Jump to content

H1N1 and Climate Change


Recommended Posts

It could only be deceptive to a lay person who wasn't familiar with the science, though. A scientist would have read the paper, including the explanation of what was done with the recent tree ring data.

I've stated the same in the past... their premise is that "joe layman" would first take it upon himself to actually investigate the detailed IPCC reports... stumble/bumble along, casually looking for any ole graphic... look at the squiggly lines representing the dozen or so various reconstructions... not bother to look at accompanying report text... not really understand anything about what they're looking at in that casually perused graphic... and then have a eureka moment! Damnit, they're hiding something... I just know it!!! I just know they're hiding a decline. Don't make me actually read the report - I can see everything... I can see it - they're hiding it - in plain sight :lol:

as I previously posted in one of the earlier MLW threads, this blog did an exhaustive review of the related Hackergate "hide the decline" emails - "McIntyre provides fodder for skeptics". Absolute, specious denier trumpeting of the doubt/uncertainty meme

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 418
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

You catch more flies with sugar, than by calling the flies morons.

I am completely uninterested in catching any of these self-avowed skeptic flies, those that deny, their own denial... I used to label these guys "DD" - denying their denial. However, I've just become familiar with a more pointed label - one that truly captures the essence of these types - "Concern Trolls." :lol:

Concern Trolls... state that they themselves believe in global warming... and also believe that human emissions of greenhouse gases are to blame... but do not understand certain things. However, ever slowly, bit by bit, we see the emergence of the classic objections of the denialist. But there is no doubt - the Concern Troll is no self-avowed legitimate skeptic. The Concern Troll has a clear agenda - to never actually investigate all sides, both sides, of the debate; rather, to simply cast doubt and uncertainty on legitimate science... and the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community that accepts the theory of AGW climate change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Concern Trolls... state that they themselves believe in global warming... and also believe that human emissions of greenhouse gases are to blame... but do not understand certain things.

I have never believed in so-called global warming. And besides, it's not called global warming anymore, the global warming fundamentalists have re-named it climate change. Because they lost the global warming debate several years ago. And the only true deniers are the AGW true-believers. They're fundamentalists who deny any data or information which clearly undermines their belief. Yes, the key word is belief. It's no different than any other religion. Except these religious zealots are even more annoying and abrasive than the usual suspects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In any case, the Greenland ice cores show that Greenland was warmer that today. The one question is whether that was a global or local phenomena.

Frankly, I find it ironic that climate scientists are more than happy to use a single proxy (ice cores from antarctica) and claim it represents *global* temperatures but when another single proxy says something they don't like they dismiss it by claiming it only measures local temperatures.

I missed some good stuff these last days... so... you'll dismiss tree-proxies - outright. And, the other favoured denier tactic is to cast doubt on other most legitimate proxy studies by inferring they're localized - they're regional. But hey now! How's that consensus on the global versus regional nature of the MWP coming along? Oh my! Deniers absolutely and unequivocally attest to the fact (fact!!!) that the Medieval Warming Period was global - just cause!

and... of course, deniers will invariably cast doubt on ice-core studies, by stating they're principally isolated to Greenland, to Antarctica... as if, they're small pockets. Meanwhile, they'll completely ignore all the other world-wide ice-core studies, in locales like... Peru... like Alaska... like Tanzania... like the Canadian Arctic... like Tibet... like Russia... like China... like etc., etc., etc. They can only hope these other locations will (more) quickly melt away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have never believed in so-called global warming.

Because they lost the global warming debate several years ago. And the only true deniers are the AGW true-believers. They're fundamentalists who deny any data or information which clearly undermines their belief.

Yes, the key word is belief. It's no different than any other religion. Except these religious zealots are even more annoying and abrasive than the usual suspects.

Shady... you're certainly not a Concern Troll... you have no Concern - you're not even in the game... you're simply a parrot!

BTW Shady, don't forget this post - still waiting on your reply.

Shady... does Simple know you’re taking over his job :lol:

Shady, why are you ignoring the following? Would it have something to do with you not knowing your ass from a hole in the ground?

Uh oh!?

Science Daily

Quick waldo, damage control, damage control! Sound the alarm! All true-believers to the flight deck! That's all true-believers to the flight deck! :lol:

poor Shady - you would presume damage?... you would presume control? Shady... let's have some fun - would you care to distinguish between

1 - the airborne fraction of CO2 emissions &

2 - the CO2 fraction in the air

and while you're at it... what has the IPCC stated concerning the airborne fraction of CO2 emissions... what is in the AR4 report in that regard. Honest Shady, I'm not setting you up - trust me :lol:

Why would anyone give a crap what the IPCC stated on anything? They've already admitted to lying on several issues. They're a bunch of crooks and liars.

Shady, you've dropped a blind link where you presume to suggest something relevant related to the "the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions". You must feel it extremely significant given your repeated "damage control" reference. You hold to an underlying premise of casting aspersion towards the IPCC... hence why you were challenged in that regard; i.e. to actually indicate whether the IPCC position/statement would contradict or be accepting to your linked to article's premise. But no problem... given your suggestion, let's eliminate the IPCC position/statement in consideration of your linked article's specific content.

So... that damage control you speak to, Shady. In what regard, Shady? Where is your suggested damage and why is your suggested control needed? In particular Shady, as previously asked Shady, how does your suggestion of damage & control align to your failure to distinguish between

1 - the airborne fraction of CO2 emissions &

2 - the CO2 fraction in the air

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you have no Concern - you're not even in the game... you're simply a parrot!

Au contraire. I'm very concerned. I'm concerned about our rights and freedoms being taken away by fraudulent scientists peddling anti-capitalist politics all in the guise of junk science invovling a made-up crisis.

BTW Shady, don't forget this post - still waiting on your reply.

There's nothing to reply to. As I've already stated, and as it's already been illustrated, the IPCC isn't to be trusted. Their models are fraudulent, based on fraudulent data, cooked up by fraudulent scientists.

Go peddle your religion somewhere else. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, this report from the US National Research Council illustrated what the proxies are:

Yes - I've previously linked to that complete National Academy of Sciences synthesis report... a few times. Of course, it invariably gets ignored - reading is soooooo inconvenient, don't ya know! This format gives a nice "skim" feature that presents section highlights

The following is a fine concise version of the full report: Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years - Report in Brief

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's nothing to reply to. As I've already stated, and as it's already been illustrated, the IPCC isn't to be trusted. Their models are fraudulent, based on fraudulent data, cooked up by fraudulent scientists.

Go peddle your religion somewhere else. :lol:

Shady, this has nothing to do with the IPCC - we've separated out the IPCC... this is simply your claim, your trumpeting the alarm, as you stated, "damage control, damage control, sound the alarm". C'mon man - step up... you're so confident in your concern/position - be the parrot, be all you can be!

Shady, you've dropped a blind link where you presume to suggest something relevant related to the "the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions". You must feel it extremely significant given your repeated "damage control" reference. You hold to an underlying premise of casting aspersion towards the IPCC... hence why you were challenged in that regard; i.e. to actually indicate whether the IPCC position/statement would contradict or be accepting to your linked to article's premise. But no problem... given your suggestion, let's eliminate the IPCC position/statement in consideration of your linked article's specific content.

So... that damage control you speak to, Shady. In what regard, Shady? Where is your suggested damage and why is your suggested control needed? In particular Shady, as previously asked Shady, how does your suggestion of damage & control align to your failure to distinguish between

1 - the airborne fraction of CO2 emissions &

2 - the CO2 fraction in the air

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've read the McIntyre one before but in reading it again, it is the "tone" of the critique that is most refreshing. It is rational, professional and thorough. It does not have the air of "dismissiveness" that is so apparent with AGW proponents.

well skippy... the tarnish is being reinforced on the McIntyre-McKitrick pie-hole shine:

Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, part 1: In the beginning

Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, part 2: The story behind the Barton-Whitfield investigation and the Wegman Panel

this article really captures some of the, at the time, relevant and most interesting timing aspects of the politically charged and fronted, McIntyre & McKitrick - How the Wall Street Journal and Rep. Barton celebrated a global-warming skeptic - The untold story of how a front-page article and powerful U.S. politicians morphed former mining executive Stephen McIntyre into a "scientific superstar".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Related news:

Andrew Weaver of the University of Victoria was on CBC1's "The Current". He is a climate scientist working within Working Group 1 of the IPCC, and helped write 3 of the IPCC reports.

He was very outspoken on the subject of the IPCC's public relations failures, and particularly critical about the work of Working Group 2 - Impacts Adaptation and Vulnerability. His concern is that WG2 hasn't been held to a standard as to the validity of their statements, such as peer review etc. Basically, they're talking about impacts and scare mongering.

Some quotes:

WG2 made... "Mistakes that are unacceptable"

"It is embarassing When you read flippant statement written in a Working Group 2 report."

"I'm asking myself 'how on earth did that get in there ?"

I post this because it needs to be said that the IPCC has done a bad job, period. Our communication infrastructure does not work, presently, and the way the IPCC is typical of what's wrong with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Related news:

Andrew Weaver of the University of Victoria was on CBC1's "The Current". He is a climate scientist working within Working Group 1 of the IPCC, and helped write 3 of the IPCC reports.

He was very outspoken on the subject of the IPCC's public relations failures, and particularly critical about the work of Working Group 2 - Impacts Adaptation and Vulnerability. His concern is that WG2 hasn't been held to a standard as to the validity of their statements, such as peer review etc. Basically, they're talking about impacts and scare mongering.

Some quotes:

WG2 made... "Mistakes that are unacceptable"

"It is embarassing When you read flippant statement written in a Working Group 2 report."

"I'm asking myself 'how on earth did that get in there ?"

I post this because it needs to be said that the IPCC has done a bad job, period. Our communication infrastructure does not work, presently, and the way the IPCC is typical of what's wrong with it.

I think you'll find that Weaver had to be misquoted - Waldo has already addressed this issue - there is nothing wrong! So it puzzles me that Weaver is still talking about it. Here's what Waldo had to say on the matter:

where's the problem Simple?... Weaver states your article's statements don't accurately reflect his views. He's offered clarification and reinforced his position. Even without flooding you with his actual clarifying quotes, I'm particularly taken with the one article's headline: "IPCC findings sound in face of all controversy" Obviously this doesn't sit well with you - does it, Simple?

The Original Andrew Weaver Story: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html?id=2488036

Here is Weaver's quick rebuttal that Waldo referred to - note how it sounds like most of it was written by IPCC damage control and seemingly provided to Dr. Weaver. Now, as you've pointed out - he's back on the podium:

Link: http://www2.canada.com/nanaimodailynews/news/story.html?id=837eeddf-bf3b-4dee-8abc-a5095faf13ec

Edited by Keepitsimple
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is Weaver's quick rebuttal that Waldo referred to - note how it sounds like most of it was written by IPCC damage control and seemingly provided to Dr. Weaver. Now, as you've pointed out - he's back on the podium:

He stands by the results of Working Group 1, but like many here claims that the impacts are exaggerated by Working Group 2. I didn't misquote him - I heard those quotes myself.

And lo-and-behold, this topic is not well served by anybody who equates Left-Wing=Good/Right-Wing=Bad or vice versa. The problem with communicating and discussing issues is that the channels we now use to do so are not trusted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He stands by the results of Working Group 1, but like many here claims that the impacts are exaggerated by Working Group 2. I didn't misquote him - I heard those quotes myself.

And lo-and-behold, this topic is not well served by anybody who equates Left-Wing=Good/Right-Wing=Bad or vice versa. The problem with communicating and discussing issues is that the channels we now use to do so are not trusted.

That's been the whole thrust of this thread. Working Group Two is the entity that provides the ammunition for groups like WWF and GreenPeace (and vice-versa as we've seen) and the media laps up the sensationalist stories - the glaciers, the Northwest Passage, Polar Bears drowning, the Amazon forest, floods and hurricanes......and these are the pictures that have galvanized public opinion and made it acceptable to say "the science is settled". They summarize, exaggerate, and misrepresent studies and non-studies. If it was only "poor communication", it could be fixed.....but as you've said - they can't be trusted.

PS: I had my tongue in my cheek when I said Weaver must have been misquoted.

Edited by Keepitsimple
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's been the whole thrust of this thread. Working Group Two is the entity that provides the ammunition for groups like WWF and GreenPeace (and vice-versa as we've seen) and the media laps up the sensationalist stories - the glaciers, the Northwest Passage, Polar Bears drowning, the Amazon forest, floods and hurricanes......and these are the pictures that have galvanized public opinion and made it acceptable to say "the science is settled". They summarize, exaggerate, and misrepresent studies and non-studies. If it was only "poor communication", it could be fixed.....but as you've said - they can't be trusted.

PS: I had my tongue in my cheek when I said Weaver must have been misquoted.

Most of this thread is about the science, at least the parts I participated in. The science is good, says Weaver. But the social impact and what have you - that hasn't been subject to the same level of scrutiny.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of this thread is about the science, at least the parts I participated in. The science is good, says Weaver. But the social impact and what have you - that hasn't been subject to the same level of scrutiny.

I caught a portion - where Weaver emphatically stated the science was solid... that, most definitely, Pachauri shouldn't be asked to step down... shouldn't be expected to step down.

Notwithstanding Tremonti has little real background/understanding, and she wanted to make something out of the inconsequential & trivial "glaciergate" nonsense, Weaver held firm on that point... that it wasn't a major IPCC claim, was a minor short reference/statement within WG2 - amongst the thousands of report pages. Yes, of course, he stated the statement shouldn't have been there, while also emphasizing it was actually scientists that brought the related "glaciergate" statement forward.

What was refreshing to hear was his highlighting, a couple of times, the current concerted "libertarian" (his word) efforts that are focused on finding fault with the IPCC. That's about all I heard - did he expound further on the orchestrated 'attack' that's currently at play?

For all those Concern Trolls that are so... concerned... about their own fabricated noise: :lol:

- The role of the IPCC and key elements of the IPCC assessment process

- Statement on IPCC principles and procedures

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The interviewer correctly found fault with the way all of this has been communicated, and although he did mention the libertarians - as he called it - he also was critical of Working Group 2 as I said. He also admitted that the IPCC wasn't good at PR.

But the interviewer had more than an adequate grasp of what went wrong with the IPCC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am compelled to fear that science will be used to promote the power of dominant groups rather than to make men happy. ~Bertrand Russell, Icarus, or the Future of Science, 1925

It's difficult to see the relevance of that quote, when the predominant charge has been that Climate Change is purportedly being used as a tool to bring down the richest economies of the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's difficult to see the relevance of that quote, when the predominant charge has been that Climate Change is purportedly being used as a tool to bring down the richest economies of the world.

It's not the tool - it's the powers behind the tool, hence the "dominant group".......but it too shall pass as knowledge pushes forward. The shame is that there is much good and relevant science that has been/is being done and it's being usurped by the IPCC and alarmist groups in their misguided summaries and misrepresentations. As I've said before....Climate Change is real (of course) and AGW is real - to what extent, we still don't know. We are still in the infantile stages of truly understanding how much effect human activity has/can have on Climate Change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not the tool - it's the powers behind the tool, hence the "dominant group".......but it too shall pass as knowledge pushes forward. The shame is that there is much good and relevant science that has been/is being done and it's being usurped by the IPCC and alarmist groups in their misguided summaries and misrepresentations. As I've said before....Climate Change is real (of course) and AGW is real - to what extent, we still don't know. We are still in the infantile stages of truly understanding how much effect human activity has/can have on Climate Change.

The powers behind the tool being who ?

The alarmist groups as you call them don't trust mass communications to communicate the message properly, so they exaggerate them - or they talk about the very worse things that might happen as a result of AGW. That approach is understandable, but it didn't work. There is now much more of a forum for criticism, which has taken up the banner and started poking holes in the alarmists' stories.

This has shown us that we don't have a functional global forum for debating world problems. The UN is distrusted by many Americans, so they can't be it. Obama's administration appeared to try to submit their own solution, which would at least have been better than a UN solution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not the tool - it's the powers behind the tool, hence the "dominant group".......but it too shall pass as knowledge pushes forward. The shame is that there is much good and relevant science that has been/is being done and it's being usurped by the IPCC and alarmist groups in their misguided summaries and misrepresentations. As I've said before....Climate Change is real (of course) and AGW is real - to what extent, we still don't know. We are still in the infantile stages of truly understanding how much effect human activity has/can have on Climate Change.

typical Concern Trolling, hey Simple? You harp on about the inconsequential and trivial - parrots do that! Your Concern is exposed each and every time you drudge up another piece of fluff from your favourite go-to skeptic/deniers... or would you suggest these self-avowed types are, also, simply registering their "Concern" :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

typical Concern Trolling, hey Simple? You harp on about the inconsequential and trivial - parrots do that! Your Concern is exposed each and every time you drudge up another piece of fluff from your favourite go-to skeptic/deniers... or would you suggest these self-avowed types are, also, simply registering their "Concern" :lol:

If you think that the IPCC has handled this situation perfectly, you're more on the fringe than KIS is.

He at least acknowledges AGW, so he's in the mainstream. Also, he has problems with the extreme claims that are made, also in the mainstream.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what extreme claims?

As Weaver indicated, some of the claims of Working Group II have not been adequately reviewed.

Looking over some of them - the 80% chance that avalanches will increase is one that looks odd to me. How could one attribute a probability such as that ? You don't find those types of things in the WG1 reports.

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
      10,714
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    wopsas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Venandi went up a rank
      Explorer
    • 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
  • Recently Browsing

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