Isn't MSN a messaging system? Look, I suspect that I know your source. Is it from a certain charity site that assesses risk at  2010 and 2030 for various countries for various criteria, including medical, agriculture, water supplies etc? It's quite an interesting study, but I'm not sure if it's as rigorous as it claims to be.  The year 2030 doesn't have any significance in itself, because it all depends on the extent to which emissions are reduced.

I am a sceptic, but not in the way that the term is misrepresented these days. That's why I submit all claims to meticulous scrutiny.  The IPCC Working Group I papers are very sound science.

I agree that some reporting is sensationalised. I'm interested in your source if you can find it.

For the record, I have taken that attitude with Green_wins, especially on the subject of nuclear power. Deep Greens run around like headless chooks spouting all kinds of nonsense when you mention nuclear power.

Quote:


How can you say that with a straight face??? the science of the IPCC has come in for amassive hammering this year with MAJOR flaws exposed and the so-called 'peer review' system becoming nothing more than like minds agreeing with each other.

There is nothing 'sound' about the science at all. EVERY SINGLE ONE of the predictions of the hysterics hs failed to eventuate or even look like it.  2007 was the year the arctic ice would disappear. oops! even withthe added pressure of an enormous underwater volcano the ice increased. ditto antartica.  seal level rises??? hmm a few mms in a few locations and nothing else. global temperature rises are at best small and well within the range of the last 100 years and thats even if you beleive the measuring methodologies - which not everyone does.

and then there is the hockey stick graph - the most ridiculous peice of scientific nonsense ever foisted upon the world as fact. the IPCC believes it and refuses to discredit despite the fact that disproving it is trivial.

the science is deeply flawed, the hysteria is embarrassing and by 2025 there will not be a single ACC believer in the world because 25 years of indisputable climates facts will show it to be a 'chicken little' moment driven and encouraged by hysterics.

So, sea levels are not rising?
Global temperatures are not rising?
We are not losing ice from the Arctic and Antarctic?

It was just a blip that peaked in '98, and now everything is going back to what it was before?

Is it reasonable to hold such views, and still declare that you are not a Global Warming Skeptic[sic]?
(I hate allowing denialists to self describe as skeptics, because it implies a degree of reasoned examination of the facts that they clearly have no right to claim)

mozzaok wrote on Dec 5^th, 2010 at 6:44pm:


A) sea levels are NOT rising beyond the few mm that is natural variaton
B) global temperatures are NOT rising beyond the small amount that is natural variation
C) polar ice is actually growing - as it does as part of natural variation

IS THAT clear enough? Climate changes and always has. it is part of the natural variation in the environmet. not ONE since climate event has occured that is atypical of natural variation.

mozzaok wrote on Dec 6^th, 2010 at 9:35am:


Now you come to my fav part of this debate - so-called facts. Only last year there was australian media attention on the fact (reported by a US govt agancy) that ice in the antartica had increased. and then you get this report that says i decreased.  we get nasa saying temperatures have dropped then they say they have increased. we get CRU head saying temps havnt risen at all since 1998 and others saying the opposite. So if the experts cant even get their FACTS right, why should we trust them at all? A british govt enquirt was held into the Bureau of Met. over its REPEATED claims that the coming years woudl be hottest on record only to have the COLDEST years in half a century.

my cynicism isnt ideological - it is based on these regular and absurd contradictions.

oh yeah and Venice hasnt sunk either.

so can you point me to a single INDISPUTABLE climate event that is outside the normal range of variation?

I'll split this thread at some stage because we're wandering off topic. I don't have time to participate today, but in general you can't talk about one or two years in isolation. For representative Climate data, you have to take running averages over many years.

muso wrote on Dec 6^th, 2010 at 11:14am:


That only seems to be done when it suits the hysterics. The hockey stick graph is a classic example of that. purports to be 1000 years of temperature history yet gets it totally wrong. No medieval warm period and no mini ice age. both are 'conveniently missing'. Yet it remains in use by the IPCC and other hysterics.