IAC report on the IPCCs 4AR
-
http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/report.html[^] The fact that such recomendations have had to have been made is very damning. A scientific body such as the IPCC in such a prominent position should have acted according to these redomendations from the outset.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/report.html[^] The fact that such recomendations have had to have been made is very damning. A scientific body such as the IPCC in such a prominent position should have acted according to these redomendations from the outset.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/report.html[^] The fact that such recomendations have had to have been made is very damning. A scientific body such as the IPCC in such a prominent position should have acted according to these redomendations from the outset.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
This was featured on Sky this morning but didn't see it on the BBC. On the other hand: Why failure of climate summit would herald global catastrophe: 3.5°[^]. And there was also an item about a climate change sceptic who had changed his mind but can't remember which paper it was in. Bottom line: all of this leaves the public not knowing who or what to believe. I suppose we could err on the side of caution but by how much? And why should we do it when other countries will simply ignore it? And even if we did take action are we really going to be able to change what might be a natural, cyclic event?
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
This was featured on Sky this morning but didn't see it on the BBC. On the other hand: Why failure of climate summit would herald global catastrophe: 3.5°[^]. And there was also an item about a climate change sceptic who had changed his mind but can't remember which paper it was in. Bottom line: all of this leaves the public not knowing who or what to believe. I suppose we could err on the side of caution but by how much? And why should we do it when other countries will simply ignore it? And even if we did take action are we really going to be able to change what might be a natural, cyclic event?
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
The BBC would never run an article that casts doubt on GW. As for using pictures of local floods as some sort of proof of AGW is just pure stupidity. The area of Pakistan that got flooded, the photo used, was a flood plain. Of course it floods. Is why its called a flood plain. Its a big flat area beside a river. Anyway, what I want to see is a global raw rural data set. This will not need any adjustments and no extrapolations will be made. (Which are the problems with NOAA GISS and CRUT products). That way we WILL know what to believe because we will have irrefutable raw data at hand. However, just saying can we have an effect and other wountries will ignore it so we shuld too is a cop out. We have to decide whether man made CO2 is a problem or not (or even a benefit) and decide policy accordingly. We can only do that with empiracle evidence, raw data, collected over time and against a background of CO2 variability, amongst other factors. This will give sufficient information to attribute the correct amount of forcing to the various components involved in the climate system. However, all this presupposes that the reason behind AGW is a passionate desire to save mankind. There is another view which says the reaosn behind AGW is to stop the third world developing and using its resources. Instead we will use them. And that is not entirely impossible knowing what mankind is capable of.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
This was featured on Sky this morning but didn't see it on the BBC. On the other hand: Why failure of climate summit would herald global catastrophe: 3.5°[^]. And there was also an item about a climate change sceptic who had changed his mind but can't remember which paper it was in. Bottom line: all of this leaves the public not knowing who or what to believe. I suppose we could err on the side of caution but by how much? And why should we do it when other countries will simply ignore it? And even if we did take action are we really going to be able to change what might be a natural, cyclic event?
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
Oh and incidently you can now see why I responded to Ians post with a :zzz:. When I later posted a link to NOAA website showing how frequent and widespread the sensor failures are he didnt respond despite his response to my previous post demanding a NOAA cite and criticising me nor not providing it. So you see, he is only interested in arguing not the facts, thats why I cant be bothered with him amymore.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription