More flaws emerge in climate alarms

* Jonathan Leake
* From: The Australian
* February 01, 2010 12:00AM

A STARTLING report by the UN climate watchdog that global warming might
wipe out 40 per cent of the Amazon rainforest was based on an
unsubstantiated claim by green campaigners who had no scientific expertise.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said in its 2007 benchmark
report that even a slight change in rainfall could see swaths of the
rainforest rapidly replaced by savanna grassland.

The source for its claim was a report from WWF, an environmental
pressure group, which was written by two green activists. They had based
their "research" on a study published in the science journal Nature,
which did not assess rainfall but looked at the impact on the forest of
human activity such as logging and burning. WWF said on Saturday it was
launching an internal inquiry into the study.
The IPCC has been put on the defensive as well over its claims that
climate change may be increasing the severity and frequency of natural
disasters such as hurricanes and floods.IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri
was fighting to keep his job over the weekend after a barrage of
criticism. Scientists fear the controversies will be used by climate
change sceptics to sway public opinion to ignore global warming - even
though the fundamental science, that greenhouse gases can heat the
world, remains strong.

Comment:
The idea of using a CO2 carbon tax and carbon sinks is shown to not
increase the effect any further, as a window exists where further CO2
does not lead to increased planet heating. We have already reached this
level. It may even create the effect that vegetation will grow faster,
creating cooling areas. So trees and grasses and all manner of
vegetation will grow better. Ask anyone with a commercial greenhouse
what the benefits of increasing hothouse CO2 has and you will get the idea.
The ocean will certainly be the first to benefit (if that's the word)
from increased CO2 as most of the worlds CO2 is stored and used there
(as well) by vegetation.

Looks like the enquiry is going to replace a few dogged scientists.
Didnt they want their research flaws exposed?

"Johnno" wrote in message
...
More flaws emerge in climate alarms

* Jonathan Leake
* From: The Australian
* February 01, 2010 12:00AM

A STARTLING report by the UN climate watchdog that global warming might
wipe out 40 per cent of the Amazon rainforest was based on an
unsubstantiated claim by green campaigners who had no scientific
expertise.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said in its 2007 benchmark
report that even a slight change in rainfall could see swaths of the
rainforest rapidly replaced by savanna grassland.

The source for its claim was a report from WWF, an environmental pressure
group, which was written by two green activists. They had based their
"research" on a study published in the science journal Nature, which did
not assess rainfall but looked at the impact on the forest of human
activity such as logging and burning. WWF said on Saturday it was
launching an internal inquiry into the study.
The IPCC has been put on the defensive as well over its claims that
climate change may be increasing the severity and frequency of natural
disasters such as hurricanes and floods.IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri
was fighting to keep his job over the weekend after a barrage of
criticism. Scientists fear the controversies will be used by climate
change sceptics to sway public opinion to ignore global warming - even
though the fundamental science, that greenhouse gases can heat the world,
remains strong.

Comment:
The idea of using a CO2 carbon tax and carbon sinks is shown to not
increase the effect any further, as a window exists where further CO2 does
not lead to increased planet heating. We have already reached this level.
It may even create the effect that vegetation will grow faster, creating
cooling areas. So trees and grasses and all manner of vegetation will grow
better. Ask anyone with a commercial greenhouse what the benefits of
increasing hothouse CO2 has and you will get the idea.
The ocean will certainly be the first to benefit (if that's the word) from
increased CO2 as most of the worlds CO2 is stored and used there (as well)
by vegetation.

Looks like the enquiry is going to replace a few dogged scientists.
Didnt they want their research flaws exposed?

Get over it! Scientists will write whatever you want if it fills their bank
account!

that's exactly true loosecanon of all scientists they are humans after
money and power.

On Mon, 1 Feb 2010 17:50:26 +0800, "Loosecanon"
wrote:

snipped
--

len

With peace and brightest of blessings,

"Be Content With What You Have And
May You Find Serenity and Tranquillity In
A World That You May Not Understand."

http://www.lensgarden.com.au/

Its not a matter of getting over it.
We have a Prime Minister who would have set us up for a great New world
order it seems, with a neat taxation system, without informing us and
using climate warming as an excuse.
The system seems like it was a scam and its becoming more and more clear.
The world does appear to be warming, especially locally, but some of the
places they mentioned, are not so much a problem as an excuse for
exaggerated claims, based on interpretations of people who are sadly not
capable of getting the facts straight.
The IPCC, and WWF seemed to accept whatever what was put in front of
them, based on this.
Yet a few year ago the IPCC were awarded a Nobel prise for impeccable
research and methods of presentation.
So was President Obama, who has done little except be the first non
white president, promising world peace. That was before he did anything.
So we now have people, who are seen by the Nobel peace prize who can do
no wrong..... Setting us up for the worlds greatest scam, it seems.
We needs to ask questions, and if they are the good guys, as they say,
they will come out smelling like roses.
Otherwise they will smell like fertiliser.
Whether the world climate can be changed by the human race, after so
many years of industrialisation remains to be seen.
The methods proposed however appear to be fertiliser based.
That is enough cause for concern.
Its not just a matter of doing something, its a matter of doing the
right thing, to correct it, if we can.
Mother Nature doesn't give up her secrets so easily.
CO2 isnt the immediate problem. The problem is, what is the best manner
of fixing it.
And can they fix it?
I know over population is the biggest problem.
Too many Christians and others trying to annihilate each other by the
population bomb.
That doesn't make sense to me either.
I haven't got an answer, ands If I haven't, and you haven't.
The politicians and the scientists are not filling me with faith by
their behaviour.
There are people reading this, and while some may think its crap, others
aren't so sure.
Lets hope they can present the truth in an acceptable way, without the
shoddy methods they have used so far.
I may not be a scientist, but wont be blinded by science, when other
scientist,s who are not toeing the Government line, are sacked.
Especially whne they have doubts.
Yep its all too complicated. Since when have politicians been able to
decide which science is right?
Oh yes, since they held the purse strings....


On 1/02/2010 8:50 PM, Loosecanon wrote:
wrote in message
...

More flaws emerge in climate alarms

* Jonathan Leake
* From: The Australian
* February 01, 2010 12:00AM

A STARTLING report by the UN climate watchdog that global warming might
wipe out 40 per cent of the Amazon rainforest was based on an
unsubstantiated claim by green campaigners who had no scientific
expertise.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said in its 2007 benchmark
report that even a slight change in rainfall could see swaths of the
rainforest rapidly replaced by savanna grassland.

The source for its claim was a report from WWF, an environmental pressure
group, which was written by two green activists. They had based their
"research" on a study published in the science journal Nature, which did
not assess rainfall but looked at the impact on the forest of human
activity such as logging and burning. WWF said on Saturday it was
launching an internal inquiry into the study.
The IPCC has been put on the defensive as well over its claims that
climate change may be increasing the severity and frequency of natural
disasters such as hurricanes and floods.IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri
was fighting to keep his job over the weekend after a barrage of
criticism. Scientists fear the controversies will be used by climate
change sceptics to sway public opinion to ignore global warming - even
though the fundamental science, that greenhouse gases can heat the world,
remains strong.

Comment:
The idea of using a CO2 carbon tax and carbon sinks is shown to not
increase the effect any further, as a window exists where further CO2 does
not lead to increased planet heating. We have already reached this level.
It may even create the effect that vegetation will grow faster, creating
cooling areas. So trees and grasses and all manner of vegetation will grow
better. Ask anyone with a commercial greenhouse what the benefits of
increasing hothouse CO2 has and you will get the idea.
The ocean will certainly be the first to benefit (if that's the word) from
increased CO2 as most of the worlds CO2 is stored and used there (as well)
by vegetation.

Looks like the enquiry is going to replace a few dogged scientists.
Didnt they want their research flaws exposed?

Get over it! Scientists will write whatever you want if it fills their bank
account!




--

"gardenlen" wrote in message
...
that's exactly true loosecanon of all scientists they are humans after
money and power.

Snort! How many scientists do you actually know Len?

On 5/02/2010 11:26 PM, FarmI wrote:
wrote in message
...
that's exactly true loosecanon of all scientists they are humans after
money and power.

Snort! How many scientists do you actually know Len?


dont answer that Len.
Stupid question...

How many live, removed from normal citizens, living the life of luxury.
Tell me one government sponsored scientist who you know?
Unless you live in a wealthy area, no one lives next to one....

PC wrote:
On 5/02/2010 11:26 PM, FarmI wrote:
wrote in message
...
that's exactly true loosecanon of all scientists they are humans after
money and power.

Snort! How many scientists do you actually know Len?


dont answer that Len.
Stupid question...

How many live, removed from normal citizens, living the life of luxury.
Tell me one government sponsored scientist who you know?
Unless you live in a wealthy area, no one lives next to one....

Umm...while I agree with you generally when you say we need to know more about climate change before we rush
in blindly, I do know quite a few government funded scientists - and I don't live in a wealthy area, nor do they.

Generalisations are dangerous.

--
Anne Chambers
South Australia

anne dot chambers at bigpond dot com

On 9/02/2010 11:33 AM, Anne Chambers wrote:
PC wrote:
On 5/02/2010 11:26 PM, FarmI wrote:
wrote in message
...
that's exactly true loosecanon of all scientists they are humans after
money and power.

Snort! How many scientists do you actually know Len?


dont answer that Len.
Stupid question...

How many live, removed from normal citizens, living the life of luxury.
Tell me one government sponsored scientist who you know?
Unless you live in a wealthy area, no one lives next to one....

Umm...while I agree with you generally when you say we need to know more
about climate change before we rush in blindly, I do know quite a few
government funded scientists - and I don't live in a wealthy area, nor
do they.

Generalisations are dangerous.

Look at the larger percentage that are better funded than others. This
is where youre right, but also get my point I see.
Some of them dont agree with the Governement stance. CSIRO weather
scientists also quit because of it.
Someone has to take care of our gardening climate!
Kevin has lots to learn on this subject it seems...
Some here are obviously only here during working hours.
That makes me suspect they are here to feed the people here who dont
follow the Gvmt line.
No generalisations, but suspect this, and in need of further
investigations. I hope to do so in the future.....
Look what they were caught doing on wikipedia!
Maybe soneone is capapable o doing that for me.
Just because I "may" be paranoic, doesnt mean I'm not right
Human beings are so devious....

"PC" wrote in message
...
On 5/02/2010 11:26 PM, FarmI wrote:
wrote in message
...
that's exactly true loosecanon of all scientists they are humans after
money and power.

Snort! How many scientists do you actually know Len?


dont answer that Len.
Stupid question...

How many live, removed from normal citizens, living the life of luxury.
Tell me one government sponsored scientist who you know?

And that comment reveals exactly how many 'government sponsored scientists'
you know or have ever known.

Why don't you ever do even the most sloppy google search before you make
your stupid and ill informed comments?

On 9/02/2010 12:52 PM, FarmI wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 5/02/2010 11:26 PM, FarmI wrote:
wrote in message
...
that's exactly true loosecanon of all scientists they are humans after
money and power.

Snort! How many scientists do you actually know Len?


dont answer that Len.
Stupid question...

How many live, removed from normal citizens, living the life of luxury.
Tell me one government sponsored scientist who you know?

And that comment reveals exactly how many 'government sponsored scientists'
you know or have ever known.

Why don't you ever do even the most sloppy google search before you make
your stupid and ill informed comments?


I take it you think scientists are stupid and sloppy?
So so others....

On 9/02/2010 12:52 PM, FarmI wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 5/02/2010 11:26 PM, FarmI wrote:
wrote in message
...
that's exactly true loosecanon of all scientists they are humans after
money and power.

Snort! How many scientists do you actually know Len?


dont answer that Len.
Stupid question...

How many live, removed from normal citizens, living the life of luxury.
Tell me one government sponsored scientist who you know?

And that comment reveals exactly how many 'government sponsored scientists'
you know or have ever known.

Why don't you ever do even the most sloppy google search before you make
your stupid and ill informed comments?


So, you reckon scientists are sloppy too?
So do others....
You havent read any papers, watched only ABC TV, which apparently is
full of greenies, and you know everything to make the world safe.
What if youve been sloppy in your facts?
At least I'm not influenced by government policy.
PS Question by the way, who is the government?
Youre so clever, I bet you dont know!