Al Jazeera English: Climate panel admits glacier gaffe

Printable View

23.01.10, 18:05
SealLion

Al Jazeera English: Climate panel admits glacier gaffe

It is my opinion that this whole climate change deal is one big farce.

There have been other reports, other than this one, explaining the fallacies of climate change work being done by various scientists. Some of the scientific work being done is not done very accurately and some of the work being done by scientists is completely made up.

Why you ask??
LIke slikrapid mentioned: order out of chaos, is probably one of the way's to make it clear.
To bring about a continuing idea that the world is falling apart and some kind of action is needed.
There are also the financial benefits associated with promoting climate change.

There was an article that I published here in the News section somewhere by Wikileaks.org; however, Wikileaks.org is currently out of server business as I believe that they're trying to raise funds for their operation to continue.

Anyways...here's the news:

Quote:

The head of a United Nations panel of climate scientists has said that a prediction in one of the Nobel-prize winning panel's reports that Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035 was "a regrettable error".......but promised to tighten research procedures

Ok. So he goofed.

Quote:

The prediction was included in a 2007 UN report on global warming, in which scientists said the probability of glaciers in the Himalayas melting "by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high"

Will glaciers melt??
Well probably. But perhaps not as quickly. I should make mention of one thing here and that climate change has been occurring throughout history.
Literally....

climate change has been happening since we, as humans, have been making recorded history known to ourselves. That includes the use of technology and geology to help veryify such events in our planet's past.

If your really interested, there is a good film that I feel is quite reputable. It's called:

The Great Warming Swindle

YOu can find it on many torrent sites. You can even find it on YouTube.

Though, I believe that it is in parts and would probably make it inconvienient to repeatedly view segments of it while on YT.
Nevertheless, have a look if your really interested.

I do believe that it is of a reputable production, too.

Quote:

The IPCC now says it took the exaggerated prediction from a 2005 report by the WWF environmental group...........The error was compounded by the accidental inversion of the date - 2035 instead of 2350...................

So the dates were mixed up a little, were they??

Seriously, IMHO, I don't believe that.
If they were mixed up. It was most likely intentional and somebody discovered it and made news of it.

Quote:

The UN panel says a team of climate change sceptics uncovered the error, which could cast a shadow over the panel's climate change research.

Now if you were to dig around a little, you'll find that climate change research is finding bigger and bigger shadows hovering over itself.

Climate change, IMHO, is a farce.
It's meant to provide continued funding and political achievement for those who want things to be their way.

What's the bottom line for this from big corporations??.....Stock increases.
Plain and simply put.
Go to the link for Global Issues down below that I've placed and read the article that slik has placed in that same thread. He provides a link too.

The human footprint on the earth, for the time that we've been here that is, is I think too small in consideration of the effects that the sun has on our planet.
The sun is only an example here but considering how massive the Sun is and how huge an effect it has on the Earth's place within the Solar System, it deserves a chapter of it's own, I'd say.

Now I'm not saying that we shouldn't be making our footprint on the earth too hard or even to push our limits while on earth. There should be at least some kind of restraint. We can't just go 'all out' and rip up the land of course.
Obviously, there's got to be some kind of restraint and I'm sure that most of you will agree with that.

If you'd want to read a little more on global warming. There is an article that I place here in the News from GlobalIssues.
The link is Here:

GlobalIssues Link

The link for this News article is here:

Quote:

Al Jazeera English - CENTRAL/S. ASIA - Climate panel admits glacier gaffe
23.01.10, 23:44
slikrapid

Quote:

Will glaciers melt??
Well probably. But perhaps not as quickly.

well, they melt/change constantly & get replenished with new snow & ice

even if there was no new snow/ice being added it would take many hundreds or even thousands of years to melt them, and there is another problem - on those altitudes (himalaya) any warming must first face low temperatures (as opposed to, say the floating icebergs), oh and the greenhouse effect is lower up there

Quote:

So the dates were mixed up a little, were they??

:biggrin::rolling_eyes:

Quote:

a team of climate change sceptics uncovered the error

makes them even less believable - the problem is, this global warming fraud is just one of many coming from (supported by, profited on) supposedly objective global/international organizations, and as expected, all of them fit nicely within the globalization trends

previous discussion on the topic:

http://www.sb-innovation.de/showthre...threadid=17676

The Great Global Warming Swindle movie (1:15:56) full

Code:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5576670191369613647#

Quote:

Now I'm not saying that we shouldn't be making our footprint on the earth too hard or even to push our limits while on earth. There should be at least some kind of restraint. We can't just go 'all out' and rip up the land of course.
Obviously, there's got to be some kind of restraint and I'm sure that most of you will agree with that.

agreed, but the science & evidence must be valid & coming from both respectable sources & independent ones too, furthermore decent opposing arguments need to be heard as well - but in today's corporate owned & interest driven societies it may be difficult to find (or discern) what sources to 'follow', that can be trusted to some extent
24.01.10, 01:39
SealLion

you know that one of the reasons that people hear so little about how global warming is a hoax, is b/c that people who deny global warming to be true and correct are not just labeled as herectics to a good cause to keep the earth from being destroyed by humanity, is that denyers of global warming are situated right next to denyers of let's say, the Nazi holocaust as an example.

In Canada, David Suzuki is a very prominent scientist and environmentalist; however, he is very adamant of ensuring that his views are the strongest. He host's some good TV shows here, granted. But when he starts to advocate that politicians who deny or don't do anything about global warming, he strongly suggests that they be thrown in jail.

Quote:

David Suzuki has called for political leaders to be thrown in jail for ignoring the science behind climate change. At a Montreal conference last Thursday, the prominent scientist, broadcaster and Order of Canada recipient exhorted a packed house of 600 to hold politicians legally accountable for what he called an inter-generational crime.”

LInk to above:

LINK

iT'S as if the trend for global warming movement want's so badly to ensure that their views are the strongest and considered to be some kind of holy movement that shouldn't be debated.

There is much more interesting stuff on that same link above that brings credence, in my mind at least, of the fallacies of the science and research behind the global warming movement.
24.01.10, 03:25
slikrapid

Quote:

Originally Posted by SealLion

you know that one of the reasons that people hear so little about how global warming is a hoax, is b/c that people who deny global warming to be true and correct are not just labeled as herectics to a good cause to keep the earth from being destroyed by humanity, is that denyers of global warming are situated right next to denyers of let's say, the Nazi holocaust as an example.

wherever you find a similar situation, when skepticism or questioning on certain subjects is considered as some kind of heresy (aka denialism) against a dogma (dogmatic established view by the majority), its a clear sign of abuse (freedom of speech), as in a decent society no topic should be considered as a holy cow (aka taboo) in discussions, let alone should skepticism or some other viewpoint be used as a pro-imprisonment/punishment reasoning

Quote:

In Canada, David Suzuki is a very prominent scientist and environmentalist; however, he is very adamant of ensuring that his views are the strongest. He host's some good TV shows here, granted. But when he starts to advocate that politicians who deny or don't do anything about global warming, he strongly suggests that they be thrown in jail.

well, environmentalists are known to be a revolutionary 'bunch', the trouble is some of them haven't realized they have been played and cleverly used for the corporate agenda considering the global warming fraud - one may ask why this suzuki character would suggest such an unusual way of punishing, maybe his zionism connection can account for that, as they had plenty of experience in this field

Bronfmans sit on Board of Directors of Suzuki Foundation; Donate Millions
David Suzuki and Campaign Finance Questions - Politics does, indeed, create strange bedfellows

Code:

http://searchingforliberty.blogspot.com/2009/02/david-suzuki-and-campaign-finance.html

more info...

Emotional bully intolerant of anyone
The Sad Legacy Of David Suzuki

Code:

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/1824
24.01.10, 05:50
SealLion

I went to the Canadafreepress link; quite interesting I thought.

Most notably was this qoute here which is exactly what is always talked about in the News section here:

Quote:

.....It is more likely he (David Suzuki), and those who work with him, are pushing a political agenda to create the world they want. H. L. Mencken, one of the most influential American writers of the early 20th century, said, “The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.”

David Suzuki, as well known as he is here also...

Quote:

.... ignores the standard scientific method, which tries to disprove hypotheses

He's not so scientific as he claims to be.

I would put him on the branch of eco-activists that make attempts to sabotage and the like. Not to say that, that is what he does, except that considering his activism and how he desires to place politicians in jail who 'break' environmental standards and so forth, demonstrates his strong belief in his own views and the desire to have just ordinary people, side with him.
This is in addition to him being very much like an alarmist, which that article makes mention of as well.

I didn't know of this event here:'

Quote:

In February of last year, Suzuki stormed out of an AM640 Toronto radio interview when interviewer, John Oakley, made the accurate observation that global warming science is not a “totally settled issue.”

Besides Suzuki’s aggressive behavior, his promotion of certainty in a field scientists understand to be immature, is counterproductive to climate research. If the science is settled then why is there literally a deluge of scientific papers coming out on the topic? If the science is settled, then this all must be an enormous waste of money.

I believe that as a scientist, he could have/ should have/ would have discussed the issue maturly, rather than stomping out of the radio station. dfff

That certainly illustrates his passion for strongly desiring his views to be taken as fact when many other facts point to other possible conclusions if not other perspectives including the fact that climate change isnt really settled. He feels that it is settled, though it isn't. Most obviously

Here's an example that you make suggestion of re: business and climatologists and their relationships:

Quote:

Suzuki raised the spin to a professional level when he teamed up with James Hoggan of Hoggan and Associates, one of Canada’s largest public relations firms. According to Hoggan’s Web site, “Hoggan has provided strategic communications services to the DSF [David Suzuki Foundation] for more than 15 years, providing communications advice on salmon farming, climate change, forest preservation and international conservation projects

.

A business relationship of/c./

But that would be expected, yes??
If David Suzuki want's to get his message out, then of course he would use such professional services.

Most other organizations do the same thing.
But have a look at this:

Quote:

............. Hoggan himself has served on the Board of the David Suzuki Foundation for the past 11 years, now even replacing Suzuki as Chair of the Foundation.......According to the David Suzuki Foundation 2006 annual report, Hoggan and Associates is a large financial donor to the Suzuki Foundation and Hoggan has personally arranged “a future gift” to the society.

Ah...that's considered a conflict of interest is it not??
Or am I mistaken??
Maybe I'm mistaken.

Is he able to scientifically discuss matters of animal discovery and extinction??

Have a close read of this:

Quote:

Suzuki’s ignorance of fundamental science is breathtaking. For example, he wrote an article on his website asserting and has often told audiences, “It’s been estimated that as many as three species go extinct every hour.” This would mean that he is claiming that 72 species a day, 504 a week and 26,208 a year are disappearing.

OK, alright....But check this out:

Quote:

When Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore and I ask him to name these disappearing species, Suzuki is unable. He apparently chooses to ignore the new species being found all the time or that it is estimated we have only found and named about 35% of the world’s plant and animal species.

To cap things off, I really liked this portion here:

Quote:

Slowly but surely, new segments of the public are becoming aware of Suzuki’s duplicity. After a presentation I delivered in Saskatoon, a farmer’s wife told me she idolized Suzuki until three months earlier. Then she watched a program on farming and instantly recognized his biases and inaccuracies. Wisely, she said she didn’t know enough about other topics he covered, but she now viewed them all with suspicion.

It's called education.