IPCC savaged for overstating climate change dangers

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...

Sorry again Tom.... here is yet ANOTHER of his ducking maneuvers....

He will now pretend that he KNOWS who these scientists are and that he KNOWS they are 'sub par'... AND he will in turn mock the University they teach at because again 'they must suck if they disagree with his masters views'.

He did the same thing when I showed him a peer reviewed research paper from a University of Delaware's climatologist. You see, the paper I presented was peer reviewed, written by a specialist in climatology and written within the last few years.... which debunked all of his normal bullshit excuses and thus he now has created the 'they are subpar scientists' and 'that University is laughable' categories for denying anything that contradicts his fear mongering flat earth global warming religious beliefs.
 
Superfreak said:
Sorry again Tom.... here is yet ANOTHER of his ducking maneuvers....

He will now pretend that he KNOWS who these scientists are and that he KNOWS they are 'sub par'... AND he will in turn mock the University they teach at because again 'they must suck if they disagree with his masters views'.

He did the same thing when I showed him a peer reviewed research paper from a University of Delaware's climatologist. You see, the paper I presented was peer reviewed, written by a specialist in climatology and written within the last few years.... which debunked all of his normal bullshit excuses and thus he now has created the 'they are subpar scientists' and 'that University is laughable' categories for denying anything that contradicts his fear mongering flat earth global warming religious beliefs.
Click to expand...

It just occurred to that much of the evidence that props up the AGW theory comes from Mann's hockey stick graph and the famous Siberian trees, which were published in the 90s, surely that is all outdated now?
 
tom prendergast said:
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.
Click to expand...

this is the Cypress way... he pretends he is really really busy and just 'can't keep responding to you bro'... but then he continues to respond. He just ignores everything you write and posts the same parrot points over and over again. He tosses in the 'I am so cool and superior to everyone' attitude because he thinks if he says it enough times his pathetic existence will somehow improve.
 
tom prendergast said:
It just occurred to that much of the evidence that props up the AGW theory comes from Mann's hockey stick graph and the famous Siberian trees, which were published in the 90s, surely that is all outdated now?
Click to expand...

No no NO.... the "outdated" rule only applies to data/papers/articles by skeptics. it does NOT apply to the all knowing unimpeachable gods that provide Cypress with his parrot points.
 
Superfreak said:
this is the Cypress way... he pretends he is really really busy and just 'can't keep responding to you bro'... but then he continues to respond. He just ignores everything you write and posts the same parrot points over and over again. He tosses in the 'I am so cool and superior to everyone' attitude because he thinks if he says it enough times his pathetic existence will somehow improve.
Click to expand...

Do you know what he actually does for a living?
 
tom prendergast said:
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
snip
Click to expand...



Man, two minutes on google, and great hilarity ensues! Why do I even waste my time on dealing with climate denialist bullshit? I don’t know! I guess its just a guilty pleasure!

Thomas, your 2009 JGR paper by three subpar scientists deniers is probably on the verge of being laughed out of the scientific profession, if not removed and withdrawn by the Journal of Geophysical Research for gross scientific incompetence.

Better and more reputable scientists from around the planet were appalled at how such a horrible paper could have made it through peer review.

And, evidently the Journal of Geophysical Research (JGR) realized they might have fucked up by publishing this paper. Why?

... JGR allowed a group of highly reputable scientists from NASA, Penn State, CRU, and the National Center for Atmospheric Research to publish a peer-reviewed response paper in the very same JGR which demolished the shoddy analysis and science in the Denialist’s JGR publication.

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

And to be fair and balance, JGR allowed your scientists Deniers the opportunity to defend themselves, and offer a peer reviewed rebuttal .

But your denialist’s rebuttal was shot down in flames by JGR peer reviewers and rejected for publication. .

If you want some comedy, here’s your denialists whining that their rebuttal was rejected by peer review

"On November 20, a newly appointed, replacement JGR editor informed us that a group of scientists led by Grant Foster had submitted a critique of our paper for publication in JGR."

"We were invited to write a response, which we did, submitting it to JGR on January 14, 2010. 2 On March 16, the replacement editor contacted us again. He included three referees’ reports, and indicated that on the advice of these referees he was rejecting our response to the Foster et al. critique, and that the response would therefore not be published in JGR".

--From: Tom's Scientists Deniers , March 2010

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/McLeanetalSPPIpaper2Z-March24.pdf
Click to expand...

There ya have it!

So, the hilarious bottom line is that....

1) a horrible paper made in into JGR (shit happens, sometimes!)

2) A group of much more capable and reputable scientists from stellar institutions totally demolished the preposterous denialist paper in a peer-reviewed JRG response.

3) The denialists were allowed the opportunity to offer a rebuttal, but their rebuttal was laughed out of peer review and went unpublished.
Click to expand...

Science: 1 – Science Deniers: 0

Tom, your scientists deniers had their paper demolished by better researchers, and when your scientists were allowed the opportunity to retort, they rebuttal was laughed out of peer review. From my experience, this JGR shin dig indicates a complete flame out. The Journal of Geophysical Research knows they fucked up publishing this horse crap, Sorry, Thomas, your deniers were blown out of the water, the JGR evidently knows they fucked up publishing such shoddy work, and this paper is going into the scrap heap of discarded and laughable science ASAP.

Tom, does it get any funnier than this?


Well, I’m outta here. Enjoy your screechy British Tabloids, rightwing climate denier websites, and handful of paltry peer reviewed publications by subpar scientists who get blown out of the water.

Sorry Tom. Climate Change is happening, human emission of GHG are largely responsible for driving it, based on the best science on the planet. Let me know when and if you’re ever interested in reputable science. I could hook you up!










Addendum:
BTW – your primary author De Freitas has been caught red handed in trying to publish shoddy science before, and Bob Cook is a laughing stock who spends more time on the rightwing media circuit, than doing actual, credible climate science. Later, man!
 
Last edited:
Cypress said:
Man, two minutes on google, and great hilarity ensues! Why do I even waste my time on dealing with climate denialist bullshit? I don’t know! I guess its just a guilty pleasure!

Thomas, your 2009 JGR paper by three subpar scientists deniers is probably on the verge of being laughed out of the scientific profession, if not removed and withdrawn by the Journal of Geophysical Research for gross scientific incompetence.

Better and more reputable scientists from around the planet were appalled at how such a horrible paper could have made it through peer review.

And, evidently the Journal of Geophysical Research (JGR) realized they might have fucked up by publishing this paper. Why?

... JGR allowed a group of highly reputable scientists from NASA, Penn State, CRU, and the National Center for Atmospheric Research to publish a peer-reviewed response paper in the very same JGR which demolished the shoddy analysis and science in the Denialist’s JGR publication.

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/Foster_et%20alJGR09_formatted.pdf

And to be fair and balance, JGR allowed your scientists Deniers the opportunity to defend themselves, and offer a peer reviewed rebuttal .

But your denialist’s rebuttal was shot down in flames by JGR peer reviewers and rejected for publication. .

If you want some comedy, here’s your denialists whining that their rebuttal was rejected by peer review



There ya have it!

So, the hilarious bottom line is that....



Science: 1 – Science Deniers: 0

Tom, your scientists deniers had their paper demolished by better researchers, and when your scientists were allowed the opportunity to retort, they rebuttal was laughed out of peer review. From my experience, this JGR shin dig indicates a complete flame out. The Journal of Geophysical Research knows they fucked up publishing this horse crap, Sorry, Thomas, your deniers were blown out of the water, the JGR evidently knows they fucked up publishing such shoddy work, and this paper is going into the scrap heap of discarded and laughable science ASAP.

Tom, does it get any funnier than this?


Well, I’m outta here. Enjoy your screechy British Tabloids, rightwing climate denier websites, and handful of paltry peer reviewed publications by subpar scientists who get blown out of the water.

Sorry Tom. Climate Change is happening, human emission of GHG are largely responsible for driving it, based on the best science on the planet. Let me know when and if you’re ever interested in reputable science. I could hook you up!










Addendum:
BTW – your primary author De Freitas has been caught red handed in trying to publish shoddy science before, and Bob Cook is a laughing stock who spends more time on the rightwing media circuit, than doing actual, credible climate science. Later, man!
Click to expand...

So what exactly are your qualifications and occupation? The head of the IPCC will be vacant soon, maybe you could apply?
 
Last edited:
A peer reviewed study published in 2007, which is probably out of date according to Cypress, points out that even if there were a doubling of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere this would only result in a 1.1 degree K increase in warming and that most of that has occurred already.

There are also links to many other peer reviewed studies which our Californian friend will either ignore, dismiss as out of date or say they are written by sub par scientists.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=84e9e44a-802a-23ad-493a-b35d0842fed8
 
Last edited:
The global warming zealots are often fond of saying that there is an overwhelming consensus amongst scientists favouring AGW. Even this statement is subject to mendacity and obfuscation.


In 2004, history professor Naomi Oreskes performed a survey of research papers on climate change. Examining peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science database from 1993 to 2003, she found a majority supported the "consensus view," defined as humans were having at least some effect on global climate change. Oreskes' work has been repeatedly cited, but as some of its data is now nearly 15 years old, its conclusions are becoming somewhat dated.

Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy. The figures are surprising.

Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."

The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.

These changing viewpoints represent the advances in climate science over the past decade. While today we are even more certain the earth is warming, we are less certain about the root causes. More importantly, research has shown us that -- whatever the cause may be -- the amount of warming is unlikely to cause any great calamity for mankind or the planet itself.

Schulte's survey contradicts the United Nation IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (2007), which gave a figure of "90% likely" man was having an impact on world temperatures. But does the IPCC represent a consensus view of world scientists? Despite media claims of "thousands of scientists" involved in the report, the actual text is written by a much smaller number of "lead authors." The introductory "Summary for Policymakers" -- the only portion usually quoted in the media -- is written not by scientists at all, but by politicians, and approved, word-by-word, by political representatives from member nations. By IPCC policy, the individual report chapters -- the only text actually written by scientists -- are edited to "ensure compliance" with the summary, which is typically published months before the actual report itself.

By contrast, the ISI Web of Science database covers 8,700 journals and publications, including every leading scientific journal in the world.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=b35c36a3-802a-23ad-46ec-6880767e7966
 
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...

WTF is up with your SUB PAR scientist statement? How the fuck do you know he is subpar. I can just see you belittling that fucking patent clerk and his outrageous claims about physics.
 
Socrtease said:
WTF is up with your SUB PAR scientist statement? How the fuck do you know he is subpar. I can just see you belittling that fucking patent clerk and his outrageous claims about physics.
Click to expand...

His judgment on the 'quality' of the scientists comes when his normal excuses don't work. ie.... you provide him with a recent, peer-reviewed paper from someone specializing in the specific field of climatology and he then flips out and tries to mock the scientist and/or the University said scientist works for.

Just as he did with a peer-reviewed paper by a climatologist from the University of Delaware. Cypress proclaimed 'no one has ever heard of this dude' and then proceeded to state 'the University of Delaware is laughable man, laughable... it is nothing compared to my masters at the CRU'

He is a complete hack and a number one worshipper in the flat earth global warming fear mongering religion.

Do note... HE proclaims his masters have 'demolished' the paper. Yet he provides NO evidence of any such thing. He does however link us all to what he refers to as 'whining' by the authors of the peer reviewed paper. That 'whining' actually details how corrupt the system is and he has no capacity to refute anything they wrote.
 
Socrtease said:
WTF is up with your SUB PAR scientist statement? How the fuck do you know he is subpar. .
Click to expand...


Don’t get mad at me man. Those are just the facts. I've heard of a couple of these dudes before. These dudes have been trotted around the wingnutosphere for years.

Here ya go…..
J. D. McLean – Lead Author of the Denier Paper…..

Affiliation: “Applied Science Consultants”, Croydon, Victoria, Australia.

Huh??? “Applied Science Consultants”? Never heard of it, and it sure ain’t an academic institution.

The dude lists his contact information as a gmail address. Hilarious.

J.D. McLean’s OWN website says he’s a “computer consultant” who appears to have a recreational interest in climate science….but no formal training.


from: J.D. McLean’s own Website:

Self-description: “Computer consultant and occasional travel photographer”

http://mclean.ch/

http://mclean.ch/climate/global_warming.htm
Click to expand...


Third Author of Denier Paper – Bob Carter

The Syndey Morning Herald
By Wendy Frew Environment Reporter
March 15, 2007

James Cook University professor Bob Carter. Professor Carter, whose background is in marine geology, appears to have little, if any, standing in the Australian climate science community. He is on the research committee at the Institute of Public Affairs, a think tank that has received funding from oil and tobacco companies, and whose directors sit on the boards of companies in the fossil fuel sector.
Click to expand...


There ya go, man.....

A “computer consultant” with only a recreational interest in climate science (but no formal training) and a marine geologist/paleontologist who has no standing in the Australian climate science community.

Like I said man, don’t get mad at me for just stating factual information. You can have an opinion that Bob Carter and J.D. MaClean are renowned and reputable international climate researchers. But, opinions aren’t worth more than a warm bucket of piss, if they aren’t supported by facts.


Hey man, their paper in JGR was demolished by peer-reviewed response in the very same JGR by a group of highly prominent actual climate scientists from Penn State, CRU, NCAR, and NASA.

The deniers were invited to submit a peer-reviewed response paper, defending their research and rebutting the comments from NASA, NCAR and Penn State. But the deniers response was laughed out of peer review.

In scientific circles, that generally means their paper is now considered by JGR to be an egregious example of incompetent science, and sadly this paper is headed for the dust bin of bad science articles no reputable researcher is ever going to read. You don’t have to believe me. When the 2013 IPCC assessment comes out, this paper – to the extent its even mentioned – is going to have zero impact on the state of modern climate science.
 
Last edited:
Cypress said:
Don’t get mad at me man. Those are just the facts. I've heard of a couple of these dudes before. These dudes have been trotted around the wingnutosphere for years.

Here ya go…..

There ya go, man.....

A “computer consultant” with only a recreational interest in climate science (but no formal training) and a marine geologist/paleontologist who has no standing in the Australian climate science community.

Like I said man, don’t get mad at me for just stating factual information. You can have an opinion that Bob Carter and J.D. MaClean are renowned and reputable international climate researchers. But, opinions aren’t worth more than a warm bucket of piss, if they aren’t supported by facts.


Hey man, their paper in JGR was demolished by peer-reviewed response in the very same JGR by a group of highly prominent actual climate scientists from Penn State, CRU, NCAR, and NASA.

The deniers were invited to submit a peer-reviewed response paper, defending their research and rebutting the comments from NASA, NCAR and Penn State. But the deniers response was laughed out of peer review.

In scientific circles, that generally means their paper is now considered by JGR to be an egregious example of incompetent science, and sadly this paper is headed for the dust bin of bad science articles no reputable researcher is ever going to read. You don’t have to believe me. When the 2013 IPCC assessment comes out, this paper – to the extent its even mentioned – is going to have zero impact on the state of modern climate science.
Click to expand...


Quote:
Third Author of Denier Paper – Bob Carter

The Syndey Morning Herald
By Wendy Frew Environment Reporter
March 15, 2007

James Cook University professor Bob Carter. Professor Carter, whose background is in marine geology, appears to have little, if any, standing in the Australian climate science community. He is on the research committee at the Institute of Public Affairs, a think tank that has received funding from oil and tobacco companies, and whose directors sit on the boards of companies in the fossil fuel sector.
Click to expand...

Seriously? you are suggesting we take the OPINION of a REPORTER as evidence that Carter is 'sub-par'? or are you suggesting that because he is part of a research committee at a think tank that receives some funding from oil companies that somehow we should discredit all of his work due to your bias against the oil companies? Instead you would prefer we rely solely on research done by government hacks who have a vested interest in promoting the global warming fear mongering?

you have done nothing to discredit (just like your masters have not) Carters work.

Tell us... what about a certain head of the IPCC....

Pachauri was born in Nainital, India. He was educated at La Martiniere College in Lucknow[4] and at the Indian Railways Institute of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering in Jamalpur, Bihar. He belongs to the Special Class Railway Apprentices, 1958 Batch, an elite scheme which heralded the beginning of mechanical engineering education in India.[citation needed]. He began his career with the Diesel Locomotive Works in Varanasi. Pachauri was awarded an MS degree in Industrial Engineering from North Carolina State University, Raleigh, in 1972, as well as a joint Ph.D. in Industrial Engineering and Economics in 1974.
Click to expand...

oh my... the head of the IPCC is a simple engineer? Well then... that immediately discredits everything the IPCC has to say. He has no background on the matter.

Not to mention your beloved master Al Gore... NONE... unless of course you count the fact he received that sophomore D in Natural Sciences 6 (Man's Place in Nature) and then got a C-plus in Natural Sciences 118 his senior year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top