|
jshell wrote: The graph there shows the longest dataset available in the Northern Hemisphere, and doesn't support AGW.
er, it doesn't say anything about it. If you want to talk about 'AEW' you might have a point, but as it's a global phenomenon we're talking about, we should look at average global temperatures.
Refuting them with particular places is akin to people who say the current English cold snap disproves it (or the current Israeli heatwave proves it).
jshell wrote: The IPCC have been accused of bias as they, and New Scientist promoted that pack of lies about Himalayan glaciers melting by 2035, when the date was actually stated as 2350 in some obscure phone call
Your gift for overstatement's not departed yet, I see.
The 'pack of lies' is one figure, a projected date for total glacier loss in the Himalayas. Where did you get your 2350 thing from?
as I understand it, the figure seems to have been misconstrued by WWF and the source for the IPCC didn't check the original paper being cited. That is indeed a serious error, regarding Himalayan glacier melt. It certainly doesn't undermine the fact that the vast majority of glaciers on earth are in retreat. It certainly does not refute the rest of the hundreds of thousands of facts cited in the IPCC reports.
jshell wrote: MMGW became AGW became CC, and now the blame is going to be put on Methane.
Er, right. Your first three are terminology, the last one is actually a substance. See the difference? And 'AGW' tends to be a term used by deniers, so it's scarcely fair to include that in some part of this conspiracy.
Methane's always been a significant portion of climate change, which is why we use the term 'greenhouse gases' and 'CO2 equivalent'.
jshell wrote: whereas I believe in 'climate change', I firmly don't believe it's anything to do with man...
If I were you I'd get to grips with a little basic physics first. Knowing what you're talking about can really do a lot to validate your opinion. There is no explanation for the rapid warming of the last century except natural processes combined with the effects of human carbon emissions as described by the IPCC.This may have something to do with why over 99% of climatologists have the temerity to disagree with you.
Mind you, you've told us before it's 'unproven' whether CO2 has an effect on global temperatures, even though it can be demonstrated with stuff you find in a kitchen in a way that's understandable to primary school children. Here's one we made earlier
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8394168.stm
And talking of things you've told us before...
jshell wrote: 96% of Greenhouse gasses are water vapour
4% of GHC's are CO2
4% of CO2 is man-made
You were patiently walked through this one earlier. You're embarrassing yourself now.
jshell wrote: At least the delegates at Copenhagen had a small 'carbon footprint', oh wait, they all went by air or personal jet and limo. Hypocritical cnuts! 15,000 of them, wasn't it? And now they're planning the same fucking long-haul shindig somewhere more exotic next year. Not in my name.
And, recent curvey suggests 90% of the carbon trading through Denmark has been fraudulent.
I understand it was actually about 30,000 people initially accredited for the talks (the centre held 15,000). Many of these were from carbon-conscious organisations who did travel by land. But yes, a great many who could have chose not to and I totally agree with you that they're hypocritical scumpigs.
And as for carbon trading, I don't know the details of the Danish thing, but the whole industry's a fucking scam, a device for permitting high-emitters to carry on, make loads of money and keep the poor of the world impoverished. Bullshit from start to finish.
And neither of those things in any way undoes the science of climate change.
jshell wrote: the IPCC saying that there's no AGW is like Turkeys voting for Christmas, they'd soon be out of a job if they did.
You misunderstand the way the IPCC works and indeed what it is. It compiles and collates the work of many thousands of scientists from around the world. They would still be working in their respective fields, climate change or no. There would still be climatologists, forest ecologists, oceanographers, etc.
For evidence of this being a vast conspiracy involving the pre-eminent scientific bodies of dozens of nations and hundreds of thousands of scientists, you're going to have to find better sources than the Speak Your Brains of comments on the BBC news site.
|
