Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Global Warming Nazis
#41
forbes.com March 31st 2014 Wrote:So how do the IPCC and NIPCC reports differ? The final draft of the IPCC’s Summary for Policymakers identifies eight “reasons for concern” which media reports say will remain the focus of the final report. The NIPCC reports address each point too, also summarizing their authors’ positions in Summaries for Policymakers. This provides a convenient way to compare and contrast the reports’ findings.

Here’s what the reports say:

IPCC: “Risk of death, injury, and disrupted livelihoods in low-lying coastal zones and small island developing states, due to sea-level rise, coastal flooding, and storm surges.”

NIPCC: “Flood frequency and severity in many areas of the world were higher historically during the Little Ice Age and other cool eras than during the twentieth century. Climate change ranks well below other contributors, such as dikes and levee construction, to increased flooding.”

IPCC: “Risk of food insecurity linked to warming, drought, and precipitation variability, particularly for poorer populations.”

NIPCC: “There is little or no risk of increasing food insecurity due to global warming or rising atmospheric CO2 levels. Farmers and others who depend on rural livelihoods for income are benefitting from rising agricultural productivity throughout the world, including in parts of Asia and Africa where the need for increased food supplies is most critical. Rising temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels play a key role in the realization of such benefits.

IPCC: “Risk of severe harm for large urban populations due to inland flooding.”

NIPCC: “No changes in precipitation patterns, snow, monsoons, or river flows that might be considered harmful to human well-being or plants or wildlife have been observed that could be attributed to rising CO2 levels. What changes have been observed tend to be beneficial.”

IPCC: “Risk of loss of rural livelihoods and income due to insufficient access to drinking and irrigation water and reduced agricultural productivity, particularly for farmers and pastoralists with minimal capital in semi-arid regions.”

NIPCC: “Higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations benefit plant growth-promoting microorganisms that help land plants overcome drought conditions, a potentially negative aspect of future climate change. Continued atmospheric CO2 enrichment should prove to be a huge benefit to plants by directly enhancing their growth rates and water use efficiencies.”

IPCC: “Systemic risks due to extreme [weather] events leading to breakdown of infrastructure networks and critical services.”

NIPCC: “There is no support for the model-based projection that precipitation in a warming world becomes more variable and intense. In fact, some observational data suggest just the opposite, and provide support for the proposition that precipitation responds more to cyclical variations in solar activity.”

IPCC: “Risk of loss of marine ecosystems and the services they provide for coastal livelihoods, especially for fishing communities in the tropics and the Arctic.”

NIPCC: “Rising temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels do not pose a significant threat to aquatic life. Many aquatic species have shown considerable tolerance to temperatures and CO2 values predicted for the next few centuries, and many have demonstrated a likelihood of positive responses in empirical studies. Any projected adverse impacts of rising temperatures or declining seawater and freshwater pH levels (“acidification”) will be largely mitigated through phenotypic adaptation or evolution during the many decades to centuries it is expected to take for pH levels to fall.”

IPCC: “Risk of loss of terrestrial ecosystems and the services they provide for terrestrial livelihoods.”

NIPCC: “Terrestrial ecosystems have thrived throughout the world as a result of warming temperatures and rising levels of atmospheric CO2. Empirical data pertaining to numerous animal species, including amphibians, birds, butterflies, other insects, reptiles, and mammals, indicate global warming and its myriad ecological effects tend to foster the expansion and proliferation of animal habitats, ranges, and populations, or otherwise have no observable impacts one way or the other. Multiple lines of evidence indicate animal species are adapting, and in some cases evolving, to cope with climate change of the modern era.”

IPCC: “Risk of mortality, morbidity, and other harms during periods of extreme heat, particularly for vulnerable urban populations.”

NIPCC: “A modest warming of the planet will result in a net reduction of human mortality from temperature-related events. More lives are saved by global warming via the amelioration of cold-related deaths than those lost under excessive heat. Global warming will have a negligible influence on human morbidity and the spread of infectious diseases, a phenomenon observed in virtually all parts of the world.”

How could two teams of scientists come to such obviously contradictory conclusions on seemingly every point that matters in the debate over global warming? There are many reasons why scientists disagree, the subject, by the way, of an excellent book a couple years ago titled Wrong by David H. Freedman. A big reason is IPCC is producing what academics call “post-normal science” while NIPCC is producing old-fashioned “real science.”

What is a non-scientist to make of these dueling reports? Indeed, what is a scientist to make of this? Very few scientists are familiar with biology, geology, physics, oceanography, engineering, medicine, economics, and scores of other more specialized disciplines that were the basis for the claims summarized above.

It is frequently said of the global warming debate that it comes down to who you believe rather than what you know. Many climate scientists say they “believe in man-made global warming” even though their own research contradicts key points in the arguments advanced in support of that hypothesis. They say this because they believe the IPCC is telling the truth about findings outside their areas of expertise. Ditto influential science journals such as Nature and Science, which claim to speak on behalf of “climate science.”

The NIPCC reports were conceived and written to offer a way out of this conundrum. They are written in a style that laymen without special training can understand, provide explanations of how research was conducted and summarizing the actual findings, often quoting at length from original scholarly sources. Chapters often present research chronologically, in the order in which the studies were published, so readers can understand how the debate has changed over time.

The NIPCC reports are hefty – the first volume in the Climate Change Reconsidered series was 850 pages long, and the latest volume is more than 1,000 pages – but executive summaries and “key findings” at the beginning of each chapter make them easy to navigate and fascinating to browse. They are all available for free online at www.climatechangereconsidered.org.

How credible are the NIPCC reports? Endorsements by prominent scientists, reviews, and citations in peer-reviewed journals appear at the Web site mentioned above. NIPCC reports are produced by scores of scientists from around the world (some 20 countries so far), cite thousands of peer-reviewed studies, and are themselves peer-reviewed. In June 2013, a division of the Chinese Academy of Sciences published a Chinese translation and condensed edition of the 2009 and 2011 volumes.

We know the authors of the IPCC’s reports have financial conflicts of interest, since the government bureaucracies that select them and the UN that oversees and edits the final reports stand to profit from public alarm over the possibility that global warming will be harmful. The authors of the NIPCC series have no such conflicts. The series is funded by three private family foundations without any financial interest in the outcome of the global warming debate. The publisher, The Heartland Institute, neither solicits nor receives any government or corporation funding for the Climate Change Reconsidered series. (It does receive some corporate funding for its other research and educational programs.)

So is man-made global warming a crisis? Don’t just wonder about it, understand it yourself. Read one or a few chapters of one of the NIPCC reports, and ask if what you read is logical, factual, and relevant to the debate. See if the UN or its many apologists take into account the science and evidence NIPCC summarizes, and then decide whether its predictions of “of death, injury, and disrupted livelihoods” is science or fiction.
Reply
#42
[Image: BartonAntiFrackMoronsOutOfGas.png]
Reply
#43
Paul Homewood April 8th 2014 Wrote:How To Pass A Chemistry Exam (Without Knowing Anything About The Subject)

Many will have read Andrew Montford’s & John Shade’s expose of the climate change propaganda that is being force fed to our kids, in the name of education. Their full report for the GWPF can be seem here. It is what most of us have suspected for years, and is truly scary.

There is one section, though, that I could not resist repeating.

This is the official answer to a question in the Chemistry GCSE, (the exam for 16 year olds).

An AQA GCSE specimen answer in Chemistry, deemed worthy of full marks, includes the following words: ‘Overall I think we should be using more biodiesel as it is important for us all to reduce our carbon footprint in an effort to halt global warming’. One for a physics question includes: ‘I think wind turbines are a good idea as global warming from burning coal is an increasing problem and needs to be stopped.’

Now, we’ll just leave aside the obvious questions about indoctrination, and get to the other really serious issue. In my day, to pass an O Level in Chemistry or Physics, we had to answer proper questions about science.

The UK is crying out for proper scientists and engineers, and is it any wonder? If you can pass an exam just by repeating global warming mantras, it does not take a genius to work out why.
Reply
#44
breitbart.com April 9th 2014 Wrote:UK Global Warming Minister: Fight Climate Change by Reducing 'Smelly Emissions' from Baked Beans

People should eat fewer baked beans as the flatulence they produce contributes to global warming, a minister has suggested. A Labour peer raised the issue during questions in the House of Lords earlier today, saying that Britons eat more baked beans than any other country and raising concerns over "smelly emissions".

Climate change minister Baroness Verma responded by urging the public to 'moderate' their behaviour on this 'important' issue. Labour's Viscount Simon asked: "In a programme some months ago on the BBC, it was stated that this country has the largest production and consumption of baked beans in the world.

"Can the noble Baroness say whether this affects the calculation of global warming by the Government as a result of the smelly emission resulting there from?" Baroness Verma described the Viscount's question as "so different", but said that he raised "an important point" and appeared to suggest that people should moderate their consumption of the product.

Baked beans are especially popular in the UK and Ireland, where they are a staple part of the traditional full English breakfast. In Britain, they are commonly made by stewing beans in a tomato and sugar sauce, and are notorious for their ability to induce flatulence. The Green lobby have long been concerned about methane emissions from cows possibly contributing to global warming, but few have so far focused on human emissions.

Pass The Beans Please!!! (ROFLMAO - Just last night I discovered that I didn't have any dried kidney beans to soak so I could make chili, I do however have lots of beans to make Baked Beans so I think I will start soaking some now. S13 )

[Image: cow-fart-cartoon.jpg]

The Campfire - Blazing Saddles (1974) HD
Reply
#45
[Image: PENISmeetingCookMannLewandowsky.JPG]
Reply
#46
(04-09-2014, 09:48 PM)Paul In Sweden Wrote: Pass The Beans Please!!! (ROFLMAO - Just last night I discovered that I didn't have any dried kidney beans to soak so I could make chili, I do however have lots of beans to make Baked Beans so I think I will start soaking some now. S13 )

I would have thought by now that Brits would know to soak their beans enough to remove those chemicals that lead to internal gas. I soak my beans for twenty-four hours, while changing the water at least two times. I have almost no gas as a result.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
About Coronavirus - “Suddenly I begin to understand why Charlie gets so excited over taking a walk outside.”
Reply
#47
(04-10-2014, 12:22 AM)John L Wrote:
(04-09-2014, 09:48 PM)Paul In Sweden Wrote: Pass The Beans Please!!! (ROFLMAO - Just last night I discovered that I didn't have any dried kidney beans to soak so I could make chili, I do however have lots of beans to make Baked Beans so I think I will start soaking some now. S13 )

I would have thought by now that Brits would know to soak their beans enough to remove those chemicals that lead to internal gas. I soak my beans for twenty-four hours, while changing the water at least two times. I have almost no gas as a result.

It does not seem like they soak their beans.

[Image: BakedBeansGlobalWarmingUK.png]
Reply
#48
(04-06-2014, 06:12 PM)John L Wrote: Perhaps The Buzz will agree that this is a bit much.

Nope... I think that this isn't much at all as far as smear campaigns go.

John L Wrote:What do you say Buzz. Certainly smear campaigns should not be condoned, correct?

Of course they shouldn't be condoned. Unfortunately you denialists love smear campaigns. Like the ones against Al Gore and Michael Mann. Hell... you even started a smear campaign against me with literally hundreds of instances of you lying about me, insulting me and calling me names.

I swear.... you have got to be one of the biggest hypocrites I have ever known.
The rightist motto: "Facts?... we don't need no stinkin facts."

[Image: Obama08_Logo150.gif]
Reply
#49
(04-10-2014, 06:09 PM)Buzz Wrote:
(04-06-2014, 06:12 PM)John L Wrote: Perhaps The Buzz will agree that this is a bit much.

Nope... I think that this isn't much at all as far as smear campaigns go.

John L Wrote:What do you say Buzz. Certainly smear campaigns should not be condoned, correct?

Of course they shouldn't be condoned. Unfortunately you denialists love smear campaigns. Like the ones against Al Gore and Michael Mann. Hell... you even started a smear campaign against me with literally hundreds of instances of you lying about me, insulting me and calling me names.

I swear.... you have got to be one of the biggest hypocrites I have ever known.

Oh, not nearly as much as you Climate Nazis do on a regular basis, 24/7. And as for Algore, with all his millions made on this lie, and the Little Mann, who's Hockey Stick has been proven a blatant lie all along? You've got to be kidding us all Buzz.

If you are unable to see through even this smoke screen, you really aren't as bright as I have given even you credit. No offense of course.

You haven't had to 'lay down' your two wheeler and suffered damage to certain body parts, have you?
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
About Coronavirus - “Suddenly I begin to understand why Charlie gets so excited over taking a walk outside.”
Reply
#50
[Image: GlobalWarmingSong.jpg]
Reply
#51
Why did I know you would find some way to get at me for disparaging Yankees. S13S6
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
About Coronavirus - “Suddenly I begin to understand why Charlie gets so excited over taking a walk outside.”
Reply
#52
(04-11-2014, 10:35 AM)John L Wrote: Why did I know you would find some way to get at me for disparaging Yankees. S13S6

Are you egging me on to start the NC thread?
Reply
#53
(04-11-2014, 10:38 AM)Paul In Sweden Wrote:
(04-11-2014, 10:35 AM)John L Wrote: Why did I know you would find some way to get at me for disparaging Yankees. S13S6

Are you egging me on to start the NC thread?

Hey, help yourself. I have little love for North Carolina. I was born in Columbia(Ft. Jackson), South Carolina, But lived more in East Tennessee(Knoxville). East Tennessee is G-d's country. If you have never been there, from the Tri-Cities(Kingsport-Bristol-Johnson City), to the Cumberland Plateau, you don't know what you are missing. The weather is simply wonderful, land is not outrageous, and the people are quite friendly. But be careful if you want to visit Tellico Plains, or that area. They still make moonshine and will look at strangers with suspicion.

Oh, and they tend to speak HillyBilly, that blend of 18th century Scotch-Irish.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
About Coronavirus - “Suddenly I begin to understand why Charlie gets so excited over taking a walk outside.”
Reply
#54
(04-11-2014, 10:43 AM)John L Wrote:
(04-11-2014, 10:38 AM)Paul In Sweden Wrote: Are you egging me on to start the NC thread?

Hey, help yourself. I have little love for North Carolina. I was born in Columbia(Ft. Jackson), South Carolina, But lived more in East Tennessee(Knoxville). East Tennessee is G-d's country. If you have never been there, from the Tri-Cities(Kingsport-Bristol-Johnson City), to the Cumberland Plateau, you don't know what you are missing. The weather is simply wonderful, land is not outrageous, and the people are quite friendly. But be careful if you want to visit Tellico Plains, or that area. They still make moonshine and will look at strangers with suspicion.

Oh, and they tend to speak HillyBilly, that blend of 18th century Scotch-Irish.

Only passed through Tennessee(Nashville - got out stretched my legs at the gates of Graceland ) once on a drive to one of my niece's christening in Mississippi years ago.
Reply
#55
(04-11-2014, 11:11 AM)Paul In Sweden Wrote: Only passed through Tennessee(Nashville - got out stretched my legs at the gates of Graceland ) once on a drive to one of my niece's christening in Mississippi years ago.

Anything west of the Cumberland Plateau is not really pretty compared to the east. You went through the Highland Rim, Nashville Basin. To the east of the Cumberland Platear is the Ridge and Valley, and Blue Ridge area, which is so beautiful. Its just chock full of rivers, all coming together into the Tennessee River, in Knox county. Its just gorgeous land, never too hot or too cold. You are close to the ski slopes, national forests and parks. I'm here in NC out of necessity, a bad divorce, and came on invite from my first cousin. I've been here ever since. NC is also beautiful, but the Jackasses have so screwed up things, it is just finally starting to come unglued from their 140 year monopoly.

[Image: BasinsofTN.jpg]
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
About Coronavirus - “Suddenly I begin to understand why Charlie gets so excited over taking a walk outside.”
Reply
#56
(04-11-2014, 12:13 PM)John L Wrote: Its just gorgeous land, never too hot or too cold.

Great Map! When it gets above 65F(was in German with 30C and was thinking I was knocking on Hell's Door) I start to melt. Spent some time in Florida a couple of years ago visiting a friends up and down the East Coast. OMG, I am so much happier in a way Northern Climate.
Reply
#57
That's the way I naturally view the state. When I first went to grad school at UT, I thought I wanted to be an archaeologist, so the first courses I took dealt with the local area archaeology. In order to understand how the American Indians settled in, it was imperative to understand the topography. And the Tennessee River valley was the prehistoric freeway for trade. Most of the trade was in pottery and most importantly the distribution of Fort Payne Chert, of northern Alabama. Ft. Payne chert was the most sought after material for making projectile points, and it was traded all the way up into Canada. Also, the number of prehistoric Indian sites are the richest in North America.

[Image: BFF2C8BA-F991-40E6-BE31-F53452F899C7-647...d390af.jpg]

___________________________________________________________________________________________________
About Coronavirus - “Suddenly I begin to understand why Charlie gets so excited over taking a walk outside.”
Reply
#58
The way per-colombian copper trade North and throughout the valley is still a mystery.
Reply
#59
(04-10-2014, 01:01 AM)Paul In Sweden Wrote: I would have thought by now that Brits would know to soak their beans enough to remove those chemicals that lead to internal gas. I soak my beans for twenty-four hours, while changing the water at least two times. I have almost no gas as a result.

[Image: BakedBeansGlobalWarmingUK.png]

Paul, we have tried that trick of soaking beans for a long time--in fact, we even soaked them in water mixed with baking soda. It did greatly reduce the "gas" production. But it also made the beans taste rather bland. You see, the part of the beans that causes the gas is the polysaccharides. This is what sweetens the beans. Unfortunately we cannot digest the polysaccharides, and when they get to the intestines, bacteria in the intestinas go wild feeding on this complex sugar, producing the gas. Now, fortunately, there is Beano, which contains a fungal extract that digests the polysaccharides before they reach the intestines, greatly reducing the gas. I would never dare eat beans without plenty of Beano.
Reply
#60
I start out with dried beans so I pretty much have to soak the beans for 24 hours first unless I do a really slow low-temp soak cook on the stove.

We are not as concerned about baked beans flatulence as the UK's Minister of Global Warming here at out house.

[Image: cows-trading-emissions.jpg]
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Disaster Addiction And Global Warming John L 139 20,055 05-13-2020, 11:32 PM
Last Post: John L
  Global cooling, er, I mean warming, er, wait...PT. 2 John L 526 188,333 10-30-2019, 12:36 AM
Last Post: Canuknucklehead
  Positive News about Global Warming. John L 78 34,820 05-17-2015, 09:55 AM
Last Post: JohnWho
  Why Global Warming Isn't Consistant Buzz 39 28,602 10-19-2014, 03:34 PM
Last Post: SFX
  Global cooling, er, I mean warming, er, wait... Lisa 1,668 732,673 08-23-2014, 06:13 PM
Last Post: John L
  Science Fraud And Con Men: Diederik Stapel and Global Warming John L 0 2,090 04-30-2013, 08:58 PM
Last Post: John L
  Global Warming Debate, Split From ANWR Drilling Thread Matrix 113 53,147 12-28-2012, 10:53 AM
Last Post: sunsettommy
  Death By Global Warming John L 12 10,438 01-06-2012, 06:11 PM
Last Post: jt
  global warming to cause an extraterrestial attack mv 10 7,386 08-20-2011, 03:06 PM
Last Post: John L
  Catholic church warns of global warming quadrat 9 7,097 05-22-2011, 02:23 PM
Last Post: Palladin

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)