Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

India Ditches UN Climate Change Group

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 4 years ago | from the shoddy-work-breeds-contempt dept.

Government 403

Several readers have told us that the Indian Government is moving to establish its own group to address the science of climate change since it "cannot rely" on the official United Nations panel. "The move is a severe blow to the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) following the revelation parts of its 3000 page 2007 report on climate science was not subjected to peer review. A primary claim of the report was the Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035, but the claim was not repeated in any peer-reviewed studies and rebuffed by scientists. India's environment minister Jairam Ramesh announced that the Indian government will established a separate National Institute of Himalayan Glaciology to monitor climate change in the region. 'There is a fine line between climate science and climate evangelism,' Ramesh said. 'I am for climate science.'"

cancel ×

403 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Sounds like a smart man. (5, Insightful)

ground.zero.612 (1563557) | more than 4 years ago | (#31040036)

I wish we had more people like that in government in the US.

Re:Sounds like a coal industry shill (1, Insightful)

garyisabusyguy (732330) | more than 4 years ago | (#31040064)

Sounds like India intends to continue to use coal fired power plants and will not recognize studies that put coal plants in a bad light.

Where have I heard that before?

Re:Sounds like a coal industry shill (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31040108)

Those fumes you see wafting off of India are piss and B.O. fumes, not coal soot. Either way, India's code stinks as badly as their population does.

Re:Sounds like a coal industry shill (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31040234)

I thought that was the fumes of greed, pride, misery and delusion. I could have been mistaken.

China. (1)

drainbramage (588291) | more than 4 years ago | (#31040246)

That is where you heard it.
Or
Are you another shill?

Re:Sounds like a coal industry shill (3, Insightful)

ground.zero.612 (1563557) | more than 4 years ago | (#31040288)

Sounds like India intends to continue to use coal fired power plants and will not recognize studies that put coal plants in a bad light.

Where have I heard that before?

Sounds like you'd rather have someone waving their arms around chanting some mystical mumbo-jumbo than someone that understands the value and merits of the scientific method.

Because that's exactly what the CRU data is: mystical mumbo-jumbo. That entire set should have been tossed after Berkley discovered that they placed the majority of their instrumentation in areas outside of specification.

Re:Sounds like a coal industry shill (2, Informative)

geekoid (135745) | more than 4 years ago | (#31040378)

Sounds like you don't know shit about this issue.

Get some inforamtion.
A) It has nothing to do with whether or not there is global warming. Only a specif effect of it. Learn the difference.

B) The Indian paper claiming the glaciers aren't melting faster then expecting is not peer reviewed.

C) Know the shouldn't have quoted New scientist as a source for the science part of the paper...and they didn't.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18363-debate-heats-up-over-ipcc-melting-glaciers-claim.html [newscientist.com]

Re:Sounds like a coal industry shill (3, Insightful)

Pax681 (1002592) | more than 4 years ago | (#31040870)

LOL it was on BBC TV that the "expert that the IPCC got the "data" from was a geography students Dissertation

it was also splattered all over the Telegraph LINK HERE [telegraph.co.uk]

the IPCC is so full of it that they have to use info from a student , which is not peer reviewed and is just an opinion of a pup in the greater scheme of things.

i think i'll take the word of the Indians and take my hat off to them for taking a stand against the UTTER SHITE that that IPCC spews! just goes to show the sheer desperation of them to use such flimsy nonsense especially after all the leeks showing the gaming of the numbers and the selective use of the Data

Re:Sounds like a coal industry shill (3, Insightful)

Rei (128717) | more than 4 years ago | (#31040642)

Because that's exactly what the CRU data is: mystical mumbo-jumbo.

Just because you're too stupid to read how the data is processed [uea.ac.uk] or compare it to what naive processing would yield [realclimate.org] ... oh who the f*** am I kidding? Yes, it's mystical mumbo-jumbo. They're just trying to make the lightning-power that walks through wires into your house and runs your picture box and your clickety email machine cost more. CARBON GOOD!

Re:Sounds like a coal industry shill (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31040906)

My issue is that I'm not convinced that they avoid the problems that you see in economic time series analysis. This guy [fluff.info] basically sums up my feelings on the matter.

I've done time series analysis. You have to try a lot of things just to make it "work". In general I find that I get a result with a p value of less than .05 after the 20th or so try. Funny how that works out.

US? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31040338)

In the US?

Re:Sounds like a smart man. (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 4 years ago | (#31040456)

I wish we had more people like that in government in the US.

I think we have plenty of whores willing to ignore scientific advice and general interest to cater to powerful economic interests in the US government.

In fact, we have a name for them: politicians.

A couple errors in a 3,000 page document (1, Insightful)

Rei (128717) | more than 4 years ago | (#31040042)

... written by hundreds of individuals = "climate evangelism". Apparently.

Re:A couple errors in a 3,000 page document (4, Insightful)

nicknamenotavailable (1730990) | more than 4 years ago | (#31040166)

... written by hundreds of individuals = "climate evangelism". Apparently.

No, preaching something that doesn't exist and then claiming that science supports what you preach is "climate evangelism".

I'm looking forward to visiting those glaciers with my great-grandkids.

Re:A couple errors in a 3,000 page document (2, Informative)

Rei (128717) | more than 4 years ago | (#31040346)

I take it that you're dropping the ridiculous notion that a couple errors in a 3,000 page document written by hundreds of people somehow means that the whole thing is invalid?

preaching something that doesn't exist and then claiming that science supports what you preach is "climate evangelism".

Yeah. I mean, only ~97% [uic.edu] of the world's publishing climate scientists believe in it. Who cares about those who actually do the research and keep up on all of the (very extensive) literature? It's all a socialist conspiracy anyway.

In case anyone's curious how different mountain glaciers are changing, here's a nice graph [wri.org] .

It's shitty science, Rei. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31040414)

First of all, there were more than just "a couple" of errors. That report is full of just plain shitty science. It's the sort of stuff that no self-respecting scientist would ever want to be associated with, in the slightest way.

It doesn't matter what percentage of scientists "believe" a certain idea. Science isn't built upon "belief". Religion is.

Finally, don't mistake holding scientists to a high standard with ignoring their findings. Nobody is saying that climate change isn't happening. There is just a lot of doubt about whether it is caused by humans, or caused by some other factor (the sun, for instance). We just don't want shitty, politicized "science" being treated as anything more than the crap that it is.

Re:It's shitty science, Rei. (1)

Volante3192 (953645) | more than 4 years ago | (#31040432)

Nobody is saying that climate change isn't happening.

Citation needed.

Re:It's shitty science, Rei. (4, Insightful)

Rei (128717) | more than 4 years ago | (#31040530)

First of all, there were more than just "a couple" of errors. That report is full of just plain shitty science.

Citation needed.

or caused by some other factor (the sun, for instance)

The sun? Oh my god, what a brilliant idea! Nobody has ever thought of that one before! Quick, young lad, make haste! Inform the world that people ought to consider the sun -- the single most widely studied object outside of Earth, monitored by thousands of ground-based instruments, satellites in various Earth orbits, and even custom satellites in our Lagrangian points. That data might be useful! Perhaps a couple dozen people people should write several dozen papers studying what sort of direct and indirect effects the sun might have on our climate! And then perhaps they should be summarized in the IPCC report! .... oh wait....

An XKCD comic comes to mind [xkcd.com] .

Re:It's shitty science, Rei. (5, Insightful)

DesScorp (410532) | more than 4 years ago | (#31040848)

The sun? Oh my god, what a brilliant idea! Nobody has ever thought of that one before! Quick, young lad, make haste! Inform the world that people ought to consider the sun -- the single most widely studied object outside of Earth, monitored by thousands of ground-based instruments, satellites in various Earth orbits, and even custom satellites in our Lagrangian points. That data might be useful! Perhaps a couple dozen people people should write several dozen papers studying what sort of direct and indirect effects the sun might have on our climate! And then perhaps they should be summarized in the IPCC report! .... oh wait....

Yes, we've studied the Sun intently. Is that supposed to mean that we have a complete understanding of its effect on the climate? Really? Do you honestly think we have all the answers now? That we're even close to having all the answers?

That's my whole problem with the "science is settled" meme. Science is never settled. It's constantly progressing, proving old assumptions wrong much of the time. Not only is the science not settled here, its becoming more and more apparent that we don't have near the understanding of the climate that we thought we did. After all, even most of the die-hard warming advocates admit that they can't explain the current cooling trend in their models.

Re:It's shitty science, Rei. (3, Informative)

Rei (128717) | more than 4 years ago | (#31040944)

Yes, we've studied the Sun intently. Is that supposed to mean that we have a complete understanding of its effect on the climate? Really?

Yes. Read the papers (if you need a starting point, you can find them all referenced in AR4, Ch.02). All of the sun's impacts but one (upper-atmospheric GCR shielding's role in cloud seeding) are very easily measured and straightforward on Earth, with the massive variety of different datasets matching each other. GCR provided the only degree of uncertainty to constraining the influences of the sun, and has since been much better constrained. Even the difference between peak and minimum output doesn't provide anywhere even in the same ballpark as much forcing as CO2.

After all, even most of the die-hard warming advocates admit that they can't explain the current cooling trend in their models.

Who the heck are you listening to? First off, there is no cooling trend [realclimate.org] . There is a small (25%) decrease in how rapidly it's risen due to stratospheric water vapor [sciencemag.org] , a decadal-scale factor.

Seriously, stop listening to people who don't know what the f*** they're talking about.

Re:It's shitty science, Rei. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31040594)

no self-respecting scientist

Unfortunately, for you, there is a particularly large number of "Scots" in the meteorological sciences. The IPCC papers represent them and their work. Again, the vast majority of climatologists support the idea that (a) climate is warming overall and (b) we're partly to blame. And they have for decades.

It doesn't matter what percentage of scientists "believe" a certain idea.

It matters even less that you think you know better than them.

Re:It's shitty science, Rei. (0, Troll)

Eunuchswear (210685) | more than 4 years ago | (#31040756)

oh fuck, it's an AC, why am I bothering. Oh well...

First of all, there were more than just "a couple" of errors. That report is full of just plain shitty science. It's the sort of stuff that no self-respecting scientist would ever want to be associated with, in the slightest way.

[citation fucking needed] you lying piece of shit.

Re:A couple errors in a 3,000 page document (1, Troll)

intheshelter (906917) | more than 4 years ago | (#31040702)

And in related news, ~97% of the worlds workers at auto manufacturers say that everyone should believe in cars. . ..

Re:A couple errors in a 3,000 page document (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31040300)

<quote><p>... written by hundreds of individuals = "climate evangelism". Apparently.</p></quote>

No, putting in primary claims which are known to be suspect from a non-peer-reviewed journal with an agenda, for the ADMITTED purpose of 'influencing policymakers'... THAT is evangelism.

Re:A couple errors in a 3,000 page document (1, Insightful)

Rei (128717) | more than 4 years ago | (#31040404)

No, putting in primary claims which are known to be suspect from a non-peer-reviewed journal with an agenda, for the ADMITTED purpose of 'influencing policymakers'... THAT is evangelism.

Let's be more succinct: Do you or do you not believe that a 3,000 page set of documents written by hundreds of people quoting from thousands of authors and tens of thousands of research papers can be invalidated by a handful of errors? And if so, how can *ANY* set of documents that big ever be considered valid? There *always* will be at least a couple mistakes.

Yes, there were a couple mistakes in a 3,000 page document written by hundreds of people quoting from thousands of authors and tens of thousands of research papers. While you're at it, you might as well find that the friend of one of the author's sons once downloaded an MP3, and thus they're a family of criminal enablers, and thus untrustworthy, and thus all of the other authors who work with them are equally untrustworthy, and the entire report is invalidated. That might be an equally useful tack for you.

Re:A couple errors in a 3,000 page document (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31040634)

No, I don't think anyone thinks that a 3000 page set of documents can be invalidated by a handful of errors.

However, I do think it is rational and logical to think that if a misleading narrative was intentionally constructed from that set of documents then that narrative might not be valid.

The problem is that you (and people like you) try to make the reductive claim that all that was wrong with the documents were "a handful of errors." That is being disingenuous, and I am pretty sure you know it.

Re:A couple errors in a 3,000 page document (0, Troll)

Rei (128717) | more than 4 years ago | (#31040746)

No, I don't think anyone thinks that a 3000 page set of documents can be invalidated by a handful of errors.

Ding ding ding! Talking point broken; you get a cookie! On to the next one:

The problem is that you (and people like you) try to make the reductive claim that all that was wrong with the documents were "a handful of errors." That is being disingenuous, and I am pretty sure you know it.

The obvious implication of your notion that there's more than just a handful of errors is that either all of the scientists whose work is being misquoted don't care that it's being misquoted, or that neither the scientists nor anyone who knows bothered to read the single most influential summary of science in their field -- even the mere sections where their work was mentioned.

Yeah. Sure.

Re:A couple errors in a 3,000 page document (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31040794)

Nice if you to minimize the issue and fail to take into account how important those errors were.

Re:A couple errors in a 3,000 page document (5, Insightful)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 4 years ago | (#31040822)

Yes, there were a couple mistakes in a 3,000 page document

These weren't "mistakes", they were intentionally included for the purpose of raising hysteria. The people composing the report were warned by scientists that these claims were not supported before the report was written. A company partially owned by the head of the IPCC received a multi-million dollar grant to investigate the supposed loss of the glaciers in the Himalayas by 2035. Oh yeah, he then hired the guy who was the source for it (n a casual conversation with a journalist as an off the cuff comment not based on anything). So the head of the IPCC is told that there is no science behind the claim, but includes it in the report anyway and then takes a grant for millions of dollars to investigate it.

Re:A couple errors in a 3,000 page document (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31040304)

... written by hundreds of individuals = "climate evangelism". Apparently.

The best way to reduce human impact on the environment is to have less humans. Either kill them off or control future breeding; take your pick.

Re:A couple errors in a 3,000 page document (4, Insightful)

e2d2 (115622) | more than 4 years ago | (#31040348)

Yeah a couple of errors in a scientific document that happens to impact everyone on the planet along with emails implicating some of those scientists were "massaging" the results to prove their hypothesis.

Kind of important to ensure accuracy. They haven't grasped that. Their too busy building their own unquestionable institution with grandiose threats.

Re:A couple errors in a 3,000 page document (1)

e2d2 (115622) | more than 4 years ago | (#31040390)

They're also.

Re:A couple errors in a 3,000 page document (2, Insightful)

Rei (128717) | more than 4 years ago | (#31040488)

Yeah a couple of errors in a scientific document that happens to impact everyone on the planet

0.2 pages erroneous.
2999.8 pages not erroneous.

What a travesty!

And yes, some science does affect the entire planet, there's no getting around that. But saying "I need complete perfection or we never act on anything", you'll never act on anything.

along with emails implicating some of those scientists were "massaging" the results to prove their hypothesis.

Oh please. The decade-old emails involving two scientists, one quoted wildly out of context (the "decline" issue mentioned by Mann -- the paper the data came from *explicitly stated* that the data was invalid after that point, and what idiot would think that dendrochronology data trumps thermometer data anyway?) and the other trying to avoid having to hand over data to a bunch of amateurs who he viewed as deliberately trying to waste his time by filing spurious requests, and one of whom had previously tried to get his partner arrested?

You're not even barking up the wrong tree; you're barking up a paper cutout of a tree.

Kind of important to ensure accuracy.

I can thus only assume that if you wrote a 3,000 page document, there wouldn't be a single error in it.

Re:A couple errors in a 3,000 page document (5, Insightful)

chill (34294) | more than 4 years ago | (#31040570)

Try again. That wasn't the only error.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100023598/after-climategate-pachaurigate-and-glaciergate-amazongate/ [telegraph.co.uk]

They make a major claim about the affect of climate change on the Amazon. The problem is the original study was done by an advocacy group (WWF), wasn't peer reviewed, and wasn't even on the subject of global warming! It was a study on wildfires.

And keep going in that vein...

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/24/the-scandal-deepens-ipcc-ar4-riddled-with-non-peer-reviewed-wwf-papers/ [wattsupwiththat.com]

These reports are NOT peer reviewed science and DO NOT belong in the IPCC report, which claims to be properly peer reviewed.

The IPCC fucked up big.

Re:A couple errors in a 3,000 page document (0, Flamebait)

Rei (128717) | more than 4 years ago | (#31040804)

Wow! That'd be such a zinger if I hadn't repeatedly written "a couple errors". If I had written "a single error", I would be so dissed right now!

These reports are NOT peer reviewed science and DO NOT belong in the IPCC report, which claims to be properly peer reviewed.

You know, do you ever bother to check any of this stuff out by yourself?

I just went to the reports [ucar.edu] and loaded what is probably the most important from a scientific perspective -- Ch. 2: Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing [ucar.edu] (the Summary for Policymakers is just a summary of the technical reports, in plain English, and doesn't do refs on its own). If you read Watts, this is all based on WWF reports. Load it. Search for WWF. And enjoy your zero hits. The references run from pages 89 to 106, hundreds of them in this single document alone, and not a single one of them is from the WWF.

Re:A couple errors in a 3,000 page document (1)

Duradin (1261418) | more than 4 years ago | (#31040652)

You could have a billion line program that is perfect except for one = having been mistyped as a ! and despite having everything right but that one character the program could be completely useless.

Re:A couple errors in a 3,000 page document (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#31040716)

On the other hand, that billion line program could have millions of errors and still be perfectly useful.

Re:A couple errors in a 3,000 page document (1)

Duradin (1261418) | more than 4 years ago | (#31040784)

You didn't happen to work on the Therac-25, did you?

Re:A couple errors in a 3,000 page document (1)

Kral_Blbec (1201285) | more than 4 years ago | (#31040936)

It could, but the first scenario is much more likely.

Don't be fooled (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 4 years ago | (#31040078)

India can not keep developing the way it has, and reduce impact on the Climate.
How about the can complain when the water most people beth.sime and drink isn't dangerous.

Re:Don't be fooled (0, Troll)

Rei (128717) | more than 4 years ago | (#31040164)

Come on people -- when you think of clean water, clean air, and sustainable living, doesn't your mind immediately jump to India? ;)

Perhaps their new research group could use this as a slogan: "India: #1 In Environmental Stewardship Since The Bhopal Disaster".

Re:Don't be fooled (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31040578)

Union Carbide's fault. An American Company.

Re:Don't be fooled (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 4 years ago | (#31040688)

Come on people -- when you think of clean water, clean air, and sustainable living, doesn't your mind immediately jump to India? ;)

Perhaps their new research group could use this as a slogan: "India: #1 In Environmental Stewardship Since The Bhopal Disaster".

After much scientific debate, the Indian Academy on Climate Change has announced its unconditional support for the government's recently announced plan to build another 500 coal-fired power plants. The press release, signed by the nation's top scientists, stated "It is up to India to save the world. By pushing large amounts of soot into the atmosphere, we will be increasing the planet's albedo and thus helping fight global warming. We are excited by our new partnership with China - together we will change the face of the globe!"

Who keeps modding you up? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31040770)

unfunny
The Bhopal Disaster and the non-cleanup can be laid at the feet of an American company.

Re:Don't be fooled (5, Insightful)

nashv (1479253) | more than 4 years ago | (#31040790)

Yeah, that's called argumentum ad hominem. Fine, India has a ton of issues - water, poverty etc. Firstly, India is very heterogenous, far more than most Europeans and Americans can fathom. There is a large educated middle class that actually does care about the environment, and by the way does enjoy clean drinking water. Does it follow that because a substantial fraction of the country has to deal with issues the Western countries have solved, that Indians must be bound to accept the conclusions of a UN body ? Does it make them automatically incompetent to derive their own conclusions ?

It is irrelevant. If they want an independent assessment, its a good thing. After the CO2 emissions/Kyoto fiasco, Indians are wary of Western environmental policies. Most Indians see any limitation on their CO2 emissions as retarding their development due to a problem that is created largely by the now-developed nations, in the last century.

In any case, in science, as many independent investigations there are , the better the confidence in the findings. And trust me, the Indians know the entire Ganges plain is fed by Himalayan glaciers. They have a very large stake here.

Re:Don't be fooled (0, Troll)

Rei (128717) | more than 4 years ago | (#31040856)

Yeah, that's called argumentum ad hominem. Fine, India has a ton of issues - water, poverty etc.

Then it's not ad hominem. It's a real issue. India has a huge issue with making environmental and health irresponsibility in engineering and growth decisions. Worse than China.

Re:Don't be fooled (1)

nashv (1479253) | more than 4 years ago | (#31040884)

It is ad hominem because that 'issue' is irrelevant. It does not affect their ability or right to conduct an independent investigation.

Re:Don't be fooled (1)

SnarfQuest (469614) | more than 4 years ago | (#31040802)

At least India doesn't want to base VERY expensive economic decisions on programs with the words "fudge factor" in them.

Re:Don't be fooled (3, Insightful)

sdnick (1025630) | more than 4 years ago | (#31040942)

Come on people -- when you think of clean water, clean air, and sustainable living, doesn't your mind immediately jump to India?

Nope. When I think of India I think of hundreds of millions of people finally making the climb out of poverty to a decent standard of living. Granted, that standard of living won't let the average Indian squander nearly as many resources as the average environmentally aware American, but it's still a huge accomplishment that deserves applause and support. I'm glad to see the Indian government is not prepared to slow down or stop that economic progress to please some self-appointed guardians of the earth in the US and Europe armed with questionable data and questionable science.

Perhaps their new research group could use this as a slogan: "India: #1 In Environmental Stewardship Since The Bhopal Disaster".

Very cheap shot. The Bhopal Disaster was a disaster caused by Union Carbide, an American company.

Good! The UN is nothing but a scam. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31040098)

This is good news. I hope more countries follow their approach.

In general, the UN is nothing but a scam. It has no accountability, and due to how it panders to politicians and their whims, it should have absolutely no involvement in science.

Frankly, people are fed up with these supranational organizations that do nothing but cause problems. In this case, you have the UN hyping what is perhaps the biggest scientific fraud of all time. Then you have other organizations, like the WHO, hyping false "pandemics" again and again. Then there are all the copyright and IP shenanigans with the WTO. Plus the crap the IMF and World Bank pull.

To hell with those organizations.

Re:Good! The UN is nothing but a scam. (-1, Troll)

IdleTime (561841) | more than 4 years ago | (#31040314)

You must be American, the only ones delusional enough to write garbage like you did...

Re:Good! The UN is nothing but a scam. (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 4 years ago | (#31040388)

Hey now, we're not all crazy.

Re:Good! The UN is nothing but a scam. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31040684)

Because Americans (US citizens) seem to be the ones paying most of the costs, and doing most of the work, for everything from wars (WW2, Korea, 'Nam, PG, etc.) peacekeeping, the IMF.

And the UN. In our country, and we pay for it.

Also, CO2 is a plant food.

CO2 levels were high when the Dinos were around. High CO2 levels meant plenty of plants, for herbivores to eat, giving carnivores plenty to eat.

So calling people like myself a dinosaur, because I believe in using fossil fuels (and nuke, in the far future) is actually pretty apt.

Steve in Pittsburgh

Re:Good! The UN is nothing but a scam. (3, Interesting)

DavidR1991 (1047748) | more than 4 years ago | (#31040412)

The WHO hyped up a potential pandemic to stop it becoming a pandemic. If you're informed about something (i.e. a disease) you can deal with it, inform others, get help etc. If you're in the dark, have zero information and have no idea what's afoot, the chances are you'll ignore any problems, unintentionally assist the spread of the disease and... bang. You have a catalyst. Keeping it hyped kept people vigilant

Re:Good! The UN is nothing but a scam. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31040680)

David, I know you were born in 1991. You're not even 20 yet. I know you've got, at most, two years of college under your belt. Thus you clearly have little to no medical knowledge, yet you still feel you are qualified to discuss such topics.

David, you're just plain wrong. I don't know how to break it to you, son. You're wrong.

David, their hype did nothing to prevent a pandemic that clearly wasn't going to be an issue in the first place. All they did was give the news media something to scare their viewers with for a few months. This fear caused governments to go stupid, covering their own asses by buying huge amounts of untested "vaccine" at huge expense. It was nothing but a scam.

Obligatory (5, Funny)

emudoug42 (977380) | more than 4 years ago | (#31040112)

Yeah, well I'm gonna make my own climate change group! With blackjack! And hookers! Actually, forget the climate change group...

Re:Obligatory (1)

Rei (128717) | more than 4 years ago | (#31040272)

Reminds me of this: [youtube.com]

Man: Of course, since the Green House Gases are still building up, it takes more & more ice each time. Thus solving the problem once and for all.
Suzy: But...
Man: ONCE AND FOR ALL!

The sad thing is that some people with platform are basically proposing this approach [realclimate.org] .

Re:Obligatory (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31040374)

i'm in.

Inconclusiveness (5, Insightful)

swanzilla (1458281) | more than 4 years ago | (#31040126)

'There is a fine line between climate science and climate evangelism,' Ramesh said. 'I am for climate science.'

That was nicely worded. The line is not very fine in many cases, however. The biggest difference between a climate evangelist (read: Al Gore) and a scientist is the presence of uncertainty in reporting the state of the climate. It is hard to be preachy when data remains inconclusive.

Re:Inconclusiveness (1)

raddan (519638) | more than 4 years ago | (#31040236)

I'm all for there being more scientists paid to seriously look at the problem. The thing that we have to be wary about is India just saying that they're going to do this, and really, just generating a bunch of contrarian bunk so that they can continue to operate as-is, regardless of what the real data says. Given that the announcement is coming from a politician, I am skeptical. But another, independent climate group? I can only see that as a good thing.

Re:Inconclusiveness (2, Insightful)

Ron Bennett (14590) | more than 4 years ago | (#31040376)

Speaking of "climate evangelist", there are many on Slashdot.

Questioning global warming / climate change is a near sure way to get modded down.

Many don't want to believe that the environment is far bigger than us - not to say humans don't influence it, because we do, but much of the effect is from outside forces outside of human control, in particular, the Sun.

How else does one explain global warming / cooling periods in the past long before modern civilization?

Or more immediate, how come, according to some reports, Mars may getting warmer!

How could that be ... unless it's likely the Sun doing it - and if so, that would likely explain much of the warming* here on Earth.

* there's scientific debate on what the extent of warming there is, if any; could be staying about the same or even getting colder.

Ron

Re: Questioning climate change and Modded Down (1, Informative)

Ron Bennett (14590) | more than 4 years ago | (#31040526)

Wow, that was fast - already modded down.

Well that basically reiterates my point.

Ron

Re: Questioning climate change and Modded Down (0, Offtopic)

Ron Bennett (14590) | more than 4 years ago | (#31040558)

Update - it's been modding back up. Thanks!

Ron

Re: Questioning climate change and Modded Down (0, Offtopic)

Rei (128717) | more than 4 years ago | (#31040692)

Then modded back up by a greater margin.

The easiest way to get modded up on Slashdot is to claim that someone's going to mod you down for your "controversial opinion". It works 9 times out of 10.

Re:Inconclusiveness (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31040610)

You mean questioning like this:

Because that's exactly what the CRU data is: mystical mumbo-jumbo.

In general, the UN is nothing but a scam.

There's a fat, bold, impossible to miss, line between climate science and climate evangelism; the IPCC clambered over it a long time ago.

I might be dense, but where exactly is this questioning? These are some of the comments from posts that have *not* been modded down. If you like, I can provide samples of the stuff that did get modded down. They get even more outrageous and abusive. Why wouldn't they be modded down as trolls and flamebait?

Re:Inconclusiveness (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31040694)

Gee, why don't you call NASA and let them know they forgot about the Sun? I'm sure they'll thank you for pointing it out. If the Sun was the main force at work, then the Earth should be cooling, which it is not. The climate on Mars is not driven by the same factors as the Earth. It's minimal atmosphere and lack of large bodies of water means that it's temperature is mainly controlled by it's color. Large storms on Mars kick up dirt which makes the ground lighter or darker and it is this darker dirt that is responsible for the warming on Mars. We have ruled out all the factors that normally influence the climate of the Earth. Please put your logical fallacies to rest and check out the actual science.

Re:Inconclusiveness (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31040714)

Don't forget volcanoes. One major volcanic eruption would affect global climate more than any variance in solar activity, and much more than any supposed "man-made climate change" with drastic amounts of particulate matter being expelled into the atmosphere that utterly dwarf the impact of all of us. A supervolcano eruption would also hasten the massive annihilation of life that the socialist-turned-environmentalists are so desperately wanting.

You think like a ReThuglican Jew (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31040946)

You think like a ReThuglican Jew

Re:Inconclusiveness (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 4 years ago | (#31040402)

But the paper he based this on isn't per reviewed.

The data isn't inconclusive.

Re:Inconclusiveness (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31040500)

There was a time when the data was inconclusive, but that time has passed. We have amassed so much data in favor of man-made global warming that to deny it as this point just doesn't make sense. Could it be wrong? Of course. Is it likely to be wrong? No.
It is extremely likely that global warming is man-made and the dangers of ignoring that probability are much higher than the potential consequences of acting on it. Now, I actually see a lot of direct benefit to "green" technology, the primary one is reducing our dependence on foreign energy. Of course, it's also going to hurt domestic coal, so companies providing coal-based power need to be at the forefront of new energy technologies.

Re:Inconclusiveness (5, Insightful)

quanticle (843097) | more than 4 years ago | (#31040522)

It certainty of the data depends on the question you're trying to answer. Is the earth warming? Absolutely. We have numerous bits of evidence from ice cores, tree rings, and soil samples that confirm that the earth's climate is warmer now than it was before. Is mankind causing this warming? There is more uncertainty here, but signs are increasingly pointing towards the affirmative.

The real question is, "Does the cost of adaptation outweigh the cost of going carbon free?" Humanity is the most adaptable species on the planet. It may very well be the case that the cost of adapting to climate change outweighs the cost of stopping climate change.

Besides, even if prevention is conclusively proven to be more cost efficient, I'm not sure that we have a choice anymore. Most climate scientists say that the Earth is headed for a 4 C rise in temperature, regardless of what humans do at this point. To put that into context, 4 C was the worst case scenario being considered during the 1990s. So, even while the scientists argue about what's causing global warming, I think its worthwhile that we as a nation figure out how to deal with global warming. There will be significant changes in rainfall and temperature patterns. If we do some advance planning now (like not subsidizing building in low lying areas, or encouraging agriculture in places that are going to dry out), we can make the future significantly more comfortable, regardless of whether global warming is our fault or not.

Re:Inconclusiveness (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31040882)

No one is proposing that we go carbon free. They're proposing an 85% drop in carbon dioxide emissions so the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere stops rising. Even if we don't cut emissions that much, cutting emissions should mean less warming. I'm not seeing any debate that increased greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere don't cause warming, only debate about how much warming it causes. If it is more than a negligible amount, we will need to cut carbon dioxide emissions greatly to avoid a 2 degree Celsius temperature rise, which is the main goal of the Copenhagen Accord. Only a handful of climatologists claim it is a negligible amount, and they don't have much evidence to back up that claim.

Re:Inconclusiveness (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 4 years ago | (#31040542)

But you do a serious disservice to your cause when you quote opinions from a single, unreliable, non-peer reviews source, or when you throw out original source data and only publish your "massaged" results. In fact, it makes it look like you have started out with a preconceived notion of what the results should be, then cherry-picked the data to match your predicted results. Although the scientific method does involve making a hypothesis and then testing it, it requires the tests be fair (and reproducible). In short, these cowboys straying from rigorous scientific method have done a lot of harm to the very cause they were trying to promote!

Re:Inconclusiveness (1)

stms (1132653) | more than 4 years ago | (#31040812)

It is hard to be preachy when data remains inconclusive.

What's hard about it, religion has been doing it since the dawn of known time.

Re:Inconclusiveness (1)

SnarfQuest (469614) | more than 4 years ago | (#31040824)

I'd like to base my decisions on information from someone who doesn't plan on making huge sums of money on the outcome. Like when Algore buys carbon credits from himself to prove how green he is.

How is this news? (5, Insightful)

zero_out (1705074) | more than 4 years ago | (#31040162)

I'm sure that most countries, at least most relatively developed ones (and I consider India as such), already have their own group investigating climate change. Besides, I don't see any mention from the article that India is actually "ditching" the UN group. It's just establishing its own group, rather than relying 100% on the UN group to base their national policies and laws upon.

Inaccurate (4, Informative)

Gudeldar (705128) | more than 4 years ago | (#31040198)

It doesn't appear as though India is pulling out of the IPCC at all. They are just sending a representative (or "minder" depending on how you look at it).

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/site/Story/82542/India/India's+IPCC+'tracker'+soon.html [intoday.in]
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/PM-expresses-confidence-in-IPCCs-work-lauds-Pachauris-leadership/articleshow/5540596.cms [indiatimes.com]

cold and ironic (1)

oxide7 (1013325) | more than 4 years ago | (#31040262)

This doesnt mean they are saying global warming is bad, or desirable. It just means they dont trust the UN panel. Whats funny though, is that they say they dont trust the IPCC because it doesnt do its own science, but they turn around and set up their own IPCC to review science themselves. And speaking of global warming, isn't this this coldest winter on record? [fairinvestment.co.uk]

Re:cold and ironic (2, Interesting)

Volante3192 (953645) | more than 4 years ago | (#31040416)

And speaking of global warming, isn't this this coldest winter on record?

Hmm...any unusual weather patterns? So. Cal was having an unusually cold winter. But conversely Alaska was unusually warm. Were, say, Iceland or Greenland having unusual highs?

Yeah, sadly that part requires research instead of ZOMG ITS COLD!!

Re:cold and ironic (3, Insightful)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 4 years ago | (#31040438)

And speaking of global warming, isn't this this coldest winter on record?

Let's try to get this one out of the way early: Weather is not climate [google.com] .

Before poeple freak out, her is a couple of points (4, Informative)

geekoid (135745) | more than 4 years ago | (#31040274)

1) Publishing is usually the beginning of peer review. SO finding a discrepency isn't uncommon
2) The person who made that statement was an Indian Scientist. SO the irony of thise story is rich.
3) is doesn't invalidate the peer reviewed papers, or the overall conclusion.

Here is a good write up:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20527434.300-debate-heats-up-over-ipcc-melting-glaciers-claim.html [newscientist.com]

Be sure to follow the read more link.

Yes, yes, most people want some sort of black and white answer. There isn't one, and if you are truly interested you will
read about this is reputable journal. That way you have a chance to see all the facts that lead up to this.

Re:Before poeple freak out, her is a couple of poi (1)

SnarfQuest (469614) | more than 4 years ago | (#31040900)

Ok, let us peer review the original claims.

Oh wait, the've "lost" all the data, and the programs. Took up too much space: 4 floppies worth, way to much to fit in any reasonable storage space. Just believe their claims. They couldn't possibly have any motive to lie to you, would they? Just make sure you keep sending them money based on their lost research.

This will be devastating (1)

nohumor (1735852) | more than 4 years ago | (#31040324)

If India is out of IPCC, where are people going to call for tech support?

"fine line"? (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 4 years ago | (#31040440)

> ...fine line between climate science and climate evangelism...

More of an enormous gulf, IMHO.

It isn't a fine line (1)

thethibs (882667) | more than 4 years ago | (#31040476)

There's a fat, bold, impossible to miss, line between climate science and climate evangelism; the IPCC clambered over it a long time ago.

Re:It isn't a fine line (1)

Zordak (123132) | more than 4 years ago | (#31040816)

I'm not aware that the IPCC was ever on the other side of it. I don't think I've ever heard any climatologists saying "There may be something to investigate here." From the start, it's been "OH NOES! WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE! WE NEED MORE SOCIALISM NOW!!! BECAUSE WE HAVE COMPUTER MODELS! AND COMPUTER MODELS ARE INFALLIBLE! LIKE THE POPE!"

Al Gore and the UN have never been on the side of science. They have an axe to grind.

Re:It isn't a fine line (1)

CorporateSuit (1319461) | more than 4 years ago | (#31040926)

To give them the benefit of the doubt, it's a much finer line when you don't know the difference between a scientist and a fortune teller.

Lets not forget IPCC's wrongful analysis (3, Interesting)

adosch (1397357) | more than 4 years ago | (#31040498)

A primary claim of the report was the Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035, but the claim was not repeated in any peer-reviewed studies and rebuffed by scientists.

Who would blame India for not having faith and carrying out their out climate study with an in-house panel? Did the IPCC not botch the initial rreport [sistertoldjah.com] because someone did the School of Office Space decimal point shift in the math dealing with the melting factor of the Himalayan glaciers? I guess some counties feel that if they want something done right, they'll do it themselves. Cant' fault India for that.

See also: China, Russia.... (4, Interesting)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 4 years ago | (#31040582)

Take Russia. It also regularly disputes AGW claims.

At the same time, it coincidentally happens to be a major oil exporter, and world largest natural gas exporter. Its economy to a large extent depends on worldwide demand for those resources - oil alone accounts for 40% of all exports.

Internally, most (~65%) power is generated by coal and gas plants. The USSR had a long-term program for replacing those with hydro and nuclear, for resource conservation and environmental reasons, but that only got 1/3 way through - and Russia cannot afford to proceed with that anymore, and is actually struggling [wikipedia.org] to maintain the Soviet legacy.

Oh yes, also, if AGW models are actually correct, then Russia will benefit in many ways. One is that warming up Siberia will create large new swaths of habitable lands. Another is that same changes, as well as melting of ice in the Arctic, will provide for much easier access to extremely rich natural resource deposits which are currently very hard (and in many cases economically unfeasible) to develop.

That's quite enough dots to connect them.

Now, I wrote about Russia, because I actually wrote about it - but are China and India any different? At the very least, they all still heavily rely on fossil fuels to power their industrialization, and cannot afford to stop there no matter the consequences. And - surprise! - China historically had been dismissive of AGW. I don't know much about past India stance on this, but it would seem that them joining the club would be expected, purely for political reasons.

Re:See also: China, Russia.... (1)

hkmwbz (531650) | more than 4 years ago | (#31040740)

Take Russia. It also regularly disputes AGW claims.

Really? Got a couple of recent examples?

Crap Data, Crap Organization. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31040614)

Why would any country need the UN's HELP in Monitoring Climate Change? The UN is a fucking joke. India can monitor their own glaciers TYVM. He is not claiming any disbelief in "global warming" or "climate change," he is only saying, "thanks but no thanks, we're better off without you." Can you imagine if India and China and Russia made a climate change coalition and were like "US, WTF join us - don't you believe in climate change?"

Americans don't like the UN... (1, Funny)

Cantus (582758) | more than 4 years ago | (#31040658)

Is this news? Anything that threatens the "supremacy" of the US will be looked at with suspicion by Americans. The UN, for example. Communism/Socialism is another one.

This is why Americans are so pro-Capitalism and so anti-UN and multilateral collaboration. They don't even think about these issues on their own merit, they just outright reject them.

But the same thing happens in other parts of the world, like Cuba or Bolivia, where capitalism is rejected simply because it is associated with the "evil empire".

People need to grow up and quit the rhetoric and just THINK.

Re:Americans don't like the UN... (1)

intheshelter (906917) | more than 4 years ago | (#31040764)

You lie!! You're obviously a socialist terrorist! As an American I can agree that you have a small point that we are a bit taken with our "supremacy". It's that way with every country and it's blind adherents though. I think we just managed to take it to a feverish pitch after 9/11 and the Bush/Cheney exploitation of patriotism. Luckily the same rubes who exploited patriotism also did a fine job of trying to wreck and loot the country so we won't be supreme at anything for much longer if we don't get our act together. Looking back at pre-9/11 and now I'd have to say the terrorists have won. We've lost freedom and they are still scampering in the woods and not holding down a real job. Bastards!!

Re:Americans don't like the UN... (1)

Diagoras (859063) | more than 4 years ago | (#31040800)

The concern is that organizations like the UN are not only powerless, but also incompetent. Leading to the question: Why support a powerless and incompetent organization? I honestly find it difficult to come with an argument for substantial United States support for the United Nations.

Remember the Tobacco Industry? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31040662)

From

http://www.scielosp.org/scielo.php?pid=S0042-96862000000700007&script=sci_arttext&tlng=en

Mobilizing corporate resources
The 1953 meeting proposed that the tobacco companies should put aside their competitive differences and agree on issues of legal, political and social importance to the entire industry, and that they should jointly establish and fund a centre to promote their general public relations interests.

In 1954 the industry established the Tobacco Industry Research Council. Its task was to reassure the public that the industry could responsibly investigate the smoking and health issue and that it could resolve any problems that were uncovered. The Council’s real role, however, was ‘‘to stamp out bush fires as they arose’’. Instead of supporting genuine scientific research into the problems, it spent millions of dollars publicizing research purporting to prove that tobacco did not cause cancer. Its true purpose was to deliberately confuse the public about the risks of smoking. ‘‘Doubt is our product,’’ proclaimed an interna tobacco industry document in 1969. ‘‘Spread doubt over strong scientific evidence and the public won’t know what to believe.’’

By the late 1950s most of the industry already accepted that smoking caused lung cancer: in 1958 three British scientists, after meeting leading officials and scientists of the United States tobacco industry, reported: ‘‘With one exception the individuals whom we met believed that smoking caused lung cancer’’; in April 1970 an interna memorandum in Gallaher Limited, a British tobacco company, commenting on studies conducted on dogs that developed cancer after being exposed to tobacco smoke, reported: ‘‘Auerbach’s work proves beyond all reasonable doubt the causation of lung cancer by smoke’’ (11).

Manufacturing doubt

In 1988 a meeting of the United Kingdom tobacco industry was told of plans by Philip Morris to spend ‘‘vast sums of money’’ on research by scientists who would dispute the health risks of passive smoking. The aim was to ‘‘coordinate and pay scientists on an international basis to keep the environmenta tobacco smoke controversy alive’’. Dropping any pretence that the research would be objective and neutral, a BAT memorandum stated that the scientific proposals would be filtered by lawyers to eliminate areas of sensitivity. The idea was that groups of scientists should produce research or stimulate controversy in such a way that public affairs people in the relevant countries would be able to make use of, or market, the information (12).

Bulletin of the World Health Organization
Print version ISSN 0042-9686
Bull World Health Organ vol.78 no.7 Genebra July 2000
doi: 10.1590/S0042-96862000000700007

Tobacco industry tactics for resisting public policy on health*
Yussuf Saloojee1 & Elif Dagli2

Actually, I am glad, and should the UN (2, Insightful)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 4 years ago | (#31040744)

The reason is that we NEED others to check the work. Look, I have little doubt that this is occurring. BUT, this really needs to be checked.

Elephant in the room (4, Insightful)

Lost Race (681080) | more than 4 years ago | (#31040796)

"Global warming" is not the problem. "Climate change" or whatever they're calling it this week is not the problem. Deglaciation is not the problem.

The problem is the billions of tons of ancient fossil carbon we're removing from the ground and adding to the atmosphere. All the climate / ocean / ecology effects are symptoms of that problem. That problem doesn't need "more study" or evangelism or scientific consensus, it's a simple obvious fact that anybody with high school education (even a politician or a capitalist) can understand. It's been obvious for decades, since long before "global warming" started getting any traction in public discourse.

The possible effects of the problem range from trivial and insignificant, to serious hardships of various sorts (well publicized by Gore et al), to utter catastrophe. The chances of serious hardship are high enough that we can't afford to dick around with study after study after study of complex chaotic systems trying build a model that can predict exactly, precisely, what is absolutely guaranteed to happen over the next 100 years. The chances of utter catastrophe, while still really unknown and probably very small, are still enough that we should ask ourselves why the fuck we're playing russian roulette with the whole world, when all we have to do is Stop. Putting. So. Much. Carbon. Into. The. Atmosphere.

I guess this attitude makes me an "evangelist" since I'm not advocating that we go full bore status quo until we're absolutely, positively, 100% certain with no doubt whatsoever what precise effects all this new CO2 will have in the long term. The problem is simple, the solution is obvious, the consequences are uncertain but why fuck around when the stakes are so high? How exactly are we benefiting by continuing to burn more and more and more petroleum and coal every year, mindlessly jerking around the delicately balanced ecosystem that keeps us alive?

Re:Elephant in the room (1)

Lost Race (681080) | more than 4 years ago | (#31040902)

Minor edit: "we can't afford to wait while we dick around with study after study"

I'm not suggesting that we abandon climatology, just that we don't need to wait for that science to start producing incontrovertible results before we start taking action. Climatology tells us what the consequences of large scale sustained CO2 release might be; the fact of rising CO2 level in the atmosphere is well-established and easily understood.

Re:Elephant in the room (1, Insightful)

Dr. Sp0ng (24354) | more than 4 years ago | (#31040924)

The chances of utter catastrophe, while still really unknown and probably very small, are still enough that we should ask ourselves why the fuck we're playing russian roulette with the whole world, when all we have to do is Stop. Putting. So. Much. Carbon. Into. The. Atmosphere.

And where, pray tell, did all that carbon come from in the first place? The atmosphere. Carbon levels in the past were way higher than they are today, and the planet survived just fine.

Their blackmail panel (1)

Snaller (147050) | more than 4 years ago | (#31040876)

is trying to get more money from the west - after it failed in Copenhagen.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>