Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Conspiracy theory is never based on facts, always innuendo, and that's why it's the haunt of the ignorant. Innuendo takes only suspicion and imagination. Reality takes education. Guess which one is the easiest path through life.
Except I have said repeatedly that I don't think there is a conspiracy.
But keep parroting those talking points, it's what your activist sources tell you to do.
I don't know exactly what an 'activist source' is. Is that the IPCC? They're the source of AGW science. I do hope that I'm an activist when action is required as it is here and now. I'd hate to be known as a donothinger.
But I know people who do nothing when told to by political entertainers. And people who trust political entertainers and mistrust scientist.
They're stupid.
I ask again, what actions are you proposing to undertake to change the situation?
Support the science from the IPCC. Assume that the current coalition of government and private enterprise will solve the problem at the appropriate rate. Avoid the media evangelical political entertainers and get news from news sources.
IPCC admits they're using global warming scam to redistribute wealth
Except I have said repeatedly that I don't think there is a conspiracy.
But keep parroting those talking points, it's what your activist sources tell you to do.
I don't know exactly what an 'activist source' is. Is that the IPCC? They're the source of AGW science. I do hope that I'm an activist when action is required as it is here and now. I'd hate to be known as a donothinger.
But I know people who do nothing when told to by political entertainers. And people who trust political entertainers and mistrust scientist.
They're stupid.
Are you talking about the same IPCC that passed off environmental activist fiction as fact?
8.4.2.5 Populations in mountain regions - AR4 WGII Chapter 8: Human Health
That said, when you "know people" who do something, don't accuse others of doing the same thing just because you disagree with them - and ESPECIALLY when they've said that they don't hold those views.
I don't know exactly what an 'activist source' is. Is that the IPCC? They're the source of AGW science. I do hope that I'm an activist when action is required as it is here and now. I'd hate to be known as a donothinger.
But I know people who do nothing when told to by political entertainers. And people who trust political entertainers and mistrust scientist.
They're stupid.
I ask again, what actions are you proposing to undertake to change the situation?
Support the science from the IPCC. Assume that the current coalition of government and private enterprise will solve the problem at the appropriate rate. Avoid the media evangelical political entertainers and get news from news sources.
In an exclusive interview with the Guardian, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said it would be hypocritical to apologise for the false claim that *Himalayan glaciers could melt away by 2035, because he was not personally responsible for that part of the report. "You can't expect me to be personally responsible for every word in a 3,000 page report," he said.
The IPCC issued a statement that expressed regret for the mistake, but Pachauri said a personal apology would be a "populist" step.
The UN's climate science body has admitted that a claim made in its 2007 report - that Himalayan glaciers could melt away by 2035 - was unfounded.
The admission today followed a New Scientist article last week that revealed the source of the claim made in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was not peer-reviewed scientific literature but a media interview with a scientist conducted in 1999. Several senior scientists have now said the claim was unrealistic and that the large Himalayan glaciers could not melt in a few decades.
Glaciologists are this week arguing over how a highly contentious claim about the speed at which glaciers are melting came to be included in the latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
In 1999 New Scientist reported a comment by the leading Indian glaciologist Syed Hasnain, who said in an email interview with this author that all the glaciers in the central and eastern Himalayas could disappear by 2035.
Hasnain, of Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi, who was then chairman of the International Commission on Snow and Ice's working group on Himalayan glaciology, has never repeated the prediction in a peer-reviewed journal. He now says the comment was "speculative".
Except I have said repeatedly that I don't think there is a conspiracy.
But keep parroting those talking points, it's what your activist sources tell you to do.
I don't know exactly what an 'activist source' is. Is that the IPCC? They're the source of AGW science. I do hope that I'm an activist when action is required as it is here and now. I'd hate to be known as a donothinger.
But I know people who do nothing when told to by political entertainers. And people who trust political entertainers and mistrust scientist.
They're stupid.
Are you talking about the same IPCC that passed off environmental activist fiction as fact?
8.4.2.5 Populations in mountain regions - AR4 WGII Chapter 8: Human Health
That said, when you "know people" who do something, don't accuse others of doing the same thing just because you disagree with them - and ESPECIALLY when they've said that they don't hold those views.
I would have said, at one time, one thing that everybody would agree on is a world hospitable to our progeny. Now I find that conservatives don't want that. As long as the world is hospitable now, that's all that counts. Let future generations solve our problems.
I personally think that that is a pretty disgusting attitude and if some melon headed entertainer tried to impose it on me there'd be some trouble brewing.
But, the DK crowd laps it up and follows the leader.
Jerks.
I would have said, at one time, one thing that everybody would agree on is a world hospitable to our progeny. Now I find that conservatives don't want that. As long as the world is hospitable now, that's all that counts. Let future generations solve our problems.
I personally think that that is a pretty disgusting attitude and if some melon headed entertainer tried to impose it on me there'd be some trouble brewing.
But, the DK crowd laps it up and follows the leader.
Jerks.
how is imposing trillions of dollars in taxes and a vastly lower standard of living on them being "hospitable" to our progeny?
Support the science from the IPCC. Assume that the current coalition of government and private enterprise will solve the problem at the appropriate rate. Avoid the media evangelical political entertainers and get news from news sources.
IPCC admits they're using global warming scam to redistribute wealth
You'd think that there'd be some evidence.
Climate protection has hardly anything to do with environmental protection, says the economist Ottmar Edenhofer. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which it relates to the distribution of resources.
I ask again, what actions are you proposing to undertake to change the situation?
Support the science from the IPCC. Assume that the current coalition of government and private enterprise will solve the problem at the appropriate rate. Avoid the media evangelical political entertainers and get news from news sources.
Here's a little bit about the IPCC:
No apology from IPCC chief Rajendra Pachauri for glacier fallacy | Environment | The Guardian
The UN's climate science body has admitted that a claim made in its 2007 report - that Himalayan glaciers could melt away by 2035 - was unfounded.
The admission today followed a New Scientist article last week that revealed the source of the claim made in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was not peer-reviewed scientific literature but a media interview with a scientist conducted in 1999. Several senior scientists have now said the claim was unrealistic and that the large Himalayan glaciers could not melt in a few decades.
IPCC officials admit mistake over melting Himalayan glaciers | Environment | theguardian.com
Glaciologists are this week arguing over how a highly contentious claim about the speed at which glaciers are melting came to be included in the latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
In 1999 New Scientist reported a comment by the leading Indian glaciologist Syed Hasnain, who said in an email interview with this author that all the glaciers in the central and eastern Himalayas could disappear by 2035.
Hasnain, of Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi, who was then chairman of the International Commission on Snow and Ice's working group on Himalayan glaciology, has never repeated the prediction in a peer-reviewed journal. He now says the comment was "speculative".
Debate heats up over IPCC melting glaciers claim - environment - 08 January 2010 - New Scientist
I don't know exactly what an 'activist source' is. Is that the IPCC? They're the source of AGW science. I do hope that I'm an activist when action is required as it is here and now. I'd hate to be known as a donothinger.
But I know people who do nothing when told to by political entertainers. And people who trust political entertainers and mistrust scientist.
They're stupid.
Are you talking about the same IPCC that passed off environmental activist fiction as fact?
8.4.2.5 Populations in mountain regions - AR4 WGII Chapter 8: Human Health
That said, when you "know people" who do something, don't accuse others of doing the same thing just because you disagree with them - and ESPECIALLY when they've said that they don't hold those views.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. Nobody is entitled to their own facts.
I would have said, at one time, one thing that everybody would agree on is a world hospitable to our progeny. Now I find that conservatives don't want that. As long as the world is hospitable now, that's all that counts. Let future generations solve our problems.
I personally think that that is a pretty disgusting attitude and if some melon headed entertainer tried to impose it on me there'd be some trouble brewing.
But, the DK crowd laps it up and follows the leader.
Jerks.
how is imposing trillions of dollars in taxes and a vastly lower standard of living on them being "hospitable" to our progeny?
Because the alternative (do nothing) is more expensive and more costly in human trauma, and only a temporary solution.
Are you talking about the same IPCC that passed off environmental activist fiction as fact?
8.4.2.5 Populations in mountain regions - AR4 WGII Chapter 8: Human Health
That said, when you "know people" who do something, don't accuse others of doing the same thing just because you disagree with them - and ESPECIALLY when they've said that they don't hold those views.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. Nobody is entitled to their own facts.
So you don't know that the IPCC admitted the mistake?
how is imposing trillions of dollars in taxes and a vastly lower standard of living on them being "hospitable" to our progeny?
Because the alternative (do nothing) is more expensive and more costly in human trauma, and only a temporary solution.
Even if AGW were actually occurring, no one has demonstrated these "expenses" or "traumas." If anything, history shows that a warmer world is more beneficial to human welfare.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. Nobody is entitled to their own facts.
So you don't know that the IPCC admitted the mistake?
Posting a completely irrelevant link hoping that nobody opens it is the epitome of troll behavior.
So you don't know that the IPCC admitted the mistake?
Posting a completely irrelevant link hoping that nobody opens it is the epitome of troll behavior.
It's a link to the post where I detailed the numerous sources showing that the IPCC admitted the error.
Now you're just getting testy.
It's a link to the post where I detailed the numerous sources showing that the IPCC admitted the error.
Posting a completely irrelevant link hoping that nobody opens it is the epitome of troll behavior.
It's a link to the post where I detailed the numerous sources showing that the IPCC admitted the error.
Now you're just getting testy.
It's a link about a movie!
It's a link to the post where I detailed the numerous sources showing that the IPCC admitted the error.
Yes, the statement about Himalayan glacial melt rates was in error and the IPCC admitted it. You're talking about one sentence out of hundreds of pages of reports and data compiled by hundreds of different people. And the IPCC admitted the mistake and made corrections to the review process to avoid such mistakes in the future. Just how much significance do you think should be put on that point? And we have certainly seen no such behavior from the IPCC's critics. When was the last time Watts or Spencer admitted any of the multitude of mistake they've made?
And, BTW, about the Himalayan glaciers:
Asia
[Retreat of glaciers since 1850 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia]
The Himalayas and other mountain chains of central Asia support large regions that are glaciated. These glaciers provide critical water supplies to arid countries such as Mongolia, western China, Pakistan, Afghanistan and India. As is true with other glaciers worldwide, the glaciers of Asia are experiencing a rapid decline in mass. The loss of these glaciers would have a tremendous impact on the ecosystem of the region.
In the Wakhan Corridor of Afghanistan 28 of 30 glaciers examined retreated significantly during the 1976–2003 period, the average retreat was 11 m (36 ft) per year.[21] One of these glaciers, the Zemestan Glacier, has retreated 460 m (1,510 ft) during this period, not quite 10% of its 5.2 km (3.2 mi) length.[22] In examining 612 glaciers in China between 1950 and 1970, 53% of the glaciers studied were retreating. After 1990, 95% of these glaciers were measured to be retreating, indicating that retreat of these glaciers was becoming more widespread.[23] Glaciers in the Mount Everest region of the Himalayas are all in a state of retreat. The Rongbuk Glacier, draining the north side of Mount Everest into Tibet, has been retreating 20 m (66 ft) per year. In the Khumbu region of Nepal along the front of the main Himalaya of 15 glaciers examined from 1976–2007 all retreated significantly and the average retreat was 28 m (92 ft) per year.[24] The most famous of these, the Khumbu Glacier, retreated at a rate of 18 m (59 ft) per year from 1976–2007.[24] However, in the second half of the last century the glacier melt in High Asia also showed interruptions. In the Inner Himalayas slight advances took place from 1970 to 1980.[25] In India the Gangotri Glacier, retreated 34 m (112 ft) per year between 1970 and 1996, and has averaged a loss of 30 m (98 ft) per year since 2000. However, the glacier is still over 30 km (19 mi) long. In 2005, the Tehri Dam was finished on the Bhagirathi River and it is a 2400 mW facility that began producing hydropower in 2006. The headwaters of the Bhagirathi River is the Gangotri and Khatling Glacier, Garhwal Himalaya. Gangotri Glacier has retreated 1 km in the last 30 years, and with an area of 286 square kilometres (110 sq mi), provides up to 190 m3/second of water volume.(Singh et al., 2006). For the Indian Himalaya, retreat averaged 19 m (62 ft) per year for 17 glaciers.[26] In Sikkim 26 glaciers examined were retreating at an average rate of 13.02 m per year from 1976 to 2005.[27] For the 51 glaciers in the main Himalayan Range of India, Nepal and Sikkim, 51 glaciers are retreating, at an average rate of 23 metres (75 ft) per year. In the Karokoram Range of the Himalaya there is a mix of advancing and retreating glaciers with 18 advancing and 22 retreating during the 1980–2003 period.[28]
With the retreat of glaciers in the Himalayas, a number of glacial lakes have been created. A growing concern is the potential for Glacial Lake Outburst Floods—researchers estimate 20 glacial lakes in Nepal and 24 in Bhutan pose hazards to human populations should their terminal moraines fail. One glacial lake identified as potentially hazardous is Bhutan's Raphstreng Tsho, which measured 1.6 km (0.99 mi) long, .96 km (0.60 mi) wide and was 80 m (260 ft) deep in 1986. By 1995 the lake had swollen to a length of 1.94 km (1.21 mi), 1.13 km (0.70 mi) in width and a depth of 107 m (351 ft). In 1994 a GLOF from Luggye Tsho, a glacial lake adjacent to Raphstreng Tsho, killed 23 people downstream.[29]
Glaciers in the Ak-shirak Range in Kyrgyzstan experienced a slight loss between 1943 and 1977 and an accelerated loss of 20% of their remaining mass between 1977 and 2001.[30] In the Tien Shan mountains, which Kyrgyzstan shares with China and Kazakhstan, studies in the northern areas of that mountain range show that the glaciers that help supply water to this arid region, lost nearly 2 km3 (0.48 cu mi) of ice per year between 1955 and 2000. The University of Oxford study also reported that an average of 1.28% of the volume of these glaciers had been lost per year between 1974 and 1990.[31]
The Pamirs mountain range located primarily in Tajikistan, has many thousands of glaciers, all of which are in a general state of retreat. During the 20th century, the glaciers of Tajikistan lost 20 km3 (4.8 cu mi) of ice. The 70 km (43 mi) long Fedchenko Glacier, which is the largest in Tajikistan and the largest non-polar glacier on Earth, lost 1.4% of its length, or 1 km (0.62 mi), 2 km3 (0.48 cu mi) of its mass, and the glaciated area was reduced by 11 km2 (4.2 sq mi) during the 20th century. Similarly, the neighboring Skogatch Glacier lost 8% of its total mass between 1969 and 1986. The country of Tajikistan and neighboring countries of the Pamir Range are highly dependent upon glacial runoff to ensure river flow during droughts and the dry seasons experienced every year. The continued demise of glacier ice will result in a short-term increase, followed by a long-term decrease in glacial melt water flowing into rivers and streams.[32]
The Tibetan Plateau contains the world's third-largest store of ice. Qin Dahe, the former head of the China Meteorological Administration, said that the recent fast pace of melting and warmer temperatures will be good for agriculture and tourism in the short term; but issued a strong warning:
Temperatures are rising four times faster than elsewhere in China, and the Tibetan glaciers are retreating at a higher speed than in any other part of the world ... In the short term, this will cause lakes to expand and bring floods and mudflows ... In the long run, the glaciers are vital lifelines for Asian rivers, including the Indus and the Ganges. Once they vanish, water supplies in those regions will be in peril.[33]
References
21 ^ Haritashya,; Bishop, Shroder, Andrew, Bush, Bulley (2009). "Space-based assessment of glacier fluctuations in the Wakhan Pamir, Afghanistan" (PDF). Climate Change 94 (1–2): 5–18. doi:10.1007/s10584-009-9555-9.
22 ^ a b Mauri S. Pelto. "Ice Shelf Instability". Retrieved 2009.
23 ^ Sandeep Chamling Rai, Trishna Gurung, et alia. "An Overview of Glaciers, Glacier Retreat and Subsequent Impacts in Nepal, India and China" (PDF). WWF Nepal Program. Retrieved March 2005.
24 ^ a b Bajracharya, Mool. "Glaciers, glacial lakes and glacial lake outburst floods in the Mount Everest region, Nepal". International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development. Retrieved January 10, 2010.
25 ^ Achenbach, H. (2011): Historische und rezente Gletscherstandsschwankungen in den Einzugsgebieten des Cha Lungpa (Mukut-, Hongde- und Tongu-Himalaja sowie Tach Garbo Lungpa), des Khangsar Khola (Annapurna N-Abdachung) und des Kone Khola (Muktinath-, Purkhung- und Chulu-Himalaja). Dissertation, Universität Göttingen, 260 S. (elektronische Version)Historische und rezente Gletscherstandsschwankungen in den Einzugsgebieten des Cha Lungpa (Mukut-, Hongde- und Tongu-Himalaja sowie Tach Garbo Lungpa), des Khangsar Khola (Annapurna N-Abdachung) und des Kone Khola (Muktinath-, Purkhung- und Chulu-Him
26 ^ Bishop, MP; Barry, RG; Bush, ABG; et al. (2004). "Global land-ice measurements from space (GLIMS): remote sensing and GIS investigations of the Earth’s cryosphere". Geocarto Int 19 (2): 57–84.
27 ^ V.K. Raina. "Himalayan GlaciersA State-of-Art Review of Glacial Studies,Glacial Retreat and Climate Change" (PDF). Geological Survey of India. Retrieved January 10, 2010.
28 ^ Hewitt, K. "The Karakoram anomaly? Glacier Expansion and the ‘Elevation Effect,’ Karakoram Himalaya". Mt Res Dev 25 (4): 332–340.
29 ^ United Nations Environment Programme. "Global Warming Triggers Glacial Lakes Flood Threat – April 16, 2002". UNEP News Release 2002/20. Retrieved April 16, 2002.
30 ^ T. E. Khromova, M. B. Dyurgerov and R. G. Barry (2003). "Late-twentieth century changes in glacier extent in the Ak-shirak Range, Central Asia, determined from historical data and ASTER imagery (Abstract)". American Geophysical Union 30 (16): 1863.
31 ^ Kirby, Alex (September 4, 2003). "Kazakhstan's glaciers 'melting fast'". BBC News.
32 ^ V. Novikov. "Tajikistan 2002, State of the Environment Report". Climate Change. Retrieved March 3, 2003.
33 ^ "Global warming benefits to Tibet: Chinese official". Google.com. AFP. 2009-08-17. Retrieved 2010-03-20.
