backtop


Print 82 comment(s) - last by Dorkyman.. on Oct 25 at 11:50 PM


  (Source: Sodahead)
Droughts are also accused of being the work of evil old global warming

After a decade of flat temperatures and missed predictions by global warming's shrillest speculators, Christiana Figueres, the executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), is still ringing the alarm bell for all who care to listen.  While she lacks the evidence to prove it, in a recent interview she expressed that she was "sure" warming was to blame for a laundry list of recent natural disasters, including, but not limited to wildfires and droughts.

I. UN Chief Believes Warming is to Sure Warming Causes Wildfires

In an interview with Christiane Amanpour of Time Warner Inc.'s (TWXCNN news agency, Ms. Figueres also expressed indignation at the Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott. Abbot has referred to more extreme global warming predictions as "total crap" and pushed to repeal Australia's carbon tax, having disbanded the nation's climate change board in September.

Australia has recently suffered from raging wildfires, and Ms. Figueres was quick to seize on this point, stating:

We are really already paying the price of carbon.  We are paying the price with wildfires, we are paying the price with droughts.


She admitted, though:

The World Meteorological Organization has not established a direct link between this wildfire and climate change – yet.  But what is absolutely clear is the science is telling us that there are increasing heat waves in Asia, Europe, and Australia; that there these will continue; that they will continue in their intensity and in their frequency.

Australia wildfire
A wildfire rages in Australia. [Image Source: EPA]

It's worth noting that Mr. Figueres holds no degree in climate science (nor do most UN officials tasked with setting warming policy), having achieved a Master's Degree in social anthropology.  While this career politician may be unversed in climatology from a technical standpoint, she's not afraid of making bold and emotional claims.

II. Climate Chief was "Born Impatient"

In another recent interview -- this time with BBC News -- Ms. Figueres appeared to admit that she lacks the patience to wait for a thorough scientific study on the impact and extent of warming before taking action.  She is quoted as saying:

I am always frustrated by the pace of the negotiations, I was born impatient.  We are moving way, way too slowly, but we are moving in the right direction and that's what gives me courage and hope.
...
I'm committed to climate change because of future generations, it is not about us, right? We're out of here.  I just feel that it is so completely unfair and immoral what we are doing to future generations, we are condemning them before they are even born.  
We have a choice about it, that's the point, we have a choice.  If it were inevitable then so be it, but we have a choice to change the future we are going to give our children.

Christiana Figueres
Christiana Figueres, UNFCCC executive secretary [Image Source: Getty Images]

Ms. Figueres -- who assumed her post at the UN in 2010 is currently working on drafting a global climate treaty, as per the decision reached at a 2011 summit in Durban, South Africa.  The treaty could look to implement carbon taxes, or other wealth redistribution measures supposedly aimed at "fighting warming", but it will have a tough road ahead, if temperatures remain flat over the next decade.

Sources: CNN, BBC News



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Trash Article
By heffeque on 10/23/2013 12:06:36 PM , Rating: -1
You don't seem to know how science works. It has nothing to do with faith. Try using other words for what you're trying to say because your comment is empty as a politician's speech.


RE: Trash Article
By Spuke on 10/23/2013 12:36:51 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
It has nothing to do with faith.
Re-read his post because that's not what he said at all.


RE: Trash Article
By maugrimtr on 10/24/2013 8:57:21 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
No, not agreed. The models are a lousy fit and the most devoted adherents to the Climate Change Religion are currently scratching their heads, wondering why the climate refuses to follow the models.


There is no Climate Change Religion. The fact you bring up religion at all equates a science reliant on the Scientific Method with Christianity that is reliant on people blindly believing that a magician turned water into wine 2000 years ago.

One can be proven or disproven. The other is an article of faith. As a Catholic (and a firm believer!) I know the difference. Of course, the Jesus I know, the guy who ran around the countryside in utter poverty preaching to bureaucrats, thieves, prostitutes, adulterers and corrupt politicians about giving away all their worldly possessions and helping the poor and oppressed would hardly recognise religion for what it's become as a political toy in America.

quote:
Trust me, many followers treat it as a religion, and as such there is a strong "faith" aspect that defies introspection and challenge. Yes, there are Skeptics who are bible-thumping buffoons, but they are on the fringes. So try to keep an open mind. That's probably the most important attribute a scientist can have.


There are those who confuse science and religion at both extremes. What's important is not painting everyone with the same brush. Am I expected to despise and loathe all Republicans for the doings one small group of lunatics in Congress? I hope not. Yet that's what modern politics wants. I support gay marriage, I think universal healthcare is a worthy goal, and being descended from immigrants fleeing a potato famine I don't feel the slightest hostility towards immigrants at all. I also think Evolution is a clever and good theory. Apparently that makes me a Democrat despite disagreeing with most of their economic policies.

If someone marries a Republican with a Scientist and throws in a little Christian, I'd vote for them over any Democrat. Unfortunately common sense and charity has deserted the right in the past decade.

For the obvious, climate change is real. That's not even debated by wackos any more. The debate focuses on whether it's natural or cause by Humans. The evidence to date is heavily in favor of Humans being the root cause. You also very neatly failed to elaborate on the flat temperatures over the past decade - they are flat. There is reversal of global warming - just a 10 year weird flatness in a science which examines centuries. Learn a wee bit of statistics - temporary fluctuations do not negate a long term trend. Any moron with basic math should know that. The cause of the flatness is a huge topic in climate science which is good. It means the theories and models are wrong and need revising. That's good science - not blind faith inviting us to ignore the obvious because of our gut feelings and what some idiot on the TV says.


RE: Trash Article
By bah12 on 10/23/2013 1:09:43 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The truth is you have no scientific evidence to show that climate change isn't happening other than your feelings.
Your own point of view is one of faith. It isn't the party claiming there is a giant pink elephant in the room that needs to prove it, it is the party that is claiming there is.

In other words you cannot say something is true, simply because the opposition cannot prove it isn't. If I claim there is a God/Pink Elephant/Global warming, then it is up to me to prove it 100% not the other way around.

Your illogical position is the one of faith. Your side postulates a theory, but instead of defending its flaws resorts to a faith based argument of "prove you're right then".


RE: Trash Article
By Yojimbo on 10/23/2013 4:03:40 PM , Rating: 2
Everything has to do with faith. Science is a matter of bounding the faith required. And how much to this end has climate science accomplished so far? Their predictions seem to be grossly wrong more often than not. They have fit the historical data extremely well, but they are unable to tell us anything about the future. Give me enough parameters to play with and I can fit any historical data of anything extremely well, but that doesn't mean I know a lick about what it all means. So, then, what does their failure tell us about the usefulness of their models? And how can we implement policies based on these models in light of these failures? It seems it requires an awful lot of faith.


RE: Trash Article
By maugrimtr on 10/24/2013 9:30:37 AM , Rating: 3
Faith and science are mutual enemies. Anyone who allows faith to influence science is being stupid. Incidentally, Einstein himself made this mistake more than once. While an agnostic, he believed that the Universe was entirely deterministic. This pushed him into rejecting quantum theory where things devolve into probabilities and unpredictable outcomes. Guess what - he was wrong. God does indeed play dice with every single particle in the Universe.

The problem is that your argument requires the vast majority of scientists to make this same mistake at the same time. That's just ridiculous and into conspiracy theory territory. You simply WANT it to be true which makes you just as mistaken as Einstein once was in creating elaborate excuses.

quote:
They have fit the historical data extremely well, but they are unable to tell us anything about the future.


They tell us the future will be warmer. That prediction has held true since it was first made decades ago. A flat temperature for a decade doth not a cooler planet make.

quote:
Give me enough parameters to play with and I can fit any historical data of anything extremely well, but that doesn't mean I know a lick about what it all means.


Doesn't even make sense. The data is based on physical measurements. They don't mutate. Any scientist can grab the raw data which is why manipulation, if it ever were to occur, would require every scientist on the planet to be part of the conspiracy.

quote:
So, then, what does their failure tell us about the usefulness of their models? And how can we implement policies based on these models in light of these failures? It seems it requires an awful lot of faith.


Which failure? What model? Whose policies?

Data damn it. Science demands DATA. Stop suggesting evildoing and be specific. Let's take the obvious. The new IPCC projections have been reduced from the last report commissioned. Rationally, that means the last batch of models used in climate science were wrong. This also implies the new set are also wrong. Of course they’re wrong. Find a scientist telling you they are right and please, by all means, shoot the liar. Gravity is also wrong. We don’t know what it is – we just have a really good model to explain it. Relativity. We know that Einstein was wrong because relativity and quantum theory cannot be reconciled. Our two best MODELS for understanding the Universe – approximations, failed predictions, WRONG.

We still use them for predictions though. Luckily, at the scale we currently need for technology and space travel they are actually very good. Try building a faster than light engine, a wormhole to another galaxy or universe, or building a CPU which manipulates quarks, and they suck eggs.

We use the best models available knowing that they are wrong but probably reliable enough for our current needs. To a scientist it’s wholly unsatisfactory but you can’t spend the next million years stuck with “Zeus is angry and throwing lightning bolts!” or “magic make red food fall from tree when sun god tired” while we wait for a completely accurate FACT to emerge.

Climate science is no different. We work with what we have. The alternative is waiting a few thousand years for a fully complete understanding. Of course, your descendants might all have evolved gills by then if the worst came to pass ;).


RE: Trash Article
By Yojimbo on 10/24/13, Rating: 0
RE: Trash Article
By Moishe on 10/23/2013 5:03:13 PM , Rating: 3
His point is actually well stated. Global warming is largely a religion, which can be defined by believing something that is not or cannot be proven by science.

The whole article is about this UN lady who "believes" something to be true even though science does not back her up.

How is that NOT faith?


RE: Trash Article
By maugrimtr on 10/25/2013 4:55:31 AM , Rating: 2
Scientists also believe that there was a Big Bang, that the Universe will expand forever, that there are multiple universes, that the universe expanded faster than the speed of light (Inflation), that all particles are probably strings, that black holes conserve information on their surface, that life does not require God, that an itty bitty amino acid can grow into you after 4 billion years of evolution, and ...

Welcome to Science. We have a theory for everything. Theories are not beliefs - they are our best understanding of the universe given the data we can currently access. Once you figure that out, you'll realise how utterly ridiculous you sound in playing the religion card. Unlike science, nobody can ever prove if that vagrant in sandals really did rise from the dead 2000 years ago.

Lastly, the article clearly stated the "UN lady" is not a scientist. If you think she represents science and thus validates your own dataless belief, you're seriously mistaken.


"This is from the DailyTech.com. It's a science website." -- Rush Limbaugh














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki