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 Yojimbo on 10/24/2013 5:41:32 PM , Rating: 0
Faith and science are mutual enemies.

Everything demands faith. You who believe otherwise act more in faith than those who realize it. Nothing is provable by inductive reasoning. However, as human beings we do not carry around these small and usually unquantifiable probabilities of our models of the world being wrong. We think in terms of absolutes. That is faith.

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.

I'm not sure what you are saying here. They TOLD us the future will be warmer, already, and they were wrong. Who said anything about cooler? Even if the temperatures weren't flat, but indeed warmer, that is not enough to validate a prediction.

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.

I think you misunderstood what I meant here. When making a mathematical model, one analyzes a situation and reasons what the important considerations might be. One then fits a set of data to establish parameters for the model. One then hopes that this model generalizes to the world outside one's data, if one wants to do anything useful with the model. Fitting data is easy, having the model generalize is difficult. We have no data on the future. In order to predict it well, our model must be more than just a fit of the historical data, it must be relevant on a more fundamental level. It must have "learned" something. If the purpose of our model is to study future effects, and we make predictions based on our model, and those predictions fail, I think you can see that we have a serious problem with our model. It must be revised. When this happens over and over for ten years, it is a reasonable indication that there is a problem with our model. I never implied or suggested mutation or manipulation of data.

Which failure? What model? Whose policies?

The failure to make accurate predictions. The IPCC's model. Any government's policies. I thought all this was clear from the context of the article.

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.

Oh so you were playing dumb. You know whose model and what failures. I am not sure why you asked. Anyway, this isn't a question about "right" or "wrong". Claiming a model is "right" implies that you have a positive proof, and all we have is inductive reasoning from observations. This is a question of "accurate" and "inaccurate". "Best models" are not enough. Newton's law of gravity makes very accurate predictions within a wide range of observations; within the entire range of observations noted until very recently, in fact. His model was very useful, and still is, as a result. It breaks down in certain situations and is not accurate in those situations. However we still use his model away from those situations, as long as we don't need extreme precision. You would be hard-pressed to find many informed people who have a problem making decisions (perhaps policy) based on his model, providing we stay away from the bad situations and our required precision is low enough. The IPCC's model, in contrast, has proven to be grossly inaccurate in making predictions. Why should we listen to it? Does it get an "A" for effort? There is something to be said for caution, but there is also something to be said for human motive which might suggest that caution is not the only factor in play. We have people claiming to know things they don't know, claiming to be able to predict things they have shown they can't predict. Perhaps they are doing these things to overcome an inertia in order for action to be taken, but that is a slippery slope, and one with grave consequences. Because in doing these things, these people are betraying the faith (yes it is faith), that the general public and policy makers have in science and in scientists; and maybe these people are also getting a little too used to saying these things by now, creating their own inertia.

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 ;).

Yes and perhaps I will go to Hell, because I have no good understanding of what will happen after I die, and the consequences of dismissing Hell are supreme. One might make the argument that the model of Hell is as good as any other (so it is a "best model"), in which case, as a matter of caution, I should act on it as it has the most extreme consequences.

"It looks like the iPhone 4 might be their Vista, and I'm okay with that." -- Microsoft COO Kevin Turner

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki