U.N.'s Global Warming Report Under Fresh Attack (by Fox News) for Rainforest Claims - Polidicks

[QUOTE] A United Nations report on climate change that has been lambasted for its faulty research is under new attack for yet another instance of what its critics say is sloppy science -- adding to a growing scandal that has undermined the credibility of scientists and policymakers who back the U.N.'s findings about global warming. In the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), issued in 2007 by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), scientists wrote that 40 percent of the Amazon rainforest in South America was endangered by global warming. [b]But that assertion was discredited this week when it emerged that the findings were based on numbers from a study by the World Wildlife Federation that had nothing to do with the issue of global warming -- and that was written by a freelance journalist and green activist.[/b] The IPCC report states that "up to 40 percent of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation" -- highlighting the threat climate change poses to the Earth. The report goes on to say that "it is more probable that forests will be replaced by ecosystems ... such as tropical savannas." But it has now been revealed that the claim was based on a WWF study titled "Global Review of Forest Fires," a paper barely related to the Amazon rainforest that was written "to secure essential policy reform at national and international level to provide a legislative and economic base for controlling harmful anthropogenic forest fires."EUReferendum, a blog skeptical of global warming, uncovered the WWF association. It noted that the original "40 percent" figure came from a letter published in the journal Nature that discussed harmful logging activities -- and again had nothing to do with global warming. The reference to the Brazilian rainforest can be found in Chapter 13 of the IPCC Working Group II report, the same section of AR4 in which claims are made that the Himalayan glaciers are rapidly melting because of global warming. Last week, the data leading to this claim were disproved as well, a scandal being labeled "glacier-gate" or "Himalaya-gate." The Himalaya controversy followed another tempest -- the disclosure of e-mails that suggested that leading global warming scientists in the U.K. and the U.S. had conspired to hide a decline in global temperatures. "If it is true that IPCC has indeed faked numbers regarding the Amazon, or used unsubstantiated facts, then it is the third nail in the IPCC coffin in less than three months," Andrew Wheeler, former staff director for the U.S. Senate's Environment and Public Works Committee, told FoxNews.com. "For years, we have been told that the IPCC peer review process is the gold standard in scientific review. It now appears it is more of a fool's gold process." Wheeler, who is now a senior vice president with B&D Consulting's Energy, Climate and Environment Practice in Washington, said the latest scandal calls into question the "entire underpinnings" of the IPCC's assessment and peer review process. The U.N. did not return calls seeking comment on the scandal. Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, vice chairman of the IPCC, was quoted in the European press as saying, "I would like to submit that this could increase the credibility of the IPCC, not decrease it. Aren't mistakes human? Even the IPCC is a human institution." But not everyone agrees. Ross McKitrick, a professor of economics at the University of Guleph in Ontario, said the U.N. needs to start from scratch on global warming research and make a "full accounting" of how much of its research findings have been "likewise compromised." McKitrick said this is needed because the U.N. acknowledged the inaccuracy of the data only now that its shortcomings have been exposed. "They are admitting what they did only because they were caught," he told FoxNews.com. "The fact that so many IPCC authors kept silent all this time shows how monumental has been the breach of trust." Lubos Motl, a Czech physicist and former Harvard University faculty member, said the deforestation of the Amazon has occurred, but not because of global warming. He said it was due to social and economic reasons, including the clearing of cattle pastures, subsistence agriculture, the building of infrastructure and logging. "Such economically driven changes are surely unattractive for those of us who prefer mysterious and natural forests," says Motl. "But they do help the people who live in Latin America." The rapidly accumulating scandals surrounding climate change research appear to be driving the public away from its support for government measures to intervene. On Wednesday, Yale University and George Mason University released a survey showing that just 57 percent of respondents believe global warming "is happening." That was down 14 percentage points, from 71 percent, in October 2008. Fifty percent of people said they were "very" or "somewhat" worried about global warming, down 13 points from two years ago. Another poll released Monday by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press asked respondents to rank 21 issues in terms of their priority. Global warming came in last. [/QUOTE] Source: [url]http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/01/28/save-rainforest-climate-change-scandal-chopped-facts/[/url] Don't judge me for having a bias source, the UN does it too :v:

I don't think fox would have bias against the UN except for israel issues

Well, at least they didn't fake their gender as well.

You're right, so we should continue to pump carbon dioxide in the air and litter our oceans. Nothing bad will happen right? :downs:

We just need to have a rule about posting shit from Fox News.

I take most things the UN says with little regard. They're starting to remind me of NK.

[QUOTE=Daolpu;19904059]I take most things the UN says with little regard. They're starting to remind me of NK.[/QUOTE] yep that well-intentioned but totally ineffectual organization of nations sure is similar to a brutal fascist regime

[QUOTE=Sigma-Lambda;19904229]yep that well-intentioned but totally ineffectual organization of nations sure is similar to a brutal fascist regime[/QUOTE] Both of them claim to be powerful, while the rest of the world laughs at them.

The UN doing something stupid again, bloody hell the world would be better if the IPCC didn't exist.

[QUOTE=Sigma-Lambda;19904229]yep that well-intentioned but totally ineffectual organization of nations sure is similar to a brutal fascist regime[/QUOTE] Not like that. More in terms of both are making claims that are incredibly far fetched/false, but I probably shouldn't have used NK as the object of the metaphor.

global warming is in UK

Whenever I think of global warming I laugh; not long ago scientists were terrified of "global cooling."

[QUOTE=Alan Ninja!;19907222]Whenever I think of global warming I laugh; not long ago scientists were terrified of "global cooling."[/QUOTE] no they weren't

[QUOTE=Alan Ninja!;19907222]Whenever I think of global warming I laugh; not long ago scientists were terrified of "global cooling."[/QUOTE] yeah science changes by this logic evolution is false because "not long ago" we didn't know any better

Evolution is a theory, not a fact. Just like global warming and global cooling.

So you deny evolution as you deny global warming on the same basis? I kind of wondering why you don't see the futility in this ideal.

Neither of them have been proven, so why must I believe in them? It is a choice, and I have given you my choice.

Because theories have proof, which is what classifies them as a theory? That's exactly my point, you don't know any of this, thus it's futile for you to even post about it. It's akin to a child storming a physics class and screaming I don't understand this. These threads are useless, because TH89 will just post a whole bunch of evidence, you and your group of "skeptics" who hardly even understand the subject will deny it, TH89 will get bored, and I'll just sit back and laugh at how hilarious it is when people who don't understand anything about the subject attempt to say something more than simply "I don't know anything about this..." Feel free to post as much dumb "skeptics" material as you want, but you're gonna have to realize fact and science isn't on your side, only stubbornness is.

[QUOTE=thisispain;19908066]Because theories have proof, which is what classifies them as a theory? That's exactly my point, you don't know any of this, thus it's futile for you to even post about it. It's akin to a child storming a physics class and screaming I don't understand this. These threads are useless, because TH89 will just post a whole bunch of evidence, you and your group of "skeptics" who hardly even understand the subject will deny it, TH89 will get bored, and I'll just sit back and laugh at how hilarious it is when people who don't understand anything about the subject attempt to say something more than simply "I don't know anything about this..." Feel free to post as much dumb "skeptics" material as you want, but you're gonna have to realize fact and science isn't on your side, only stubbornness is.[/QUOTE] Scientific laws have proofs. That's why they're laws. Not theories. Theories are unproven beliefs based in logic and evidence but [i]have yet to be proven.[/i]

-snip- Emperor Scorpius beat me to the punch. Thank you. The final verdict is that global warming has not been proven, and therefore cannot be described as fact.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;19908130]Scientific laws have proofs. That's why they're laws. Not theories. Theories are unproven beliefs based in logic and evidence but [i]have yet to be proven.[/i][/QUOTE] No, scientific laws are statements that sum up a fundamental principle. A theory and a scientific law differ in that a theory explains and shows a mechanism of the phenomenon, while a scientific law is the summation of those theories. Newton's law of gravity is supported by theories. This just proves me right, you don't even know what becomes a scientific law and what becomes theory.

Check your science textbook. A theory is a possible explanation of a phenomenon that has not yet been proven to be a fact.

[QUOTE=Alan Ninja!;19908277]Check your science textbook. A theory is a possible explanation of a phenomenon that has not yet been proven to be a fact.[/QUOTE] [quote]Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to describe, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and universal, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don’t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true. Specifically, scientific laws must be simple, true, universal, and absolute. They represent the cornerstone of scientific discovery, because if a law ever did not apply, then all science based upon that law would collapse. Some scientific laws, or laws of nature, include the law of gravity, Newton's laws of motion, the laws of thermodynamics, Boyle's law of gases, the law of conservation of mass and energy, and Hook’s law of elasticity. Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation. Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis. In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology. In fact, some laws, such as the law of gravity, can also be theories when taken more generally. The law of gravity is expressed as a single mathematical expression and is presumed to be true all over the universe and all through time. Without such an assumption, we can do no science based on gravity's effects. But from the law, we derived the theory of gravity which describes how gravity works,what causes it, and how it behaves. We also use that to develop another theory, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, in which gravity plays a crucial role. The basic law is intact, but the theory expands it to include various and complex situations involving space and time. [/quote] You read your scientific textbook so you don't talk out of your ass. It's not called the Evolutionary Hypothesis, is it...

[QUOTE=Alan Ninja!;19908277]Check your science textbook. A theory is a possible explanation of a phenomenon that has not yet been proven to be a fact.[/QUOTE] A theory doesn't stay a theory because it doesn't have enough evidence, that's not how it works guy. Read thisispain's post, thoroughly.

[B]tl;dr[/B] we're all gonna die

[QUOTE=thisispain;19908367]You read your scientific textbook so you don't talk out of your ass. It's not called the Evolutionary Hypothesis, is it...[/QUOTE] Major Zing.

Just like thisispain said, theory =/= hypothesis.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;19908130]Scientific laws have proofs. That's why they're laws. Not theories. Theories are unproven beliefs based in logic and evidence but [i]have yet to be proven.[/i][/QUOTE] No, theories CANNOT be proven. A theory cannot become a law, and laws were not once theories. If you really need help with this read The Greatest Show On Earth. Generally speaking, a law describes something universally true (acceleration due to gravity is 9.8m/s^2, or whatever). A theory describes how something works. The THEORY of gravitation explains how it works. The FACTS of evolution and global warming are more or less undisputed by scientists in those fields. The only scientific debate is over minor aspects of the mechanics. In any case, Fox's bias here is clear--they repeatedly use the passive voice in order to avoid mentioning WHO discovered the mistake in the IPCC data. So it's fair to conclude that the IPCC corrected itself--if it was a watchdog group, Fox would be singing their praises in the first paragraph. And while it IS a mistake, it doesn't necessarily mean very much--nobody is perfect, and any regularly released scientific report put up to the kind of 24/7 political scrutiny that global warming studies are would probably have the same kinds of mistakes, if not worse ones. [b]The fact that the IPCC corrects its own mistakes, even though they know right-wingers and climate deniers will rip them a new one in the media, is a GOOD thing. It shows they're apolitical and more concerned with being right than with public relations. Because they're the leading scientists in the field, and that's what scientists do.[/b]

I wonder why the two "scientists" in this thread haven't posted anything since my last post.

Also 99% of the scientific community agrees that global warming is real. I don't see how you can argue against that.