What global warming?

[Cornish Steve]

And what's the opinion of Dr. Pachauri, the current chairman of the IPCC? He's on record as saying "IPCC studies only peer-review science. Let someone publish the data in a decent credible publication. I am sure IPCC would then accept it, otherwise we can just throw it into the dustbin." So, according to his rules, almost 5,600 sources of data in his panel's own report should be thrown into the dustbin. This means more than half the sources in about half the report's chapters. In practical terms, that would render the document meaningless.

 

[cjd]

I guess you didn't read it then.....

 

[Cornish Steve]

I guess you didn't read it then.....

I'm guessing that you're referring to Annex 2, which gives the IPCC report authors the right to include some non peer-reviewed and unpublished work - such as workshop proceedings. I understand exactly what this means, as would anyone who's published the results of scientific research. For example, I spoke at two international conferences on magnetic materials, and IEEE published both of the papers I presented, even though they weren't peer reviewed. I agree that this is acceptable and standard practice.

The report authors went much further than this, though. They published "press releases, newspaper and magazine clippings, student theses, newsletters, discussion papers, and literature published by green advocacy groups." There's no way that these publication guidelines were intended to give authors carte blanche when it came to references. What would be their value if they allow virtually anything to be used as a reference?

Anyway, the chairman of the IPCC is ultimately responsible for the report. He has stated publicly that he abides by a higher standard: Within the last couple of months, he announced that no source would ever be used in his team's work unless it is peer-reviewed. He stated that any material that is not peer-reviewed would be "thrown into the dustbin" (his exact words). Quite frankly, he's damned his own report.

 

[cjd]

Ok having accepted that the IPCC can include many types of evidence other than strictly peer reviewed scientific papers, I suggest you now read the paper sited as the 'worst' in your link - Working Group 3, Chapter 4, which contains only 15% peer reviewed references.

That paper is actually a review of policy and politics of developing climate mitigation. It is not a 'science' paper - it introduces the political dimensions of the problem and quotes background and political issues surrounded it. So, surprise, surprise, much of what it talks about is not scientific.

Your blogger - who is promoting her forthcoming book - took no interest in the actual content of the papers, and obviously hasn't even read them to see whether her 'analysis' is actually relevant to anything at all.

The author, herself has amazing credentials:

"Begun in early 2009, the NOconsensus.org web site is wholly researched, written, designed, and published by Donna Laframboise, a self-employed photographer. "

I might as well have asked my mother's opinion.

 

[cjd]

Anyway, the chairman of the IPCC is ultimately responsible for the report. He has stated publicly that he abides by a higher standard: Within the last couple of months, he announced that no source would ever be used in his team's work unless it is peer-reviewed. He stated that any material that is not peer-reviewed would be "thrown into the dustbin" (his exact words). Quite frankly, he's damned his own report.

Ok, I've now read the quote from the Indian Times where the Chairman says 'his exact words'.

He's responding to being told about a discussion paper claiming that "there was no conclusive evidence to prove that the Himalayan glaciers are melting due to climate change"

The paper admits that "there was no doubt that the `health' of the glaciers was very poor and the situation was reaching alarming proportions but warned that there was little evidence to connect it to climate change or black carbon.

The paper also says "that there was not enough data to present any conclusive evidence to show linkages at the moment with long term data existing only for 20-30 glaciers and there was only one automated weather station in the entire Himalayas to record climatic data."

So, "when asked if the discussion paper could be taken into consideration in the on-going round of scientific review by IPCC, he (the Chairman of the IPCC) said, "IPCC studies only peer-review science. Let someone publish the data in a decent credible publication. I am sure IPCC would then accept it, otherwise we can just throw it into the dustbin."

Which is a perfectly reasonable response and one that you've deliberately misused.

 

[Cornish Steve]

It's not misused at all. He's making the point that his team considers only peer-reviewed papers, and that's simply not the case.

I'm not throwing my support behind this latest review of the IPCC, having pointed out earlier that it's about as objective as earlier reviews of the UEA fiasco. The point about the use of only peer-reviewed material, however, is valid. The chairman of the IPCC is trying to have his cake and eat it and, as a result, has poisoned it.

How many times in this discussion have you dismissed arguments with the comment "it's not peer reviewed"? The point is that much of the material used in the IPCC report itself is not peer reviewed, so why claim that arguments against it must be? That's a double standard.

 

[cjd]

There's no way out of this Steve, if you want the science to appear in the IPCC science reports it must be peer reviewed; that's the way it works and that's what the chairman said.

The fact that there's some non-peer reviewed references in the IPCC documents is utterly irrelevant - unless they form a core part of the science.

 

[Cornish Steve]

There's no way out of this Steve, if you want the science to appear in the IPCC science reports it must be peer reviewed; that's the way it works and that's what the chairman said.

The fact that there's some non-peer reviewed references in the IPCC documents is utterly irrelevant - unless they form a core part of the science.

As a reminder: some is approximately 50% - and includes news reports and propaganda supplied by green advocacy groups. As has been revealed quite a lot recently, many of these non peer-reviewed sources do relate to the science. This is why the IPCC has had to backtrack on several outrageous and largely unfounded claims.

 

[alexpeterson]

Hi,
Scientists have determined that a number of human activities are contributing to global warming by adding excessive amounts of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide accumulate in the atmosphere and trap heat that normally would exit into outer space.

Thanks

 

[Cornish Steve]

Hi,
Scientists have determined that a number of human activities are contributing to global warming by adding excessive amounts of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide accumulate in the atmosphere and trap heat that normally would exit into outer space.

Thanks

Regular programming will resume as soon as possible.

 

[iArtist]

Thre are so many 'scheme's that scaremonger to create an industry

Sun cream industry might be a good example

YOU will get cancer if you don't BUY lots of suncream
YOU must look brown so use a sunbed
You must look brown so buy a fake tan cream, fake tan spray, tanning pills, tanning injections

BUT above all do NOT choose the free alternative which is to sit in the sun!

 

[iArtist]

Oh and before I forget

Global Warming LIE - by Leah

 

[cjd]

BUT above all do NOT choose the free alternative which is to sit in the sun!

Do you doubt that long term exposure to the sun can cause skin cancer? Or that people are being exploited by the companies that manufacture the products that can protect them from it? Or something else entirely?

 

[papverpoppies]

Have you seen the DEFRA information commercial about water.

Amazingly they state that people in Italy and Greece have access to more drinking water per head of population than we do.

Are they really trying to blame that on GW - that is just poor management and an old leaking water system.

Still makes you think though.

Poppy xx

 

[iArtist]

Do you doubt that long term exposure to the sun can cause skin cancer? Or that people are being exploited by the companies that manufacture the products that can protect them from it? Or something else entirely?

Define long term exposure?

 

[cjd]

Define long term exposure?

If the definition causes you a problem, forget it; do you doubt that exposure to the sun can cause skin cancer?

 

[cjd]

Some good things come out of global warming.

Rising sea levels in the Bay of Bengal has submerged New Moore Island, resolving a long-standing dispute between India and Bangladesh, which they had both claimed.

 

[iArtist]

If the definition causes you a problem, forget it; do you doubt that exposure to the sun can cause skin cancer?

The definition is the difference between tanning safely in the sun without protection as many do and have done for thousands of years before sun cream was invented and getting skin cancer from sitting for a weirdly long time in the sun or using sun beds.

So, please define the type of exposure you are referring to.

I am not going to get skin cancer tanning how I tan and neither will my kids. I am 100% certain of that.

 

[cjd]

So, please define the type of exposure you are referring to.

Well I'm no expert so I rely on the experts. Here's what the MCmillan Trust says about it.

Ultraviolet light (UVA and UVB) from the sun is the main environmental cause of most skin cancers. It’s likely that most skin damage from ultraviolet light occurs before the age of 20, but it doesn’t show up until many years later. Damage to the skin below the age of 20 is an important risk factor in the development of basal cell cancers. Sun exposure over a lifetime is more significant for squamous cell cancers.

Skin cancer is becoming more common and there are several possible reasons for this. People are living longer and so their lifetime sun exposure is greater. They often spend more time enjoying outdoor activities and holidays in sunny climates, and many people still consider suntans to be healthy and attractive. Another reason why skin cancers appear more common is because awareness has increased over the last 20 years.

People who work outdoors for a living, such as farm workers, builders and gardeners, are at an increased risk of developing skin cancer because of prolonged exposure to the sun. This is relevant for both squamous cell and basal cell cancers.

Black- or brown-skinned people have an extremely low risk of developing skin cancer because the melanin pigment in their skin gives them protection. A fair-skinned person who tends to go red or freckle in the sun will be most at risk. Children and young adults who have been overexposed to the sun have an increased risk of developing some form of skin cancer especially if they are fair skinned. This will not show up until later on in life – usually after about the age of 40, and often not until the age of 60 or 70.

The regular use of sunlamps and sunbeds can increase the risk of developing some skin cancers but this is seen mainly in people who have used them excessively and regularly for many years.

http://www.macmillan.org.uk/Cancerinformation/Cancertypes/Skin/Aboutskincancer/Causes.aspx

I am not going to get skin cancer tanning how I tan and neither will my kids. I am 100% certain of that.

How do you know? Is it worth the risk?

 

[papverpoppies]

The definition is the difference between tanning safely in the sun without protection as many do and have done for thousands of years before sun cream was invented and getting skin cancer from sitting for a weirdly long time in the sun or using sun beds.

So, please define the type of exposure you are referring to.

I am not going to get skin cancer tanning how I tan and neither will my kids. I am 100% certain of that.

How can you know?

Yes people have been sitting in the sun for thousands of years, and I would say many died from skin cancer, but then we did not know about the harm the sun could do then - did we?

Is there a time/type of exposure - I do not think so - I think that depends on our skins and how strong the suns rays are on any given days..so I cannot see how you can say you are 100% certain - or why you would want to.

Poppy

 

[Cornish Steve]

Plenty of studies hint at tumours caused by cellphones, but we wish these studies away. Is it Richard Branson who won't use a phone except hands-free? I think so. It's not uncommon that we pick and choose data to serve our own purpose or to justify our actions - and tanning and global warming are no different.

 

[papverpoppies]

Plenty of studies hint at tumours caused by cellphones, but we wish these studies away. Is it Richard Branson who won't use a phone except hands-free? I think so. It's not uncommon that we pick and choose data to serve our own purpose or to justify our actions - and tanning and global warming are no different.

If not the case - then I wonder why Australia has the highest rate of skin cancer in the World.

Fair skinned race.
Out door life
I know their proximity to the equator plays a part (but even so)
Stats say that 2 out of every 3 Australians will develop SC by the age of 70.

I would not call that inconclusive..

Poppy

 

[Cornish Steve]

Sorry for the confusion. I had been responding to Leah's earlier message, only I forgot to quote it!

 

[StephenW]

Lets not forget that sunshine is needed by the body to produce Vitamin D which is said to be essential for your health. You will wide a wealth of material here: http://www.grc.com/health/vitamin-d.htm

" "Vitamin D" Research
What and how the world is beginning to
learn about the importance of "Vitamin D" "

 

[jncc]

I believe in behavioural measures to protect against damage from the sun. Whether it would lead to cancer or otherwise, we have all felt that over-expsure to the sun can cause sunburn and the light "illness" that goes along with it. In historical times, before we led our lives almost entirely indoors, I imagine that as the sun's intensity increased over the spring months people got a slowly-increasing dose and their skin adapted (by tanning and other means) so that come the height of summer it was no problem at all. I have quite gingery hair and very pale skin so I certainly have to be careful.

Today, though, most people barely see the sun for a few minutes a day and then suddenly jet off to some tropical holiday destination for two weeks in the middle of the summer, and consequently burn to a crisp.

I stopped using sun cream as soon as I was old enough to consider such things for myself, and I'll never touch the stuff again. You can find out for yourself why I might think that - it would just add another tangent to this topic! I find that even when quite out of my element in very sunny/hot regions, I can easily sense how much sun I'm getting and when I need to seek shade. Long sleeves and a hat (or long hair, even) work fine. As a result I have never been sunburnt since I stopped using sun cream - whereas before that it certainly happened a number of times.

I'm lucky in that my work keeps me outside a lot, and I have free time to spend outdoors as well, and even now in late april I've been getting a good bit of sun and it "feels" good. By mid summer I'll be again be able to spend a whole day in the sun with no risk.

 

[iArtist]

How can you know?

Yes people have been sitting in the sun for thousands of years, and I would say many died from skin cancer, but then we did not know about the harm the sun could do then - did we?

Is there a time/type of exposure - I do not think so - I think that depends on our skins and how strong the suns rays are on any given days..so I cannot see how you can say you are 100% certain - or why you would want to.

Poppy

It does depend on our skin, it also depends on the chemicals and antibiotics we consume which lower our resistance to the UV light thus increasing our chances of skin cancer. Exposure to sun light is not the main cause of skin cancer, skin type, hereditry features and chemicals most likely are. The three things above are what increases the likelihood of us being at risk from the sun as oppose to us just being at risk from the sun if that makes sense.

It's like saying pollen is harmful because some people get hayfever.

I've seen a documentary on this. They tested Linda Lusardi's skin for damaged cells and susceptibility to skin cancer given she has used a sunbed maybe 3 weeks+ a week for around 30 yrs against someone who has never been on a sunbed and NEVER sat out in the sun.

Result?

The one who'd never sat out in the sun had skin cell damage and was at HIGH risk of skin cancer. Linda however was fine.

Likely reason, candidate B was naturally fair.

I also read another piece of research that said the sun offers protection from skin cancer. But of course it all depends how you are in the sun, your skin type and those chemicals.

It's a case of reading up on it.

I am not a Dr and this should not be taken as medical advice. It is based on my own reading and that documentary etc. I suggest anyone with concerns does their own reading and research. Meanwhile I am confident Poppy I won't get skin cancer (due to the sun) for these reasons:

I am not naturally fair
I have never burned in the sun
I don't sit in sun that would burn me for a period long enough to burn me
I have never been a big sun worshipper so didn't damage my skin from 'over exposure' as a child or other
I do not consume or are exposed to the chemicals that lower my protection from UV light.
I am and have always been sensible in the sun and tan naturally and safely.

 

[iArtist]

I stopped using sun cream as soon as I was old enough to consider such things for myself, and I'll never touch the stuff again. You can find out for yourself why I might think that - it would just add another tangent to this topic! I find that even when quite out of my element in very sunny/hot regions, I can easily sense how much sun I'm getting and when I need to seek shade. Long sleeves and a hat (or long hair, even) work fine. As a result I have never been sunburnt since I stopped using sun cream - whereas before that it certainly happened a number of times.

I'm lucky in that my work keeps me outside a lot, and I have free time to spend outdoors as well, and even now in late april I've been getting a good bit of sun and it "feels" good. By mid summer I'll be again be able to spend a whole day in the sun with no risk.

Thank you for that contribution

I also agree that sun cream can persuade people to sit out longer in stronger heat. Not a good plan.

 

[dagr]

"Sun exposure is the main cause of malignant melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancers."

That's from CancerResearch UK.

We also see it from the business end, as malignant melanoma is one of the "growth" (no pun intended) areas in terms of cancer detection and treatment for our product lines.

It's like smoking and lung cancer (although not necessarily in the same proportion). You will always find someone who smoked 40 a day and never got even a wiff of cancer, and died quietly at age 98. If you have good genes, then you wont get cancer, short of walking into Tchernobyl power station 3. But, if as individuals, we don't know what our genes will do in the face of potential carcinogens, best not to play with fire and be sensible.

Oh, and unlike almost any other cancer, melanoma rates are growing quicker among young folk. Strange. In fact, I think it's the most prevalent cancer for the under 40s (I'll have to check that).

I should add that I know many indigenous people from hot foreign countries, and none of them sunbathe between 11am and 4pm in the day. Mad dogs, etc...

 

[Cornish Steve]

Save it from what? And when would be too late?

 

[KidsBeeHappy]

We should all be proactive in this kind of thing. We have only one earth and we should save it before its too late

I wouldn't worry too much. I'm looking forward to that first post with links in.....

 

[atwaltraining]

We should all be proactive in this kind of thing. We have only one earth and we should save it before its too late

The earth has been around for millions of years. It has seen many changes in temperatures from one extreme to the other. It is still here.

The earth is big enough to look after itself. Don't let the scare stories get to you.

 

[StephenW]

Mann = Dr. Michael Mann of the hockey stick

"In papers sent to UVA April 23, Cuccinelli's office commands the university to produce a sweeping swath of documents relating to Mann's receipt of nearly half a million dollars in state grant-funded climate research conducted while Mann- now director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State- was at UVA between 1999 and 2005.

If Cuccinelli succeeds in finding a smoking gun like the purloined emails that led to the international scandal dubbed Climategate, Cuccinelli could seek the return of all the research money, legal fees, and trebled damages."

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/29/virginia-attorney-general-goes-after-mann-and-uva/

 

[MASSEY]

The earth has been around for millions of years. It has seen many changes in temperatures from one extreme to the other. It is still here.

The earth is big enough to look after itself. Don't let the scare stories get to you.

What about the thinning ozone layer above australia.

Will that repair itself?

 

[Cornish Steve]

While demanding that we all consume less energy, take fewer flights, and generally expecting everyone to return to the Dark Ages, Al Gore, almost a green billionaire, has just bought yet another mansion to go along with rest of his energy-guzzling appurtenances. What does he take us for? As the quoted articles states:

the recently purchased Gore second mansion at Montecito, in Oprah country, is of some national interest. Why would Gore purchase a second energy-guzzling estate, replete with several fireplaces, fountains and bathrooms, when he was stung so badly about his hypocritically profligate energy use in his Tennessee compound, his houseboat, and his private-jet junketeering? Does he understand that his newest mansion is a sort of volcanic ash-cloud that has now overwhelmed Earth in the Balance, Inc?

 

[Dawg]

Stop kvetching! He is just recycling some of those Nobel Prize dollars he won for being a prince amongst men.

 

[cjd]

He's just being a tw@t - ignore him.

 

[Dawg]

He's just being a tw@t - ignore him.

How can I possibly ignore Prince Al Gore, Nobel prize winner, and flatulent seraphim to gliberals everywhere?
Tell me that then Stilla.

 

[cjd]

Looks like you're managing ok so far Dawg....

 

[gavin_atDeltaSoft]

There is definately a greenhouse effect, which will lead to climate change.

 

[Cornish Steve]

There is definately a greenhouse effect, which will lead to climate change.

Without the greenhouse effect, we'd freeze to death every night. It's one of the essential elements of the earth's climate. It's always existed. Saying there's definitely a greenhouse effect that will lead to climate change is like saying there's definitely oxygen in air that will lead to forest fires. The issue at hand is whether mankind is in any way making the effect more or less pronounced, beyond what nature already does - just like changing the percentage of oxygen in air could increase the likelihood of forest fires.