The Birds

The Birds, a Hitchcock film from 1963 with Rod Taylor and Tippi Hedren – love that film!  But that’s not the subject of my post today.  It’s this report on The State of the Birds, 2010, issued by the Interior Department.  This is the press release headline at the link:

Secretary Salazar Releases New “State of the Birds” Report Showing Climate Change Threatens Hundreds of Species
Austin, TX–Climate change threatens to further imperil hundreds of species of migratory birds, already under stress from habitat loss, invasive species and other environmental threats, a new report released today by Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar concludes.

Reading through this notice of key findings, I see that it is the same as many others I read in press releases and article abstracts.  Climate change is happening, and it’s having bad effects on our environment.  This seems to be a good example of climate bandwagon-ism. Everything is, and must be shown to be related to the threat posed by climate change.  Beat the drum loudly! Consider the key findings (emphasis mine):

  • Oceanic birds are among the most vulnerable species because they don’t raise many young each year… and they nest on islands that may be flooded as sea levels rise. All 67 oceanic bird species…are among the most vulnerable birds on Earth to climate change.

Okay, but what if climate predictions are wrong?  Fact is, these birds are threatened by a lot of things now!

  • Hawaiian birds … already face multiple threats and are increasingly challenged by mosquito-borne diseases and invasive species as climate change alters their native habitats.

The assumption is that global climate change has altered their habitat and will continue to do so, presumably at ever increasing rates.  I wonder how much worse the threats will be than they are already?

  • Birds in coastal, arctic/alpine, and grassland habitats…show intermediate levels of vulnerability; most birds in aridlands, wetlands, and forests show relatively low vulnerability to climate change.

Just for the record, this accounts for most species, not that those minority bird populations aren’t important!

  • For bird species that are already of conservation concern… the added vulnerability to climate change may hasten declines or prevent recovery.

Like the poor people of the world, the species that are in trouble now are the most likely to suffer most when anything changes and makes life a bit more difficult.

  • The report identified common bird species … that are likely to become species of conservation concern as a result of climate change.

Aren’t these species in habitats that are least likely to be affected?  So, from among these “safer” species, the report picks out the ones that have the  greatest likelihood of showing some stress, when that climate change kicks in as we all know it will…must!  Just wondering, how much of a risk is “of concern..?”  Have to read the report.

After the listing of Key Findings, there is this:

    “All of the effective bird conservation efforts already taking place to protect rare species, conserve habitats, and remove threats need to be continued,” said David Mehlman of The Nature Conservancy. “Additionally, they need to be greatly expanded to meet the threat climate change poses to bird populations.”

Bravo for that!  Yes, I am all for maintaining and expanding our efforts to conserve bird populations, bird habitat, and species diversity.  What does climate change have to do with it?  Why bring it in other than to try and build concern…hysteria?

Okay, they are bureaucrats, and they write reports.  So, let’s see what they’ve given us:

Many bird populations are threatened now by human settlement patterns.  Birds that have insecure populations now will be less secure if climate change occurs as predicted.  We may see birds that are common now show some stress if climate changes occur as predicted.  If climate change occurs as predicted, our present efforts to stabilize bird populations may not be as effective as hoped.

That’s it.  May, might, if…Now this report will start turning up in arguments that use it to prove that AGW is a clear and present danger to human and biosphere health!  We are already such a destructive force in the biosphere that computer models of climate change are the last thing birds should be worrying about.  They should be more concerned about how they will look in the planned remake of Hitchcock’s gem!

About these ads

23 Responses to The Birds

  1. troutsky says:

    So your only asking for absolute proof? Geez you should have just said so. Go where the rest of the deniers go, Genesis.China, rather than waiting for that 100% certainty, will have renewables in 20% of it’s energy portfolio by 2020.

    I just saw where Peabody Coal joined your coalition of proof-seekers.

  2. lichanos says:

    I’m not asking for absolute proof of anything. I just don’t know what is the substance of these “findings” other than if predictions hold true, some bad things will happen.

    What bothers me is that people forget the “if” and will cite the consequences as proof.

    Renewables are fine – I’m all for it. Strange that you would find the Chinese government’s policies a source of comfort.

  3. Ed Darrell says:

    The assumption is that global climate change has altered their habitat and will continue to do so, presumably at ever increasing rates.

    It’s only an assumption for those who don’t bother to read the other reports. Climate change and its effect on birds has been documented for more than 50 years. Why do you claim it’s an assumption?

    • lichanos says:

      Climate change and its effect on birds has been documented for more than 50 years.

      Nobody doubts that climate changes affects birds, and every other living thing. The point is, are there effects that can be traced to the putative warming supposedly caused by industrial discharges? Claims of this sort don’t go back 50 years, I think. More like…20?

      When I wrote what you quoted in your comment, I was specifically referring to AGW, not, say, changes during the Little Ice Age.

      Your logic seems to be: Climate change affects birds – everyone knows that. Therefore, all claims made now about how AGW is affecting birds are true. Two separate questions, at least two, here.

  4. Ed Darrell says:

    Climate change prompted by humans has been evident for 5,000 years at least (see the 1939 Publication #2 from the Soil Conservation Service).

    You doubt humans can affect climate? You never studied the Dust Bowl?

    You doubt air pollution can change climate? Show me the oak and maple forests on the Oquirrh Mountains, please — they were there in 1900. Where did they go?

    Your logic seems to be, you don’t want to believe that warming is a problem, so you’ll claim that it doesn’t happen; if someone provides clear evidence that it happens, you’ll try to deny that humans can do it; if there is proof human actions can cause climate change, you’ll claim that it’s not so in this case.

    We used to call that “Tobacco Institute Syndrome.” No matter how clear the links, no matter how potent the evidence, the Tobacco Institute would find some reason to claim that tobacco is not harmful. We found a study with 100% mortality, and the Tobacco Institute claimed it was false because some of the victims might have died from accidents. When we showed the table that none of the victims died of accidents, they seized on the fact that victims died at different ages — showing, they claimed, that tobacco harms could not be predicted well in humans.

    I had only read a couple of comments back; you didn’t refer to human-caused warming in that post to which I responded.

    If you accept that climate change forces changes in bird populations, the only question is whether any particular change is aided by human action. If you don’t deny heat islands, how can you possibly contest human causation at least in part?

  5. Ed Darrell says:

    Here’s the link I should have put in the first paragraph:

    http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/news/pub/pdf/conquest.pdf

  6. lichanos says:

    If you don’t deny heat islands, how can you possibly contest human causation at least in part?

    I don’t, and never have. I only contest the assertion that current GCMs accurately predict irrevocable global warming (if no action is taken) driven by human discharge of CO2 through combustion. I have posted about George Perkins Marsh who first scientifically discussed the relationship between land use and climate in the late 19th century. Pielke, who doesn’t like to be called a “skeptic,” has argued the same point repeatedly.

    The examples of heat islands, the Dust Bowl, and other humanly induced climate changes show that industrial discharge of CO2 is not required to force climate change. Therefore, we need not assume that it IS causing the climate change…if climate change is truly occurring.

    Furthermore, it is a great leap from saying that human activity causes local or regional climate changes to saying that the entire global system is being driven by human discharge of CO2. The two ideas are not connected in any necessary way.

    I am slightly familiar with the text you supplied via link. Not surprisingly, the 1930’s were a good time for soil scientists to air their views, mainstream or minority. A less flamboyant text from the 1950s is Soil and Civilization by Hyams.

    Your argument is extemely polemical in tone. You find it hard to believe that one who rejects your argument doesn’t accept a whole raft of nonsense. Not unlike those yahoos who think I must be a right wing conservative because I don’t accept the AGW notion. Just get it through your head – it’s really simple – I don’t deny that humans have an effect on climate. I just doubt that they are having the effect on it that Jim Hansen, the IPCC, et. al are claiming. I and I think that for very specific reasons.

    Rant all you want about Big Oil, Big Tobacco, and the idiotic Dunning-Kruger Effect: If that’s how you frame your arguments, you are well protected against any fact that might undermine your own thinking.

    You doubt air pollution can change climate? Show me the oak and maple forests on the Oquirrh Mountains, please — they were there in 1900. Where did they go?

    I’m not familiar with this, but what does it have to do with this discussion? Air pollution? Could not that have have killed the trees regardless of climate? How about pests, like the ones that eliminated chestunt trees in North American forests? I don’t know…but your argument seems to make no sense and be born of desparation.

    BTW, most scientific skeptics of AGW understand that CO2 has a warming effect on the earth. They also understand that increasing CO2 will cause the earth to warm now…somewhat. That’s the good old consensus, but the devil is in the details. HOW much is the question? The IPCC standard line is that all things being kept constant, CO2 increases would cause a moderate, not harmful warming of the planet. This is Lindzen’s view, the heretic from MIT. Where they differ is in the notion of what happens after that. The entire current AGW view is based on predictions of positive feedback, largely based on GCMs. That’s where all the problems come in. That’s why the details of the data record are SO important. The changes are small, small errors nudge the results singificantly one way or another over a long tim.

  7. Ed Darrell says:

    The examples of heat islands, the Dust Bowl, and other humanly induced climate changes show that industrial discharge of CO2 is not required to force climate change. Therefore, we need not assume that it IS causing the climate change…if climate change is truly occurring.

    So, your skepticism is that CO2 has any effect? You don’t deny warming — and consequently, you support actions to do something about it? What?

    Furthermore, it is a great leap from saying that human activity causes local or regional climate changes to saying that the entire global system is being driven by human discharge of CO2.

    No, that’s simple physics. It’s a great leap from our understanding of how the Earth’s atmosphere works, our understanding of how CO2 works as a greenhouse gas, to your conclusion that CO2 has magically stopped working as we’ve known it to work for the past billion years or so.

    No one argues that the CO2 is the lone cause. It is the chief cause of runaway warming. You seem to wish to set up a straw man argument here — have you studied the science of climate change over the past five decades, or is Anthony Watts your chief source?

    The two ideas are not connected in any necessary way.

    Well, not since George Bush repealed the laws of physics and chemistry in 2003, at least.

    But then, you had claimed you were talking science and not politics.

    I am slightly familiar with the text you supplied via link. Not surprisingly, the 1930’s were a good time for soil scientists to air their views, mainstream or minority. A less flamboyant text from the 1950s is Soil and Civilization by Hyams.

    Your argument is extemely polemical in tone.

    But less polemical than yours. I’m not assuming that scientists suddenly all went mad in the last 30 years, nor am I assuming that the laws of physics and chemistry were somehow suspended, but held up by a power-mad Al Gore who devised a plan to take over the world by using geeky climate scientists as his minions to gain control over all the governments of the world through some evil device involving the UN, and, I gather, Flash Gordon and the Emperor Ming in an unholy alliance with Darth Vader.

    You find it hard to believe that one who rejects your argument doesn’t accept a whole raft of nonsense.

    I have a hard time figuring out what your argument is other than a petulant “all scientists are wrong nyah-nyah-nyah.”

    Yeah, I find it difficult to comprehend that one who accepts an RMS Titanic of nonsense got there in one completely illogical leap.

    Not unlike those yahoos who think I must be a right wing conservative because I don’t accept the AGW notion.

    My experience is that people who accept one article of political tomfoolery, and who claim to be victim ONLY to that one article, aren’t being straight. You may be that one in 300 million, but you’d be the first in my decades in politics.

    Just get it through your head – it’s really simple – I don’t deny that humans have an effect on climate. I just doubt that they are having the effect on it that Jim Hansen, the IPCC, et. al are claiming. I and I think that for very specific reasons.

    Yeah, that’s the craziness there! You don’t deny the effect, but you deny all claims that the effect exists. Maybe it makes sense to you, but not to me. I’ll wager you can confuse others, too. I’ll wager you can’t explain it without confusing yourself.

    Rant all you want about Big Oil, Big Tobacco, and the idiotic Dunning-Kruger Effect: If that’s how you frame your arguments, you are well protected against any fact that might undermine your own thinking.

    Let me get this straight, then: You accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, except right now and right here. You accept that humans can affect climate in major ways, but you reject that humans can affect climate in the effects we’ve observed that cannot be explained by anything other than warming caused by a greenhouse effect. You accept the idea of a greenhouse effect, except when it’s observed. You accept that air pollutants we have controlled caused climate change, but you reject the idea that air pollutants we haven’t controlled can cause climate change; to that end you reject the idea that pollutants we haven’t controlled are pollutants, the better to deny that pollutants can still have big effects.

    Am I even close to your views there? Can you explain any deviation?

    I said: “You doubt air pollution can change climate? Show me the oak and maple forests on the Oquirrh Mountains, please — they were there in 1900. Where did they go?”

    I’m not familiar with this, but what does it have to do with this discussion? Air pollution? Could not that have have killed the trees regardless of climate?

    I’m just trying to figure out what it is you’re saying. You’d accept air pollution wiping out entire forests, except if that air pollution is CO2, right?

    I used the Oquirrh example because it’s a clear example of one pollution source wiping out an entire series of ecosystems, and it’s incontrovertible. It’s salient here because the control of those pollutants from that smelter smokestack left CO2 and other greenhouse gases as the only uncontrolled pollutants.

    How about pests, like the ones that eliminated chestunt trees in North American forests?

    No evidence of any fungal infections — as a pragmatic matter, no fungus could have survived the air pollution.

    Our forests across the North American continent are threatened now due to pine borers who have expanded their ranges dramatically due to warming climate.

    Your claims tick me off because I don’t think you realize that you’re chucking entire industries and region-wide ecosystems with your refusal to stand up for the forests. If you accept warming, regardless of cause, I cannot imagine why you’d take that stand.

    I don’t know…but your argument seems to make no sense and be born of desparation.

    Desperation to get you to open your eyes, nothing more. Your powerful denial of the facts seems borne of a particular kind of desperation, to me — but I can’t figure out what would make anyone so desperate to deny the facts.

    BTW, most scientific skeptics of AGW understand that CO2 has a warming effect on the earth. They also understand that increasing CO2 will cause the earth to warm now…somewhat. That’s the good old consensus, but the devil is in the details. HOW much is the question?

    I haven’t found that to be accurate. The few who claim there is any doubt in science tend to go all the way, as you do, and say there’s no significant warming, and that the warming we see and the doom it foretells is “just natural” and that we should just bend over and smile as it occurs. That’s the part that really ticks me off.

    The IPCC standard line is that all things being kept constant, CO2 increases would cause a moderate, not harmful warming of the planet.

    That misrepresentation of IPCC’s work and the science that goes into it is a good example of the harmful distortions I’m talking about. What possible, noble cause would prompt you to make such a misstatement, and claim it as fact?

    This is Lindzen’s view, the heretic from MIT.

    If that’s Lindzen’s view, we should note it’s shared by only a tiny handful of other experts. The clear consensus is that Lindzen’s view is wrong — and Lindzen hasn’t been able to provide data to back his claims, especially in the face of the global changes we’re seeing.

    Where they differ is in the notion of what happens after that. The entire current AGW view is based on predictions of positive feedback, largely based on GCMs. That’s where all the problems come in. That’s why the details of the data record are SO important. The changes are small, small errors nudge the results singificantly one way or another over a long tim.

    I think you misunderstand the issue. We’ve never had a potential for feedback like we see it now, in human history. In those periods in the distant past when CO2 may have been as significant as it is now, life for humans as we know it was impossible. Nor is there any hint that the causes were not catastrophic themselves.

    It’s important to understand that NASA got into this act modeling just how Venus’s atmosphere got into runaway mode. Somebody asked, almost jokingly, what it is that prevents our atmosphere from a runaway greenhouse effect.

    NASA discovered there is no barrier.

    We are now engaged in a massive experiment, pushing to see where the tipping point is, where we trigger a runaway greenhouse effect or some other catastrophe that might prevent such an effect, or make it worse.

    The great danger is that we have no control planet. We have only this one that we’re using as a sacrificial white rat. Most scientists are troubled at the ethics of such experiments.

    • lichanos says:

      You don’t read my comments very carefully, and you are awfully quick on the trigger. A few remarks:

      So, your skepticism is that CO2 has any effect?
      As you later found out, I do not think this.

      No, that’s simple physics.
      I am so tired of hearing this silly comment. If it were “simple physics”, no computer models would be required. It’s a very complex system. (The characteristics of CO2 are basic physics.) Newtown worked out the tides with pencil and paper. That’s simple physics, if you’re Newton!

      No one argues that the CO2 is the lone cause. It is the chief cause of runaway warming.
      As you concede later on in your rant, CO2 alone will not bring more than a slight warming. It is all in the feedbacks.

      But less polemical than yours. I’m not assuming that scientists suddenly all went mad in the last 30 years…held up by a power-mad Al Gore who devised a plan to take over the world …evil device involving the UN, and, I gather, Flash Gordon and the Emperor Ming in an unholy alliance with Darth Vader.
      I don’t know how you spend your time, but I’m guessing you watch Glen Beck and listen to Rush Limbaugh to take the pulse of the Climate Skeptics. That’s your problem, not mine.

      I have a hard time figuring out what your argument is other than a petulant “all scientists are wrong nyah-nyah-nyah.”
      As I said, you don’t read what I write very carefully, but you are fond of grammar school-recess rhetoric. I was quite clear on what I accept and don’t accept.

      Yeah, that’s the craziness there! You don’t deny the effect, but you deny all claims that the effect exists
      This could be exhibit A for your confusion. I deny some effects, not others. Some claims are clearly bogus, others are not, but their cause is not always clear.

      You accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, except right now and right here…
      Exhibit B – clearly, I have not said this. My disagreement is over the predicted effect it will have on the earth’s climate system.

      …with your refusal to stand up for the forests
      Exhibit C: I firmly support habitat and ecosystem protection. Look for my post on the Golden Rule of Environmentalism.

      You are so wrapped up in your passionate and zealous advocacy that you can’t deal with a point of view that isn’t all black or white.

    • lichanos says:

      …You accept that humans can affect climate in major ways, but you reject that humans can affect climate in the effects we’ve observed that cannot be explained by anything other than warming caused by a greenhouse effect.

      This gets at the heart of your circular reasoning, I believe:

      1) You ignore all argument and evidence that the “effects we’eve observed” may be inaccurately described. Heat island, global ice cover, medieval warming, etc. etc. You glide over this fundamental issue and assume that all your evidence is unquestionable. When it is shown to be wrong, Himalayan glaciers, Mt. Kilimanjaro, etc. it’s just a minor point.

      2) You are practicing a deep perversion of the scientific method with your phrase, common to AGW adovcates, …effects …that cannot be explained by anything other than warming caused by a greenhouse effect Using the question to prove itself. How do you know that nothing else can explain it? Because that’s what computer modelers tell you? All they care about is geting their models to run and fit their data points. They aren’t interested in considering other hypotheses, e.g. The Null Hypothesis. All evidence that the computer models are not predicting correctly – the last eleven years of surface temperatures that don’t quite add up to what the models predicted – are dismissed with an airy remark [direct quote], “warming will return with a vengeance!” This simultaneously admits the failure to predict and reduces it to a minor point…based on faith that the future will pan out as predicted.

      Your arguments are bizarrely similar to those of prosecuters at the Salem Witch Trials and the 1980s molestation-mania trials. How else can these observations be explained, but by witchcraft? Nevermind that the observations are themselves in question and that if you don’t ASSUME witchcraft, other explanations suddenly seem plausible.

      Even if one accepts all observations you claim are indubitable, this merely establishes a firm circumstantial basis for believing global warming is happening, i.e., the observations are consistent with that idea and seem to support it. They do NOT demonstrate causation. That’s IF they are all accepted. But the AGW crowd assumes they are all valid, uses that to “prove” its hypothesis, and then uses the hypothesis as evidence to confirm the observations. Not nice at all…

  8. Ed Darrell says:

    No, that’s simple physics.
    I am so tired of hearing this silly comment. If it were “simple physics”, no computer models would be required. It’s a very complex system. (The characteristics of CO2 are basic physics.) Newtown worked out the tides with pencil and paper. That’s simple physics, if you’re Newton!

    No one argues that the CO2 is the lone cause. It is the chief cause of runaway warming.
    As you concede later on in your rant, CO2 alone will not bring more than a slight warming. It is all in the feedbacks.

    CO2 alone will bring a tipping point. CO2 is the major contributor to warming — no one argues it’s the only contributor, but it’s the chief one to control. What we’ve discovered is that we can no longer wave at CO2 as a non-polluting emission, that its effects must be countermanded if we are not to produce a runaway warming spiral.

    Nowhere did I say CO2 would produce only minor warming. That’s not what the models show, it’s not what we’ve experience by measurement, and those who assert that case have been completely unable to produce data to show warming would not be severe, as the physics of the matter predict.

    That CO2 is a fluid in an ocean of fluids makes the modeling complex. That is compounded by the size of the Earth. Modeling exact effects is difficult; but that does not change the fact that CO2’s greenhouse properties are simple, undeniable physics.

    There are factors that slow it down. You’re asking us to gamble the future of our planet on an unknown, undetected, and so far unevidenced effect you think might occur.

    I’ll stick with physics, thank you. Madame Seesall may tell you her crystal ball shows the Earth will be fine. If you’re smart, you won’t trust her to pick the trifecta at the track, or the performance of the stock market. You’re asking us to bet the planet on her claim, though. That doesn’t make sense.

    …with your refusal to stand up for the forests
    Exhibit C: I firmly support habitat and ecosystem protection. Look for my post on the Golden Rule of Environmentalism.

    You are so wrapped up in your passionate and zealous advocacy that you can’t deal with a point of view that isn’t all black or white.

    Saying you know of a golden rule is quite different from following it.

    I’m not the one arguing that the vast majority of climate and weather scientists are wrong. I’m not the one arguing, contrary to evidence, that Al Gore got it wrong.

    If you have shades of gray, you’re not showing them.

    • lichanos says:

      …CO2 … effects must be countermanded if we are not to produce a runaway warming spiral.
      Runaway warming spiral – that’s exactly the point in question. Here you go again assuming it’s been proved.

      Nowhere did I say CO2 would produce only minor warming. That’s not what the models show…
      If you believe the AGW folks, to-date, there has been mild warming (magnitude) so far. The really bad effects are yet to come, and are predicted on the basis of posited feedbacks. That’s what the models show, for the FUTURE.

      …completely unable to produce data to show warming would not be severe, as the physics of the matter predict…
      The burden of proof is on the AGW hypothesis. Otherwise, we’re back in the witch trial days: Prove that you are NOT a witch! Again, the physics of CO2 do not predict runaway warming. You are simply wrong on this, and the IPCC states this. It is all the predicted feedbacks that bring on the really bad warming. If the earth were a billiard ball, doubling the CO2 would raise the termperature by 1 or 1.5 F, I believe is the correct figure. By billiard ball, I mean a spherical, inert mass, with no interactions between planet and atmosphere. You go on to assert again the falsehood that it is all “simple, undeniable physics.” The physics of CO2 in a billiard ball system are simple, the earth is not. Consider just one example: Freeman Dyson has calculated that if the world’s topsoil were increased by less than an inch, that would be enough to absorb the excess CO2 we produce. I know that getting an inch of topsoil is a monumental task given the state of world agriculture, but it demonstrates the effect.

      You’re asking us to gamble the future of our planet on an unknown, undetected, and so far unevidenced effect you think might occur.
      Well, actually that shoe is on the other foot. But anyway, I used to take the point that we were better safe than sorry, and shouldn’t play Russian roulette with the planet. After listening to the AGW folks make their case for years, and paying close attention to how they rebutted criticisms, I concluded that their case for alarm was too weak to be the basis of sensible policy.

  9. Ed Darrell says:

    When it is shown to be wrong, Himalayan glaciers, Mt. Kilimanjaro, etc. it’s just a minor point.

    You claim it’s shown wrong, when it’s not, and the world is supposed to roll over for you?

    The glaciers are nearly gone from Kilimanjaro. Two years ago there was hope they’d stay around until 2020; now, it’s assumed lucky if they’re not totally gone by 2012, just over a year away. While warming by itself is not the sole cause of the demise of the glaciers, the fact that warming skewed the precipitation that was needed to keep the glaciers, away from the mountains, does not mean that warming is not complicit.

    As to Himalaya, it’s good news that the glaciers have 300 years more than the typo said, but the facts remain that all of the Himalayan glaciers are threatened by global warming. It’s unseemly of you to make a false claim and then blame me for not adhering to it.

    • lichanos says:

      You are engaged in a massive game of “save the hypothesis.” Person A asserts that the snows of Mt. K. are disappearing because of global warming. Persons B & C demonstrate that the reasons are otherwise. You say, this doesn’t mean that warming isn’t complicit. (Nor does it prove that faeries were not complicit.) After all, the warming skewed the precipitation. Uh…wasn’t the mountain a bit of evidence that the warming was happening in the first place? Heads, you win, tails, I loose.

      As for the Himlalayas, yes, just a typo. Ahem…no, not quite. Citing an advocacy source that cited a scientific paper incorrectly. Oh, and then claiming that those who pointed it out were guilty of “arrogance” and “Voodoo science,” Pachauri’s words. Yes, glaciers everywhere are “threatened by global warming.” That is, if it happens, many of them will melt. Of course, some Indians who know the Himalayas well assert that even warming won’t destroy those glaciers because of their altitude and connection with the monsoon, but that’s a different story.

    • Ed Darrell says:

      f course, some Indians who know the Himalayas well assert that even warming won’t destroy those glaciers because of their altitude and connection with the monsoon, but that’s a different story.

      Cite them. So far they’ve not published.

      Facts remain that the Himalayan glaciers are threatened. There’s no publication, no study in publication, to the contrary.

      The hoax, my friend, is the claim that the glaciers are fine.

  10. Ed Darrell says:

    What We Know About Climate Change – video

    • lichanos says:

      Read the report published by the Indian scientists who were commissioned to do the study of the glaciers by the environment bureau, the report that Pachauri called “rubbish” and voodoo science. It doesn’t claim that they are all “fine,” whatever that means.

      Glaciers grow, they shrink. “Threatened” is a term for political situations, and maybe species near to extinction.

  11. Ed Darrell says:

    If you have a report that contradicts IPCC, cite it, please.

  12. Ed Darrell says:

    Blame America and do nothing about climate change — that differs from India’s inaction policy exactly how?

    • lichanos says:

      You said bin Laden would hail India’s inaction and blame America. Of course he blames America for everything, including inaction on climate. He does not hail India’s inaction. He seems to be a fervent supporter of the AGW view.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 202 other followers

%d bloggers like this: