IPCC busted lying again (global warming)

[Funkstar]

I actually read all of that for a change Saracen

Great points, well made, and pretty much my opinions on the subject too.

The only thing I would add is the argument from 20 years ago relating to "peak oil" and oil consumption is a whole different thing from the current "climate change" argument. There is no arguing that oil and gas are finite resources and something we should be trying to reduce our dependence on. This is one reason I'm a fan of renewable energy, not from a CO2 production standpoint (something I'm not actually convinced stacks up).

[jim]

- pay for a permanent 3-shift 24/7/265 security team, CCTV and guard towers? Doubtful, though it'd pretty much guarantee no opportunistic burglaries.

I'm sorry to say it Saracen, but I think you've been conned there

I agree with most of what you've said to be honest - I have seen a lot of convincing evidence both ways regarding global warming, but nothing to convince me. The difficulty I have is that someone will produce a diagram showing sunspot activity, or average temperatures, but since everyone's using a different yard-stick the same factor will show a different result depending on what the person wants out of the data. So I don't believe much of what I read.

What I do believe though, is that we have a severely limited supply of fossil fuels. Global warming or no global warming, we cannot keep burning oil, gas and coal for the next millennium, so we need solutions now. I equally don't believe that nuclear fission is the answer, so my real interest (and where I'm prepared to adopt green credentials) is in the reduction of energy usage through better building techniques, better quality electronics, and 21st century materials, and the creation of energy from renewable sources - solar, wind, hydroelectric, tidal and fusion primarily. As things stand, I think progress in those fields is far too slow, but I or we will see how it turns out in the end I suppose :/

[SeriousSam]

Until people and governments finally accept that sustained economic growth is not feasible in a resource constrained system then it doesn't matter what anyone does as it will all come crashing down at some point. So as Saracen says do what your concience (and wallet) dictates and just get on with life, thankfull that you are living now and not 50-100years hence when things will be considerably worse.

[badass]

mate is changing - the polar icecaps *are* melting, for instance - the question is what we do about it. Do we actually take note and plan for the worst, or do we just sit back and stick two fingers up at the whole thing? Personally, I'm on the planning for the worst side of that argument, and I sincerely hope you all get to say "I told you so" to me in 50 years. The alternative doesn't really bear thinking about...

Would you plan for the worst if someone with no credibility kept insisting that alien invasion was imminent?

We shouldn't be wasting time, effort and money focusing on CO2. The climate is changing as it always has. We should simply be prepared for that to happen. Just not to the extremes that the IPCC suggest since they are full of carbon neutral bull****

[scaryjim]

Would you plan for the worst if someone with no credibility kept insisting that alien invasion was imminent?

No, because I have yet to see *any* verifiable evidence of alien invasion.

You can measure the size of polar icecaps, and they are shrinking, so there's a verifiable issue there that needs addressing. What's causing it is neither here nor there.

tbh, I'm not saying we all need to go hair shirt and live in round houses, as much as that lifestyle really appeals to me personally; it just concerns - perhaps even angers - me when apparently intelligent people say "the arguments are unclear, so I'm not going to make any concessions at all". That might not be the actual attitude of the other people discussing it in this thread, but it comes across like that some times.

It's even more galling when actually a lot of the suggested actions don't require us to make any sacrifices at all, and have clear benefits quite aside from any climate change concerns - like reducing fossil fuel consumption, or just generally reducing energy bills. Driving a smaller more efficient car is a great example. If you live on a farm or in the middle of the pennines, and have to drive off-road, you probably need a bigass 4x4 - that's fair enough. Everyone else who owns one has it for epeen purposes (or whatever the car equivalent thereof is). And I just don't think that's a good enough reason for burning up finite resources and *potentially* contributing to the alteration of the climate.

[JPreston]

Daily Telegraph busted lying again (denialism):

The Daily Telegraph misrepresent a scientist’s work, then refuse to correct it when he writes to them.

[badass]

Daily Telegraph busted lying again (denialism):

The Daily Telegraph misrepresent a scientist’s work, then refuse to correct it when he writes to them.

How is that in any way, shape or form relevant at all to this discussion?
Everyone here knows the Torygraph is at best biased, at worst deliberately completely inaccurate and no one has attempted to argue otherwise. However they are not seen as authoritative on anything whatsoever.
What we are discussing here is the fact that the IPCC are at best biased, and at worst completely and deliberately inaccurate. Just because there are liars on the other side does not make it OK for the IPCC to constantly lie, exaggerate and never come up with an accurate model.

[Saracen]

I'm sorry to say it Saracen, but I think you've been conned there

Doh!

Typo amended.

[scaryjim]

What we are discussing here is the fact that the IPCC are at best biased, and at worst completely and deliberately inaccurate. Just because there are liars on the other side does not make it OK for the IPCC to constantly lie, exaggerate and never come up with an accurate model.

... This is not to say that one mistake (though it's far from the only controversy over the IPCC) makes them either liars or wrong, and it certainly doesn't make the IPCC some kind of global conspiracy, but it does damage their credibility.

A little perspective, I think. This thread was revived based on a failure in diligence / rigor at the IPCC, which was then widely reported without extensive checking. As Saracen said earlier, the IPCC has lost credibility in light of this mistake - moreso potentially because the body is getting a reputation for lacking rigor. That doesn't mean that the scientists actually doing the research are getting it wrong. Let's face it, the body is called the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

And how many of us actually trust a word the government says to us?

As I said earlier, the Artic ice reduction is a clear sign that something is affecting the environment. It might be a natural cycle, it might be man-made global warming, it might be something completely different. If you decide to deal with that by sticking your fingers in your ears and singing "I can't hear you", well that's your decision...

[peterb]

How is that in any way, shape or form relevant at all to this discussion?
Everyone here knows the Torygraph is at best biased, at worst deliberately completely inaccurate and no one has attempted to argue otherwise. However they are not seen as authoritative on anything whatsoever.

I think there might be a few (hundred) MPs that would disagree with you.

[badass]

As I said earlier, the Artic ice reduction is a clear sign that something is affecting the environment. It might be a natural cycle, it might be man-made global warming, it might be something completely different. If you decide to deal with that by sticking your fingers in your ears and singing "I can't hear you", well that's your decision...

No one here that thinks the IPCC's full of bull has posted anything suggesting they are ignoring the changing climate. What is being ignored is the IPCC since they have not made a single accurate prediction, ever.
I still recycle as much as I can. I support the WEEE and RoHS regs as a way of us reducing the nasty chemicals destroying the environment. I minimise wastage as I hate waste. I even have nothing against spending money on things that really reduce CO2 output, provided they have other benefits that can be justified on their own.
I have nothing against the improvement of flood defences in anticipation of more severe flooding. What I am against is the waste of time, effort and money wasted on reducing CO2 with no other benefit instead of it being spent on preparing things like flood defences.
One example of such a complete waste of time. Low carbon coal burning.

[scaryjim]

No one here that thinks the IPCC's full of bull has posted anything suggesting they are ignoring the changing climate. ...

Fair enough. In a forum discussion it's easy enough to be accidentally ambiguous, or to misread and misinfer opinions.

Anyway, things like No apology from IPCC chief Rajendra Pachauri for glacier fallacy really don't help matters. For goodness sakes, if you've made a mistake hold your hands up and say sorry!