The public pay scientists to speculate the future of climate change

**newspresenter** · 18-01-2010, 02:22 AM

Claims by the world's leading climate scientists that most of the Himalayan glaciers will vanish within 25 years were last night exposed as nonsense.
The alarmist warning appeared two years ago in a highly influential report by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
At the time the IPCC insisted that its report contained the latest and most detailed evidence yet of the risks of man-made climate change to the planet.
But the experts behind the warning have now admitted their claim was not based on hard science - but a news story that appeared in the magazine New Scientist in the late 1990s.
That story was itself based on a telephone conversation with an Indian scientist who has since admitted it was little more than speculation.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1243963/UN-science-report-stated-Himalayan-glaciers-melt-25-years-guess.html
How incredible is the power that supports these muppets, to keep them in the positions they're in, that Mr & Mrs Joe public are blinded by manipulation, so scary.

DougieG · 18-01-2010, 01:18 PM

Page doesn't exist. Try reading New Scientists itself rather than the Daily Fail.

**Barry** · 18-01-2010, 02:21 PM

Originally Posted by DougieG

Page doesn't exist.

It does exist, he messed up the link.
HERE

**Kiwi 1691** · 19-01-2010, 04:26 AM

Um, there is alot of speculation in science.

They speculate then try to prove it.

DC · 19-01-2010, 02:50 PM

Originally Posted by Kiwi 1691

Um, there is alot of speculation in science.

They speculate then try to prove it.

The difference here is that they were speculating, and then presenting that as proven fact. That seems to be happening a lot.

**newspresenter** · 19-01-2010, 07:04 PM

Originally Posted by DougieG

Page doesn't exist. Try reading New Scientists itself rather than the Daily Fail.

I don't agree with fascism, so i wont be reading the new scientist.

The link didn't work because the way in which pasting a link on this forum gets corrupted by this forums format.
UN science report which stated Himalayan glaciers would melt within 25 years 'was a guess' | Mail Online

**newspresenter** · 19-01-2010, 07:05 PM

Originally Posted by Barry

he messed up the link.

Theres too many liars on this site.

**newspresenter** · 19-01-2010, 07:07 PM

Originally Posted by Kiwi 1691

Um, there is alot of speculation in science.

They speculate then try to prove it.

You'd think that on a subject so suposedly important, they'd speculate much better. I mean, how on earth are humans going to cope with an extra 2 degrees, impossible.

DougieG · 20-01-2010, 09:23 AM

Originally Posted by newspresenter

You'd think that on a subject so suposedly important, they'd speculate much better. I mean, how on earth are humans going to cope with an extra 2 degrees, impossible.

Badly, because an extra 2 degrees would be the critical point where sea levels rise and the equator becomes a desert.

**newspresenter** · 20-01-2010, 05:52 PM

Originally Posted by DougieG

Badly, because an extra 2 degrees would be the critical point where sea levels rise and the equator becomes a desert.

LOL could you be specific about the extra 2 degrees, because the planets temperature has been fluctuating give or take, upto 15 degrees in modern times, and yet, the water has stayed the same.

Also, when water freezes, it expands, so consequently, when it melts, it doesn't take up as much room. I know a 5 year old child that understood this. She also understands that humans currently live in temperatures of upto -20 degrees and upto 50 degrees. A 2 degree turn either way isn't going to make much difference.

DougieG · 20-01-2010, 10:36 PM

Originally Posted by newspresenter

LOL could you be specific about the extra 2 degrees, because the planets temperature has been fluctuating give or take, upto 15 degrees in modern times, and yet, the water has stayed the same.

Also, when water freezes, it expands, so consequently, when it melts, it doesn't take up as much room. I know a 5 year old child that understood this. She also understands that humans currently live in temperatures of upto -20 degrees and upto 50 degrees. A 2 degree turn either way isn't going to make much difference.

You actually have never read anything written by a scientist on this topic have you?

The ice in the Arctic is floating, yes. This melting could potentially lead to a drop in sea levels, if it were not for the fact that a large proportion of that ice and also most of the ice in the Antarctic is on land, and so would be added to the sea. Along with this will come an enormous release in methane which has lain trapped in the polar ice. Methane is a much more lethal greenhouse gas than CO2, and this release would be pretty much fatal for our current climate.

Yes many humans can survive in ridiculous sub zero temperatures, but not without the proper equipment. Tell me, how do you think your own house would fare in -20 celsius? The water pipes would freeze, and thus your heating would go. You would be unable to open the doors or windows for the ice and heavy snow all around them. You would not even have close to the level of clothing required, or at least not all of your family would. You would be unable to get supplies. This all sounds a bit apocalyptic, I know, but with no electricity, no water and no heating do you really think that you would be on a footing with a Polar expedition equipped with state of the art clothing and equipment designed for freezing temperatures?

On warming, the equator would have to be evacuated. How many people live in the Sahara? Where would all the people from the equator go? A lot would die.

Stuff along these lines has happened before, and this is NOT a certainty, just a worst case scenario if we continue to pump our planet full of pollution. It could be averted not by necessarily taxing people lots, but by people changing their attitudes and by finding alternative energy sources that work. Solar panels are good if done properly, as is nuclear power. Fusion will be the next level. As it is the governments are afraid of people like you who are totally ignorant of the issue but argue it based on what you want to be the case.

**Midas** · 21-01-2010, 07:56 AM

Originally Posted by newspresenter

LOL could you be specific about the extra 2 degrees, because the planets temperature has been fluctuating give or take, upto 15 degrees in modern times, and yet, the water has stayed the same.

Also, when water freezes, it expands, so consequently, when it melts, it doesn't take up as much room. I know a 5 year old child that understood this. She also understands that humans currently live in temperatures of upto -20 degrees and upto 50 degrees. A 2 degree turn either way isn't going to make much difference.

Based on a coefficient of expansion of water of 0.00021 per degree centigrade, and an average global sea depth of 3795 metres, it's easy to calculate that a 2 degree temperature rise would increase average sea depth by just under 1.6 metres - one hell of a lot if you live on the coast! That's not allowing for any rise due to additional land-based ice melting, that's purely due to thermal expansion. OK there would be a considerable time delay before the entire ocean temperature from top to bottom rose by that amount, but that's the bottom line figure.