IPCC savaged for overstating climate change dangers

Cypress said:
your first link is to some papers from 2002, which are wildly outdated.

your second link is to a well know climate denier website, run by a dude who was completely duped by climate gate.

After that, I just stopped wasting time.

Your "technology.net" link or whatever the f it is, is run by some computer geeks who aren't scientists, and have no credibility to assess climate science. They just posted a bunch of links to paid-subscription fire walled URLs. And they evidently expanded the definition of "climate skeptic" beyond what is normally seen on the interwebs. A climate skeptic, as seen on JPP.com and by definition, is someone who either claims the warming is natural, that the scientists are lying, or that nobody has any idea what's going on. You aren't allowed to backtrack from that, since that is exactly what science deniers have been claiming for two decades on the interwebs.

The fact that some web blog dues found some papers - most of which are ancient, or from non-peer reivewed industry trade journals (aka, the Steel Manufacturers Journal) - which delve into uncertainties, and unresolved issues about climate - is not a debunking of the state of modern climate science, and does not support the preposterous claims of lying climate scientists, and "natural warming" - which is what you dudes routinely have claimed..

The only way to legitimately and credibly assess the scientific consensus on climate is through rigorous academic research of the literature and scientific community, and then have it validated through scientific peer review. Just grabbing something off an obscure blog run by some computer geeks is not credible.

For example, this is a peer reviewed article on the scientific consensus, published by in the highly prestigious Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences, published just this year....

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=678999&postcount=1

....that's an overwhelming, virtually universal consensus among actual climate researchers.




Ummmm.....He's talking about IPCC working group II. Working Group II does not assess the science of climate change, dummy. .



Working Group I assesses the science of climate change, and attributions. The other working groups assess impacts and mitigation. I think the IAC recommendations are sensible, and will make the working group II and III assessments better in the 2013 report - impacts and mitigation are still evolving areas of research, that aren't as well grounded and understood as attribution and the science of climate chage.

Bottom line: If you don't even know anything about the IPCC, or what the working groups do, please don't bother posting on an IPCC thread and making yourself look foolish.

The findings of Working Group I - the science of climate change and attribution are not challenged by this IAC report....don't take my word for it. This is reported by the highly reputable and prestigious Scientific American journal.
Click to expand...

Sorry Tom... I forgot about this duck and cover move by our resident flat earth fear mongering global warming moron....

The other tactic he uses is to proclaim YOUR sources as 'wildly outdated'... even though the bulk of the data used for HIS sources is similarly dated.
 
Here's your problem tom.

You are so emotionally-invested in finding evidence of "lying climate" scientists, you have a habit of relying on hilarious, screeching ("IPCC Savaged!!!") headlines from non-scientist "journalists" British tabloids, that you have routinely and prematurely popped your champagne cork, before actual scientists have weighed in.


Instead of relying on screechy British tabloids for your "science" news, I would suggest a mature, informed, and scientifically-literate source...like the highly respected British science journal Nature

Nature has a very adult and thoughtful look at this IAC report.

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100831/full/467014a.html


IPCC wasn't "savaged". The climate assessments from working group I were never challenged. Working Group I is the task force that actually does the assessment of climate science and attribution to human and natural sources.

You jumped the gun, Thomas. Working Groups II and III don't assess the climate science. They assess impacts and mitigation, which are much newer and less evolved research issues. In short, you popped the champagne cork WAY to early. I guess we're seeing Climate Gate Part Deux here.

NATURE:

The review panel identified various problems with the way scientific uncertainty was handled in the last report. Shapiro says that the second working group's summary for policy-makers assigned "high confidence" — a quantitative measure that equates to 90% confidence — to statements for which there is little evidence. For example, the suggestion that the cost of adaptation to sea-level rise "could amount to at least 5–10% of gross domestic product", would have been better stated using qualitative language.

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100831/full/467014a.html
Click to expand...

Here's something else you and your british tabloid bungled Tom.

There is no implication here that Working Group II lied, or got it completely wrong. The IAC is pointing out a matter of process and procedure. They make no claim that Working Group II totally got it wrong, or lied. Your British tabloid "journalists" simply didn't have the knowledge or capacity to see the distinction.

Working Group II was constrained by institutionalized methods for assessing risk. Which, isn't appropriate in all cases. That doesn't mean working group II lied. They were following procedures that weren't well adapted for assessing risks associated with impact, in a few cases. That's why IAC is recommending the changes.

What IAC is saying is the equivalent of me saying that there's a 90% chance there won't be an earthquake in California tommorow. I might be right, and the chances are actually very high that there won't be. But, I can't assign a quantitative risk to it, because I have no evidence to make the 90 percentile assessment. That's why the IAC report recommends Working Group II should have made qualitative assessments. Its more accurate to say there's a high chance there won't be an earthquake tommorow, than to say there's a 90% chance there won't be. There's no empirical basis or evidence supporting the 90% number.


Bottom line, your british tabloids duped you again. As they did with Climate Gate (!) .

NATURE:

Harold Shapiro, a former president of Prince*ton University, New Jersey, who chaired the review panel, credited the IPCC with enormous successes, both in terms of assessing the science of climate change and garnering support from governments around the world. "But funda*mental changes are necessary to ensure its continued success," Shapiro says.
Click to expand...


These changes seem sensible, and can make Working Groups II and III deliver better products.

But whatever errors, and inappropriate uncertainty methods Working Group II used, it doesn't change the fact that the earth's glaciers are melting, the ice caps are melting, and extreme weather conditions are increasing. You're reduced to relying on what some ill-informed writer at a British Tabloid is telling you to think. You can do better than that Thomas, have some self-respect.

Pay attention Tom: The science of climate change, attribution, and human-caused global warming is not challenged, debunked, or "savaged". Either here, in this IAC report, or by any single, solitary reputable scientific organization on the entire planet. That's a fact, jack.


I'd put the cork back in the Champagne Tom....before this ends up as badly for science-deniers, as did Climate Gate (!).
 
Last edited:
Cypress said:
your first link is to some papers from 2002, which are wildly outdated.

your second link is to a well know climate denier website, run by a dude who was completely duped by climate gate.

After that, I just stopped wasting time.

Your "technology.net" link or whatever the f it is, is run by some computer geeks who aren't scientists, and have no credibility to assess climate science. They just posted a bunch of links to paid-subscription fire walled URLs. And they evidently expanded the definition of "climate skeptic" beyond what is normally seen on the interwebs. A climate skeptic, as seen on JPP.com and by definition, is someone who either claims the warming is natural, that the scientists are lying, or that nobody has any idea what's going on. You aren't allowed to backtrack from that, since that is exactly what science deniers have been claiming for two decades on the interwebs.

The fact that some web blog dues found some papers - most of which are ancient, or from non-peer reivewed industry trade journals (aka, the Steel Manufacturers Journal) - which delve into uncertainties, and unresolved issues about climate - is not a debunking of the state of modern climate science, and does not support the preposterous claims of lying climate scientists, and "natural warming" - which is what you dudes routinely have claimed..

The only way to legitimately and credibly assess the scientific consensus on climate is through rigorous academic research of the literature and scientific community, and then have it validated through scientific peer review. Just grabbing something off an obscure blog run by some computer geeks is not credible.

For example, this is a peer reviewed article on the scientific consensus, published by in the highly prestigious Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences, published just this year....

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=678999&postcount=1

....that's an overwhelming, virtually universal consensus among actual climate researchers.




Ummmm.....He's talking about IPCC working group II. Working Group II does not assess the science of climate change, dummy. .



Working Group I assesses the science of climate change, and attributions. The other working groups assess impacts and mitigation. I think the IAC recommendations are sensible, and will make the working group II and III assessments better in the 2013 report - impacts and mitigation are still evolving areas of research, that aren't as well grounded and understood as attribution and the science of climate change.

Bottom line: If you don't even know anything about the IPCC, or what the working groups do, please don't bother posting on an IPCC thread and making yourself look foolish.

The findings of Working Group I - the science of climate change and attribution are not challenged by this IAC report....don't take my word for it. This is reported by the highly reputable and prestigious Scientific American journal.
Click to expand...

You are just totally infuriating, the second link was to a study by three Australasian climate researchers published in 2009 in Journal of Geophysical Research, a well known Murdoch tabloid!! Rupert even peer reviewed himself, wasn't it nice of him taking time out to do that pro bono. As you are too lazy to even see beyond your nose, I reproduced it below.


A new peer-reviewed climate study is presenting a head on challenge to man-made global warming claims. The study by three climate researchers appears in the July 23, 2009 edition of Journal of Geophysical Research. (Link to Abstract)

Full Press Release and Abstract to Study:

July 23, 2009
Nature not man responsible for recent global warming
Three Australasian researchers have shown that natural forces are the dominant influence on climate, in a study just published in the highly-regarded Journal of Geophysical Research. According to this study little or none of the late 20th century global warming and cooling can be attributed to human activity.
The research, by Chris de Freitas, a climate scientist at the University of Auckland in New Zealand, John McLean (Melbourne) and Bob Carter (James Cook University), finds that the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is a key indicator of global atmospheric temperatures seven months later. As an additional influence, intermittent volcanic activity injects cooling aerosols into the atmosphere and produces significant cooling.
"The surge in global temperatures since 1977 can be attributed to a 1976 climate shift in the Pacific Ocean that made warming El Niño conditions more likely than they were over the previous 30 years and cooling La Niña conditions less likely" says corresponding author de Freitas.
"We have shown that internal global climate-system variability accounts for at least 80% of the observed global climate variation over the past half-century. It may even be more if the period of influence of major volcanoes can be more clearly identified and the corresponding data excluded from the analysis.”
Climate researchers have long been aware that ENSO events influence global temperature, for example causing a high temperature spike in 1998 and a subsequent fall as conditions moved to La Niña. It is also well known that volcanic activity has a cooling influence, and as is well documented by the effects of the 1991 Mount Pinatubo volcanic eruption.
The new paper draws these two strands of climate control together and shows, by demonstrating a strong relationship between the Southern Oscillation and lower-atmospheric temperature, that ENSO has been a major temperature influence since continuous measurement of lower-atmospheric temperature first began in 1958.
According to the three researchers, ENSO-related warming during El Niño conditions is caused by a stronger Hadley Cell circulation moving warm tropical air into the mid-latitudes. During La Niña conditions the Pacific Ocean is cooler and the Walker circulation, west to east in the upper atmosphere along the equator, dominates.
"When climate models failed to retrospectively produce the temperatures since 1950 the modellers added some estimated influences of carbon dioxide to make up the shortfall," says McLean.
"The IPCC acknowledges in its 4th Assessment Report that ENSO conditions cannot be predicted more than about 12 months ahead, so the output of climate models that could not predict ENSO conditions were being compared to temperatures during a period that was dominated by those influences. It's no wonder that model outputs have been so inaccurate, and it is clear that future modelling must incorporate the ENSO effect if it is to be meaningful."
Bob Carter, one of four scientists who has recently questioned the justification for the proposed Australian emissions trading scheme, says that this paper has significant consequences for public climate policy.
"The close relationship between ENSO and global temperature, as described in the paper, leaves little room for any warming driven by human carbon dioxide emissions. The available data indicate that future global temperatures will continue to change primarily in response to ENSO cycling, volcanic activity and solar changes.”
“Our paper confirms what many scientists already know: which is that no scientific justification exists for emissions regulation, and that, irrespective of the severity of the cuts proposed, ETS (emission trading scheme) will exert no measurable effect on future climate.”
--
McLean, J. D., C. R. de Freitas, and R. M. Carter (2009), Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature, Journal of Geophysical Research, 114, D14104, doi:10.1029/2008JD011637.
This figure from the McLean et al (2009) research shows that mean monthly global temperature (MSU GTTA) corresponds in general terms with the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) of seven months earlier. The SOI is a rough indicator of general atmospheric circulation and thus global climate change. The possible influence of the Rabaul volcanic eruption is shown.
Excerpted Abstract of the Paper appearing in the Journal of Geophysical Research:
Time series for the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) and global tropospheric temperature anomalies (GTTA) are compared for the 1958−2008 period. GTTA are represented by data from satellite microwave sensing units (MSU) for the period 1980–2008 and from radiosondes (RATPAC) for 1958–2008. After the removal from the data set of short periods of temperature perturbation that relate to near-equator volcanic eruption, we use derivatives to document the presence of a 5- to 7-month delayed close relationship between SOI and GTTA. Change in SOI accounts for 72% of the variance in GTTA for the 29-year-long MSU record and 68% of the variance in GTTA for the longer 50-year RATPAC record. Because El Niño−Southern Oscillation is known to exercise a particularly strong influence in the tropics, we also compared the SOI with tropical temperature anomalies between 20°S and 20°N. The results showed that SOI accounted for 81% of the variance in tropospheric temperature anomalies in the tropics. Overall the results suggest that the Southern Oscillation exercises a consistently dominant influence on mean global temperature, with a maximum effect in the tropics, except for periods when equatorial volcanism causes ad hoc cooling. That mean global tropospheric temperature has for the last 50 years fallen and risen in close accord with the SOI of 5–7 months earlier shows the potential of natural forcing mechanisms to account for most of the temperature variation.
Received 16 December 2008; accepted 14 May 2009; published 23 July 2009. [End Abstract Excerpt]
Technical Note from co-authors of study - July 29, 2009
Not surprisingly, a storm has broken out over research saying human activities are not the main factor behind climate change. In an attempt to denigrate the work, claims have been made that the research fails to effectively detect trends in MGT. This is misleading and causes confusion, especially among those people who have not read the paper.
The paper by McLean et al does not analyse trends in MGT; rather, it examines the extent to which ENSO accounts for variation in MGT. The research concludes that MGT has for the last 50 years fallen and risen in close accord with the SOI of 5-7 months earlier and shows the potential of natural mechanisms to account for most of the temperature variation.
It is evident in this paper that ENSO (ocean-atmosphere heat exchange) is the primary driver of MGT (i.e. El Niños cause global warming and La Niñas cause global cooling). All other mechanisms are small in comparison. The reason may be due to Hadley circulation which is itself linked to changes in sea surface temperature (ocean heat supply) and the Walker Circulation, that is, ENSO. Hadley circulation is the main mechanism for moving the surplus of energy at near the equator to high latitudes and plays a key role in the general circulation of the atmosphere. Changes in Hadley circulation affects convection and thus atmospheric moisture content and cloud cover which may in turn affect net solar heating as well as the transfer of heat from Earth to space.
Those who claim correlation using derivatives (differences) removes a linear trend miss the point. McLean et al use this method to construct Figures 5 and 6. It should be noted that detrended data was used purely to establish the time lag between the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) and MGT in Figures 5 and 6. This time lag was then used in Figure 7 to show that close correlation between trends in temperature and changes in the Southern Oscillation Index seven months previously.
Figure 7 presents the data in its original form; namely, data that is not detrended, but with the time shift in SOI obtained from the detrended data. If an underlying trend existed, it would have shown up in Figure 7. One would see the temperature line rising away from the SOI line if, for example, rising atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations had a significant influence. There is little or no sign of this.
The results in Figure 7 clearly show that the SOI related variability in MGT is the major contribution to any trends that might exist, although the McLean et al study did not look for this. The key conclusion of the paper, therefore, is that MGT is determined in most part by atmospheric processes related to the Southern Oscillation.
For more on trends, recent work by Compo and Sardeshmukh (Climate Dynamics, 32:33-342, 2009) is illuminating. The abstract includes the statement: “Evidence is presented that the recent worldwide land warming has occurred largely in response to a worldwide warming of the oceans rather than as a direct response to increasing greenhouse gases (GHGs) over land.”
 
Last edited:
Tom... he will NEVER read or address anything peer reviewed that disagrees with what his masters have told him. That is why he clings to his 'the independent studies cleared the so called scientists'. He neglects to mention that Penn St was an inside job, that the two British inquiries were hand picked by those with a vested interest in clearing the so called scientists.

Cypress will even completely ignore his OWN 'unimpeachable sources' when they state something contrary to his religion.

He is a hack. Completely void of any capacity for honesty.
 
Cypress said:
Here's your problem tom.

You are so emotionally-invested in finding evidence of "lying climate" scientists, you have a habit of relying on hilarious, screeching ("IPCC Savaged!!!") headlines from non-scientist "journalists" British tabloids, that you have routinely and prematurely popped your champagne cork, before actual scientists have weighed in.


Instead of relying on screechy British tabloids for your "science" news, I would suggest a mature, informed, and scientifically-literate source...like the highly respected British science journal Nature

Nature has a very adult and thoughtful look at this IAC report.

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100831/full/467014a.html


IPCC wasn't "savaged". The climate assessments from working group I were never challenged. Working Group I is the task force that actually does the assessment of climate science and attribution to human and natural sources.

You jumped the gun, Thomas. Working Groups II and III don't assess the climate science. They assess impacts and mitigation, which are much newer and less evolved research issues. In short, you popped the champagne cork WAY to early. I guess we're seeing Climate Gate Part Deux here.



Here's something else you and your british tabloid bungled Tom.

There is no implication here that Working Group II lied, or got it completely wrong. The IAC is pointing out a matter of process and procedure. They make no claim that Working Group II totally got it wrong, or lied. Your British tabloid "journalists" simply didn't have the knowledge or capacity to see the distinction.

Working Group II was constrained by institutionalized methods for assessing risk. Which, isn't appropriate in all cases. That doesn't mean working group II lied. They were following procedures that weren't well adapted for assessing risks associated with impact, in a few cases. That's why IAC is recommending the changes.

What IAC is saying is the equivalent of me saying that there's a 90% chance there won't be an earthquake in California tommorow. I might be right, and the chances are actually very high that there won't be. But, I can't assign a quantitative risk to it, because I have no evidence to make the 90 percentile assessment. That's why the IAC report recommends Working Group II should have made qualitative assessments. Its more accurate to say there's a high chance there won't be an earthquake tommorow, than to say there's a 90% chance there won't be. There's no empirical basis or evidence supporting the 90% number.


Bottom line, your british tabloids duped you again. As they did with Climate Gate (!) .




These changes seem sensible, and can make Working Groups II and III deliver better products.

But whatever errors, and inappropriate uncertainty methods Working Group II used, it doesn't change the fact that the earth's glaciers are melting, the ice caps are melting, and extreme weather conditions are increasing. You're reduced to relying on what some ill-informed writer at a British Tabloid is telling you to think. You can do better than that Thomas, have some self-respect.

Pay attention Tom: The science of climate change, attribution, and human-caused global warming is not challenged, debunked, or "savaged". Either here, in this IAC report, or by any single, solitary reputable scientific organization on the entire planet. That's a fact, jack.


I'd put the cork back in the Champagne Tom....before this ends up as badly for science-deniers, as did Climate Gate (!).
Click to expand...

You have turned condescension into an artform.
 
Superfreak said:
Tom... he will NEVER read or address anything peer reviewed that disagrees with what his masters have told him. That is why he clings to his 'the independent studies cleared the so called scientists'. He neglects to mention that Penn St was an inside job, that the two British inquiries were hand picked by those with a vested interest in clearing the so called scientists.

Cypress will even completely ignore his OWN 'unimpeachable sources' when they state something contrary to his religion.

He is a hack. Completely void of any capacity for honesty.
Click to expand...

You know, I thought the same thing about Prissy, he does seem to be a lying hack, void of any capacity for honesty, but in light of all the evidence to refute his warming theories, and the overwhelming majority of people who think he's off his rocker, I have to wonder if he's not just someone who has been taken advantage of, an ignorant person who has been duped and doesn't know it. I have an aunt-in-law who lives in Florida, she is still waiting on her $250,000 check from a Nigerian member of the royal family, who promised to send it to her as soon as she sent him $1,500 to handle the paperwork. "These things take time," she says. Some people get snookered, and never realize it. It appears this has happened to Prissy. I kind of feel sorry for him, do his relatives know? Is he as much of a joke to them, as he is here? That must be sad....
 
Superfreak said:
Sorry Tom... I forgot about this duck and cover move by our resident flat earth fear mongering global warming moron....

The other tactic he uses is to proclaim YOUR sources as 'wildly outdated'... even though the bulk of the data used for HIS sources is similarly dated.
Click to expand...

I know! LOL
That's why I stopped bothering even reading his posts. He must do all the things he accuses other of doing, namely searching blogsites lite RealClimate or the other few pet sites of the climate team.

Contrast the material at ClimateAudit:
peer reviewed analysis of the METHODS the team used to derive their conclusions.

he doesn't seem to be able to understand what climate scientists do.

they rely on dendrochronology and ice cores to give them data sets that reperesent the proxies for which a statistical signal must be derived.

if they are using denro proxies that are wildly deviating over similar CO2 concentrations(based on ice cores, mud cores, etc), then those proxies are not clear enough in signal to use to devine climate, weather, or anything.

You could substitute random data in place of the proxy data Mann used and you'd still get the Hocky Stick!

LOL

Cypress does not understand how integral the statitstics are to finding the signals.
 
Sorry Tom, I’m far more informed on this topic than you are, and I routinely provide cogent answers supplemented by highly reputable scientific sources. Don’t get your panties in a wad man, if you are intellectually outgunned. Don’t stress out about it or get emotional. Stick to topics you might actually know something about.

So far, your contributions to this thread are:

A screechy British tabloid
A webpage from a noted science-denying rightwing U.S. senator
A couple of links to some obscure parsitan blogs run by climate deniers
A bunch of paid subscription fire-walled science articles that I can’t read
Some wildly outdated articles from 2002.

I'm almost surprised you didn't pull out your blog from your mentally disturbed "mushroom researcher"


My contributions:

The eminently respectable American scientific journal Scientific American

The prestigious British scientific journal Nature


Tom, you were duped by climate gate, and you were duped by an obscure website written by a mentally disturbed, unemployed “mushroom researcher”. Its getting embarrassing, man. Have some dignity man! How many times can you be proven wrong, or be shown to be citing ridiculous, obscure, non-scientific websites, before you actually convince yourself to read real scientific sources?

Can you please stop wasting my time?

Your screechy British tabloid totally bungled this IAC report, and neither they nor you apparently had the foggiest idea of what this report actually meant or implied about the IPCC. Climate science wasn’t “savaged” in fact it wasn’t touched in the least. The report is about process and procedures to improve the work, the administration, and the funding, of the IPCC. To the extent any technical improvements can be made, most of the recommendations apply to Working Group II and III. Working Group II is at a real disadvantage compared to the other groups. We know with high certainty that there will be impacts from climate change. We can’t really quantify whether they will be disruptive, or catastrophic. Most likely, the impacts will vary regionally. Countries who’s main source of water are glaciers and snow pack are going to be especially hard hit, because the glaciers are receding. Lower latitude countries are probably going to be slammed harder than higher latitude countries. The body of literature isn’t as broad or robust for impacts as for atmospheric science and climate change attribution. So WG II are at a distinct disadvantage using IPCC’s old rules about uncertainty analysis.

That's exactly why the IAC report says WG II should use qualitative caveats for their uncertainties analysis. It's not that WG II was wrong in assessing these impacts. These impacts will and are going to happen. Its just not that quantifiable yet. These recommendations are going to make WG II and III stronger. And there’s nothing in this report that even remotely challenges human-caused climate change. Working Group I’s reputation is virtually beyond reproach.

Climate change is happening dude. Humans are largely responsible for it. You are denying basic physical realities if you continue denying it. The green house effect is a demonstrable property of physics that is beyond dispute. The 100ppm rise in atmospheric CO2 in the last 100 years is WAY beyond the natural rate of change. When and if we get to 500, 600, or 700 ppm of atmospheric CO2, you and your science denier buddies are going to be judged harshly by history.


Well, judging by the hollering, the foot stomping, the insult-hurling, and the preposterous links to rightwing non-scientific blogs, I guess my work here is done. Later man!
 
Last edited:
Really, it's okay Prissy... one of these days, when you are old and gray, we promise we won't tell your grandkids about this. We'll pretend that you were right there with the rest of us, calling these people out for the crazies they are, and ridiculing them for their abject ignorance and stupidity. When they ask how people could have ever been so stupid, we'll just shrug and act like we never read all these threads you've posted. In fact, if you'll stop posting them now, I bet in 6-months, no one will think you are a nut for this, they will have forgotten all about it.
 
tom prendergast said:
I've got to admit this is very amusing, as apparently we should all be under water by now.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=37AE6E96-802A-23AD-4C8A-EDF6D8150789
Click to expand...


I don't have to travel back to 1989 to find comments that were disasterously wrong.

All I have to do is search justplainpolitics.com, to find dozens of examples where science deniers have been disasterously wrong.

hello? Climate Gate?

One stupid statement from one UN guy - who probably isn't even a scientist - in 1989, doesn't change the fact that the earth is warming, and humans are largely responsible for it according to the best science on the planet.


As for your JGR paper - it's one paper written by some subpar scientists. What the hell is "James Cook University"?

Some dudes from NASA, Penn State University, and CRU - highly reputable and prestigious institutions - responded to that paper and demolished it. The authors used inappropriate methodologies and their results aren't repeatable.

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/Foster_et alJGR09_formatted.pdf

If you can't produce reproducible results, you're doing bad science.

I never said it wasn't possible to sneak a climate denier paper into the literature, by subpar scientists. It's always possible to get crap published, peer review isn't an impenetrable fire wall against bad science. Noted denialist Mckittick gets a paper published, once in a while. If 19 out of 20 neurosurgeons told you you had brain cancer thomas, would you blow off treatment, and claim there wasn't a consensus? Would you side with the "skeptic"? No you wouldn't. You would run as fast as could to get treatment as rapidly as possible.

That's why I have routinely asked you science deniers to provide a body of peer reviewed science, or the findings of a major, reputable scientific organization to support your denialism. Science is advanced by research being accepted by a wide swath of peers, and by reputable science organizations. That the test of good science. One paper can get sneaked through - and shot down by better scientists. That's just a fact, jack.
 
Last edited:
One stupid statement from one UN guy - who probably isn't even a scientist - in 1989, doesn't change the fact that the earth is warming, and humans are largely responsible for it according to the best science on the planet.
Click to expand...

The Earth has ALWAYS warmed and cooled, we know this to be a fact because of ice core and rock studies. NO SCIENTIST has EVER conclusively stated that humans are largely responsible for the warming. There might be a few who THINK that is the case, but the body of evidence to contradict that, is overwhelming. The Earth was at least as warm, if not warmer, during the Medieval warming period, and there was no industrial pollution or carbon dioxide emissions happening at that time.

I know, you really really really really wanted to believe Al Gore! I know, you've invested a great deal of your time, researching and perusing through nutbag blogs for information to post here, and I know it's a disappointment that was all for nothing, but you've got to get a hold of yourself, before you end up like that nut in Maryland today!
 
Dixie you've argued for creationism and intelligent design.

So what the f are you even doing on a science thread, Mr. 1/3?


Here's something you missed during home-schooling: science can't prove anything "conclusively". Science is probabilistic.


If we had to wait around for science to prove something conclusively before doing anything, nothing would ever get done. Because science ain't never going to prove anything conclusively.


I find your need for conclusive evidence to be odd on a whole other level.....didn't you want to invade iraq, spend trillions of tax dollars, and kill tends of thousands of people, on the basis of very flimsy and highly circumstantial evidence? Care to explain?
 
PrissyPot said:
Here's something you missed during home-schooling: science can't prove anything "conclusively". Science is probabilistic.

If we had to wait around for science to prove something conclusively before doing anything, nothing would ever get done. Because science ain't never going to prove anything conclusively.

I find your need for conclusive evidence to be odd on a whole other level.
Click to expand...

But you said it has been established as a fact that the earth is warming and man is causing it... now you admit that isn't actually true?
 
Cypress said:
Sorry Tom, I’m far more informed on this topic than you are, and I routinely provide cogent answers supplemented by highly reputable scientific sources. Don’t get your panties in a wad man, if you are intellectually outgunned. Don’t stress out about it or get emotional. Stick to topics you might actually know something about.

So far, your contributions to this thread are:

A screechy British tabloid
A webpage from a noted science-denying rightwing U.S. senator
A couple of links to some obscure parsitan blogs run by climate deniers
A bunch of paid subscription fire-walled science articles that I can’t read
Some wildly outdated articles from 2002.

I'm almost surprised you didn't pull out your blog from your mentally disturbed "mushroom researcher"


My contributions:

The eminently respectable American scientific journal Scientific American

The prestigious British scientific journal Nature


Tom, you were duped by climate gate, and you were duped by an obscure website written by a mentally disturbed, unemployed “mushroom researcher”. Its getting embarrassing, man. Have some dignity man! How many times can you be proven wrong, or be shown to be citing ridiculous, obscure, non-scientific websites, before you actually convince yourself to read real scientific sources?

Can you please stop wasting my time?

Your screechy British tabloid totally bungled this IAC report, and neither they nor you apparently had the foggiest idea of what this report actually meant or implied about the IPCC. Climate science wasn’t “savaged” in fact it wasn’t touched in the least. The report is about process and procedures to improve the work, the administration, and the funding, of the IPCC. To the extent any technical improvements can be made, most of the recommendations apply to Working Group II and III. Working Group II is at a real disadvantage compared to the other groups. We know with high certainty that there will be impacts from climate change. We can’t really quantify whether they will be disruptive, or catastrophic. Most likely, the impacts will vary regionally. Countries who’s main source of water are glaciers and snow pack are going to be especially hard hit, because the glaciers are receding. Lower latitude countries are probably going to be slammed harder than higher latitude countries. The body of literature isn’t as broad or robust for impacts as for atmospheric science and climate change attribution. So WG II are at a distinct disadvantage using IPCC’s old rules about uncertainty analysis.

That's exactly why the IAC report says WG II should use qualitative caveats for their uncertainties analysis. It's not that WG II was wrong in assessing these impacts. These impacts will and are going to happen. Its just not that quantifiable yet. These recommendations are going to make WG II and III stronger. And there’s nothing in this report that even remotely challenges human-caused climate change. Working Group I’s reputation is virtually beyond reproach.

Climate change is happening dude. Humans are largely responsible for it. You are denying basic physical realities if you continue denying it. The green house effect is a demonstrable property of physics that is beyond dispute. The 100ppm rise in atmospheric CO2 in the last 100 years is WAY beyond the natural rate of change. When and if we get to 500, 600, or 700 ppm of atmospheric CO2, you and your science denier buddies are going to be judged harshly by history.


Well, judging by the hollering, the foot stomping, the insult-hurling, and the preposterous links to rightwing non-scientific blogs, I guess my work here is done. Later man!
Click to expand...

If you don't you like it, then why do you keep responding? I really don't what your credentials are but you've certainly got all the arrogance and unswerving belief needed. It also occurs to me that Newton and Einstein must also be out of date using your perverse logic.
 
Last edited:
Cypress said:
I don't have to travel back to 1989 to find comments that were disasterously wrong.

All I have to do is search justplainpolitics.com, to find dozens of examples where science deniers have been disasterously wrong.

hello? Climate Gate?

One stupid statement from one UN guy - who probably isn't even a scientist - in 1989, doesn't change the fact that the earth is warming, and humans are largely responsible for it according to the best science on the planet.


As for your JGR paper - it's one paper written by some subpar scientists. What the hell is "James Cook University"?

Some dudes from NASA, Penn State University, and CRU - highly reputable and prestigious institutions - responded to that paper and demolished it. The authors used inappropriate methodologies and their results aren't repeatable.

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/Foster_et alJGR09_formatted.pdf

If you can't produce reproducible results, you're doing bad science.

I never said it wasn't possible to sneak a climate denier paper into the literature, by subpar scientists. It's always possible to get crap published, peer review isn't an impenetrable fire wall against bad science. Noted denialist Mckittick gets a paper published, once in a while. If 19 out of 20 neurosurgeons told you you had brain cancer thomas, would you blow off treatment, and claim there wasn't a consensus? Would you side with the "skeptic"? No you wouldn't. You would run as fast as could to get treatment as rapidly as possible.

That's why I have routinely asked you science deniers to provide a body of peer reviewed science, or the findings of a major, reputable scientific organization to support your denialism. Science is advanced by research being accepted by a wide swath of peers, and by reputable science organizations. That the test of good science. One paper can get sneaked through - and shot down by better scientists. That's just a fact, jack.
Click to expand...

Obviously you are incapable of using Google now, again I have to help you.

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Cook_University"]James Cook University - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Jculogo.png" class="image" title="JCU Logo"><img alt="JCU Logo" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/1f/Jculogo.png/250px-Jculogo.png"@@AMEPARAM@@en/thumb/1/1f/Jculogo.png/250px-Jculogo.png[/ame]
 
Is this Cypress?


thumb_Cartoon_-_Climate_Science.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top