The result (which can be seen here: http://consequencesbynoor.com/press/ ) was shown to all government delegations as %26quot;proof%26quot; of climate change. As the press release says:
%26quot;%26quot;this exhibition documents the devastating effects of climate change around the globe. These stunning photographs by the highlighted photographers (seen below) show not what might happen in the future but what is happening today.%26quot;%26quot;
~ So i thought, okay, cool. Actual photographic evidence of climate change, that would be a start i suppose. But when you look at the photos, you find:
--------------------------------------…
- A collection of photos on Poland's coal mining industry (cause maybe, not effect).
- Photo essay on Darfur - this war was primarily religious in nature. Scarcity played a part but this is due to an increase in population, not climate change.
- A look at Reindeer herders in Yamal: %26quot;the Nenet’s traditional way of life is threatened by warming temperatures %26quot; ~ in other words, something might happen in the future, but nothing now.
- photos of deforestation in Brazil (again, maybe cause, how can it be an effect?)
- photos of tar sands in Canada (ditto: possible cause, not an effect)
- photos of the Maldives - says %26quot; Experts predict that within the next 15 years rising sea levels will force the island’s 396,000 residents to migrate elsewhere.%26quot; - so again, prediction, not evidence.
- photos of burning coalfields in India (possibly a cause, but how is this an effect of global warming?
--------------------------------------…
So, basically, what is billed as a collection of photographs that [quote] %26quot;%26quot;documents the devastating effects of climate change%26quot; turns out to be nothing of the sort. It's merely a collection of photos that show common environmental tropes - pollution, deforestation, etc, none of which can possibly be claimed as %26quot;effects%26quot; of global warming and some vague allusions to what might happen in the future.
Don't you think that this collection of photos - shown to world leaders as proof of man-made global warming - is a classic example of the fundamental dishonesty surrounding climate change? When you look for proof and for evidence, all you end up with are assumptions and correlations jumbled together with vague threats of an apocalyptic future.
.
ConsequencesbyNoor.com - classic example of the fundamental dishonesty regarding global warming?
You make a good point on the %26quot;smoke and mirrors%26quot; employed by propagandists to prove their case. I am constantly offended by photographs of steam rising from cooling towers as evidence of %26quot;Carbon Pollution.%26quot;
It is spin, dishonest manipulation of the public.
ConsequencesbyNoor.com - classic example of the fundamental dishonesty regarding global warming?
Yes, the entire case for warming was hinging on those photos too.
Report Abuse
Maybe. Although you really don't seem to be looking for an answer, this just seems like an epic rant.
Nope. And global warming science is NOT dishonest. Courts have upheld it EVERY time it's been challenged.
This is utter trivia. Such is the state of denier %26quot;arguments%26quot; these days, since science has debunked their more serious attempts at challenging global warming science.
A bunch of pictures is not why virtually all world leaders are committed to fighting global warming, even if they're having some problems agreeing on a specific plan.
And arguments like these may play well to the choir of global warming deniers, but they have no effect on serious professionals.
This question doesn't even rise to the level of a rant. It's just really silly propaganda. The quality of denier arguments here is really going downhill, faster than Vonn.
Hmm, sponsered by Greenpeace, the same people who broke into our Parliament (among other things).
I love the angle on this picture%26gt;%26gt; http://consequencesbynoor.com/wp-content… It's enough to make anybody drop what they are doing and join Greenpeace and fight evil humankind.
Meadow, you started off pretty good in this forum but your rants...er...questions seem to be getting lamer and lamer.
If you want to after fundamental dishonesty you might start with the people that claim that CO2 added to water makes it more basic...or that volcanoes give off more CO2 every year than humans....or that there haven't been any strong hurricanes since Katrina....or that the name of global warming was changed to climate change because it's no longer getting warmer...or with those that steal emails...or with those that plagiarize...
Icarus, Its seems that nothing that is said, EVER detracts from the %26quot;massive%26quot; amount of evidence. But what is that massive amount of evidence? For a .74 degree rise in the last 100 years, you have that (though I think their data collection and processing is atrocious). Although of the .74 degree in increase you should at least admit that almost half of it came before man could have had any impact at all. For a 2-3 mm/ year rise in sea level, you may have sufficient evidence. For CO2 beinga greenhouse gas that by itself can cause %26lt;1 degree of warming if CO2 doubles, you have sufficient evidence.
It is your predictions that lack all evidence. The magnitude of the positive and negative feedback loops in the models were little more than guesses. Do you have scientific experimentation or observations that shows these magnitudes to be correct? It could very well be the negatvie feedbacks rule the earth and thus any changes caused by CO2 will be limited by the negative feedbacks. It certainly makes sense given the relative stability of the earth's climate. So lets look at observational data to determine if the models are correct. Mann admitted that there has been no statistically significant warming in the past 15 years. Does that sound like what the models predicted? Does it sound like exponential warming? Since the models do not seem to be doing a good job of predicting, could it be that the reason for the poor predictive ability is that they are either overestimating the positive feedbacks or underestimating the negative feedbacks? Could it be that there were indeed a few factors that the scientists had not considered or lack the data to consider, thus when they placed the entirety of the portion that they did not understand onto the positive feedbacks loops, they grossly overestimated them?
If you think that I am being unreasonabl, than at least be reasonable enough to provide rationale. Saying a bunch of scientists said so, is not really enough. A bunch of scientists have been wrong in the past. In fact one could argue that a bunch of scientists are quite frequently wrong as every new discovery usually goes against what they thought.
Pegminer, at one time you made some infrequent astute comments, now they seemed to have dwindled down to never. Even given the silly rants of .07 ph change in 250 years, you go on board with whatever new thing the alarmunists want to try to scare people with. You don't even seem capable of acknowledging the fact that while there is evidence to support some warming, there is very little evidence for any of end of the owrld predictions made.
Global cooling caused this.
http://cache4.asset-cache.net/xc/7239285…
With every bit as much authority as warming caused anything seen in the pictures from that site.
The thing is though, even if everything you say about this exhibition is completely true, it doesn't detract in the slightest from the mass of evidence that the world *is* actually warming, and nor does it challenge the honesty and integrity of the many hundreds of climate scientists around the world who are monitoring and reporting on our changing climate.
