India abandons IPCC, sets up own panel
India's environment minister Jairam Ramesh announced that the Indian government will establish a separate National Institute of Himalayan Glaciology to monitor climate change in the region.
"There is a fine line between climate science and climate evangelism," Ramesh said. "I am for climate science.
I guess it just goes to show that even if they had 100% reliable data no one knows what the climate will be like in any specific place, just that it will probably be different!
Actually, it is generally thought that the computer necessary to accurately predict the weather on a planet would be the size of a planet itself. Makes you think, doesn't it?
I don't know of any prediction by a global warmist that has turned out to be right. I know of several hundred that they have gotten wrong.
Of course climate and weather are different subjects and anyone who points to the current weather and makes climate comments is either lacking in knowledge on the two subject or is making a deliberate distortion.
The fact that Tobacco Company representatives could point to mistakes, errors, and sometimes even fraud in studies linking cancer with smoking didn't change the fact that smoking causes cancer, but it did fool a lot of people into believing that there was a scientific conspiracy to falsely equated cancer with smoking. These people became increasingly skeptical of scientific data on the subject.
I think history is repeating itself here. The climate is warming, but representatives of the industries that may be contributing to the problem are more interested in creating confusion in the public than they are in solving the problem or even admitting that the problem exists.
That is why I always point to the fact that ice is melting almost everywhere on the Earth. Ice is an independent variable that can't easily be spun by misdirection or distortion.
When the Earth gets colder, we get more ice, when it warms up, we get less ice. The fact that ice is melting on a global basis is an objective fact. You can't spin that away.
The fact that Tobacco Company representatives could point to mistakes, errors, and sometimes even fraud in studies linking cancer with smoking didn't change the fact that smoking causes cancer,
Uh, yes, actually, it could. It depends on the specific mistakes, errors, or fraud perpetrated that determines whether or not cancer is caused by smoking. There seems to be enough valid scientific studies done to prove that point, but that doesn't mean the other studies failed to prove that smoking causes cancer. They did fail. However, just because a study fails doesn't mean smoking doesn't cause cancer, it is just unproven either way.
I think history is repeating itself here. The climate is warming, but representatives of the industries that may be contributing to the problem are more interested in creating confusion in the public than they are in solving the problem or even admitting that the problem exists.
That could be true. However, the difference between tobacco and global warming is tobacco has the damning studies proving smoking causes cancer. You lack equivalent studies proving global warming is man-made, and not part of the earth's natural cycle.
That is why I always point to the fact that ice is melting almost everywhere on the Earth. Ice is an independent variable that can't easily be spun by misdirection or distortion.
When the Earth gets colder, we get more ice, when it warms up, we get less ice. The fact that ice is melting on a global basis is an objective fact. You can't spin that away.
Spoken like a man without any sort of scientific training. There are many reasons the ice could be melting. Claiming it is because of global warming is correlation, not causation. Also, ice is not melting everywhere on the planet. Ice is melting at certain places. Why? We have no studies yet stating why, and should someone want to fund those studies, I'm all for it. Until then, all this is merely bullshit designed to further Democrat's political agendas.
amabo
Meanwhile, the IPCC announces their mistake of the day:
IPCC Error-of-the-day: African Crops [Greg Pollowitz]
Telegraph:
A LEADING British government scientist has warned the United Nations' climate panel to tackle its blunders or lose all credibility.
Robert Watson, chief scientist at Defra, the environment ministry, who chaired the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) from 1997 to 2002, was speaking after more potential inaccuracies emerged in the IPCC's 2007 benchmark report on global warming.
The most important is a claim that global warming could cut rain-fed north African crop production by up to 50% by 2020, a remarkably short time for such a dramatic change. The claim has been quoted in speeches by Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, and by Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary-general.
This weekend Professor Chris Field, the new lead author of the IPCC's climate impacts team, told The Sunday Times that he could find nothing in the report to support the claim. The revelation follows the IPCC's retraction of a claim that the Himalayan glaciers might all melt by 2035.