Union

American Association for the Advancement of Science


Findin' the consensus view in the literature isn't hard, since almost every published piece of scientific research has been in agreement with the notion of human climate forcing. Just go to Google Scholar and search "global warming". I find about 26,000 articles for the last couple years.


It's hard to pick from that large a pool to offer citations, eh? Just like it's hard to pick from the huge number of small town articles describing boys earning Eagle, boys doing service projects, boys saving lives because of Scouting. That's da difference between a consensus opinion and a political fringe argument, eh? Da consensus opinion of scouting has thousands of citations, but none of 'em has the "punch" as the political argument citing that one juicy child molester case in Idaho, or the rantings of the atheist parent who is offended and filing lawsuits.


Same with any field, eh? Like global warmin' science.


Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with science is that it does distinguish between THEORY and FACT, but the general population does not.


Theory is unproven and Fact is proven.


What is often touted as Fact is in reality only Theory. Until the scientists get back to supporting their ideas and speculations with facts, it will remain only theory.


Is glacial thaw a result of global warming or as some have speculated, due to the amount of dirt forming on them causing them to retain solar heat and thus melting. Until either side comes up with documented and conclusive evidence to support the idea, it will always be nothing more than theory on both sides of the issue.


The Theory of Global Warming, Relativity and Evolution are nothing more than that -- Theories. Once proven through repeatable scientific experimentation, does it become something other than someone's wild hair idea.


While the true scientific field sustains it's credibility through proven facts, the world of politics does not and thus holds little if any credibility. That credibility extends into any media that feels it necessary to prove something that in FACT has not been established through legitimate scientific experimentation and proof.


Obviously there are not many people who are willing to accept undocumented speculation, but there are those with selfish agendas willing to do so.



Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the problem with your contention Beavah: skepticism about the AGW theory isn't fringe, no matter what Al Gore or Michael Mann or Phil Jones would like you to believe. One of the big problems has been the manipulation of the standard scientific process but unfortunately it doesn't stop there.


Forget the typos by IPCC that were then used in the AGW scare tactics, go to the tree ring data that has been used to create the hysteria through Mann's hockeystick graph. Dendrologists have queried how Briffa and Mann got their temperature correlations since tree ring density varies with so many other factors (and not been answered). Statisticians have looked at the data used and found anomalies and cherry-picking.


Historical, geological and archaeological evidence showed the Medieval Warming Period was significantly warmer than the peak observed year of 1998 -- perhaps as much as 8 C higher. Mann rewrote history to reduce the MWP to a "regional anomaly" and lowered the variance; he eliminated the historically validated warm period prior to WWII. Hansen and the GISS have been "homogenizing" the surface temperature records so historical station data looks significantly different from what it did just 3 years ago.


Most -- if not all -- of this information was unknown to most of the scientific community 10 years ago and about 20 years ago the UK and US not only significantly boosted funding for climate research but rewrote the rules so funding was specifically directed toward scientists seeking to prove the AGW hypothesis.


Physicists and other scientists outside the AGW cashflow are among the most skeptical people I know. Skeptical -- not in denial. We want open raw data, open code -- the inability to reproduce their results is what sank Pons and Fleischman which is probably why Mann and Jones have evaded data sharing with anyone but those already firmly in the pro-AGW camp.


Just read the East Anglia e-mails and Keith Briffa's own doubts about the conclusions Mann was pushing and how Mann and Jones were minimizing or eliminating the large uncertainties. Read the objections raised by Wigley (although he kept his concerns quiet, apparently to avoid undermining the overall message). I agree with you on a lot of things in Scouting but not your blind parroting of Al "the science is settled even though I don't know the first thing about science" Gore.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Consensus Science. AKA opinion; strong lack of evidence.


"Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science, consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.


And furthermore, the consensus of scientists has frequently been wrong. As they were wrong when they believed, earlier in my lifetime, that the continents did not move. So we must remember the immortal words of Mark Twain, who said, "Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect."

Michael Crichton



The linked article also discusses the discrediting of Mann's hockey stick and problems with mysterious changing of temperature data.



Link to post
Share on other sites

Yah, again, da consensus science is that da Boy Scouts is a good program for kids, and does a lot of decent things for communities nationwide.


But if you're Merlyn and comin' at it from that angle, you can cite a number of articles to the contrary, claim that we're lawbreakers, talk about the manipulation of our policies with respect to government entities, claim loudly that you're not fringe, point to a few scouters like GAHillBilly who are skeptical of the consensus on the value of scouting or others that don't like da membership policy. Yeh can join Kudu in hollerin' about how modern scoutin' doesn't fit historical evidence or pick out individual quotes from here or there or individual cases that show misinterpretation. Even a few cases like child-molestin' scout leaders and claim that the "consensus" folks are just a bunch of frauds and villains.


And then from all that conclude that Scouting is a farce and not worth a plug nickel.


Unless you're Mentally Awake, recognize the limits of reporters and the agendas of different groups, put 'em in context, and then strongly weight the fact that there are few million kids, parents, and adult leaders who feel differently, and that consensus of real experts in the scouting field is probably worth a lot more than outsiders with agendas.


But I reckon I'll never convince Merlyn or Kudu of that, eh? And I reckon I won't convince partisans of other sorts either.




Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes science is only theory until it is proven to be true by empirical evidence. The problem with global warming is that if it is true, which I think the signs are there now, the full effects will not be seen until long after we are all gone from this earth, and then it will be too late to do anything about it, and we have doomed future generations. Our selfishness and political disagreements have stalled any widescale global effort to really look into this problem.


No one can realistically argue that they have not seen environmental damage caused by the way we live. Pollution of our oceans, waterways, rainforests, and wildlands are very real and can be seen firsthand right now. One thing science does show us is how little we truly know about the nature of the world we live in. Hiding our heads in the sand denying that we have a serious global environmental problem, and behind empty political rhetoric is not going to accomplish anything beneficial. We need to think about future generations instead of our own self centered interests of this generation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Create New...