Speakeasy forum

General discussion

Reason # 764231 NOT to trust anything from the IPCC


?Last month I witnessed something shocking. Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, was giving a talk at the University of NSW. The talk was accompanied by a slide presentation, and the most important graph showed average global temperatures. For the past decade it represented temperatures climbing sharply.
As this was shown on the screen, Pachauri told his large audience: ?We?re at a stage where warming is taking place at a much faster rate [than before]?.
Now, this is completely wrong. For most of the past seven years, those temperatures have actually been on a plateau. For the past year, there?s been a sharp cooling. These are facts, not opinion: the major sources of these figures, such as the Hadley Centre in Britain, agree on what has happened, and you can check for yourself by going to their websites. Sure, interpretations of the significance of this halt in global warming vary greatly, but the facts are clear.?

? Later that night, on ABC TV?s Lateline program, Pachauri claimed that those who disagree with his own views on global warming are ?flat-earthers? who deny ?the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence?. But what evidence could be more important than the temperature record, which Pachauri himself had fudged only a few hours earlier??

Disgraceful and dishonest !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There are many who subscribe to the belief that if the IPCC has written it, it is so.
Those are Environmental Fundamentalists.
Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: Reason # 764231 NOT to trust anything from the IPCC
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: Reason # 764231 NOT to trust anything from the IPCC
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
Re: hadley center

In reply to: Reason # 764231 NOT to trust anything from the IPCC

- I went to their site http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/
- Clicked on "the big picture" (left column).
- Clicked on "Fact 2: temperatures are continuing to rise".

Then I read

"Warming has been unprecedented in at least the last 50 years, and the 17 warmest years have all occurred in the last 20 years. This does not mean that next year will necessarily be warmer than last year, but the long-term trend is for rising temperatures."

"A simple mathematical calculation of the temperature change over the latest decade (1998-2007) alone shows a continued warming of 0.1

Collapse -

In reply to: Re: hadley center

Collapse -
It should be simple to debunk this piece item by item.

In reply to: ???

I look forward to the contributions of Mr. Kees and Grimgraphix as they explain why the points made are incorrect.

In the meantime, it certainly looks like the logic and facts are on the side of the piece's author.

Collapse -
Don't strain your neck, looking forward...

In reply to: It should be simple to debunk this piece item by item.

I have no horse in this race... my concerns have been made plain in multiple posts in the past. Pollution is obvious, and easily measurable. My feeling is if pollution can be reduced... then we have an obligation to reduce it.

Feel free to obsess about the weather. I'm too busy looking at the garbage strewn across the ground, and the smog floating in the air, and the red stained water ways that cross our lands, and the plastic that clogs our oceans.

Do you deny that all I have mentioned exists?

Collapse -
Actually, in my part of the world,

In reply to: Don't strain your neck, looking forward...

there is no garbage scattered on the ground (unless the cans blow over), I don't see any smog floating in the air (the steel mills were shut down many years ago), and there is no red stain in the rivers, streams, lakes, ponds, etc. Maybe it's just West Virginia.

Collapse -
I didn't read about Hadley.

In reply to: ???

I read Hadley itself as recommended by you. Because this is what you said in your first post: "These are facts, not opinion: the major sources of these figures, such as the Hadley Centre in Britain, agree on what has happened, and you can check for yourself by going to their websites." So I checked by going to their website.

And this is what I read:
Fact 1: Climate change is happening and humans are contributing to it
Fact 2: Temperatures are continuing to rise
Fact 3: The current climate change is not just part of a natural cycle
Fact 4: Recent warming cannot be explained by the Sun or natural factors alone
Fact 5: If we continue emitting greenhouse gases this warming will continue and delaying action will make the problem more difficult to fix
Fact 6: Climate models predict the main features of future climate

And, yes, I believe that. In fact, it seems to me you've chosen a very bad reference to support your believes if it so clearly and explicitely contradicts them. No misunderstanding possible, I'd say.

And also I can understand why Mrs. Palin believes in global warming/ She's not only closer to Russia, but closer to Ashmaref and closer to Nunafut and Pangnirtung also. These three villages are being mentioned in http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/pages/arctic.html (a nice article about the consequences of global warming on the arctic life). You really believe all of that is nonsense and fake?


Collapse -
It is all a conspiracy so you are wasting your time

In reply to: I didn't read about Hadley.

there are dozens of spurious blogs which will tell you global warming is a plot led by A.Gore or polar bears to load their pockets with unmelted snow which they plan to sell!

Collapse -

In reply to: I didn't read about Hadley.

Do you NOT know what this means?

"These are facts, not opinion: the major sources of these figures, such as the Hadley Centre in Britain, agree on what has happened, and you can check for yourself by going to their websites. Sure, interpretations of the significance of this halt in global warming vary greatly, but the facts are clear"

Collapse -
but the facts are clear

In reply to: *SIGH*

interpretations of the significance of this halt in global warming vary greatly, but the facts are clear

but the facts are clear, BUT they're open to interpretation.

The other guys interpretation is wrong, and yours is right?

What scientific qualifications do YOU have?

How do you know one scientist is more qualified (right) than another (wrong)?

Gut feeling?....like every other ordinary citizen?

Gut feeling in a scientific journal?
Collapse -
It's nearly impossible ...

In reply to: but the facts are clear

to rationally discuss other peoples FEELINGS and BELIEVES. Too much of that isn't rational, but feeling and believe (irrational would be word to use, but without any negative connotation, just meaning that there's more to it than ratio and logic and science).

Like you can't rationally discuss with some people why they don't like Brussels sprouts and broad beans. They just don't like it and you can't convince them that these are healthy and delicious vegetables.


Collapse -
I didn't see Critic mention feelings, but I did see that

In reply to: It's nearly impossible ...

you were unable to provide a rational defense of your beliefs. You simply repeated the claims of a web site, and ignored a quite reasonable criticism of those claims. My observation is that your beliefs are based on faith rather than reason. That is not science.

Collapse -
Is it REALLY that hard to understand

In reply to: I didn't see Critic mention feelings, but I did see that

That the person QUOTED in the first post is NOT using anything at Hadley to disprove AGW, rather, he says that even Hadley's data shows global cooling (whether Hadley admits it or not)

Collapse -
RE: You simply repeated the claims of a web site

In reply to: I didn't see Critic mention feelings, but I did see that

Like he's the ONLY one to do that.

That's what the OP in the whole thread was.

Collapse -
I'll believe global cooling ...

In reply to: I didn't see Critic mention feelings, but I did see that

only if a reputable source shows the average world-wide temperature for 2015-2019 at least .05 degree Celsius lower than the same for 2005-2009. And not one minute earlier (that's December 31, 2019, 23:59).

Do you believe global warming if it's more than .05 higher? Or will you NEVER believe global warming?


Collapse -

In reply to: I'll believe global cooling ...

Of course I "believe" global warming. The planet is very dynamic and is constantly changing.

AGW, on the other hand is complete ********.

Collapse -
I can accept that suggestion

In reply to: I'll believe global cooling ...

as long as we don't spend any money or pass any laws trying to change technology or "something" between now and 2019. That sounds like an excellent suggestion.

Collapse -
Average world-wide temperature...

In reply to: I'll believe global cooling ...

Average world-wide temperature is one thing, but we sometimes get things like a trend of anomalies during a selected 4 year period with respect to the end of the 19th century presented as evidence of something.

Collapse -
The problem with Words.

In reply to: ???

I love words. I read all the time, and will read anything that is available to me, even the side of a cornflake packet if I have nothing else to read. I know my Kelloggs Cornflake packet back to front! Happy

But the problem is, words are like figures. They can be used to represent anything the user likes. The most common way that figures can be used to mislead are in graphs. Graphs, of course, have vertical and horizontal axes, (is that the plural of axis?). But by stretching or contracting either axis, (usually the vertical one), graphs can 'appear' to give very different visual information from the same set of numbers.

I have an example of that. I know you are waiting with baited breath. It is here;

This shows the value of some shares I held until April 08. I managed to get out before the financial meltdown bit hard. But the graph shows, at the bottom, the value of my shares over a period from 2004 to 2008. The large and sudden rise in the middle of the period was when I brought more shares. You can, perhaps, see how the value of the shares does not seem to fluctuate much over time, the line is fairly smooth.

However, look at the top graph. Same figures, but I have expanded the vertical axis and contracted the horizontal axis. Can you see how there are suddenly spikes and troughs?

If that bottom graph was shown to people, (minus the anomaly of the sudden total increase), they might think that my shares were just gently rolling along, happily earning me money, with the odd blip. But if that top graph were shown to the same people, they would see a more turbulent state of affairs and more dramatic changes. I watched the top graph, and that's why I pulled out of investments.

What is my point of all this? Simply to show that figures can be used by clever people to indicate different things. (I don't consider myself to be particularly clever).

But it is the same with words. Words are so powerful, and they drive our society and cultures today, as they have done for centuries. Individuals who know how to use words effectively can sway whole communities and populations, and can change the course of history.

I believe that our climate is changing. I tend to believe that the recent changes are driven, either in part or in the main, by human activity. However I will keep an open mind for as long as I can. But critic411's link to an article by Paul Macrae shows me exactly how clever that person is with the way he uses words. I don't know who this Paul Macrae is. I've read his "About Me", but that only tells me he is, (was), a journalist but other than that, I know nothing about him. Is he scientist? No it doesn't seem so. He has written books and he is good with words, an essential requirement, I suspect, for a journalist.

But look at his article again; http://www.paulmacrae.com/?p=74

He says, "Even though the planet is warming naturally (Fact #1)"

That alone puts me off. The word "naturally". "Even though the planet is warming naturally". He states that as a fact.

This author, who in this article and presumably in his own publications is carefully disputing facts and tearing them down, states his own fact as evidence. The source of his statement does not say that the planet is warming 'naturally'. It states that globally the average temperature has risen by more than 0.7 degrees C over the last 100 years. Concentrations of CO2, created largely by the burning of fossil fuels, are now much higher, and increasing at a much faster rate, than at any time in the last 600,000 years.

So, by inserting the word 'naturally' Macrae immediately proposes that that any such arguments to the contrary are false, and should be treated with suspicion.

While that may be true, by inserting his own choice of words, Macrae diminishes the force of his own argument in my view, and I no longer trust what he says. And so, using that article as proof, as evidence that global warming is a natural event and that humankind has no effect whatsoever, which is what he seems to want us to believe, is not proved for me.


Collapse -
"Even though the planet is warming naturally".

In reply to: The problem with Words.

The planet has warmed in the past with no human activity.
Now, it's up to the AGW gang to PROVE the human effect. (ain't been done so far)

Collapse -
Leave us alone to continue our polluting, is really what...

In reply to: "Even though the planet is warming naturally".

... you are suggesting with this constant barrage of blogger's articles you have posted over the past couple of years. I just wish you would be upfront about your motives.

As an interesting observation about the evolution of your crusade, it used to be the case that you flatly denied that the planet Earth was warming. Now, your argument is that it is warming but it is completely natural. Yet the article you posted clearly states (as per your quote) the past seven years, those temperatures have actually been on a plateau. For the past year, there?s been a sharp cooling. These are facts, not opinion. The inconsistencies in your argument versus the sources you quote make it hard for any correlations to be made... let alone for anyone to conclusively agree with you. To compound matters, you reject any of the evidence provided by those who believe in mans' influencing GW, yet you state it is up to them to prove mankind's part.

Collapse -
Why do you do this EVERY time?

In reply to: Leave us alone to continue our polluting, is really what...

Do you REALLY not know the difference between pollution and climate??

Collapse -
Do YOU really not see the inconsistencies...

In reply to: Why do you do this EVERY time?

... in the way you argue this issue?

Collapse -
Ahh. You miss my point though.

In reply to: "Even though the planet is warming naturally".

You referred to an article as proof that humans were not the cause of global warming.

That article by Paul Macrae attempted to use the Hadley Center's own Fact #1 to disprove its own contention, and Paul Macrae introduced, as evidence of the Hadley center's error, his own word, 'naturally'. That is the basis of his argument, that what the Hadley center is saying is incorrect and misleading.

But by adding his own word, a word that wasn't there in the original article, he is himself misleading readers. For that reason
I distrust what he says.

Like I said, words are so important, and what we say can have significant effect on how others think. It is up to those who wish to argue to use the correct words that do not mislead, or otherwise deflect from what may be the truth.


Collapse -
Book suggestion, Mark...

In reply to: The problem with Words.

I suggest getting a copy of the book How to Lie With Statistics by Darrell Huff. It's quite entertaining, as well as informative. It's a virtual instruction manual, and distorting graphs is just one of the tricks it covers, with excellent illustrations of examples. In the past, it's been used as one of the required readings in some college courses.

Collapse -
"environmental fundamentalists"

In reply to: Reason # 764231 NOT to trust anything from the IPCC

I did a word search on your link and could not come up with this term so I assume you are the author in this case ? Then I did a google search and found the term has some limited use in this context. Then I did another search on "fundamentalists" and got a much broader spectrum of just what the word tries to imply...

Fundamentalism refers to a "deep and totalistic commitment" to a belief in, and strict adherence to a set of basic principles (often religious in nature), a reaction to perceived doctrinal compromises with modern social and political life.

Fundamentalism is basically a two edged sword. It can describe an admirable devotion of faith, or an extremist point of view. It is a catch all phrase that has been adopted by anyone wishing to indicate that a fundamentalist is less about listening to reason, and more about forcing their opinion on others. It has come to imply a lack of knowledge, even though many fundamentalists have come to their belief through intense study. It describes a rigid viewpoint, resistant of compromise. However, once the term is applied and stuck, it discourages further study by the side who has applied the label. It makes it easy to stick to a broad phrase, and avoid revisiting the fundamental issues of the discussion. The danger is that the user of the phrase may be just as dogmatic in their belief structure as those that are the target of the word.

As a side note... it is interesting to note that many people in the US would describe themselves as Christian Fundamentalists with pride, while decrying Muslim Fundamentalists in the same conversation.

Collapse -
Do you have links to the

In reply to: Reason # 764231 NOT to trust anything from the IPCC

first 764230 reasons?


Collapse -
This isn't from IPCC, it's from Stanford

In reply to: Reason # 764231 NOT to trust anything from the IPCC


It covers 2 milennia, and it clearly contradicts your thesis all you Global Warming deniers. The swing out of the normal range at 0.2 degrees below the median appears to have begun in 1900, and continues. Now given the somewhat compressed time scale, the final section is a near vertical line.

The point isn't that all warming is Man-made, it's that Man-made warming erodes the safety factor built into the world's ability to absorb Natural variations in Global Temperature, whether through weather, diminished cloud cover, ozone layer depletion, Sulphur Dioxide and Methane emissions as well as CO2. In Roman times Libya was the bread-basket of the whole Roman Empire. Libya produced thousands of tons of wheat and other grains. The Sahara has been expanding since them, and particularly right now it is now expanding southward into the areas that were green, even jungle, and consumed CO2. So did much deforested Brazil, and progressively more deforested Indonesia.

There are geologic indications of multiple eras of extinction, there's research which indicates that the earth at one point froze from pole to equator to pole for a long period of time and that life re-arose from the deep-sea life forms which depend on thermo-chemical metabolisms rather than light based organisms.

If the caldera which is still active under Yellowstone goes up, we're all toast, at least in North America, and probably in the whole of the Northern Hemisphere.

Yes, between 800 and 1000 AD things were warmer, yes, things in 1400 for about a century there was a Mini Ice Age, which is why Breughel painted all those winter scenes, and people died because of it. 1815 was known as "The Year without a Summer" and millions starved, all because a volcano (Mt. Toba in Indonesia) erupted and its ash surrounded the world and blocked out a great deal of sunlight. It took a few years to absorb that shock.

Perhaps we should all pray for increased volcanic activity, except that releases Sulphur Dioxide which is worse than CO2 as a green-house gas.

Now I don't claim to "know" what's going on, but when a doctor says I'm sick, and a group of his colleagues agree, and I'm feeling lousy, then I tend to go with the doctors who say I'm sick, and not the ones that say I'm not or to offer Apricot pit remedies and Shark's cartilage injections. Those very treatments, embraced by a friend of mine were instrumental in his death.

We have little to lose by assuming AGW is true, and much to lose by ignoring a potential disaster. We're already in the process of changing over to a non-fossil fuel economy. If we can pioneer the change over, there is a lot to be gained economically if the US is in the lead, especially in sales to China and India, the two next large economies who need to get away from fossil fuels. No matter what, fossil fuels are running out, earlier is better for the change over.

Collapse -
Further evidence, which does not claim AGW but does

In reply to: This isn't from IPCC, it's from Stanford

Collapse -
I love how those assumptions just roll off the tip of

In reply to: This isn't from IPCC, it's from Stanford

the tongue. Stuff like; "We have little to lose by assuming AGW is true". Now, that is a revealing statement of faith. We don't know if it's true, but we should assume that it is. Little to lose? Are you kidding! Trillions of dollars to retool and rebuild our entire infrastructure is "little to lose"? I think you have failed to think through the full implications of what you advocate. Errors in such assumptions could cost many, many lives.

Collapse -
Our infrastructure is already decaying and needs replacement

In reply to: I love how those assumptions just roll off the tip of

They can't turn off the water in NYC for fear that the 100 year old pipes are so corroded they will collapse. They lose more in leakage than they deliver.

But the point which apparently you missed is that world leadership in the development of clean technology would return trillions of dollars in sales to other countries.

What the actual costs of development is a question I can't answer. Nobody can, but research is relatively cheap and can return side benefits in the shorter term. Even the Space Program returned collateral benefits we cherish, besides Velcro.


Popular Forums

Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
Laptops 21,181 discussions
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
Phones 17,137 discussions
Security 31,287 discussions
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
Windows 10 2,657 discussions


This one tip will help you sleep better tonight

A few seconds are all you need to get a better night's rest.