Interesting how our resident expert on AGW has chosen to completely ignore my post.
I had no idea you spent all Thursday, or Friday (whatever it was) looking for me and gossiping about me. Pretty freaky man! Do you really want to know, or need to know what I do for a living? Isn’t that Southernman’s bag, with Winterborne? The whole sleuthing and stressing of personal details about dudes you don’t even know? Kinda-sorta creepy, bro! Suffice it to say I was busy dealing with some work crap most of Thursday and Friday. Dealing with some lefty tree-hugging crap, if you must know. Sorry man, I can’t be on here for more than a few posts a day. I regret that you waited around all day for me, man!
As for your link, Thanks for proving my point. Gracias, vato loco!
Since you aren’t a scientist, and evidently don’t even have a rudimentary understanding of science, I hip you to something.
Your Bob Carter list of publications indicates his research is in stratigraphy, marine geology, and paleontology. Which is exactly what I said he was in that one post: a marine geologist and paleontologist. Tom, do you go to a pediatrician, when you need expert dental advice?
No?
That’s what I thought.
The very few articles Carter has on recent climate change, are in some
Economics forums that I’ve never heard of. Reputable climate scientists, and physical scientists don’t normally publish in Economics forums. Prestigious climate scientists publish in the reputable and internationally-recognized physical sciences and earth sciences journals.
The article by Wendy Frew was correct: Bob Carter has no standing in the Australian climate science community. I knew that, because I know about this Bob Carter rube. I just didn’t think you’d take my word for it, and given your penchant for blogs by mentaly disturbed “mushroom researchers”, I didn’t think it was worth my time to prove anything to you. Wendy Frew is an established, professional environmental reporter for a reputable
conservative Australian newspaper. She probably has the professional capacity to make phone calls, fact check, follow up, and determine if “Bob Carter” is a recognized atmospheric scientist. But, if you want to think Ms Frew is lying, go for it. I’m just telling you (since you obviously) couldn’t tell yourself, that your Bob Carter publication list supports exactly what Ms. Frew wrote.
If you want to think Bob Carter is a prestigious, and internationally recognized researcher in the climate science community, go for it! You thought a blog from a mentally disturged, unemployed “mushroom researcher” was a valid source of reputable climate science information, and you were easily duped by “Climate Gate” so I can’t say that I’m surprised!
Anyway, Final thoughts on your IPCC hate-fetish:
Well, obviously the Flat Earth contingent doesn’t understand the IPCC, doesn’t understand the science, and is only able to repeat what Rupert Murdoch tabloids and rightwing blogs tell them to think about the IAC report.
I get it. You’re emotionally invested in denialism. I wonder how your going to feel explaining to your grandkids, or to people 30 years from now, that you were a cheerleader for denying human-caused climate change simply because some anonymous liberals on message boards pissed you off. There’s really no other explanation for the foot stomping, the gnashing of teeth, and the pounding of keyboards. In every single other aspect of your lives – except for climate science - you rely on or defer to experts. If you had brain cancer, you would be doing your best to follow the overwhelming consensus advice of preeminent, trained neurosurgeons. And you would totally ignore the advice of bloggers, statisticians, mining company stock analysts who had only a recreational interest in neurosurgery. And you would most certainly ignore a remote and extremely tiny fringe of neurosurgeons, who have lesser capability and present you with contrarian views.
If you read the IAC report, with an open mind, and without a Rupert Murdoch or Flat Earth filter, it’s really quite simple.
The science of climate change and attribution to human sources is never challenged.
Not once.
Recommendations to administration, process, and procedure are provided. In spite of these recommendations, the IAC goes out of its way to state the IPCC, overall, has been successful – and should be admired for - providing truly authoritative synthesis of scientific information.
Working Group I which produces the climate science portion of the IPCC assessments is unimpeachable, and their work is virtually mistake-free. Honestly, Working Group I is probably way beyond Working Groups II and III in capability. Working Groups II and III deal with impacts and mitigation, and are at a distinct disadvantage compared to Working Group I. Really, the IPCC should probably stagger the publication of impacts and mitigation by WG II and III until after a couple years after the climate science synthesis of WG I is published. Why? Because, honestly, you shouldn’t even release an impacts and mitigation assessment until
after the core synthesis on climate science is done. But I suppose WG II and III want to share the limelight with the rock stars in WG I and have it all published in the same year.
The IAC report has some sensible improvements in process and administration that in particular will make WG II and III syntheses better. Teflon-coated if you will. So presumably, the Flat Earth Society won’t have anything to whine about in the next IPCC assessment.
But, whatever improvements in uncertainty analysis are needed, particularly in WG I and II, the facts are that glaciers are receding, extreme climate events are increasing, sea level is rising, and droughts are becoming more widespread. That’s beyond dispute. Whether you want to assess impacts as catastrophic, or simply disruptive, doesn’t change the fact that we are conducting an uncontrolled experiment on the Earth with human emissions of GHG, and we are certain with a high degree of scientific confidence, that impacts from climate change are going to be a significant challenge to the human race.
If you deny that, then there’s no help for you. You might as well stand shoulder to shoulder with Dixie, Bravo, Tinfoil, Toby, and Meme.
As for the IPCC synthesis of the science of climate change, and attribution to human sources….it isn’t challenged. Get off the Rupert Murdoch tabloids and the Drudge report, and stop kidding yourself. The earth is warming, and human emissions of GHG are largely responsible for it. There is nothing in the IAC report that calls that into question.
Now, If you are
really confident in your Rupert Murdoch tabloids then I have a wager for you.....
If you really feel comfortable and confident with what you’ve been able to provide with your rightwing blogs, what you think you know about the IAC report, and from paltry, tiny handful of publications from less-than-stellar authors and academics, then you should be confident that at least some of the planet’s National Science Organizations should be backing away from their statements supporting human-caused climate change.
-I’ll wager that in the next three months (or any reasonable time-frame of your choosing), that there will be NO-ZERO-NADA National Science Academies from any government from any developed nation on Earth that will put out a collective revised statement as a result of this IAC report indicating that human-caused climate change is now in serious doubt; that the warming is all natural; that the IPCC mucked it all up; or that the uncertainty is so great that we don’t have a freaking clue what’s causing the warming.
-If you supposedly really think this IAC report is so utterly devastating, if you still cling to the belief that climate scientists are lying, , if you strongly believe what your rightwing blogs are telling you, then you should be quite confident in wagering that
at least one developed nation’s government’s National Academy of Sciences will issue a collective statement disowning human-caused climate change; stating that recent warming is all natural; or that the uncertainties are so great we don’t have a freaking clue what’s causing it.
If you really think the IAC report is so devastating, then you should have utmost confidence winning this wager.
I’ll start the clock as soon as you accept the wager. I propose the loser of the wager has to parade around the board for One Year, with an avatar of the winner’s choosing, Three months from now, or at a reasonable time of your choosing, if there are no collective statements from a single developed nation’s National Academy of Science pertaining to the aforementioned…..
…then this is the avatar I choose for you to parade around with.
Tom's Avatar, pending Wager loss:
You can choose an avatar for me, in case I lose, as long as its not pornographic or violate any rules of the board.
p.s, give me a holler if you want to make this wager - we should probably set some parameters, expectations, and ground rules on the wager.
Well, I’m outta here. Hasta, vato loco!
