PDA

View Full Version : More UN GW innacuracies



djones520
03-23-2010, 06:35 PM
Save the planet, eat less meat ... right? That's what the U.N. said, anyway, but one scientist has a grade A beef with that claim.

The largely reported link between global warming and cattle farming -- propagated by a United Nations report on "Livestock's Long Shadow" -- was also largely inaccurate, explains one scientist.

In a presentation before the 239th national meeting of the American Chemical Society, Dr. Frank Mitloehner of the University of California said the misleading claims emanate from a 2006 U.N. report, which said that livestock was "responsible for 18 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions," describing the figure as "a larger share than transportation."

According to Mitloehner, the claim is inaccurate because the numbers for livestock were calculated differently from the transport figures.



http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/03/23/eat-meat-reduce-global-warming/

And again, more innacurate studies. So please, how are we supposed to take this stuff seriously? :rolleyes:

wilbur
03-24-2010, 02:20 PM
What kind of accuracy should we demand from a news article, before taking it seriously?



Numerous other mistakes in U.N. reports have been uncovered in recent months, following the leak of thousands of e-mails from a a climate-science group in England, a scandal labeled "Climate-gate."


No - there has been one or two actual genuine mistakes (in the multi-volume compendium), but a tornado of FUD from rabid denialists.



First, scientists in the United Kingdom were caught covering up data that showed global warming has not occurred for the last 15 years.


This is so false that the author should get sued for libel.



Then, the Copenhagen climate conference resulted in a standoff between the U.S., China, and the third world.


Wha?!


More recently, U.N. researchers admitted that their forecasts of melting Himalayan glaciers, disappearing polar ice caps, and dwindling Amazon rainforests were based on shoddy evidence.


Out of the list, only the Himalayan glacier issue was a genuine mistake - not based on shoddy science, but someone's hyperbole (and it was happily corrected, not covered up, by scientists and the IPCC). The others were pure FUD.


As for the cow farts, it doesnt seem like we really get the whole story here. So this person doesnt like the comparison between beef farming and transportation because the beef farming stats include the entire production chain and transportation only accounts for auto emissions. Fine, OK.

It doesnt change the data that says the beef industry accounts for 18% of our CO2 output and that lessening our dependence (or want) for beef could still help us eliminate a large chunk of CO2 output,

Megaguns91
03-24-2010, 02:54 PM
The only thing this could possibly mean to me is that we need to eat more veal. :D

Sonnabend
03-25-2010, 03:54 AM
First, scientists in the United Kingdom were caught covering up data that showed global warming has not occurred for the last 15 years.
This is so false that the author should get sued for libel.

Wilbur: proof that denial is not a river in Egypt :rolleyes:

wilbur
03-25-2010, 08:54 AM
Wilbur: proof that denial is not a river in Egypt :rolleyes:

Both you and the article author seem to have their conspiracies confused, because that sentence you quoted actually spliced two unrelated denialist conspiracy theories together. Lets take a look :

"scientists in the United Kingdom were caught covering up data that showed... global warming has not occurred for the last 15 years."

The "no global warming in 15 years" canard was not gleaned from the stolen CRU emails at all. It didn't appear till after the recent Jones interview, well after the stolen emails did. And if you remember, we just had a lengthy thread on that matter where I schooled you on why it was a lie, and on exactly what 'statistically significant' means'. Not only was the charge completely 180 degrees opposite of what Jones claimed, it did not actually appear anywhere in the stolen CRU emails as the quote above implies.

The "Coverup in the CRU emails" that the denialists were in such a tizzy about was from the "hide the decline" email exchange - which incidentally had nothing to do with average global temperature, and was completely unrelated.

You guys can't even be bothered to keep your conspiracies straight, even after our long arguments on them. Another example of braindead denialism.

Rockntractor
03-25-2010, 08:56 AM
Both you and the article author seem to have their conspiracies confused, and spliced two unrelated denialist conspiracy theories together in that one little sentence. Lets take a look :

"scientists in the United Kingdom were caught covering up data that showed... global warming has not occurred for the last 15 years."

The "no global warming in 15 years" canard was not gleaned from the stolen CRU emails at all. It didn't appear till after the recent Jones interview, well after the stolen emails did. And if you remember, we just had a lengthy thread on that matter where I schooled you on why it was a lie, and on exactly what 'statistically significant' means'. The claim that there has been no global warming in 15 years is not only inaccurate, it was the complete opposite of what Jones said - and it did not appear anywhere in the CRU emails as the quote above implies.

The "Coverup in the CRU emails" that the denialists were in such a tizzy about was from the "hide the decline" email exchange - which incidentally had nothing to do with average global temperature, and was completely unrelated.

Doenst seem you guys can even be bothered to keep your conspiracy straight, even after our long arguments on them. Sloppy thinking indeed.

Wilbur your family needs to stop taking Viagra before reunions!

Megaguns91
03-25-2010, 09:27 AM
Wilbur's signature says that Rock is on his ignore list, yet here he is, not ignoring him. I'm so confused. :confused:

:o

Naddapig
03-25-2010, 10:23 AM
Wilbur your family needs to stop taking Viagra before reunions!

Wilbur can't read the ebil Rockntractor posts unless someone quotes him!