Indiens klimaminister udfordrer IPCC

rick_uk skrev:
Artiklen viser at der burde vises hensyn til lidt perspektiv i denne sag, også effekten 'Glaciergate' ville have på klimafornægtere.

nu har jeg ikke været inde i det her så lang tid og jeg synes opgaven mht at finde ud af hvem, hvad, hvor er næsten uoverkommelig

I øvrigt synes jeg betegnelsen "klimafornægter" er absurd

Skeptisisme er i mine øjne en sund ting

at den opmærksomhed de smeltende gletchere i Himalaya har fået

vore medier ikke ligefrem har meget materiale fra skeptikere uden at det samtidigt bliver latterliggjort en anelse

Ja, det er 2 uheldige eksempler - men det er ogsaa lige praecis de to "sensationsverskrifter" som alarmist-politikere saasom Pachauri (ja, gu faen er han da politiker!), Connie Hedegaard, Ed Miliban, Gordon "Green"Brown, ja selv Obama har fremhaevet som argumentation for noedvendigheden af handling.

Nu ser vi altsaa to af IPCCs p.t. udvalgte argumenter fordampe; hvor mange flere er der? Maaske 2-3 stykker og hvis bare eet af disse ogsaa undermineres er IPCC tilbage ved "square 1"

hvor meget der kraeves for at IPCC i den offentlgie mening kan laegges i graven er svaert at spaa om? Men vi kan hurtigt komme derhen hvor det er selve IPCCs eksistens der er paa vippen

Jeg tror det næppe

Men der synes jeg du er dum at høre på.

De (ikke) smeltende gletchere i Himalaya

Åbenlyst at du kender ikke så meget til IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) Working Group I The Physical Science Basis...
Svar: altsaa udover at mit liv er for kort til 1000 sider IPCC propaganda

The climate sceptics, most of the climate sceptics particularly those that are wandering around publicly at the moment, don't base their arguments on the science. They probably never read the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report. They aren't writing papers in the peer review literature. They don't update their arguments when their arguments are shown to be false so they'll have no problem at all using this ammunition inappropriately and out of context to further their aims in exactly the same way as people did when they were trying to disprove the relationship between smoking and human health...

...my personal view is that climate scientists are losing the fight with the sceptics. That the sceptics are so well funded, so well organised, have nothing else to do. They kind of don't have day jobs. They can put all of their efforts into misinforming and miscommunicating climate science to the general public whereas the climate scientists have day jobs and this actually isn't one of them.

All of the efforts you do in an IPCC report is done out of hours, voluntarily, for no funding and no pay, whereas the sceptics are being funded to put out full-scale misinformation campaigns and are doing a damn good job, I think.

They are doing a superb job at misinforming and miscommunicating the general public, state and federal governments.

If this was academic debate over some trivial issue [it wouldn't matter]....But this isn't. This is absolutely a fundamental problem for the Earth that we desperately needed full-scale international action on a decade ago. We are now 10 years too late to stop some of the major impacts that we will see and have seen as a consequence of global warming. It is not a future problem, it is a problem here today, around us

"State Climatologist George Taylor, does not believe human activities are the main cause of global climate change...So the [Oregon] governor wants to take that title from Taylor and make it a position that he would appoint. "

In its most recent report, it stated that observed reductions in mountain ice in the Andes, Alps and Africa was being caused by global warming, citing two papers as the source of the information.

However, it can be revealed that one of the sources quoted was a feature article published in a popular magazine for climbers which was based on anecdotal evidence from mountaineers about the changes they were witnessing on the mountainsides around them.

The other was a dissertation written by a geography student, studying for the equivalent of a master's degree, at the University of Berne in Switzerland that quoted interviews with mountain guides in the Alps.

..påpeger Edson Ramirez, professor på La Paz universitetet og verdenskendt glaciolog:"Hvis afsmeltningen eskalerer med samme hast som hidtil, vil alle gletchere her i området- og i stort set resten af Sydamerika-være forsvundet i løbet af 20-25 år " siger Ramirez.

Det er nemlig "helt umuligt" på¨baggrund af den eksisterende viden at slutte at gletcherne i Himalaya skulle forsvinde inden 2035. Det ville kræve , at temperaturerne skulle stige med 15 grader i området.

Jeg ved ikke, om jeg tror på en stigning i temperaturen på 2 grader. ...Til gengæld er det vigtigt, at vi kommer væk fra at diskutere, om temperaturen stiger 2 eller 3 grader, og om vi reducerer vores CO2 med 20 eller 30%. Vi er nødt til at diskutere klimaet på en anden måde.""Jeg tror sådan set ikke, at folk interesserer sig særlig meget for de tal og procenter. Det faktum , at Danmark fra 2012 bliver nettoimportør af fossile brændsler som olie, kul og naturgas vil fylde væsentligt mere..."

Det faktum , at Danmark fra 2012 bliver nettoimportør af fossile brændsler som olie, kul og naturgas vil fylde væsentligt mere...

Dr Pachauri had dismissed the government's claims as "voodoo science", but last night Mr Ramesh effectively marginalised the IPC chairman even further.

He announced that the Indian government will establish a separate National Institute of Himalayan Glaciology to monitor the effects of climate change on the world's "third ice cap", and an "Indian IPCC" to use "climate science" to assess the impact of global warming throughout the country.

"There is a fine line between climate science and climate evangelism. I am for climate science. I think people misused [the] IPCC report ... [the] IPCC doesn't do the original research which is one of the weaknesses ... they just take published literature and then they derive assessments, so we had goof-ups on Amazon forest, glaciers, snow peaks.

"I respect the IPCC but India is a very large country and cannot depend only on [the] IPCC and so we have launched the Indian Network on Comprehensive Climate Change Assessment (INCCA)," he said.

It will bring together 125 research institutions throughout India, work with international bodies and operate as a "sort of Indian IPCC," he added.

The body, which he said will not rival the UN's panel, will publish its own climate assessment in November this year, with reports on the Himalayas, India's long coastline, the Western Ghat highlands and the north-eastern region close to the borders with Bangladesh, Burma, China and Nepal.

"Through these we will demonstrate our commitment to climate science," he said.

The UN panel's claims of glacial meltdown by 2035 "was clearly out of place and didn't have any scientific basis," he said, while stressing the government remained concerned about the health of the Himalayan ice flows.

"Most glaciers are melting, they are retreating, some glaciers, like the Siachen glacier, are advancing. But overall one can say incontrovertibly that the debris on our glaciers is very high the snow balance is very low. We have to be very cautious because of the water security particularly in north India which depends on the health of the Himalayan glaciers," he added.

The new National Institute of Himalayan Glaciology will be based in Dehradun, in Uttarakhand, and will monitor glacial changes and compare results with those from glaciers in Pakistan, Nepal and Bhutan.

...eller måske er det bare mig, der er blevet rundtosset

Måske skulle jeg have lagt det i tråden: IPCC problemer.