Global Warming: Policy-Driven Deception

[HalfLotus]

The whole IPCC might bite the dust along with Pach-man.

Scientists say IPCC should be overhauled or scrapped

According to Mike Hulme, from Britain's University of East Anglia, the structure and process of the IPCC has passed its sell-by date. "The IPCC is no longer fit for the purpose," he wrote in Nature.

In Australia, Barry Brook, the director of climate change research at Adelaide University, agreed, saying: "I wouldn't be disturbed if there wasn't ever another IPCC report, provided we replaced it with something more timely, concise and relevant to policy makers," he said.

[Theben]

Wow, you sure do like to cherry-pick.

Now please point out anyone in that article mentioning that ASW/ climate change is fraudulent. Or are they asking for better methods of measuring and communication between scientists.

[HalfLotus]

Yeah, better communication. They got a long way to go when amateur bloggers are uncovering multiple significant errors (read: lies and exaggerations) missed by the IPCC's "thousands of scientists" and their purportedly airtight peer-review process.

Editor of Nature forced to resign from climate review panel

Woops!

Apparently they're having a hard time finding impartial scientists whose pockets and labs aren't lined and wallpapered with multi-million dollar AGW 'stimulus' grants. Tends to skew a man's viewpoint, I would think.

So your tax dollars will continue to fund a climate scientist whose main contribution to the field has been to discredit climate science.

[Theben]

Thousands of scientists and you're bound to find a few bad apples. However you didn't answer my question... probably because you can't.

[Theben]

And it's not like the "other side" isn't close to completely funded by big oil and/or coal.

[DanS]

It doesn't take much funding to be a skeptic.

[Arrian]

I think we're screwed anyway. The developing world isn't going to listen to the developed West scolding them about driving cars and running air conditioners. Even if we pull back on our emissions, it won't be nearly enough (and it doesn't seem likely that we'll really do much anyway).

So, I sit here and hope that the "skeptics" are correct (that would rock, actually, but I don't believe it) or that we out-tech this problem.

-Arrian

[Caligastia]

I think we're screwed anyway. The developing world isn't going to listen to the developed West scolding them about driving cars and running air conditioners. Even if we pull back on our emissions, it won't be nearly enough (and it doesn't seem likely that we'll really do much anyway).

So, I sit here and hope that the "skeptics" are correct (that would rock, actually, but I don't believe it) or that we out-tech this problem.

-Arrian

I agree, except that I'm optimistic that AGW skeptics are correct.

[Theben]

Personally I don't see what the skeptics are fussing about. Even if ASW is false, it's a win-win exercise. If there's ASW and we stop it, we can continue enjoying living here on this rock with most of the remaining species. If not, it'll still wean us off of carbon emissions which are bad for the health of living things (including humans). Job losses in those areas will be replaced with job gains in new industries, and the environment we live in is cleaner. It's all good.

[BlackCat]

What does that S mean ?

[Caligastia]

Personally I don't see what the skeptics are fussing about. Even if ASW is false, it's a win-win exercise. If there's ASW and we stop it, we can continue enjoying living here on this rock with most of the remaining species. If not, it'll still wean us off of carbon emissions which are bad for the health of living things (including humans). Job losses in those areas will be replaced with job gains in new industries, and the environment we live in is cleaner. It's all good.

I'm all for regulating against true pollutants like carbon monoxide, but CO2 is waaaay too broad and is not anywhere near levels that would be harmful to humans (unless you believe in AGW, of course).

[DinoDoc]

Job losses in those areas will be replaced with job gains in new industries, ...

Indeed. Look how well the green economy is working so far at job creation.

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/wind-power-equal-job-power/comments?type=story&id=9759949

[Dauphin]

Indeed. Look how well the green economy is working so far at job creation.

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/wind-power-...ory&id=9759949

According to the article it's created over 6,000 jobs and generates electricity for 2.4 million homes. I assume the beef is lack of protectionist language in the funding of it, which is a different issue.

[DinoDoc]

According to the article it's created over 6,000 jobs and generates electricity for 2.4 million homes. I assume the beef is lack of protectionist language in the funding of it, which is a different issue.

Actually it's only created about a couple hundred jobs. Most people who claim to be concerned with job losses and job creation don't usually give a damn about job loss or creation in other countries. My main beef is with people like Tubbums who make the claim of Green Job creation in absence of any evidence.

[Dauphin]

If the funding said "only in America", it would have created those jobs in America. Blame the funding method cos it has nothing to do with a supposed lack of job creation potential from green industry - based on the article there is evidence that it can create lots of jobs.