Jump to content

ClimateGate and the Climatati


Riverwind

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

and to think I dumbed it down to an analogy that you and argus could understand...I guess there's no hope I can't simplify the situation any more than that...

I believe you're mistaking our contempt for the idiocy of your analogy with a failure on your part to communicate it. We understand your analogy. We just think it's really, really dumb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Care to share the basis of your scientific prowess in stating, unequivocally, that another 1-2 degC warming increase will be no problem"
It think the onus is on the alarmists to demonstrate unequivocally that it will be a problem because we have already had about 0.7 degC of warming and that would have passed unnoticed if it wasn't for the AGW crusaders.
Bullshit! Do you even understand the distinction between predictions and projections?
I understand that the IPCC puts together various scenarios that have little or no connection with plausible reality. It then goes out and advertises the unrealistic scenarios as "predictions" of what will happen unless we all confess our carbon sins and beg for forgiveness.
The hacked email exchange you present is nothing more than an exchange between group members, reference to the earlier IS92a long-term emission scenarios, and a reinforcement on how the latest SRES scenarios should be used within modelling (re: establishing baseline and capturing the range of uncertainties associated with driving forces and emissions).
I don't see what relevance your argument has. You are confirming that the scenarios used have no connection to reality despite the fact that the questioner expected them to be realistic. Edited by Riverwind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can - stupid and evil are the same thing. If a scientist declares that human activity and human waste product do NOT harm the very air we breath causing heating through pollution..then that scientist is evil - hence stupid - and if he takes money to denouce global warming - Then were is this scientist and his children going to spend this money? If there is no earth left to enjoy - then the money is useless...so evil and stupidy are the same thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do these emails suggest to you?

Crimminal conspiracey of course- If two or more people plot to turn a profit by doing someting and while doing this dead send a million tons of pollutants in to the atmospher and water..then a conspiracey has been perpetrated and brought to fruition..You have to remember - crimminals don't care about tomorrow - they just want to enjoy themselves now...These people don't give a damn about children of the future of the earth - they don't care about the millions of different life forms - they are so bitter that once they die they expect everything to die along with them..so how do you deal with these nuts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The planet has warmed 0.7 degC in the last 100 years are there is ZERO evidence that this warming has been a bad thing for humans. In fact, it has probably been a good thing. The planet can warm another 1-2 degC without any significant ill effects.
Care to share the basis of your scientific prowess in stating, unequivocally, that another 1-2 degC warming increase will be “no problem”… care to state how long it will take to warm that additional 1-2 degC, particularly if nothing is done today… particularly given it’s such a “good thing”.
It think the onus is on the alarmists to demonstrate unequivocally that it will be a problem because we have already had about 0.7 degC of warming and that would have passed unnoticed if it wasn't for the AGW crusaders.

nice backpedal... you're not quite so bold with your assertions when actually asked to support them - are you? Climate warming would still be under investigation, regardless of the underlying cause(s)... the fact you deniers have been repeatedly and soundly trounced on issues related to the actual science, related to the impacts of AGW, leaves you desperate on so many levels. That demonstration you seek is readily available - you know it is readily available... given your bold assertion it should be very easy for you to substantiate. Again - "care to share the basis of your scientific prowess in stating, unequivocally, that another 1-2 degC warming increase will be “no problem”… care to state how long it will take to warm that additional 1-2 degC, particularly if nothing is done today… particularly given it’s such a “good thing”.

Noted: you continue to ignore requests to clarify your obvious contradiction in previously acknowledging an AGW problem, in offering suggestion for remedy/resolution, while at the same time continuing to offer counter statements, most recently, this "global warming is a good thing" drivel. Not to worry - I have no problem continuing to ask for clarification of your contradictory statements/positions.

In fact, one of the revelations in the emails is the data used create the IPCC predictions was 'juiced' to make the future look as scary as possible.
Bullshit! Do you even understand the distinction between predictions and projections? You’ve taken pains to paint the IPCC as a politicizing arm and here you (purposely) misread email exchange between members of a group that, if nothing else, reinforces that an “appropriate level” for CO2ppm is/should be, ultimately, a political-policy decision.
I understand that the IPCC puts together various scenarios that have little or no connection with plausible reality. It then goes out and advertises the unrealistic scenarios as "predictions" of what will happen unless we all confess our carbon sins and beg for forgiveness.

Care to share examples of those IPCC "prediction advertisements" you're speaking to - the ones you say are based on the SRES emission scenarios. I provided you a link to the policymakers summary document concerning emission scenarios - it includes background information on the open solicitation/transparency method that brought forward the scenarios... you should give it a read before looking any more foolish than you do.

The hacked email exchange you present is nothing more than an exchange between group members, reference to the earlier IS92a long-term emission scenarios, and a reinforcement on how the latest SRES scenarios should be used within modelling (re: establishing baseline and capturing the range of uncertainties associated with driving forces and emissions). That range is provided by and reflects upon the overall and respective “realism” across the numbers drawn from/upon the SRES scenarios… if one presumed to assign probability to the respective SRES scenarios for predictive intent, then the question of absolute realism and extended prediction therein becomes relevant.That is not the case or intent of the SRES scenarios and is reinforced with the exchange you label as “The answer”.

Not that it really needed reinforcement, but it becomes clearer and clearer that you really know little of the actual workings/method within the IPCC… notwithstanding your authoritative posturing in making negative assessments about the IPCC. It’s evident you know nothing of the openness and transparency in how the SRES scenarios were arrived at… or how they should be used.

I don't see what relevance your argument has. You are confirming that the scenarios used have no connection to reality despite the fact that the questioner expected them to be realistic.

The SRES scenarios do not include assigned predictive probability - exactly what reality are you addressing?

Granted, it's a short term trend, but the growth rate of global CO2 emissions after 2000 has been about 3%, while the growth rates under the IPCC SRES scenarios are between 1.4% and 3.4%. Are you concerned the IPCC SRES scenarios speak to a much too conservative CO2 global emission growth rate? Is that the "reality" concern you're highlighting? :lol:

Do recent emission trends imply higher emissions forever?

The rapid growth of CO2 emissions since 2000, at a rate of above 3% annually, has recently attracted considerable scientific and policy attention. Raupach et al. (2007) and Sheehan (2008), for example, suggest that the rapid growth may indicate a trend reversal and thus postulate the beginning of a significant breakaway from the long-term historic trends of improving carbon and energy intensities, worldwide (new global growth path). This could imply a serious underestimation of future greenhouse gas emissions as
projected
, for example, by the IPCC SRES scenarios (Nakicenovic 2000).
Emissions are expected to grow at an annual rate of about 1.4% to 3.4% between 2000 and 2010 in the SRES scenarios. However, the majority of the scenarios have lower growth rates than the observed trend of the recent years.
This difference had led to concerns whether the scenarios are still up-to-date (Pielke et al. 2008; Raupach et al. 2007; Sheehan 2008). Obviously, such a finding would be very important for climate policy since it could mean that climate change impact assessments based on SRES are underestimated, just as the effort involved in stabilising greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The University of East Anglia has provided statements from Prof Trevor Davies, Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Research, Prof Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit, and from CRU.

Statement from Professor Trevor Davies, Pro-Vice-Chancellor, Research

The publication of a selection of the emails and data stolen from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) has led to some questioning of the climate science research published by CRU and others. There is nothing in the stolen material which indicates that peer-reviewed publications by CRU, and others, on the nature of global warming and related climate change are not of the highest-quality of scientific investigation and interpretation. CRU’s peer-reviewed publications are consistent with, and have contributed to, the overwhelming scientific consensus that the climate is being strongly influenced by human activity. The interactions of the atmosphere, oceans, land, and ice mean that the strongly-increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere do not produce a uniform year-on-year increase in global temperature. On time-scales of 5-10 years, however, there is a broad scientific consensus that the Earth will continue to warm, with attendant changes in the climate, for the foreseeable future. It is important, for all countries, that this warming is slowed down, through substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions to reduce the most dangerous impacts of climate change. Respected international research groups, using other data sets, have come to the same conclusion.

The University of East Anglia and CRU are committed to scientific integrity, open debate and enhancing understanding. This includes a commitment to the international peer-review system upon which progress in science relies. It is this tried and tested system which has underpinned the assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It is through that process that we can engage in respectful and informed debate with scientists whose analyses appear not to be consistent with the current overwhelming consensus on climate change

The publication of a selection of stolen data is the latest example of a sustained and, in some instances, a vexatious campaign which may have been designed to distract from reasoned debate about the nature of the urgent action which world governments must consider to mitigate, and adapt to, climate change. We are committed to furthering this debate despite being faced with difficult circumstances related to a criminal breach of our security systems and our concern to protect colleagues from the more extreme behaviour of some who have responded in irrational and unpleasant ways to the publication of personal information.

There has been understandable interest in the progress and outcome of the numerous requests under information legislation for large numbers of the data series held by CRU. The University takes its responsibilities under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, Environmental Information Regulations 2004, and the Data Protection Act 1998 very seriously and has, in all cases, handled and responded to requests in accordance with its obligations under each particular piece of legislation. Where appropriate, we have consulted with the Information Commissioners Office and have followed their advice.

In relation to the specific requests at issue here, we have handled and responded to each request in a consistent manner in compliance with the appropriate legislation. No record has been deleted, altered, or otherwise dealt with in any fashion with the intent of preventing the disclosure of all, or any part, of the requested information. Where information has not been disclosed, we have done so in accordance with the provisions of the relevant legislation and have so informed the requester.

The Climatic Research Unit holds many data series, provided to the Unit over a period of several decades, from a number of nationally-funded institutions and other research organisations around the world, with specific agreements made over restrictions in the dissemination of those original data. All of these individual series have been used in CRU’s analyses. It is a time-consuming process to attempt to gain approval from these organisations to release the data. Since some of them were provided decades ago, it has sometimes been necessary to track down the successors of the original organisations. It is clearly in the public interest that these data are released once we have succeeded in gaining the approval of collaborators. Some who have requested the data will have been aware of the scale of the exercise we have had to undertake. Much of these data are already available from the websites of the Global Historical Climate Data Network and the Goddard Institute for Space Science.

Given the degree to which we collaborate with other organisations around the world, there is also an understandable interest in the computer security systems we have in place in CRU and UEA. Although we were confident that our systems were appropriate, experience has shown that determined and skilled people, who are prepared to engage in criminal activity, can sometimes hack into apparently secure systems. Highly-protected government organisations around the world have also learned this to their cost.

We have, therefore, decided to conduct an independent review, which will address the issue of data security, an assessment of how we responded to a deluge of Freedom of Information requests, and any other relevant issues which the independent reviewer advises should be addressed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again - "care to share the basis of your scientific prowess in stating, unequivocally, that another 1-2 degC warming increase will be “no problem”
Sorry, I keep assuming that you have been following the debate and have knowledge beyond an ability to cut and paste stuff found with Google. Someone who was familiar with the issues would know that 2 degC is the target necessary to prevent dangerous warming and that many countries have signed (bogus) promises to cut emissions to keep the GMST below 2 degC. Based on those public actions it reasonable to assume that no one believes that warming of less that 2 degC will cause any problems.
Care to share examples of those IPCC "prediction advertisements" you're speaking to - the ones you say are based on the SRES emission scenarios.
Look at any IPCC propoganda document that shows the projected temperature rises if we do nothing. Those projections are sold to the public as predictions and the people doing the selling know that. The quibbling about the terms "projection" vs. "prediction" is irrelevant in the political discussion. What is relevant is these scenarios are sold to the public as 'pausible' and therefore something that justifies radical action. But have evidence that these scenarios aren't supposed to be realistic - they are just 'internally' consistent. This means the public is being mislead by the IPCC "projections" and the people who claim they have some connection to reality. Edited by Riverwind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have, therefore, decided to conduct an independent review, which will address the issue of data security, an assessment of how we responded to a deluge of Freedom of Information requests, and any other relevant issues which the independent reviewer advises should be addressed.
If they pick the reviewer then it will be a white wash. The e-mail already reveal that the UEA FOI officials willingly colluded with Jones to deny access to information that should have been released. That is why the files were probably released by a whistleblower. Edited by Riverwind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting thresd that originates from the Alarmist RealClimate Website about Hans Von Storch. They provide links to statements by Von Storch for his reasons for stepping down as Editor in Chief for the Climate Research Journal....and indeed he had some seemingly valid issues with the publishing of a paper that was unfavourable to AGW. But following the links a little deeper gets us to VonStorch's balanced opinion on the IPCC scientists' ethics and the state of Climate Science:

24. November 2009 - The scandal around the stolen CRU-mails is rolling on; the interest, as documented by traffic on the internet is enormeous - and likely the damage done to the credibility of climate science by the unfortunate writing by Phil Jones and others as well. But inspite of this, one can interpret the whole affair also in positive way - namely that science was strong enough to overcome the various gatekeeping efforts, even it may take a few years. The self-correcting dynamics in science is robust and kicking. And the practice of allowing our adversaries to use our data (after a certain grace period) will become finally common.

We need to publically discuss the ethical norms, science is to operate under. Obviously, science can not define itself which these norms should be, but this is a task for society at large - who pays for the efforts and is looking for utility of science. The main guard to this respect is with the media - and it seems the media beginning to become serious, finally. An example is from Wall Street Journal - online. In Germany, journalists judge the affair more cavalier, e.g., in the Tagesspiegel.

Link: http://coast.gkss.de/staff/storch/storch.htm#News

From the Wall Street Journal Online:

The aide said investigators are also probing the contributions of dozens of climate scientists to reports published by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The Environmental Protection Agency, in its recent move to boost regulation of greenhouse gases, based its conclusions on IPCC reports.

The IPCC has said the climate is heating up and humans are almost certainly to blame. Those who disagree that the globe is warming, or on the cause or extent of any warming, complain that their views have been excluded.

The documents, hacked from the Climatic Research Unit at East Anglia University in the U.K., show that some climate researchers declined to share their data with fellow scientists, and sought to keep researchers with dissenting views from publishing in leading scientific journals.

Separately, Sen. James Inhofe (R., Okla.), an outspoken critic of the view that humans are causing global warming, said that in light of the emails, he will call for an investigation into the state of climate science if the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works doesn't act soon.

Hans von Storch, editor at the time of "Climate Research," had his own objections to the paper mentioned by Dr. Mann, and resigned shortly after it was published, citing a breakdown in the peer-review process. But Dr. von Storch, now at the University of Hamburg's Meteorological Institute, said Monday that the behavior outlined in the hacked emails went too far.

East Anglia researchers "violated a fundamental principle of science," he said, by refusing to share data with other researchers. "They built a group to do gatekeeping, which is also totally unacceptable," he added. "They play science as a power game."

Link: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125902685372961609.html

Edited by Keepitsimple
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a laugh. They're commited to the peer review process - despite emails from people who have been given material to review asking like-minded colleagues to help them come up with a case for denial. They're commited to data integrity and the freedom of information act despite emails talking about how they can hide and destroy data so others can't see it. They've got all kinds of data sets from all over which must, for some reason, be "protected" from view. What a heaping load of hog swill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roger Pielke Sr. has been complaining about bias in the IPCC process for years. These e-mails vindicate him because it was his papers that the fraudster Phil Jones was talking about when he said he would 'change the definition of peer review' to keep the papers out of the IPCC report:

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/11/25/protecting-the-ipcc-turf-%e2%80%93-there-are-no-independent-climate-assessments-of-the-ipcc-wg1-report-funded-and-sanctioned-by-the-nsf-nasa-or-the-nrc-a-repost-of-and-comment-on-a-january-13-2009/

A week and not one mention of this story in the G&M, CBC or CTV. Pathetic. Bais in media is expected. This goes way beyond bias and can only be described as a deliberate attempt to decieve the public.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ross McKitrick makes a good point:

I liken this situation to the discovery of some discrepancies in that Ontario Pathologists work Smith, I think his name was. So they had to reopen all his case files and they found a festering heap of fraudulent convictions and incompetent analysis. They didnt demand that his critics prove all the fraud before they began reopening his files, they started the job when there was prima facie evidence that a re-examination was necessary. Same here. The prima facie case for a full audit of the science and the IPCC operating procedures has been met.

http://www.stephentaylor.ca/2009/11/hockey-sticks-and-email-leaks-dr-ross-mckitrick-responds-to-the-climategate-story/

The discovery of massive fraud often starts with the discovery relatively innocuous discrepancies that could have reasonable explanations. If we applied the alarmist standards of evidence Smith's work his victims would still be rotting in jail.

We need a public inquiry into the IPCC and an immediate halt to all plans for regulation based on the IPCC reports.

Edited by Riverwind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must agree there is pause for thought here. How much money has been spent already and how much more is planed to be spent with inaccurate data.

Why not have a full blown public "RESEARCH PROGRAM" put into place and have weekly reports on progress. Lets hire the best Canadians seeking PHD's in the subject and have them straighten this out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not have a full blown public "RESEARCH PROGRAM" put into place and have weekly reports on progress. Lets hire the best Canadians seeking PHD's in the subject and have them straighten this out.
Many of the Canadian researchers like Andrew Weaver are true believers. We need to have a review done by people who have a suitable background but do not have an existing conflict of interest.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a heaping load of hog swill.

Precisely.

The IPCC is a United Nations body composed of politically motivated individuals. World governments, also obviously politically motivated, are taking their cues from the IPCC.

It is plain to see that a central authority is engaged in a further concentration of power and authority towards securing the management of global resources. I think both sides of the argument can perceive this to be the case. Whether or not they believe this to be an objective it must be plain to them that it is occurring. The AGW protagonists are, I believe, in favour of the macromanagement of global energy resources from a central authority and science is being used as the basis for the push in this political direction and is being offered as the only resonable course of action.

The antagonists of AGW theory are not properly being frightened by the IPCC and are skeptically looking at the claims. True skeptics, the protagonists, ironically swallow scientific data as valid as though all human contamination has been eliminated.

I myself, whether AGW is real or not, do not like this centralization of power. If decisions are made collectively who is responsible, when or if, those decisions, affecting the entire globe, are in error? If China is polluting or the USA is polluting and it is causing a problem globally, I would rather have someone to point the finger at than an unaccountable political body that will have been responsible for the institution of policy that proves devastating and who have more than likely left the political scene decades before any damage from those policies is even noted.

In essence, say no to political solutions or politically approved and motivated technological solutions. Political solutions will suppress or support technological innovation according to safeguarding it's ability to tax the economy. Self-sufficiency in energy is not a political objective and will operate to counter it. The sustainment of it's authority is dependent upon it's ability to find sources of revenue not eliminate them, as energy self sufficiency could threaten to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again - "care to share the basis of your scientific prowess in stating, unequivocally, that another 1-2 degC warming increase will be “no problem”… care to state how long it will take to warm that additional 1-2 degC, particularly if nothing is done today… particularly given it’s such a “good thing”.

Sorry, I keep assuming that you have been following the debate and have knowledge beyond an ability to cut and paste stuff found with Google. Someone who was familiar with the issues would know that 2 degC is the target necessary to prevent dangerous warming and that many countries have signed (bogus) promises to cut emissions to keep the GMST below 2 degC. Based on those public actions it reasonable to assume that no one believes that warming of less that 2 degC will cause any problems.

:lol: purrfect! Given your continued (and anticipated) evasiveness, your “following the debate” reference will have to do… but really, c’mon… just state the foundation for your unequivocal statement… just state the foundation for your stated 2degC reference. Otherwise, one might be inclined to directly ask:

- was your foundation the recent G8 L’Aquila declaration?…
the declaration that formally reaffirmed the importance of the IPCC and notably its latest AR4 report as the basis for the G8’s recognition of the “broad scientific view that the increase in global average temperature above pre-industrial levels ought not to exceed 2degC
”… which resulted in the G8 signatories “supporting a goal of developed countries reducing emissions of promises to cut emissions of greenhouse gases in aggregate by 80% or more by 2050.” Was this G8 declaration (
based on the IPCC work/report
) the foundation for your unequivocal statement that, as you stated, “another 1-2 degC warming increase will be “no problem”? This must be your foundation since you specifically reference the, as you stated, “signed (bogus) promises”… this must be it, right? Or, perhaps

- was your foundation
the IPCC AR4 itself
?… and its SRES Scenario B1 that offers a “best estimate temperature rise of 1.8degC with a likely range of 1.1 to 2.9degC. Why if that were your foundation you’d have to back off your just recently stated claims that the IPCC SRES scenarios aren’t, as you state, “realistic”. If that were your foundation you’d have to accept the IPCC modeling that supports the respective SRES Scenarios… you know, the IPCC modeling you repeatedly continue to denigrate. Or, perhaps

- was your foundation the 2005 International Symposium on the stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations?...
the symposium dominated by IPCC participation and references/acknowledgment to the IPCC TAR…
the symposium that concluded that, “stabilising GHG concentrations at 450 ppm would only result in a 50% likelihood of limiting global warming to 2 °C, and that it would be necessary to achieve stabilisation below 400 ppm to give a relatively high certainty of not exceeding 2 °C.” But surely… this can’t be your foundation since it’s concluded CO2 ppm level (@ 400 ppm) is actually less than that associated with the IPCC AR4 SRES Scenario B1 (@ 445-490 ppm)… which highlights the overall underlying risk and probabilities in presuming to set temperature/ppm targets.

That “following the debate” evasion of yours sure seems to be beholding to the IPCC – hey? Although I rubbed your nose in the reality aspect of the IPCC SRES scenarios, I truly wasn’t expecting your weak defensive “Google cut/paste” slag... perhaps you’d prefer I cut/paste an assortment of your MLW posts that include explicit comment concerning the IPCC… along the lines of your “dishonest, fraudulent, crooks, thieves, zealot, etc.” prattle. Oh well, just another of your continued contradictions, this one particularly hypocritical in nature. Hey now! What’s your MLW posse going to do now that you’re lining up around an actual IPCC basis and influence? ... most particularly that part of your posse that can't actually add anything to the discussion of the actual science, but has no problem in chiming in around the "IPCC is evil" theme. :lol:

While I'm at it, let’s add another to your growing list of contradictions. As you now line up around that 2degC target, you’ve also strongly/repeatedly called for “inaction”… that more time is needed to truly resolve the issues/the science. Ya see, the problem with accepting that 2degC target while advocating for current inaction is the related distinctions between (relatively) longer-term, mid-term and short-term intervals for action in meeting that target. That was the other side of the questions I posed to you; specifically, “care to state how long it will take to warm that additional 1-2 degC, particularly if nothing is done today”. How do you rationalize inaction in the face of relative time frames to meet targets, particularly given the political/policy realm (delays) in actually setting in place required measures?

Care to share examples of those IPCC "prediction advertisements" you're speaking to - the ones you say are based on the SRES emission scenarios.

The SRES scenarios do not include assigned predictive probability - exactly what reality are you addressing?

Granted, it's a short term trend, but the growth rate of global CO2 emissions after 2000 has been about 3%, while the growth rates under the IPCC SRES scenarios are between 1.4% and 3.4%. Are you concerned the IPCC SRES scenarios speak to a much too conservative CO2 global emission growth rate? Is that the "reality" concern you're highlighting? :lol:

Look at any IPCC propoganda document that shows the projected temperature rises if we do nothing. Those projections are sold to the public as predictions and the people doing the selling know that. The quibbling about the terms "projection" vs. "prediction" is irrelevant in the political discussion. What is relevant is these scenarios are sold to the public as 'pausible' and therefore something that justifies radical action. But have evidence that these scenarios aren't supposed to be realistic - they are just 'internally' consistent. This means the public is being mislead by the IPCC "projections" and the people who claim they have some connection to reality.

I see… although you’re just accepting to one of the stated IPCC Scenarios (the B1 grouping), in regards your unequivocal statement concerning a “manageable no problem” 2degC temperature rise target… you equally state the IPCC Scenarios aren’t plausible… aren’t realistic… are misleading. Why are you accepting to such an implausible, unrealistic and misleading IPCC B1 SRES scenario?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As you now line up around that 2degC target, youve also strongly/repeatedly called for inaction"
You are making absolutely no sense. I claimed that a temperature rise of 1-2 degC is nothing to worry about. I pointed out that the climate alarmists seem to believe this too when you started whingeing about wanting proof for this "nothing to worry about" claim. Now you think that I agree on 2 degC as a target? What you seem to be missing is is I think that the effect of CO2 has been grossly overstated by the IPCC because it needs a problem that needs "solving" to justify its existence. What this means is the temperature rise will most likely be less than 2 degC no matter what governments do so there is absolutely no need for a massive international bureaucracy to control carbon.
I see… although youre just accepting to one of the stated IPCC Scenarios (the B1 grouping), in regards your unequivocal statement concerning a manageable no problem 2degC temperature rise target… you equally state the IPCC Scenarios arent plausible… arent realistic… are misleading. Why are you accepting to such an implausible, unrealistic and misleading IPCC B1 SRES scenario?
The emails themselves acknowledge that the scenarios are not supposed to have any connection to reality - they just have to internally consistent. The writer of one of the emails was concerned that the rates of CO2 growth had no connection to reality. But that is just one factor among many. The scenarios makes assumptions about economic growth, population growth, spontaneous decarbonization and emissions growth. Errors on any of those will result in a meaningless projection.

However, when it comes to 1-2 degC being nothing to worry about I am really only looking at what has happened in the past - not the IPCC scenarios - i.e. the noticeable lack of negative effects resulting from the 0.7 degC rise over the last 150 years.

Edited by Riverwind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

latest report called the Copenhagen Diagnosis is an update on Climate Change a summery of hundreds of peer reviewed papers...it gives us until 2015-20 to curb global emissions if there is any hope of keeping temps at a 2c increase by 2100...if emission increases are left unchecked average global temps could increase by 5-7c by 2100...

the report says earlier IPCC projections are far to conservative, sea level rise, permanent ice pack melting is proceeding far quicker than projected...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

latest report called the Copenhagen Diagnosis is an update on Climate Change a summery of hundreds of peer reviewed papers.
You mean hundreds of carefully cherry picked papers? Papers that cast doubt on the claims were ignored. Worse. We now have evidence that science journals have faced intimidation by alarmist scientists if they dare to publish skeptical papers. At this time we cannot know how much science was never published because of this intimidation.

Reports like this are best ignored until we have a comprehensive public inquiry into the IPCC and the cabal of untrustworthy scientists that appointed themselves as gatekeepers of science.

Emails like this reveal what is really going on in the minds of people compiling these reports:

"I'm in the process of trying to persuade Siemens Corp. (a company with half a million employees in 190 countries!) to donate me a little cash to do some CO2 measur[e]ments here in the UK -- looking promising," wrote Andrew Manning, a climate-science research fellow at the University of East Anglia, "so the last thing I need is news articles calling into question (again) observed temperature increases."
It is mystery why anyone is taking any of these scientists seriously anymore. More here. Edited by Riverwind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is mystery why anyone is taking any of these scientists seriously anymore. More here.

Certainly you're not proposing that some bad behavior by English scientists means we should ignore what all scientists say ? My, that would be like saying Muslims were all bad, because a few of them are terrorists.

:blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You mean hundreds of carefully cherry picked papers? Papers that cast doubt on the claims were ignored. Worse. We now have evidence that science journals have faced intimidation by alarmist scientists if they dare to publish skeptical papers. At this time we cannot know how much science was never published because of this intimidation.

Reports like this are best ignored until we have a comprehensive public inquiry into the IPCC and the cabal of untrustworthy scientists that appointed themselves as gatekeepers of science.

Emails like this reveal what is really going on in the minds of people compiling these reports:

It is mystery why anyone is taking any of these scientists seriously anymore. More here.

nothing prevents the publishing of peer reviewed papers...so show us all the peer reviewed papers disproving AGW...you can't...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Certainly you're not proposing that some bad behavior by English scientists means we should ignore what all scientists say ? My, that would be like saying Muslims were all bad, because a few of them are terrorists.

:blink:

I personally know a researcher who has been denied $40 million grant...is it a global conspiracy by the IPCC? Green peace? David Suzuki??? a liberal with an Arts Degree(oh the horror!)...nope it's his employer who fears a lawsuit...researchers compete for funding such is life in free market economy, got a good proposal you get funding a crappy proposal you get zilch...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Certainly you're not proposing that some bad behavior by English scientists means we should ignore what all scientists say ? My, that would be like saying Muslims were all bad, because a few of them are terrorists.
No I am saying that we cannot make major policy decisions like signing binding treaties until we start holding some public inquiries into the science and the IPCC process and find out how far the corruption has gone. Edited by Riverwind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

nothing prevents the publishing of peer reviewed papers...so show us all the peer reviewed papers disproving AGW...you can't...
Show me even one paper that proves catastrophic AGW and you may have a point. The fact is there is no "proof" if catastrophic AGW. All we have is a bunch of scientists picking papers they like, ignoring papers they don't and then claiming that there is a 'consensus'. A 'consensus' that is largely an artifical creation since scientists are pressured into sticking to the IPCC party line even if they personally disagreed. The evidence is in the emails.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...