Not politically expedient

Not politically expedient (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Yachtie -> Not politically expedient (9/20/2013 9:06:21 AM)
Why should enviro-skeptics be skeptical? [;)] Scientists working on the most authoritative study on climate change were urged to cover up the fact that the world’s temperature hasn’t risen for the last 15 years, it is claimed. A leaked copy of a United Nations report, compiled by hundreds of scientists, shows politicians in Belgium, Germany, Hungary and the United States raised concerns about the final draft. Published next week, it is expected to address the fact that 1998 was the hottest year on record and world temperatures have not yet exceeded it, which scientists have so far struggled to explain. The report is the result of six years’ work by UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is seen as the world authority on the extent of climate change and what is causing it – on which governments including Britain’s base their green policies But leaked documents seen by the Associated Press, yesterday revealed deep concerns among politicians about a lack of global warming over the past few years. Now don't go off on the UN as they're good enough when it comes to international relations, right?[8D]

KYsissy -> RE: Not politically expedient (9/20/2013 9:11:08 AM)
It is interesting and enlightening to see politicians are urging data manipultion.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Not politically expedient (9/20/2013 9:11:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie Why should enviro-skeptics be skeptical? [;)] Scientists working on the most authoritative study on climate change were urged to cover up the fact that the world’s temperature hasn’t risen for the last 15 years, it is claimed. A leaked copy of a United Nations report, compiled by hundreds of scientists, shows politicians in Belgium, Germany, Hungary and the United States raised concerns about the final draft. Published next week, it is expected to address the fact that 1998 was the hottest year on record and world temperatures have not yet exceeded it, which scientists have so far struggled to explain. The report is the result of six years’ work by UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is seen as the world authority on the extent of climate change and what is causing it – on which governments including Britain’s base their green policies But leaked documents seen by the Associated Press, yesterday revealed deep concerns among politicians about a lack of global warming over the past few years. Now don't go off on the UN as they're good enough when it comes to international relations, right?[8D] Don't be stupid. This is settled science. Just because there hasn't been any statistically significant warming since 1998 doesn't mean Man didn't cause it. [8D]

FirmhandKY -> RE: Not politically expedient (9/20/2013 9:27:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KYsissy It is interesting and enlightening to see politicians are urging data manipultion. You mean the politicians who wish an explanation of why there hasn't been a world wide temperature rise since 1998? You mean politicians who desire an explanation of why the report is increasing the claim that global warming is all man-made, while those pesky temperatures have failed to continue to rise? Damn politicians ... demanding that scientists address the facts .. Shoot 'em all, the damn heretics! [8D] Firm

mnottertail -> RE: Not politically expedient (9/20/2013 10:13:30 AM)
You mean people should believe the DailyMail more than Faux Nuze or Breitbart, or Boortz? Not gonna happen. It is bullshit.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Not politically expedient (9/20/2013 10:16:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail You mean people should believe the DailyMail more than Faux Nuze or Breitbart, or Boortz? Not gonna happen. It is bullshit. Be specific. What part of the article do you think is false and/or misleading? What, exactly, is "bullshit" in the article? Firm

mnottertail -> RE: Not politically expedient (9/20/2013 10:20:25 AM)
Be specific, what facts, what reports, what links to credible citations did this bit of asswipe provide? The answer is slighly less than zero. We can be certain that it is the DailyMail which is equivalent to unrealism and those other bloviations called right-wing media. If you go to other sources (far more reputable) a very different set of circumstances emerges.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Not politically expedient (9/20/2013 10:26:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Be specific, what facts, what reports, what links to credible citations did this bit of asswipe provide? The answer is slighly less than zero. We can be certain that it is the DailyMail which is equivalent to unrealism and those other bloviations called right-wing media. What is it that you want cites for? In other words, what information is presented as factual that you are saying is incorrect? So far, all you have attempted to do is impeach the source.. Logical fallacy, Ron, and not any room or subject to discuss with you, so far. Did you even read the article, or simply dismiss it out-of-hand? Firm

mnottertail -> RE: Not politically expedient (9/20/2013 10:30:52 AM)
Hey, cement is lighter than air according to some sources. Discuss as if there is or is not merit to that august elucidation. There were NO facts presented. Same shit, there are a multitude of idiotic droolings out there to which nobody owes honest consideration, and this is one, it deserves the derision of any thinking man, and no more.

Phydeaux -> RE: Not politically expedient (9/20/2013 10:51:10 AM)
Right, this is the same thing the Daily Mail reported a few days back. I provided quotes from the document to be leaked, where the IPCC conceded the models for global warming were wrong, that no substantive global warming had occurred in 16 years, that the rate of temperature rise was half of hat was expected. You know - the same group of people that first said there was global warming are now saying there isn't global warming. You believed them when there was and impugn them when there isn't. Rich.

mnottertail -> RE: Not politically expedient (9/20/2013 10:54:51 AM)
No, that isn't at all what you did. However remember global warming is a subset of climate change, as is global cooling. You still have the problem that all numbers are set on 1998 and why pick that year?

DesideriScuri -> RE: Not politically expedient (9/20/2013 10:56:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail No, that isn't at all what you did. However remember global warming is a subset of climate change, as is global cooling. You still have the problem that all numbers are set on 1998 and why pick that year? To show there hasn't been any significant warming since 1998. Sorta seems silly to show no significant warming since 1998 when you start at a different year...

mnottertail -> RE: Not politically expedient (9/20/2013 11:04:42 AM)
Right. since global warming has been an issue since 1998 and the earth knows when it was 1998. But innumerates are playing statistices felching. It possible that over that time the ice melting in the poles has cooled the earth, but when it is all melted, the earth will heat up 32 degrees, right? We had a guy here with bad science explaining to us that a cloud not forming 9 months ago is the reason that we have warmer temperatures today. I can tell you that for Minnesota, we have seen significant warming in that time. So, in climate change is is not necessary to have a contant hot temp thruout the globe. It will happen in fits and starts if it is global warming, if global cooling...same in reverse. We get California smog in Minnesota, our air is nowhere near as clean as it was when I was a kid, it dont get to LA smog here, but it does affect us.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Not politically expedient (9/20/2013 11:29:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Right. since global warming has been an issue since 1998 and the earth knows when it was 1998. But innumerates are playing statistices felching. It possible that over that time the ice melting in the poles has cooled the earth, but when it is all melted, the earth will heat up 32 degrees, right? We had a guy here with bad science explaining to us that a cloud not forming 9 months ago is the reason that we have warmer temperatures today. I can tell you that for Minnesota, we have seen significant warming in that time. So, in climate change is is not necessary to have a contant hot temp thruout the globe. It will happen in fits and starts if it is global warming, if global cooling...same in reverse. We get California smog in Minnesota, our air is nowhere near as clean as it was when I was a kid, it dont get to LA smog here, but it does affect us. There is an issue with there not being any global warming of significance since 1998. Those in support of AGW can't figure out why that is. The politicians in the OP seem to be worried about it. You can shift the talking points to a longer time span, but there is still this temperature plateau, even though there isn't a plateau in CO2 concentrations. That's the problem. Science tells us that increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere will cause an increase in atmospheric temperatures. Since atmospheric CO2 has continued to go up, why haven't global temperatures? Therein lies the problem. Plus, how much CO2 is put in the air, and how much of that is anthropogenic? So, in demonstrating that there hasn't been any statistical warming since 1998, why should there be any start date used that isn't 1998?

FirmhandKY -> RE: Not politically expedient (9/20/2013 11:31:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Hey, cement is lighter than air according to some sources. Discuss as if there is or is not merit to that august elucidation. There were NO facts presented. Same shit, there are a multitude of idiotic droolings out there to which nobody owes honest consideration, and this is one, it deserves the derision of any thinking man, and no more. Ron, all I'm seeing is bluster from you, and attempts to impeach the source. The article is about the fact that there appears to be some discontent with both scientists and politicians who generally support the AGM hypothesis. Are you claiming this is not true, because it's the Guardian reporting this? Firm

FirmhandKY -> RE: Not politically expedient (9/20/2013 11:40:59 AM)
Ah screw it .... Here is substantially the same information, in a different article, by a different reporter ... IPCC Climate Report Struggles With Temperature Quirks Is the Huffington Post a better source for you? Firm

DaNewAgeViking -> RE: Not politically expedient (9/20/2013 11:43:34 AM)
You prove it! No, you prove it! No, you prove it! No, you prove it!... [sm=binky.gif]

mnottertail -> RE: Not politically expedient (9/20/2013 11:52:37 AM)
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/co2.html a fifteen year plateau is .056 of the industrial revolution to today. the amounts of CO2 that is put in the air, and how much of that is anthropogenic has been repeatedly stated. quote: So, in demonstrating that there hasn't been any statistical warming since 1998, why should there be any start date used that isn't 1998? Why is a statistical nothingness constantly repeated as though it means something other than nothingness is what I am trying to figure out. http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/greenhousegases/industrialrevolution.html http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm One is forced to believe the plateau is because there are attempts to reduce greenhouse gasses and there have been some large programs of HFC reductions (yanno, the nasty refrigerants that are outlawed) and their lifespan appears to be 12 years, so it could be that. The question why is there the (very small) plateau of temp "stability", is a good one, of course more work needs to be done, and more tests need to be performed and theories aligned with data. But the bottom line, when we take a shit, we wipe our ass, we dont let nature clean it up.

mnottertail -> RE: Not politically expedient (9/20/2013 12:16:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY Ah screw it .... Here is substantially the same information, in a different article, by a different reporter ... IPCC Climate Report Struggles With Temperature Quirks Is the Huffington Post a better source for you? Firm That is what I have read SUBSTANTIALLY from the other sources. The Mail is SUBSTANTIALLY the same? That is fuckin stupid. World's top climate scientists told to 'cover up' the fact that the Earth's temperature hasn't risen for the last 15 years HOw the fuck is that SUBSTANTIALLY the same? That is pure nutsucker spinning webs of deceit, and ignorance. Cement is lighter than air, according to the DailyMail.

Phydeaux -> RE: Not politically expedient (9/20/2013 12:37:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Right. since global warming has been an issue since 1998 and the earth knows when it was 1998. But innumerates are playing statistices felching. It possible that over that time the ice melting in the poles has cooled the earth, but when it is all melted, the earth will heat up 32 degrees, right? We had a guy here with bad science explaining to us that a cloud not forming 9 months ago is the reason that we have warmer temperatures today. I can tell you that for Minnesota, we have seen significant warming in that time. So, in climate change is is not necessary to have a contant hot temp thruout the globe. It will happen in fits and starts if it is global warming, if global cooling...same in reverse. We get California smog in Minnesota, our air is nowhere near as clean as it was when I was a kid, it dont get to LA smog here, but it does affect us. No actually, you can't, unless you are referring to statistical evidence. Any person can only give aneqdotal evidence about the weather. Unless one has a approved weather site, and adjusted for environment, and performed a statistical comparison and analyzed the statistical validity and confidence.

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875