CALTECH From Poland, joined May 2007, 1245 posts, RR: 14 Posted (2 years 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 1419 times:
Seems the U.N. I.P.C.C. is having some massive credibility problems. Their Nobel Peace Prize ought to be returned. Maybe Al Gore's too. Seems those UK E-mails were covering up some really horrible science. A man made global tax is all it was. "Peer reviewed" Speculation seems to be their MO.
Quote: It emerged last week that the prediction (Himalayan glaciers will disappear by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner) was based not on a consensus among climate change experts but on a media interview with a single Indian glaciologist in 1999. That scientist, Syed Hasnain, has now told The Times that he never made such a specific forecast in his interview with the New Scientist magazine.
“I have not made any prediction on date as I am not an astrologer but I did say they were shrinking fast,” he said. “I have never written 2035 in any of my research papers or reports.”
So, this would only be a partial error, would it?
Quoting CALTECH (Thread starter): "UN climate change expert: there could be more errors in report"
The article says:
Quote: But he admitted that there may have been other errors in the same section (on Himalayan glaciers) of the report,
The report of this specific working group II (there are 4) is 938 pages long. And now we question a couple of paragraphs that refer "to poorly substantiated estimates of rate of
recession and date for the disappearance of Himalayan glaciers."
The rate of recession and the date of disappearance is poorly substantiated - and that's it.
The conclusion remains to be robus, appropriate and well substantiated:
“Climate change is expected to exacerbate current stresses on water resources from population growth and economic and land-use change, including urbanisation. On a regional scale, mountain snow pack, glaciers and small ice caps play a crucial role in freshwater availability. Widespread mass losses from glaciers and reductions in snow cover over recent decades are projected to accelerate throughout the 21st century, reducing water availability, hydropower potential, and changing seasonality of flows in regions supplied by meltwater from major mountain ranges (e.g. Hindu-Kush, Himalaya, Andes), where more than one-sixth of the world population currently lives.”
Same with the literally thousand of pages of the other three working groups.
I'm part time copy editor and have worked as technical writer. Over the time, I published some 3,000 pages, and I honestly wish I made only one error that didn't even affect the conclusion.
How many errors do those "climate sceptics" produce? One per paragraph?
Beautiful things can be built even from stones placed in your way. - Goethe
CALTECH From Poland, joined May 2007, 1245 posts, RR: 14 Reply 4, posted (2 years 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 1375 times:
Quoting CPH-R (Reply 1): Incidently, what's the deal with invoking Al Gore's name at each and every turn?
Met the man personally, he is a buffoon. Did get a Secret Service Pin out of it though.
Quoting CPH-R (Reply 1): So I guess this means that the glaciers have instantly regrown overnight, recovering the 3-400 feet lost since 1921?
Ah no, the 'glaciers are melting' was based on a speculative answer during a interview, yet the U.N. I.P.C.C. used it as a cornerstone of their report that garnered a 'Nobel Peace Prize'. There is no claim of glaciers regaining mass, if it is even true that they all have lost 'feet' since 1921. Many glaciers are gaining mass, even Himalayan ones. The claim presented as fact is that the Himalayan glaciers would all be melted by 2035 A.D. The U.N. I.P.C.C. based their findings and report on a interview. And they 'peer-reviewed' them. So much for 'U.N.' experts and believing them.
Quoting Windy95 (Reply 2): And your point is. We have been in a warming trend since the end of the mini ice age. No proof of CO2 warming here.
Exactly, with NASA's Hansen rearranging the temperature numbers, seems it all was a huge money making scam. No 'hockey stick' temperature increase ever existed.
.....and to the republic for which it stands,.....
NoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7358 posts, RR: 16 Reply 5, posted (2 years 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 1362 times:
Quoting CALTECH (Reply 4): Exactly, with NASA's Hansen rearranging the temperature numbers, seems it all was a huge money making scam. No 'hockey stick' temperature increase ever existed.
Sorry? What exactly did Dr. Hansen re-arrange?
Beautiful things can be built even from stones placed in your way. - Goethe
CALTECH From Poland, joined May 2007, 1245 posts, RR: 14 Reply 6, posted (2 years 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1334 times:
Quoting NoUFO (Reply 3): And now we question a couple of paragraphs that refer "to poorly substantiated estimates of rate of
recession and date for the disappearance of Himalayan glaciers."
No, the head of the U.N. Climate change panel says so. The U.N. I.P.C.C. even retracted the point. What a concept, make a claim, when it is proven wrong, it still is correct somehow. How science has advanced recently.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6999051.ece
" Dr Rajendra Pachauri dismissed calls for him to resign over the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change’s retraction of a prediction that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035.
But he admitted that there may have been other errors in the same section of the report, and said that he was considering whether to take action against those responsible."
Quoting NoUFO (Reply 3): I'm part time copy editor and have worked as technical writer. Over the time, I published some 3,000 pages, and I honestly wish I made only one error that didn't even affect the conclusion.
Perfect credentials for one to be a 'U.N. expert' .
Quoting NoUFO (Reply 5): Sorry? What exactly did Dr. Hansen re-arrange?
"A surreal scientific blunder last week raised a huge question mark about the temperature records that underpin the worldwide alarm over global warming. On Monday, Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which is run by Al Gore's chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen, and is one of four bodies responsible for monitoring global temperatures"
NoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7358 posts, RR: 16 Reply 7, posted (2 years 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1305 times:
True story: Back when I was a freelancer living in Berlin, my last job was to write two storyboards for two "learning fables" for a Swiss bank. The first was basically waved through with no complaints whatsoever. The second triggered a call by a lady working for my client: "No, Mr. B. .... now that's disappointing, ... that's just not ok, .... you'll have to spend more time on it ..." Shocked, I asked her to elaborate on what exactly she didn't like, why she was thinking I had failed. Reluctantly she said she didn't like one particular paragraph on - say: page 73. "That's all?" "Yes." I reworded said paragraph, and everything was ok. Now, why all the fuss about one paragraph in 90 pages? Was the lady nuts or just completely daft?
The IPCC panel consist of three working groups that published 4 reports that form the IPCC 2007 report. The "Himalayan Glacier Flaw" is exactly *one* paragraph (plus a second if you want where said paragraph is quoted) in a 938-page long report. Did this have any impact on the conclusion of chapter 10 of said report? No. On the report as a whole? No. Any impacts on the result of working group 1 or 3 - or on the additional AR4 Synthesis Report? No, no and no.
And what do the "climate sceptics" do? They celebrate a minor flaw in one or two paragraphs in at least 938 pages - which have no effects on the outcome whatsoever. They want to disassemble the IPCC - and the entire U.N. with it.
Now if the lady was nuts - what do you call the "climate sceptics"?
Quoting CALTECH (Reply 6): What a concept, make a claim, when it is proven wrong, it still is correct somehow. How science has advanced recently.
No, it isn't proven wrong.
Working group II wrote a report on "Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability". Even this groups overall conclusion remains to be robus and appropriate.
The scientific background was provided by working group I and labeled: "The Physical Science Basis" (966 pages). After three years this report was never rebutted.
Quoting CALTECH (Reply 6): "The world has never seen such freezing heat"
"A surreal scientific blunder last week raised a huge question mark about the temperature records that underpin the worldwide alarm over global warming. On Monday, Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which is run by Al Gore's chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen, and is one of four bodies responsible for monitoring global temperatures"
Wait a second, you wanted to specify what kind of numbers Dr. Hansen re-arranged as far as the "hockey stick" is concerned. Now you come with this, all right.
Quote: Unfortunately, I made an error by failing to recognize that the
station records we obtained electronically from NOAA each month, for these same stations, did
not contain the adjustments. Thus there was a discontinuity in 2000 in the records of those
stations, as the prior years contained the adjustment while later years did not.
The error was readily corrected, once it was recognized. Figure 2 shows the global and
U.S. temperatures with and without the error. The error averaged 0.15°C over the contiguous 48
states, but these states cover only 1½ percent of the globe, making the global error negligible.
However, the story was embellished and distributed to news outlets throughout the
country. Resulting headline: NASA had cooked the temperature books – and once the error was
corrected 1998 was no longer the warmest year in the record, instead being supplanted by 1934.
This was nonsense, of course. The small error in global temperature had no effect on the
ranking of different years. The warmest year in our global temperature analysis was still 2005.
Conceivably confusion between global and U.S. temperatures in these stories was inadvertent.
But the estimate for the warmest year in the U.S. had not changed either. 1934 and 1998 were
tied as the warmest year (Figure 2b) with any difference (~0.01°C) at least an order of magnitude
smaller than the uncertainty in comparing temperatures in the 1930s with those in the 1990s.
The obvious misinformation in these stories, and the absence of any effort to correct the
stories after we pointed out the misinformation, suggests that the aim may have been to create
distrust or confusion in the minds of the public, rather than to transmit accurate information.
Beautiful things can be built even from stones placed in your way. - Goethe
CALTECH From Poland, joined May 2007, 1245 posts, RR: 14 Reply 8, posted (2 years 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1277 times:
Quoting NoUFO (Reply 7): They want to disassemble the IPCC - and the entire U.N. with it
Yes, if you lie to shove something down others throats, they will stick it up your rear. What a theory, we lied in this one instance, but believe us for everything else. The U.N. climate chief does say there are more errors in that glorius erroneous U.N. I.P.C.C. report. They should be dissolved, the name United Nations is such a oxymoron. Nations Of Terra would be more appropriate, for the nations are anything but united in the U.N. The U.N. is a oxymoron.
That's enough to discredit it all. There is a fundamental flaw if that error made it in to the U.N. report. Like in a court of law, if you lie, everything you present is now suspect. The I.P.C.C. is a joke.
Quoting NoUFO (Reply 7): No, it isn't proven wrong.
Even the scientist, who said in the interview that the claim was not based on any scientific study, says it is a wrong statement to make. The U.N. I.P.C.C. claimed it was true, which was false.
Quoting NoUFO (Reply 7): Wait a second, you wanted to specify what kind of numbers Dr. Hansen re-arranged as far as the "hockey stick" is concerned. Now you come with this, all right
Never claimed Hansen re-arranged the fantastic 'hockey graph' temperature chart. But he did tout it. Go read the post again.
.....and to the republic for which it stands,.....
Quoting CALTECH (Reply 8): The U.N. climate chief does say there are more errors in that glorius erroneous U.N. I.P.C.C. report.
He didn't say so.
Quoting CALTECH (Reply 8): They should be dissolved, the name United Nations is such a oxymoron. Nations Of Terra would be more appropriate, for the nations are anything but united in the U.N. The U.N. is a oxymoron.
Rename The United States of America "States of Terra Incognita" while you are at it, for California and Texas have little in common. Or New York and Nevada.
Quoting CALTECH (Reply 8): That's enough to discredit it all.
Yes, yes, one paragraph (or two if you add the quote of the paragraph) in a couple of thousand pages ....
Quoting CALTECH (Reply 8): There is a fundamental flaw if that error made it in to the U.N. report.
Fundamental? Could you please reflect in your owns words, what the paragraph in question *did* say and what the paragraph should have stated to be entirely correct?
Quoting CALTECH (Reply 8): Like in a court of law, if you lie,
They didn't lie.
Quoting CALTECH (Reply 8): Even the scientist, who said in the interview that the claim was not based on any scientific study, says it is a wrong statement to make.
Did he say that AGW was a hoax? Did he say the IPCC came to wrong conclusions and recommendations?
Quoting CALTECH (Reply 8): Never claimed Hansen re-arranged the fantastic 'hockey graph' temperature chart. But he did tout it. Go read the post again.
Quoting CALTECH (Reply 4): Exactly, with NASA's Hansen rearranging the temperature numbers, seems it all was a huge money making scam. No 'hockey stick' temperature increase ever existed.
Done.
Beautiful things can be built even from stones placed in your way. - Goethe
Quoting NoUFO (Reply 10): Rename The United States of America "States of Terra Incognita" while you are at it, for California and Texas have little in common. Or New York and Nevada.
Maybe Germany could be renamed Country that Started TWO World Wars. Or the EU renamed In Euro and Airbus we trust.
Quoting NoUFO (Reply 10): Yes, yes, one paragraph (or two if you add the quote of the paragraph) in a couple of thousand pages ....
One lie, it is all suspect and corrupt . Kill it like a cancer before it spreads it's rotten growth any further.
Quoting NoUFO (Reply 10): Fundamental? Could you please reflect in your owns words, what the paragraph in question *did* say and what the paragraph should have stated to be entirely correct?
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10545 posts, RR: 53 Reply 11, posted (2 years 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 1216 times:
Quoting CPH-R (Reply 1): Incidently, what's the deal with invoking Al Gore's name at each and every turn?
His grab for billions of $$$$. Just follow the money and you will see the modivation of all of the AGW scamers.
Quoting NoUFO (Reply 7): The IPCC panel consist of three working groups that published 4 reports that form the IPCC 2007 report. The "Himalayan Glacier Flaw" is exactly *one* paragraph (plus a second if you want where said paragraph is quoted) in a 938-page long report. Did this have any impact on the conclusion of chapter 10 of said report? No. On the report as a whole? No. Any impacts on the result of working group 1 or 3 - or on the additional AR4 Synthesis Report? No, no and no.
And what do the "climate sceptics" do? They celebrate a minor flaw in one or two paragraphs in at least 938 pages - which have no effects on the outcome whatsoever. They want to disassemble the IPCC - and the entire U.N. with it.
Well, wasn't this small section 'peer reviewed'? How did they miss it unless they are part of the scam?
Quoting NoUFO (Reply 7): Was the lady nuts or just completely daft?
I don't know, we only have your side of the story, don't we? If she was paying you to write it, she has a right to ask questions, don't you think so?
Quoting NoUFO (Reply 10): Quoting CALTECH (Reply 8):
They should be dissolved, the name United Nations is such a oxymoron. Nations Of Terra would be more appropriate, for the nations are anything but united in the U.N. The U.N. is a oxymoron.
Rename The United States of America "States of Terra Incognita" while you are at it, for California and Texas have little in common. Or New York and Nevada.
At least the 50 US states have a common interest in our Constitution, freedom, and questioning lies from the government and UN. Should the EU be renamed the "French Followers"? France seems to be the only ones calling the shots in the EU.
Quoting CALTECH (Reply 8):
Even the scientist, who said in the interview that the claim was not based on any scientific study, says it is a wrong statement to make.
Did he say that AGW was a hoax? Did he say the IPCC came to wrong conclusions and recommendations?
If he did say that AGW was a hoax, that would be the truth. He did not say for the last 10 years the IPCC has been using this section in an attempt to gain tax control from the world, did he?
Quoting CALTECH (Reply 11): They sure did. he U.N. Climate chief even says so. It was a money grabbing scam.
CALTECH From Poland, joined May 2007, 1245 posts, RR: 14 Reply 13, posted (2 years 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 1187 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 12): His grab for billions of $$$$. Just follow the money and you will see the modivation of all of the AGW scamers.
It was about money, not science.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 12): Well, wasn't this small section 'peer reviewed'? How did they miss it unless they are part of the scam?
A interview 'peer reviewed' presented as fact, that's a good one.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 12): IPCC has been using this section in an attempt to gain tax control from the world, did he?
The U.N. is looking for more money through newly proposed 'man made global taxes, because their reps and supporters don't all have private jets, limos and villas yet.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 12): Just another example of a corrupt and inept UN.
Too much free money floating around, other people's money.
.....and to the republic for which it stands,.....
"scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders."
"2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research."
"But an authoritative report published last November by the Indian government said: ‘Himalayan glaciers have not in any way exhibited, especially in recent years, an abnormal annual retreat.’ "
This is the science 'they' wanted the rest of the world to believe in ? Then impose a global tax ? 'They' fooled so many. And Al Gore made close to a billion dollars off this scam.
.....and to the republic for which it stands,.....
SpeedyGonzales From Norway, joined Sep 2007, 601 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (2 years 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 1133 times:
It was an unfortunate mistake that shouldn't have been made, but if that the most incrimitating they could find in a report that's been out for a long time, it shows that the contrarians/deniers/flat-earthers/foil-hatters are really grasping at straws.
It's about the moonlandings, but equally applicable to climate change:
Windy95 From Israel, joined Dec 2008, 1962 posts, RR: 5 Reply 16, posted (2 years 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 1125 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 11): Well, wasn't this small section 'peer reviewed'? How did they miss it unless they are part of the scam?
Quote: Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.
In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report’s chapter on Asia, said: ‘It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.
‘It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in.
Windy95 From Israel, joined Dec 2008, 1962 posts, RR: 5 Reply 17, posted (2 years 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 1117 times:
Quoting NoUFO (Reply 5): Sorry? What exactly did Dr. Hansen re-arrange?
Quote: The analysis found NOAA “systematically eliminated 75% of the world’s stations with a clear bias toward removing higher-latitude, high-altitude and rural locations.” The number of actual weather stations used to calculate average global temperatures was reduced from about 6,000 in the 1970s to about 1,500 today. The number of reporting stations in Canada dropped from 600 to 35.
E. Michael Smith, a computer programming expert who worked with D’Aleo, said he found “patterns in the input data from NCDC that looked liked dramatic and selective deletions of thermometers from cold locations.” The more he looked, the more he found “patterns of deletion that could not be accidental.”
Stations in places such as the Andes and Bolivia have virtually vanished, meaning, according to D’Aleo, temperatures from these areas are now “determined by interpolation from stations hundreds of miles away on the coast or in the Amazon.” He says it’s as if Minneapolis stopped reporting and its average temperature was extrapolated from readings in St. Louis and Kansas City.
Quote: at GISS, who put the altered data through an even more biased regimen of alterations, including intentionally replacing the dropped NOAA readings with those of stations located in much warmer locales
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10545 posts, RR: 53 Reply 18, posted (2 years 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 1114 times:
Quoting Baroque (Reply 12): And where did the correction come from? From scientists who had reviewed the item and whose initial advice had not been acted on.
From here:
Quoting CALTECH (Reply 14): It just keeps getting better, the scam is completely unravelling now. The U.N. I.P.C.C. has no credibility left, nor these U.N. 'experts' .
Quoting Baroque (Reply 12): Quoting CPH-R (Reply 1):
So I guess this means that the glaciers have instantly regrown overnight, recovering the 3-400 feet lost since 1921?
Certainly not the E Himalayan glaciers, the W ones are in slight advance.
Proof?
Quoting CALTECH (Reply 14): It just keeps getting better, the scam is completely unravelling now. The U.N. I.P.C.C. has no credibility left, nor these U.N. 'experts' .
"scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders."
"2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research."
Correct
Quoting CALTECH (Reply 14): This is the science 'they' wanted the rest of the world to believe in ? Then impose a global tax ? 'They' fooled so many. And Al Gore made close to a billion dollars off this scam.
Correct, it is all about the money. Has anyone noticed how quite AlGore has been on all of this? He doesn't want to be in the same headlines as these stories.
Quoting SpeedyGonzales (Reply 15): It was an unfortunate mistake that shouldn't have been made,
"Unfortunate mistake"? It is an out and out lie.
Why have we not heard from the Nobel Prize people demanding the IPCC and AlGore return their "peace prize" money? Are they "in" on the scam too? Of course they are, after all, they also gave Obama the "peace prize" for doing nothing, too.
Windy95 From Israel, joined Dec 2008, 1962 posts, RR: 5 Reply 19, posted (2 years 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 1103 times:
Quote: Meanwhile other IPCC scientists were beginning to break ranks. Georg Kaser, an Austrian glaciologist and IPCC contributor, told Agence France Presse this week that he had notified his IPCC colleagues of the “huge” Himalayan mistake late in 2006. “This number is not just a little bit wrong,” he said, “It is as wrong as can be wrong… It is so wrong that it is not even worth discussing.”
Significantly, however, Mr. Kaser had blown no more public whistles. Moreover, he went on to reject “IPCC bashing” even though he admitted that the process had, in this case, “entirely failed.”
Windy95 From Israel, joined Dec 2008, 1962 posts, RR: 5 Reply 20, posted (2 years 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 1080 times:
More UN climate claims undermined
THE UN climate science panel faces new controversy for wrongly linking global warming to a rise in natural disasters such as hurricanes and floods.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change based the claims on an unpublished report that had not been subjected to routine scientific scrutiny - and ignored warnings from scientific advisers, The Australian reports.
CALTECH From Poland, joined May 2007, 1245 posts, RR: 14 Reply 21, posted (2 years 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1071 times:
U.N. I.P.C.C. should be outcast, dismantled. This is the science that they use ? Cherry picking data that suits their scam ? Sad that they have besmirched science, scientific studies and good scientists in this way. http://www.vancouversun.com/technolo...e+data+skeptics/2468634/story.html
"Scientists using selective temperature data"
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 18): "Unfortunate mistake"? It is an out and out lie.
Lies are they way they do business, and excuse it by saying it is for their cause, so it is okay to lie.
Quoting Windy95 (Reply 20): More UN climate claims undermined
It is finally being shown for what it always was, a global scam, perpetuated by some money hungry elitists.
.....and to the republic for which it stands,.....
CALTECH From Poland, joined May 2007, 1245 posts, RR: 14 Reply 22, posted (2 years 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 1040 times:
Quoting Windy95 (Reply 20): More UN climate claims undermined
THE UN climate science panel faces new controversy for wrongly linking global warming to a rise in natural disasters such as hurricanes and floods.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change based the claims on an unpublished report that had not been subjected to routine scientific scrutiny - and ignored warnings from scientific advisers, The Australian reports.
Another billionaire in the making off the great man made global scam. This is the guy they put in charge ? He seem's to be the Indian version of Al Gore. Trying to dictate to others how to live their lives all the while he does what he claims the rest of us must give up.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climate...e-who-benefits-when-the-ipcc-lies/
"It was quoted in a presentation to the European Union; that presentation led to a grant of several million Euros. TERI got a big share. It showed up in a grant application to the Carnegie Corporation that turned into a $500,000 grant."
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=17518
" IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri. Mr. Pachauri has no formal education in climatology, yet was appointed in 2002 to lead arguably the world's most influential climatology panel. Since, he has stirred up much controversy, suggesting that people internationally give up meat to fight climate change and supervising the publication of alarming climate change predictions."
.....and to the republic for which it stands,.....
SpeedyGonzales From Norway, joined Sep 2007, 601 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (2 years 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1034 times:
Quoting Windy95 (Reply 16): Quote:
Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.
In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report’s chapter on Asia, said: ‘It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.
‘It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in.
And the even worse news: So, yes, IPCC, please do respond to the anti-science crowd by updating your out-of-date discussion of melting ice. And that, of course, means updating your out of date discussion of sea level rise based on multiple recent studies:
* Sea levels may rise 3 times faster than IPCC estimated, could hit 6 feet by 2100
* Startling new sea level rise research: “Most likely” 0.8 to 2.0 meters by 2100
* Sea levels may rise 5 feet by 2100
* West Antarctic ice sheet collapse even more catastrophic for U.S. coasts
* Nature sea level rise shocker: Coral fossils suggest “catastrophic increase of more than 5 centimetres per year over a 50-year stretch is possible.” Lead author warns, “This could happen again.”
* High Water: Greenland ice sheet melting faster than expected and could raise East Coast sea levels an extra 20 inches by 2100 — to more than 6 feet.”
Windy95 From Israel, joined Dec 2008, 1962 posts, RR: 5 Reply 25, posted (2 years 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 1005 times:
Column - Ten signs that the warming scare is collapsing
Quote: JAMES Cook University researcher Peter Ridd says Australian scientists have cried wolf over the threat to the Great Barrier Reef from global warming, and the reef was actually in “bloody brilliant shape”. The alarmist CSIRO this month also backed away from blaming global warming for a drought in Tasmania and in the Murray-Darling basin, saying “the jury is still out”. A new paper by another Australian academic, Assoc Prof Stewart Franks, says the Murray-Darling drought is natural, and has nothing to do with man-made warming.
"AccuWeather: Worldwide Cold Not Seen Since 70s Ice Age Scare"
"Could the Sun really be behind all of this Global Cooling? It seems to be the best predictor of the climate. One global warming scientist said in 2000 that “snow will be very a rare and exciting event.” Meanwhile, the U.K. is having it’s worst winter in 25 years, maybe more. Some solar scientists have been willing to bet that as the Sun goes into a quieter cycle that the Earth will cool. So far it seems the latter is coming true."
"Unfortunately for Europe, Asia and North America this global cooling has been severe and deadly with a few months of winter yet to go."
Must be just 'regional' cooling.
"Britain is bracing itself for one of the coldest winters for a century "
Quoting Windy95 (Reply 25): The wall is slowly crumbling on the Alarmist
Maybe the Sun will wake up soon. And 'they' will start all over again. Hope the Sun starts radiating more, it is cold in Florida.
.....and to the republic for which it stands,.....
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10545 posts, RR: 53 Reply 28, posted (2 years 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 950 times:
It seems the "The University of East Anglia breached Britain's Freedom of Information Act by refusing to comply with requests for data concerning claims by its scientists that man-made emissions were causing global warming."
Is the AGW crowd so afraid of public debate on their e-mails and twisted data that they feel they do not have to comply with the FOIA laws? They are still trying to hide their data from public review.
SpeedyGonzales From Norway, joined Sep 2007, 601 posts, RR: 0 Reply 29, posted (2 years 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 932 times:
Quoting CALTECH (Reply 27): "AccuWeather: Worldwide Cold Not Seen Since 70s Ice Age Scare"
As I've suspected. Americans think USA is the world. The Conus is only 1,5% of the world's surface, so a cold spell there is hardly global cooling. Parts of Europe, including much of Norway, also had a cold January. All this is due to a lot of cold air, which is usually confined to higher latitudes by circumpolar winds, being blown south from the arctic. This means that while much of USA and Europe was colder than usual, the arctic was much warmer than usual.
A single cold spell in a small fraction of the world does not disporve global warming, nor does a single regianal heatwave confirm it. This is about long term averages. Of the last ten years, nine were among the top ten warmest on record, only 2000 was outside at #15.
Quick question:
Do you believe that there is a greenhous effect keeping the earth warmer than it would other wise be?
If you answered 'no', I suggest you move somwhere that's on average 30 degrees (Celcius, not the gibberish inexplicably used in the US) corlder than where you currently live, because that how cold it would be without greenhouse gases.
Windy95 From Israel, joined Dec 2008, 1962 posts, RR: 5 Reply 30, posted (2 years 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 923 times:
U.N.'s Global Warming Report Under Fresh Attack for Rainforest Claims
Quote: In the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), issued in 2007 by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), scientists wrote that 40 percent of the Amazon rainforest in South America was endangered by global warming.
But that assertion was discredited this week when it emerged that the findings were based on numbers from a study by the World Wildlife Federation that had nothing to do with the issue of global warming -- and that was written by a freelance journalist and green activist.
The IPCC report states that "up to 40 percent of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation" -- highlighting the threat climate change poses to the Earth. The report goes on to say that "it is more probable that forests will be replaced by ecosystems ... such as tropical savannas."
But it has now been revealed that the claim was based on a WWF study titled "Global Review of Forest Fires," a paper barely related to the Amazon rainforest that was written "to secure essential policy reform at national and international level to provide a legislative and economic base for controlling harmful anthropogenic forest fires."
Quoting SpeedyGonzales (Reply 29): This is about long term averages. Of the last ten years, nine were among the top ten warmest on record, only 2000 was outside at #15.
But the last two of the decade where much cooler. And there is at least a 5 year trend going down. And then add the massaging of data done by HADCrut and NASA and I would believe the last decade was not that warm. Toss in "on record" and we are counting maybe 100 years at most of good record keeping. Of which trying to come up with and average "world" temp from that is difficult at best . We then have a pile of numbers that probably have +/- within the range of change that we have had anyways. Then take that margin of error and place it next to a planet that has ranges from -60 Fahrenheit to 120+ Fahrenheit and that .3 to . 5 temp spike does not look that formidable now does it?
NoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7358 posts, RR: 16 Reply 31, posted (2 years 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 907 times:
Quoting Windy95 (Reply 30): But that assertion was discredited this week when it emerged that the findings were based on numbers from a study by the World Wildlife Federation that had nothing to do with the issue of global warming -- and that was written by a freelance journalist and green activist. Wow!
The IPCC report states that "up to 40 percent of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation" -- highlighting the threat climate change poses to the Earth. The report goes on to say that "it is more probable that forests will be replaced by ecosystems ... such as tropical savannas."
This is not what AR4 says. What the synthesis says is:
Quote: By mid-century, increases in temperature and associated decreases
in soil water are projected to lead to gradual replacement
of tropical forest by savanna in eastern Amazonia. Semiarid
vegetation will tend to be replaced by arid-land vegetation.
{WGII 13.4, SPM}
The quote provided by Fox News can be found in WG II's report, Chapter 13:
WG II 13.3.2
Quote:
If the 2002-2003 deforestation rate (2.3 Mha/yr) in Brazilian
Amazonia continues indefinitely, then 100 Mha of forest (about
25% of the original forest) will have disappeared by the year
2020 (Laurance et al., 2005), while by 2050 (for a business-asusual
scenario) 269.8 Mha will be deforested (Moutinho and
Schwartzman, 2005). By means of simulation models, Soares-
Filho et al. (2005) estimated for Brazilian Amazonia that in the
worst-case scenario, by 2050 the projected deforestation trend
will eliminate 40% of the current 540 Mha of Amazon forests,
releasing approximately 32 Pg (109 tonnes/ha) of carbon to the
atmosphere.
Furthermore:
WG II 13.4.1
Quote:
Several AOGCM (Hadley Centre Atmosphere-Ocean
General Circulation Model, my addition)
scenarios indicate a tendency towards ‘savannisation’ of eastern
Amazonia (Nobre et al., 2005) and the tropical forests of central
and south Mexico (Peterson et al., 2002; Arriaga and Gómez,
2004). In north-east Brazil the semi-arid vegetation would be
replaced by the vegetation of arid regions (Nobre et al., 2005), as
in most of central and northernMexico (Villers and Trejo, 2004).
Up to 40%of theAmazonian forests could react drastically to
even a slight reduction in precipitation; this means that the
tropical vegetation, hydrology and climate system in South
America could change very rapidly to another steady state, not
necessarily producing gradual changes between the current and
the future situation (Rowell and Moore, 2000). It is more
probable that forests will be replaced by ecosystems that have
more resistance to multiple stresses caused by temperature
increase, droughts and fires, such as tropical savannas.
"Rowell and Moore, 2000" is the Forest Fire Report, the report expressively states the source, and "Rowell and Moore, 2000" is only one report of numerous. So what exactly has been "revealed"?
BTW: You can download the Rowell/More report and read what the authors say on climate change.
[Edited 2010-01-28 14:56:37]
[Edited 2010-01-28 14:58:41]
Beautiful things can be built even from stones placed in your way. - Goethe
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10545 posts, RR: 53 Reply 32, posted (2 years 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 893 times:
Quoting SpeedyGonzales (Reply 29): Quoting CALTECH (Reply 27):
"AccuWeather: Worldwide Cold Not Seen Since 70s Ice Age Scare"
As I've suspected. Americans think USA is the world. The Conus is only 1,5% of the world's surface, so a cold spell there is hardly global cooling. Parts of Europe, including much of Norway, also had a cold January. All this is due to a lot of cold air, which is usually confined to higher latitudes by circumpolar winds, being blown south from the arctic.
Maybe you have not noticed, or put in all together, but the entire Northern Hemisphere has had a much colder winter so far this year. It is not just the US, Canada, and Alaska, but Siberia, Mexico, Russia, all of Europe, esspecially the UK and Ireland. Even Northern Africa is colder than normal. Northern South America is near normal temps, but everywhere else is colder. The Aritic Ice is growing faster this year than any year since the 1970s. Greenland and Baffin Island have more snow and ice this year than any since about 1985, or so.
Baroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 60 Reply 33, posted (2 years 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 878 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 32): but the entire Northern Hemisphere has had a much colder winter so far this year. It is not just the US, Canada, and Alaska, but Siberia, Mexico, Russia, all of Europe, esspecially the UK and Ireland. Even Northern Africa is colder than normal.
The trouble is, it is just not true. It might seem to be true if your horizons are limited. But on average, not true. This or similar has all been posted before but look at: http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/dec_2009_temp_anomaly.gif
and note that the unusually cold areas are more or less balanced by the areas of above normal temperatures.
To conclude that global warming has ended based on recent cold snaps is another example of the misleading practice of focusing on small pieces of the puzzle while ignoring the broader picture. Interestingly, Roger Pielke Sr takes the opposite approach when assessing global temperature in December 2009 as measured by satellites. Despite the regional cold weather, global temperature has not shown a dramatic drop in December, leading Pielke to conclude (with original emphasis included):
"This data shows why the focus needs to be on the regional scale and that a global average is not of much use in describing weather that all of us experience."
After taking a broader look at global temperature, Pielke is forced to conclude that it's preferable to focus on small pieces of the puzzle than the bigger picture. Better that is, if the global picture isn't giving you the result you're looking for.
The cold spells in the US and W Europe were associated with a southerly movement of jet streams - you know those strong upper atmosphere winds that on average flow from W to E. In the case of the UK, they were associated with jet streams coming down from the NW to the SE. These pushed the N Atlantic lows from their usual course N of the UK to S of the Bay of Biscay.
According to scientists from NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), 2009 was tied for second warmest on record, going back to 1880. Last year was virtually tied with 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, and 2007.
...... http://global-warming.accuweather.com/418335main_land-ocean-full.html
Other key points from the NASA press release.
--2009 was the warmest year on record in the southern Hemisphere.
--The global temperature has increased 1.5 degrees F (0.8 C) since 1880.
--Over the past 30 years, the temperature trend is +0.36 F or (+0.2 C) per decade.
NASA also wanted to point out that the cooling of 2008 (coolest year of the past decade) can be attributed to a strong La Nina.
------------
"There's substantial year-to-year variability of global temperature caused by the tropical El Nino-La Nina cycle. When we average temperature over five or ten years to minimize that variability, we find global warming is continuing unabated, " says Dr. James Hansen, director of NASA's GISS.
------
Also, for those readers in the United States that find it very hard to believe that 2009 was tied for second warmest year on record you may want to consider these words from Hansen......
"The contiguous 48 states cover only 1.5 percent of the world area, so the United States' temperature does not affect the global temperature much," Hansen said.
The US temperature does not affect the global temperature much - SHOCK HORROR, HANG THAT MAN FOR TREACHERY.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10545 posts, RR: 53 Reply 34, posted (2 years 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 859 times:
Quoting Baroque (Reply 33): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 32):
but the entire Northern Hemisphere has had a much colder winter so far this year. It is not just the US, Canada, and Alaska, but Siberia, Mexico, Russia, all of Europe, esspecially the UK and Ireland. Even Northern Africa is colder than normal.
The trouble is, it is just not true. It might seem to be true if your horizons are limited. But on average, not true. This or similar has all been posted before but look at: http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/dec_2009_temp_anomaly.gif
and note that the unusually cold areas are more or less balanced by the areas of above normal temperatures.
To conclude that global warming has ended based on recent cold snaps is another example of the misleading practice of focusing on small pieces of the puzzle while ignoring the broader picture.
Oh really? Many cities in Europe, including London, Berlin, Paris, and Copenhagen (which snowed and was significantly colder during the Climate Summit) were a lot colder then 'normal' this year.
Quoting Baroque (Reply 33): Interestingly, Roger Pielke Sr takes the opposite approach when assessing global temperature in December 2009 as measured by satellites. Despite the regional cold weather, global temperature has not shown a dramatic drop in December, leading Pielke to conclude (with original emphasis included):
"This data shows why the focus needs to be on the regional scale and that a global average is not of much use in describing weather that all of us experience."
After taking a broader look at global temperature, Pielke is forced to conclude that it's preferable to focus on small pieces of the puzzle than the bigger picture. Better that is, if the global picture isn't giving you the result you're looking for.
So what is it? Total climate or regional climate that is perferred?
Quoting Baroque (Reply 33): The cold spells in the US and W Europe were associated with a southerly movement of jet streams - you know those strong upper atmosphere winds that on average flow from W to E. In the case of the UK, they were associated with jet streams coming down from the NW to the SE. These pushed the N Atlantic lows from their usual course N of the UK to S of the Bay of Biscay.
The movement of the jet stream always is cooler/colder north of the jet stream as opposed to south of it. Also, most storms (summer and winter) track along the jet stream.
Quoting Baroque (Reply 33): --2009 was the warmest year on record in the southern Hemisphere.
--The global temperature has increased 1.5 degrees F (0.8 C) since 1880.
--Over the past 30 years, the temperature trend is +0.36 F or (+0.2 C) per decade.
Wait just a minute there. Look at what it is saying again. It is saying that the temp has increased + 1.08 degrees F since 1980 and only + 0.42 degrees F in the 100 years before that? Also, are they talking only the NH or the SH? Or are you mixing the NH/SH data, again?
Quoting Baroque (Reply 33): Also, for those readers in the United States that find it very hard to believe that 2009 was tied for second warmest year on record you may want to consider these words from Hansen......
"The contiguous 48 states cover only 1.5 percent of the world area, so the United States' temperature does not affect the global temperature much," Hansen said.
The US temperature does not affect the global temperature much - SHOCK HORROR, HANG THAT MAN FOR TREACHERY.
But we are talking about the NH, where the 48 state CONUS is 2.5% of the land mass, and when you also include Alaska, which was, the last I looked still attached to NA, the US land mass jumps to 4%, more than the EU land mass. When you add Canada, which is also part of the NA Contenent, the land mass percentage doubles to just over 10%, not counting Greenland. Southern Canada and Northern teir US States share the same weather. Also the big weather drivers in the NH, as you know is the Atlantic, Artic, and Pacific Oceans much more so than the land masses. Those oceans combined take up some 45%-50% of the entire NH, and gives the combined influence of the climate of the NH nearly 1/2 of the total area (if Greenland is included). Isn't that enough to influence the NH climate?
They can minimuize the size of the area all they want just to get to the numbers they need to support the AGW Hoax. They also selectively use data. For example, only one weather reporting station in Canada and Alaska above the Artic Circle is used to collect data. Canada has more than 100 weather stations above the Artic Circle, and Alaska has another 50, or so. So, why are they not using the data from ALL weather reporting stations?
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10545 posts, RR: 53 Reply 35, posted (2 years 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 855 times:
Well, I just found something very interesting. Osama bin Laden is blaming the US for Global Warming. This makes for an interesting line of support for the UN-IPCC, the AGW hoaxers, and AlGore. I wonder if they will accept his support?
Baroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 60 Reply 36, posted (2 years 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 854 times:
Oh dearie me. The websites use Global to mean N Hemisphere + S Hemisphere.
Did you check to see if Alaska and Canada shared a similar temperature profile with the lower 48 in 2009?
Did you know that global does not just include London, Berlin, Paris, and Copenhagen? Did you know that at the beginning of January, it quite often snows in London, Berlin, Paris, and Copenhagen? So you cannot state it was colder than usual on the basis of reading about snowfall, you need the temperature records.
If you look at http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/dec_2009_temp_anomaly.gif
you will see that London, Berlin, Paris, and Copenhagen were not representative of the N Hemisphere in December 2009 and from the weather patterns at the beginning of 2010, not then either, although I don't have access to a plot of those temperatures. But the high over Greenland has since moved to Scandinavia and then collapsed with the Azores high resuming normal service as I pointed out in a post that was deleted. All that relates to weather.
The IPCC deals in climate. To get climate over time you need to sum up local measurements over both space and time. Annual data is still dealing more in weather than climate. Decadal trends start to get into climate.
So the GISS statement here:
Quoting Baroque (Reply 33):
According to scientists from NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), 2009 was tied for second warmest on record, going back to 1880. Last year was virtually tied with 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, and 2007.
is pointing out that 2009 was the second warmest year on record (weather) but when added to 1998, 2003, 2006 and 2007 it makes for a hot decade (the hottest since instrumental records started) which gets into climate.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 34):
They can minimuize the size of the area all they want just to get to the numbers they need to support the AGW Hoax. They also selectively use data. For example, only one weather reporting station in Canada and Alaska above the Artic Circle is used to collect data. Canada has more than 100 weather stations above the Artic Circle, and Alaska has another 50, or so. So, why are they not using the data from ALL weather reporting stations?
There is nothing whatsoever preventing you from collecting all these data and calculating the average and publishing the data. Please be our guest. But until you do and show the published data to be wrong, you are going to have to accept it. Black does not become white just because someone wishes to believe in hoaxes. The real hoax would be to state that there was cooling from 1998 to 2009. The actual trend was in the direction of UP!!!
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10545 posts, RR: 53 Reply 37, posted (2 years 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 844 times:
Quoting Baroque (Reply 36): Quoting Baroque (Reply 33):
According to scientists from NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), 2009 was tied for second warmest on record, going back to 1880. Last year was virtually tied with 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, and 2007.
is pointing out that 2009 was the second warmest year on record (weather) but when added to 1998, 2003, 2006 and 2007 it makes for a hot decade (the hottest since instrumental records started) which gets into climate.
So, since accurate records of weather patterns have only been really kept since around the 1860s, about 150 years, and we have scene a 'spike' in the last 30 years, that is beyond debate proof of GW? I don't think so, this Earth is some 4.5B years old and we have only look at less than a nano-second of that time. Even using the last ten years you site only 4 of those 10 as eveidence of the hottest decade yet leave out 60% of the dacade.
The 'hockey stick' chart has already been proven to be a bold faced lie skewed with false data. but leaves out data (such as a significant number of tree ring years) that conflicts with the desired outcome of the chart, to get the peoples money.
Quoting Baroque (Reply 36): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 34):
They can minimuize the size of the area all they want just to get to the numbers they need to support the AGW Hoax. They also selectively use data. For example, only one weather reporting station in Canada and Alaska above the Artic Circle is used to collect data. Canada has more than 100 weather stations above the Artic Circle, and Alaska has another 50, or so. So, why are they not using the data from ALL weather reporting stations?
There is nothing whatsoever preventing you from collecting all these data and calculating the average and publishing the data. Please be our guest. But until you do and show the published data to be wrong, you are going to have to accept it. Black does not become white just because someone wishes to believe in hoaxes. The real hoax would be to state that there was cooling from 1998 to 2009. The actual trend was in the direction of UP!!!
I don't have to collect and compute the data myself, you wouldn't believe it even if I had. You would say I am not a scientist, and on that point you would be right, but that point also would not change the data.
There are plenty of honest scientists who have the credentials that dispute the AGW crowd and I respect their opinions as they do not have an agenda modivating them, other than trying to keep science out of politics and trying to keep integrity in it. The AGW Hoaxers do have a political agenda and they also lack integrity and honesty.
Honesty and integrity is the side I have chosen. I do enjoy debating you, my friend, and I am not in any way questioning your honesty or integrity as you are only siting the data you find, you are not generating it.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10545 posts, RR: 53 Reply 39, posted (2 years 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 821 times:
Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 38): Get the UN to represent the democratic profile of this planet populationwise & abolish the Veto system with permanent member states.
If the UN wasn't trying to scheme money all the time with currupt ideas, it might work. All we did by creating the UN is put all the big crooks into one building in NYC.
Baroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 60 Reply 40, posted (2 years 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 807 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 37): Quoting Baroque (Reply 36):
Quoting Baroque (Reply 33):
According to scientists from NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), 2009 was tied for second warmest on record, going back to 1880. Last year was virtually tied with 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, and 2007.
is pointing out that 2009 was the second warmest year on record (weather) but when added to 1998, 2003, 2006 and 2007 it makes for a hot decade (the hottest since instrumental records started) which gets into climate.
So, since accurate records of weather patterns have only been really kept since around the 1860s, about 150 years, and we have scene a 'spike' in the last 30 years, that is beyond debate proof of GW? I don't think so, this Earth is some 4.5B years old and we have only look at less than a nano-second of that time. Even using the last ten years you site only 4 of those 10 as eveidence of the hottest decade yet leave out 60% of the dacade.
So add in the temperatures for 2000, 2001, 2004, 2005 and 2008 and you still end up with the hottest decade.
Them is the facts. Dispute away. Just more hot air, you do not have any facts to show this has not been the hottest decade on record. Period. End of story. And it follows two other decades that were also hottest on record. So that make three of the buggers.
Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 38): Get the UN to represent the democratic profile of this planet populationwise & abolish the Veto system with permanent member states.
regds
MEL.
I will get Lord Monckton on to your ideas immediately HAWKie!! If they get any traction, you can expect to be the recipient of a contract from the CIA among others. Abolish the Veto system, how undemocratic would that be!!
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 39): All we did by creating the UN is put all the big crooks into one building in NYC.
Did not know Bernie Madoff and Ken whats is name worked out of the UN building. Live and learn I say.
Oh, I see, that is how you computed the '00s to be the hottest decade in history, you added in all my hot air. Histroy is a long time my friend, weather records are not.
Quoting Baroque (Reply 40): Abolish the Veto system, how undemocratic would that be!!
A pure democratic system is simple majority rule, unless the democrats are in the minority.
Quoting Baroque (Reply 40): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 39):
All we did by creating the UN is put all the big crooks into one building in NYC.
Did not know Bernie Madoff and Ken whats is name worked out of the UN building. Live and learn I say.
I think you are talking about Ken Lay, of Enron fame (infamey?), and I agree both should have worked in the NYC UN building too. They would have felt at home there.
But, it now seems the IPCC chief is lying again. This time about when he was told the galciers in the Himalayas would be gone. He says he just found out here in Jan. 2010, and others claim he was told in Nov. 2009, before the Copenhagen summit.
CALTECH From Poland, joined May 2007, 1245 posts, RR: 14 Reply 43, posted (2 years 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 742 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 43): But, it now seems the IPCC chief is lying again. This time about when he was told the galciers in the Himalayas would be gone. He says he just found out here in Jan. 2010, and others claim he was told in Nov. 2009, before the Copenhagen summit.
The scam was truly global.
.....and to the republic for which it stands,.....
Baroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 60 Reply 44, posted (2 years 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 747 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 43): Quoting Baroque (Reply 40):
Abolish the Veto system, how undemocratic would that be!!
A pure democratic system is simple majority rule, unless the democrats are in the minority.
As the US is a great supporter of democracy, it must be the Russians, Chinese, French and Brits who keep supporting the anti democratic system of the permanent members of the UNSC having a veto.
Sponsor Message: 
From Poland, joined May 2007, 1245 posts, 
From Denmark, joined May 2001, 5539 posts, 
From Israel, joined Dec 2008, 1962 posts, 
From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7358 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10545 posts, 
From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, 
From Norway, joined Sep 2007, 601 posts, 
Also worth putting in the following links out of that link
From India, joined Jan 2001, 29794 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
