View Full Version : The UN climate change numbers hoax
Bronx33
12-05-2009, 10:01 AM
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7553&page=1
It’s an assertion repeated by politicians and climate campaigners the world over: “2,500 scientists of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) agree that humans are causing a climate crisis.”
But it’s not true. And, for the first time ever, the public can now see the extent to which they have been misled. As lies go, it’s a whopper. Here’s the real situation.
Like the three IPCC “assessment reports” before it, the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) released during 2007 (upon which the UN climate conference in Bali was based) includes the reports of the IPCC’s three working groups.
Working Group I (WG I) is assigned to report on the extent and possible causes of past climate change as well as future “projections”. Its report is titled “The Physical Science Basis”.
The reports from working groups II and III are titled “Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability” and “Mitigation of Climate Change” respectively, and since these are based on the results of WG I, it is crucially important that the WG I report stands up to close scrutiny.
There is, of course serious debate among scientists about the actual technical content of the roughly 1,000-page WG I report, especially its politically motivated Summary for Policymakers which is often the only part read by politicians and non-scientists. The technical content can be difficult for non-scientists to follow and so most people simply assume that if large numbers of scientists agree, they must be right.
Consensus never proves the truth of a scientific claim, but is somehow widely believed to do so for the IPCC reports, so we need to ask how many scientists really did agree with the most important IPCC conclusion, namely that humans are causing significant climate change - in other words the key parts of WG I?
The numbers of scientist reviewers involved in WG I is actually less than a quarter of the whole, a little more than 600 in total. The other 1,900 reviewers assessed the other working group reports. They had nothing to say about the causes of climate change or its future trajectory. Still, 600 “scientific expert reviewers” sounds pretty impressive. After all, they submitted their comments to the IPCC editors who assure us that “all substantive government and expert review comments received appropriate consideration”. And since these experts reviewers are all listed in Annex III of the report, they must have endorsed it, right?
Wrong.
For the first time ever, the UN has released on the Web (http://pds.lib.harvard.edu/pds/view/7794905?n=2&imagesize=1200&jp2Res=.25) the comments of reviewers who assessed the drafts of the WG I report and the IPCC editors’ responses. This release was almost certainly a result of intense pressure applied by “hockey-stick” co-debunker Steve McIntyre of Toronto and his allies. Unlike the other IPCC working groups, WG I is based in the US and McIntyre had used the robust Freedom of Information legislation to request certain details when the full comments were released.
An examination of reviewers’ comments on the last draft of the WG I report before final report assembly (i.e. the “Second Order Revision” or SOR) completely debunks the illusion of hundreds of experts diligently poring over all the chapters of the report and providing extensive feedback to the editing teams. Here’s the reality.
Compounding this is the fact that IPCC editors could, and often did, ignore reviewers’ comments. Some editor responses were banal and others showed inconsistencies with other comments. Reviewers had to justify their requested changes but the responding editors appear to have been under no such obligation. Reviewers were sometimes flatly told they were wrong but no reasons or reliable references were provided.
In other cases reviewers tried to dilute the certainty being expressed and they often provided supporting evidence, but their comments were often flatly rejected. Some comments were rejected on the basis of a lack of space - an incredible assertion in such an important document.
The attitude of the editors seemed to be that simple corrections were accepted, requests for improved clarity tolerated but the assertions and interpretations that appear in the text were to be defended against any challenge.
An example of rampant misrepresentation of IPCC reports is the frequent assertion that “hundreds of IPCC scientists” are known to support the following statement, arguably the most important of the WG I report, namely “Greenhouse gas forcing has very likely caused most of the observed global warming over the last 50 years”.
In total, only 62 scientists reviewed the chapter in which this statement appears, the critical chapter 9, “Understanding and Attributing Climate Change”. Of the comments received from the 62 reviewers of this critical chapter, almost 60 per cent of them were rejected by IPCC editors. And of the 62 expert reviewers of this chapter, 55 had serious vested interest, leaving only seven expert reviewers who appear impartial.
Two of these seven were contacted by NRSP for the purposes of this article - Dr Vincent Gray of New Zealand and Dr Ross McKitrick of the University of Guelph, Canada. Concerning the “Greenhouse gas forcing …” statement above, Professor McKitrick explained “A categorical summary statement like this is not supported by the evidence in the IPCC WG I report. Evidence shown in the report suggests that other factors play a major role in climate change, and the specific effects expected from greenhouse gases have not been observed.”
Dr Gray labeled the WG I statement as “Typical IPCC doubletalk” asserting “The text of the IPCC report shows that this is decided by a guess from persons with a conflict of interest, not from a tested model”.
Determining the level of support expressed by reviewers’ comments is subjective but a slightly generous evaluation indicates that just five reviewers endorsed the crucial ninth chapter. Four had vested interests and the other made only a single comment for the entire 11-chapter report. The claim that 2,500 independent scientist reviewers agreed with this, the most important statement of the UN climate reports released this year, or any other statement in the UN climate reports, is nonsense.
“The IPCC owe it to the world to explain who among their expert reviewers actually agree with their conclusions and who don’t,” says Natural Resources Stewardship Project Chair climatologist Dr Timothy Ball. “Otherwise, their credibility, and the public’s trust of science in general, will be even further eroded.”
That the IPCC have let this deception continue for so long is a disgrace. Secretary General Ban Kai-Moon must instruct the UN climate body to either completely revise their operating procedures, welcoming dissenting input from scientist reviewers and indicating if reviewers have vested interests, or close the agency down completely.
Until then, their conclusions, and any reached at the Bali conference based on IPCC conclusions, should be ignored entirely as politically skewed and dishonest.
A total of 308 reviewers commented on the SOR, but only 32 reviewers commented on more than three chapters and only five reviewers commented on all 11 chapters of the report. Only about half the reviewers commented on more than one chapter. It is logical that reviewers would generally limit their comments to their areas of expertise but it’s a far cry from the idea of thousands of scientists agreeing to anything.
Resorting to newspaper op-ed pieces to learn science.
No wonder you're ****ing clueless.
Bronx33
12-05-2009, 10:22 AM
Lefty rule number 2 ( attack the source in an attempt to discredit the info) even if you didn't read the artical.
barryr
12-05-2009, 10:28 AM
Lefties also think learning science is when you listen to scientists who lack objectivity and distort and manipulate numbers to support their own theories and biases.
I read the "artical" [sic].
Gray, McKitrick and Ball are hardly credible, nor do they represent the views of the vast majority of climate scientists. This op-ed piece was hit job in which the writer's agenda comes through - he went looking for snippets of information to support his claims.
Per usual, a piece of ****.
Lefties also think learning science is when you listen to scientists who lack objectivity and distort and manipulate numbers to support their own theories and biases.
No numbers were distorted or manipulated.
You can check yourself.
But that would require knowledge, of which you have none.
Bronx33
12-05-2009, 10:30 AM
I read the "artical" [sic].
Gray, McKitrick and Ball are hardly credible, nor do they represent the views of the vast majority of climate scientists. This op-ed piece was hit job in which the writer's agenda comes through - he went looking for snippets of information to support his claims.
Per usual, a piece of ****.
I guess you missed this...
http://pds.lib.harvard.edu/pds/view/7794905?n=2&imagesize=1200&jp2Res=.25
I guess you missed this...
http://pds.lib.harvard.edu/pds/view/7794905?n=2&imagesize=1200&jp2Res=.25
What am I supposed to see?
Bronx33
12-05-2009, 10:42 AM
What am I supposed to see?
I thought you said you read the artical 8') ( you figure it out) science boy.
Bronx33
12-05-2009, 11:36 AM
This thread is about what the IPCC did with the feedback they were given and how they misrepresented a supposed "consensus".
read http://pds.lib.harvard.edu/pds/view/7794905?n=2&imagesize=1200&jp2Res=.25
and then ask yourself the questions posed "is it legitimate for the IPCC editors to reject suggestions from leading climate scientists when these scientists suggest that the level of confidence should be reduced in the final document’s phrasing.
Ask yourself if it is possible that the IPCC ‘editors’ might be biased and might be selectively rejecting suggestions for improvements in wording that they receive from the qualified climate scientists — scientists who were ASKED to review certain chapters in the IPCC document.
Ask yourself if it is possible that ‘vested interests’ are possibly controlling a hidden agenda and possibly skewing the final document’s wording in a predetermined direction.
Please read the section that says “only 32 reviewers commented on more than three chapters and only five reviewers commented on all 11 chapters of the report”. Also please read the section that BEGINS “An example of rampant misrepresentation of IPCC reports is the frequent assertion that ‘hundreds of IPCC scientists’ are known to support the following statement, arguably the most important of the WG I report, namely ‘Greenhouse gas forcing has very likely caused most of the observed global warming over the last 50 years’.”
Then ask yourself whether it is ultimately FAIR to describe the final IPCC document as something that really represents a ‘consensus’ of 2500 leading climate scientists “of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) [who] agree that humans are causing a climate crisis.”
Ask yourself if it is possible that ‘vested interests’ are possibly controlling a hidden agenda and possibly skewing the final document’s wording in a predetermined direction.
You're right - but not in the way you think.
Governments, including the US and Saudi Arabia, toned down the science because their business interests are threatened by honesty about climate change.
If anything, the AR4 is too conservative.
DBruleU
12-05-2009, 12:02 PM
I read the "artical" [sic].
Gray, McKitrick and Ball are hardly credible, nor do they represent the views of the vast majority of climate scientists. This op-ed piece was hit job in which the writer's agenda comes through - he went looking for snippets of information to support his claims.
Per usual, a piece of ****.
What a great trend I'm seeing from W*gs recently...anyone that questions his religion is now a POS, a fraud, ignorant, not credible, and what was the other one you said in another thread...oh yeah, something along the lines of a total douche bag.
The meltdown from this GW BS is fun to watch, to say the least.
Bronx33
12-05-2009, 12:23 PM
You're right - but not in the way you think.
Governments, including the US and Saudi Arabia, toned down the science because their business interests are threatened by honesty about climate change.
If anything, the AR4 is too conservative.
Conservative?? You are not paying attention actually i don't think you want to pay attention.
The IPCC participants are the investigators, judge and jury – and there is neither independent audit of procedures or any appeal process. Despite the claim to be open and transparent, the IPCC is not. All i want is honest science with a honest peer review process and the IPCC has not been cooperative at all but iam guessing you think the peer review procceedure (as it is) is just fine right?.
Conservative?? You are not paying attention actually i don't think you want to pay attention.
I am paying attention - and know far more about the process than some op-ed jokester in some newspaper, and his drooling **********s.
The AR4 process was open - hell, even some of his groupies think McIntyre was some sort of "expert" reviewer.
Of course, since you and your fellow rightards think anything with the letters "UN" is automatically a sinister commie plot, your views are horse****.
Bronx33
12-05-2009, 12:51 PM
You're protecting your rice bowl just like the rest of them and snide remarks is only impact your credibility so heres one simple question, Why has the Earth cooled since 1998 with expodential increases in CO2 gases?
Smiling Assassin27
12-05-2009, 01:00 PM
In the UK, the Met Office wants to re-examine and piece together all the corrupt and discarded data from CRU. Who is the Met Office?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6945445.ece
The Met Office database is one of three main sources of temperature data analysis on which the UN’s main climate change science body relies for its assessment that global warming is a serious danger to the world.
Legitimate science would do the same. Scientists worth their salt would strive to piece together the data and then submit it for transparent, verification by other parties. This is the only way to credibly reconstruct data and reach scientifically verifiable conclusions. The problem?
The Government is attempting to stop the Met Office from carrying out the re-examination, arguing that it would be seized upon by climate change sceptics.
Yup, politics are taking precedent over science and religious zeal is usurping rational thought. Global warming honks always claim the high ground on acting rationally and going where the evidence leads. But now we know it's all a ruse. Government NEEDS the results to point to man made global warming because it cannot bear to admit wrongdoing or wrongheadedness. All you global warming honks ought to be ashamed of yourselves. Anyone of you who walks the walk and talks the talk ought to be clamoring for release of the data, reconstruction of destroyed data, and a complete debate on the entire issue. What are you afraid of? If the science is as strong as you say, debate should be short and decisive. Are you REALLY interested in the truth? Are you?
Most of us here don't have a horse in this race. I don't care what the conclusion/truth is, and if humans are the primary cause of climate change based upon legitimate data, systematic science, and testable conclusions, so be it. Right now, climate change honks have a burden of proof and they just haven't met it.
The truth is the truth even if no one believes it; and a lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. Look in the mirror and then do something about it.
gyldenlove
12-05-2009, 01:08 PM
You're protecting your rice bowl just like the rest of them and snide remarks is only impact your credibility so heres one simple question, Why has the Earth cooled since 1998 with expodential increases in CO2 gases?
How do you know that earth has cooled since 1998? have you used the largest thermometer in the world? or is it the one in your yard? is it one in Hawaii? How did you or anyone else measure the temperature of the earth?
Bronx33
12-05-2009, 01:38 PM
In the UK, the Met Office wants to re-examine and piece together all the corrupt and discarded data from CRU. Who is the Met Office?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6945445.ece
Legitimate science would do the same. Scientists worth their salt would strive to piece together the data and then submit it for transparent, verification by other parties. This is the only way to credibly reconstruct data and reach scientifically verifiable conclusions. The problem?
Yup, politics are taking precedent over science and religious zeal is usurping rational thought. Global warming honks always claim the high ground on acting rationally and going where the evidence leads. But now we know it's all a ruse. Government NEEDS the results to point to man made global warming because it cannot bear to admit wrongdoing or wrongheadedness. All you global warming honks ought to be ashamed of yourselves. Anyone of you who walks the walk and talks the talk ought to be clamoring for release of the data, reconstruction of destroyed data, and a complete debate on the entire issue. What are you afraid of? If the science is as strong as you say, debate should be short and decisive. Are you REALLY interested in the truth? Are you?
Most of us here don't have a horse in this race. I don't care what the conclusion/truth is, and if humans are the primary cause of climate change based upon legitimate data, systematic science, and testable conclusions, so be it. Right now, climate change honks have a burden of proof and they just haven't met it.
The truth is the truth even if no one believes it; and a lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. Look in the mirror and then do something about it.
Exactly how i look at this ( i just want a legitimate study done) there are just to many inconsistancies with the present system to make an accurate determination and they fooling themselves if they think other wise.
The Government is attempting to stop the Met Office from carrying out the re-examination, arguing that it would be seized upon by climate change sceptics.
This bothers the hell out of me but it's par for the course with this administration ( it almost admits there is something to hide)
You're protecting your rice bowl just like the rest of them and snide remarks is only impact your credibility so heres one simple question, Why has the Earth cooled since 1998 with expodential increases in CO2 gases?
The earth hasn't cooled since 1998 - and picking that year as your starting point is an example of the worst sort of cherry-picking and intellectual dishonesty that are the hallmarks of the denialists.
That you insist that temperature increase in lockstep with CO2 shows that you haven't a ****ing clue.
All you global warming honks ought to be ashamed of yourselves. Anyone of you who walks the walk and talks the talk ought to be clamoring for release of the data, reconstruction of destroyed data, and a complete debate on the entire issue.
All the data you need is already out there, and has always been. The denialists are too ****ing stupid to find it (despite having it shoved in their faces many times, and lying about the data's accessibility) and they haven't the faintest ****ing clue what to do with it.
No data was ever destroyed.
And the debate has been taking place for decades in the literature - in which the denialists have a pathetically small and slender contribution.
Science isn't done in blogs.
Overall, the denialists are as full of **** as they always have been.
Bronx33
12-05-2009, 04:55 PM
I thought you lived in boulder wags?
Bronx33
12-05-2009, 05:43 PM
I do. So?
Just curious how you know for a fact what all the other scientist doing when you are in boulder LOL
epicSocialism4tw
12-05-2009, 05:49 PM
In the UK, the Met Office wants to re-examine and piece together all the corrupt and discarded data from CRU. Who is the Met Office?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6945445.ece
Legitimate science would do the same. Scientists worth their salt would strive to piece together the data and then submit it for transparent, verification by other parties. This is the only way to credibly reconstruct data and reach scientifically verifiable conclusions. The problem?
Yup, politics are taking precedent over science and religious zeal is usurping rational thought. Global warming honks always claim the high ground on acting rationally and going where the evidence leads. But now we know it's all a ruse. Government NEEDS the results to point to man made global warming because it cannot bear to admit wrongdoing or wrongheadedness. All you global warming honks ought to be ashamed of yourselves. Anyone of you who walks the walk and talks the talk ought to be clamoring for release of the data, reconstruction of destroyed data, and a complete debate on the entire issue. What are you afraid of? If the science is as strong as you say, debate should be short and decisive. Are you REALLY interested in the truth? Are you?
Most of us here don't have a horse in this race. I don't care what the conclusion/truth is, and if humans are the primary cause of climate change based upon legitimate data, systematic science, and testable conclusions, so be it. Right now, climate change honks have a burden of proof and they just haven't met it.
The truth is the truth even if no one believes it; and a lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. Look in the mirror and then do something about it.
That's the rub.
Personally, I have lived an environmentally conscious life out of my own motivations. Its something that I am passionate about. I have found this whole "green" movement to be trite and intellectually vacant. The propagators of such things have proven themselves to be unconcerned with them (Gore's massive C footprint, Pelosi's penchant for abusing private planes, etc, etc, etc), and if that doesnt cause you pause, then something's wrong. It's a new feel-good cause that liberals can adopt to convince themselves that they are better than everybody else.
What liberals don't realize is that this green movement could be just the thing to move their agenda into distant history. If this unravels further, the American people and the rest of the world will look on their politics with a skeptical eye for the forseeable future.
What a great trend I'm seeing from W*gs recently...anyone that questions his religion is now a POS, a fraud, ignorant, not credible, and what was the other one you said in another thread...oh yeah, something along the lines of a total douche bag.
That's pretty much true.
If the denialists had such a strong case, they'd publish. That their record is so incredibly slender (despite their legion of co****cking fans) shows that they're full of ****. As always.
Bronx33
12-06-2009, 07:00 PM
That's pretty much true.
If the denialists had such a strong case, they'd publish. That their record is so incredibly slender (despite their legion of co******ing fans) shows that they're full of ****. As always.
How the **** can they publish if your boys wont release their data?
TheDave
12-06-2009, 07:19 PM
What a great trend I'm seeing from W*gs recently...anyone that questions his religion is now a POS, a fraud, ignorant, not credible, and what was the other one you said in another thread...oh yeah, something along the lines of a total douche bag.
The meltdown from this GW BS is fun to watch, to say the least.
Can we make a new rule?
When someone thinks the earth is only 6,000 years old and that man rode on dinosaurs... can we ban them from all science based threads?
Just a thought...
How the **** can they publish if your boys wont release their data?
Virtually all the data the denialists have been whining about for years is available.
Hell, even after McIntyre defamed Briffa, more than once, he "realized" he had the data he'd been badgering Briffa to get.
Just another instance of McIntyre being a total asshole.
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
12-07-2009, 10:15 AM
Bad news for the Exxon chicken heads on the right...
EPA: Greenhouse gases endanger human health (AP) (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/rss/topstories/*http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091207/ap_on_go_ot/us_epa_climate)
http://d.yimg.com/a/p/ap/20091207/capt.ab5299d978d34d3d91ac9c48d576cb45.climate_gree npeace_protest__fxc101.jpg?x=130&y=106&q=85&sig=fyM_LLaFi8WFhjFRsSb3Nw-- (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/rss/topstories/*http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091207/ap_on_go_ot/us_epa_climate)AP - The Environmental Protection Agency has concluded greenhouse gases are endangering people's health and must be regulated, signaling that the Obama administration is prepared to contain global warming without congressional action if necessary.
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
12-07-2009, 10:20 AM
Can we make a new rule?
When someone thinks the earth is only 6,000 years old and that man rode on dinosaurs... can we ban them from all science based threads?
Just a thought...
Ha! ^5 :thumbsup:
Spider
12-07-2009, 10:29 AM
I thought you said you read the artical 8') ( you figure it out) science boy.
:D me and w*gs have fought over everything including what time of day is the best to drink water , but when it comes to climate , I shut the **** up and listen to him ............. just givin u some advice ........
Eldorado
12-07-2009, 12:40 PM
"expodential"
Lulz!
atomicbloke
12-07-2009, 01:02 PM
Just curious how you know for a fact what all the other scientist doing when you are in boulder LOL
Wow
atomicbloke
12-07-2009, 01:03 PM
Lefties also think learning science is when you listen to scientists who lack objectivity and distort and manipulate numbers to support their own theories and biases.
So whom should I listen to learn science?
TheDave
12-07-2009, 01:07 PM
So whom should I listen to learn science?
The bible... I've been told many times on this board that the bible is 100% scientifically accurate. ;D
The obligatory YouTube video:
<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/P70SlEqX7oY&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/P70SlEqX7oY&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>
atomicbloke
12-07-2009, 01:48 PM
The obligatory YouTube video:
<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/P70SlEqX7oY&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/P70SlEqX7oY&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>
Wow... this is supposed to be clinching evidence against all the science?
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
12-07-2009, 04:42 PM
http://d.yimg.com/a/p/ap/20091207/capt.c288b135ebec406698b7150702395dca.climate_epa_ dcmc101.jpg?x=130&y=97&q=85&sig=Mkmg99_J2_m.VcnpBYymdg-- (http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylc=X3oDMTI4cHI5amZ0BF9TAzM5ODMwMTA0MQRnc3RhdGUDM wRwb3MDMQRzZWMDbndfdG9wc3RvcmllcwRzbGsDaW1nBHRhcgN uZXdzLnlhaG9vLmNvbQ--/SIG=13jqaarjn/**http%3A//us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/rss/topstories/*http%3A//news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091208/ap_on_bi_ge/climate_epa) Historic EPA finding: Greenhouse gases harm humans (AP) (http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylc=X3oDMTJhZ2dhMmgxBF9TAzM5ODMwMTA0MQRnc3RhdGUDM wRwb3MDMgRzZWMDbndfdG9wc3RvcmllcwRzbGsDdGl0bGUEdGF yA25ld3MueWFob28uY29t/SIG=13jqaarjn/**http%3A//us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/rss/topstories/*http%3A//news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091208/ap_on_bi_ge/climate_epa) AP - The Obama administration took a major step Monday toward imposing the first federal limits on climate-changing pollution from cars, power plants and factories, declaring there was compelling scientific evidence that global warming from manmade greenhouse gases endangers Americans' health.
Bronx33
12-07-2009, 04:58 PM
Wow... this is supposed to be clinching evidence against all the science?
Hes just protecting his rice bowl he could give a ratz ass about anybody elses.
Bronx33
12-07-2009, 05:02 PM
The earth hasn't cooled since 1998 - and picking that year as your starting point is an example of the worst sort of cherry-picking and intellectual dishonesty that are the hallmarks of the denialists.
That you insist that temperature increase in lockstep with CO2 shows that you haven't a ****ing clue.
As i thought ( you dont have an answer.) and neither do the bigshots.
Bronx33
12-07-2009, 05:04 PM
Wow
He didn't have an answer to that one either.
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
12-07-2009, 05:05 PM
Ha ha ha! :laugh:
Team Exxon is getting punked on this thread.
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
12-07-2009, 05:10 PM
If McDramaQueen, Bronx, et al, don't fight harder then some poor CEOs might be taking a devastating pay cut in the near future (going from $15K to $13K an hour would be a b*tch) or losing that fifth mansion in the Hamptons.
Bronx33
12-07-2009, 05:10 PM
Ha ha ha! :laugh:
Team Exxon is getting punked on this thread.
Ya the only person on this thread that even comes close to a scientist cant answer simple questions about the last 10 years.
watermock
12-07-2009, 05:13 PM
How? When? Where?
Bla blah blah...CBS was yapping about some island off India the had 80% off it's mass 3' above sea level. My suggestion would be sell.
Soon enough, when elecricity doubles, and climate contiues fairly stable, the vast expanses of Canada will feed the worl.
As i thought ( you dont have an answer.) and neither do the bigshots.
You're not intelligent enough to understand why your question is a bogus one.
Bronx33
12-07-2009, 06:48 PM
You're not intelligent enough to understand why your question is a bogus one.
read the experts then smartass...
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?page=1&pp=25&kw=lack%20of%20warming
From: Kevin Trenberth <<<< wags hero
Hi all
Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in
Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We
had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it
smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a
record low, well below the previous record low. This is January weather (see the Rockies
baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing
weather).
Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth's global
energy. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 1, 19-27,
doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [1][PDF] (A PDF of the published version can be obtained
from the author.)
The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a
travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008
shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing
system is inadequate.
.................................................. ...................
From: Phil Jones
Tim, Chris,
> > I hope you're not right about the lack of warming lasting
> > till about 2020. I'd rather hoped to see the earlier Met Office
> > press release with Doug's paper that said something like -
> > half the years to 2014 would exceed the warmest year currently on
> > record, 1998!
> > Still a way to go before 2014.
> >
> > I seem to be getting an email a week from skeptics saying
> > where's the warming gone. I know the warming is on the decadal
> > scale, but it would be nice to wear their smug grins away.
But notice how phil would have rather seen dougs paper ( CAUSE ITS MORE FAVORABLE) and it does seem really personal to phil when people question his work they seem to obsess on it, if you and LA would take the time to even read these emails it's full of this kinda of talk about using papers that favor their views.;)
Bronx33
12-07-2009, 06:55 PM
Example of the obsessing and damage control efforts.
From: "Narasimha D. Rao
Steve,
You may be aware of this already. Paul Hudson, BBCs reporter on climate change, on
Friday wrote that theres been no warming since 1998, and that pacific oscillations will
force cooling for the next xxx xxxx xxxxyears. It is not outrageously biased in presentation as
are other skeptics views.
[7]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm
[8]http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100013173/the-bbcs-amazing-u-turn-on
-climate-change/
BBC has significant influence on public opinion outside the US.
Do you think this merits an op-ed response in the BBC from a scientist?
Narasimha
Bronx33
12-07-2009, 07:02 PM
Damage control....
Michael Mann wrote:
> > > > > > extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on
> > > > > > BBC. its particularly odd, since climate is usually Richard
> > > > > > Black's beat at BBC (and he does a great job). from what I
> > > > > > can tell, this guy was formerly a weather person at the Met
> > > > > > Office.
> > > > > > We may do something about this on RealClimate, but meanwhile
> > > > > > it might be appropriate for the Met Office to have a say
> > > > > > about this, I might ask Richard Black what's up here?
> > > > > > mike
read the experts then smartass...
Shut the **** up, asshole.
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/EnergyDiagnostics09final.pdf
You haven't a ****ing clue. As usual.
Bronx33, watch the CDCOTW video again. And a couple more times.
Perhaps some of the facts and the truth will get through that pile of **** you call a brain.
TexanBob
12-07-2009, 07:44 PM
IMO, the global warming cult has three theses they need to prove before destroying the global economy with their outrageous solutions. Failing to prove any one of these three theses should disqualify the entire program:
1) Is the earth truly warming? IMO, the evidence of this is shaky and the e-mails (which, oddly, nobody seems to be denying are authentic) indicate that even the high priests of the cult know it. If the earth is not truly warming, the whole premise goes out the window.
2) IF the earth is truly warming, is man the cause of it? This premise is even shakier than the first one. In fact, one could argue that if man were the cause, the worst warming would be in highly populated areas where more polluters are, not sparsely populated ice caps. If the alleged warming is not the fault of man, then there's probably little man can do to reverse the trend.
3) IF the earth is truly warming and IF man is the culprit, will the Kyoto and Copenhagen treaties actually halt the problem? Are plugging smokestacks and forcing everyone into hybrid putt-putt cars going to actually save the planet or is it just a means to cause massive tax increases, massive redistribution of wealth and kick the globe into a worldwide economic depression where only the elites can afford the curly-q light bulbs they demand that everyone else use?
These alleged scientists need to make all three cases, not merely one, and I don't believe they've convincingly made any of them. Recent polls show 59% of Americans don't believe in Man-Made Global Warming, much less agree on the draconian solutions of the Left to fix the problem.
But Global Warming, at this point, is "too big to fail" for the Left and too many people in power will see to it that the effort push forward regardless of how spurious the evidence or how ineffective the proposed solutions will be.
What "Climategate" has done is simply convinced more and more of the public that they are being fleeced. THAT'S why the cultists are in overspin trying to put the sheep back in single file so they can be led to slaughter more efficiently.
Bronx33
12-07-2009, 07:56 PM
Shut the **** up, a-hole.
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/EnergyDiagnostics09final.pdf
You haven't a ****ing clue. As usual.
Well those emails get you mad for some reason. :rofl:
Bronx33
12-07-2009, 07:57 PM
Bronx33, watch the CDCOTW video again. And a couple more times.
Perhaps some of the facts and the truth will get through that pile of **** you call a brain.
Read the emails and i will ohhhhhh and stay classy.;)
IMO, the global warming cult has three theses they need to prove before destroying the global economy with their outrageous solutions.
The science is what it is, regardless of any policy decisions. Besides, it's not at all clear that the global economy will be "destroyed". That's just irrational fearmongering.
1) Is the earth truly warming?
Yes.
Don't like CRU's work? Then go to NASA GISS. Don't like them? Go to the Japanese Meteorological Agency. Still unconvinced? Go to the UAH satellite record.
Four independent analyses, four results, all showing that the earth has warmed.
If you don't believe, then get the data and do your own analysis.
IMO, the evidence of this is shaky and the e-mails (which, oddly, nobody seems to be denying are authentic) indicate that even the high priests of the cult know it.[QUOTE]
Be specific. And don't use a snippet from Trenberth's email as evidence. That's bull.
[QUOTE=TexanBob]2) IF the earth is truly warming, is man the cause of it?
Yes. See
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm
This premise is even shakier than the first one. In fact, one could argue that if man were the cause, the worst warming would be in highly populated areas where more polluters are, not sparsely populated ice caps.
There's this little thing called "wind" that mixes the atmosphere. Have you heard about it?
3) IF the earth is truly warming and IF man is the culprit, will the Kyoto and Copenhagen treaties actually halt the problem? Are plugging smokestacks and forcing everyone into hybrid putt-putt cars going to actually save the planet or is it just a means to cause massive tax increases, massive redistribution of wealth and kick the globe into a worldwide economic depression where only the elites can afford the curly-q light bulbs they demand that everyone else use?
You can't use possibly-bad policy to criticize the science.
Besides, are you really happy sending hundreds of billions of US dollars overseas for the oil we import, that is used to fund terrorists who want us destroyed?
These alleged scientists need to make all three cases, not merely one, and I don't believe they've convincingly made any of them.
Since you've not really researched the issue, you're not in a position to judge whether or not it's correct.
Read the emails and i will ohhhhhh and stay classy.;)
I've read quite a few of the emails.
All the denialist hysteria is based on ignorant out-of-context quote-mining.
You're never going to be convinced by the truth anyway. It's too troubling for rightards to handle.
It's endlessly entertaining that the enablers of an 8-year orgy of deception and malfeasance have now turned into such skeptics and clear-eyed thinkers.
What George hath wrought.
Rohirrim
12-08-2009, 09:06 AM
Hey, Wigs. What's your opinion of James Hansen and his "fee and dividend" scheme?
gyldenlove
12-08-2009, 11:10 AM
IMO, the global warming cult has three theses they need to prove before destroying the global economy with their outrageous solutions. Failing to prove any one of these three theses should disqualify the entire program:
1) Is the earth truly warming? IMO, the evidence of this is shaky and the e-mails (which, oddly, nobody seems to be denying are authentic) indicate that even the high priests of the cult know it. If the earth is not truly warming, the whole premise goes out the window.
2) IF the earth is truly warming, is man the cause of it? This premise is even shakier than the first one. In fact, one could argue that if man were the cause, the worst warming would be in highly populated areas where more polluters are, not sparsely populated ice caps. If the alleged warming is not the fault of man, then there's probably little man can do to reverse the trend.
3) IF the earth is truly warming and IF man is the culprit, will the Kyoto and Copenhagen treaties actually halt the problem? Are plugging smokestacks and forcing everyone into hybrid putt-putt cars going to actually save the planet or is it just a means to cause massive tax increases, massive redistribution of wealth and kick the globe into a worldwide economic depression where only the elites can afford the curly-q light bulbs they demand that everyone else use?
These alleged scientists need to make all three cases, not merely one, and I don't believe they've convincingly made any of them. Recent polls show 59% of Americans don't believe in Man-Made Global Warming, much less agree on the draconian solutions of the Left to fix the problem.
But Global Warming, at this point, is "too big to fail" for the Left and too many people in power will see to it that the effort push forward regardless of how spurious the evidence or how ineffective the proposed solutions will be.
What "Climategate" has done is simply convinced more and more of the public that they are being fleeced. THAT'S why the cultists are in overspin trying to put the sheep back in single file so they can be led to slaughter more efficiently.
1) There is no doubt that the earth is warming, not even the most sceptical scientists are denying that - only politicians and media mouthbreathers think that is still a point of debate.
2) Is it man caused? That is not settled beyond doubt yet, evidence certainly exists to support the claim, but it is not conclusive to the point of certainty. There are a number of reasons why it is difficult to establish causation, limited reliable data range, reconstruction from ice cores, tree rings, sediments and other geological sources have large variations and are inherently vulnerable to local phenomena.
3) How is this a point? if point 2 can be proven then point 3 is proven by logical inference: A causes B, so if not A then not B.
Recent polls also show that most Americans have no understanding of even the most basic science, I bet you 59% of Americans can't give even a rudimentary explanation of how a fridge, car or light bulb works. If you could produce a similar number among people with more than a GED I might be inclined to listen, but there are way too many mouthbreathing high school dropouts in that 59%.
What "climategate" has done is give the media mouthpieces something to talk about, nothing more, nothing less. How many scientists, even the most fervent anthropogenic global warming denialists have put any stock in the released emails? I haven't heard of a single one.
atomicbloke
12-08-2009, 11:15 AM
1) There is no doubt that the earth is warming, not even the most sceptical scientists are denying that - only politicians and media mouthbreathers think that is still a point of debate.
2) Is it man caused? That is not settled beyond doubt yet, evidence certainly exists to support the claim, but it is not conclusive to the point of certainty. There are a number of reasons why it is difficult to establish causation, limited reliable data range, reconstruction from ice cores, tree rings, sediments and other geological sources have large variations and are inherently vulnerable to local phenomena.
3) How is this a point? if point 2 can be proven then point 3 is proven by logical inference: A causes B, so if not A then not B.
Recent polls also show that most Americans have no understanding of even the most basic science, I bet you 59% of Americans can't give even a rudimentary explanation of how a fridge, car or light bulb works. If you could produce a similar number among people with more than a GED I might be inclined to listen, but there are way too many mouthbreathing high school dropouts in that 59%.
What "climategate" has done is give the media mouthpieces something to talk about, nothing more, nothing less. How many scientists, even the most fervent anthropogenic global warming denialists have put any stock in the released emails? I haven't heard of a single one.
You'll be told scientists aren't the most reliable or informed or appropriate people to turn to in matters relating to science.
After all who needs science when you have common sense :wave:
Hey, Wigs. What's your opinion of James Hansen and his "fee and dividend" scheme?
I prefer it to cap-n-trade.
Set a carbon tax, and then let the market figure it out.