waldo Posted February 11, 2010 Report Share Posted February 11, 2010 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. let's not forget that, gasp, mountain climbers comments weren't "peer reviewed" in regards a minuscule one-line table item reference... about lost climbing days relative to a loss of ice. Oh my! Another rocket trumpeted around the mainstream news outlets. Is that the kind of inadequate review you're speaking to? Does one also need to reacquaint you with the details of IPCC principles in regards use of so-called non-peer review 'grey matter', particularly as it relates to WG2? they can't attack the science... they can't attack WG1... so they orchestrate their manufactured doubt & uncertainty over the trivial and inconsequential they drudge up within WG2 - notwithstanding what actually percolates up into the Synthesis Report... or the Summary for Policymakers Report? How is it, these trivial and inconsequential WG2 "Concern nuggets", aren't being brought forward from the summary reports - where the significant and positional statements of the IPCC reside? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted February 11, 2010 Report Share Posted February 11, 2010 That is the truth. It is all about making sure that people clean up after themselves - Supporting China and it's eventual global smog is not a good idea. What ever happened to that very descriptive word POLLUTION? The natural world will do fine on it's own if we do not attempt to conquer it and by doing so..destroy it and this heaven we live in...The whole system has always run on violence and deception. If we could just evole into a peaceful state and have a system of law that was not based always in self serving fraud we might just survive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted February 11, 2010 Report Share Posted February 11, 2010 let's not forget that, gasp, mountain climbers comments weren't "peer reviewed" in regards a minuscule one-line table item reference... about lost climbing days relative to a loss of ice. Oh my! Another rocket trumpeted around the mainstream news outlets. Is that the kind of inadequate review you're speaking to? Does one also need to reacquaint you with the details of IPCC principles in regards use of so-called non-peer review 'grey matter', particularly as it relates to WG2? No and no. The glacier information was WG1, I thought, because AM Tremonti was asking Andrew Weaver about that too. they can't attack the science... they can't attack WG1... so they orchestrate their manufactured doubt & uncertainty over the trivial and inconsequential they drudge up within WG2 - notwithstanding what actually percolates up into the Synthesis Report... or the Summary for Policymakers Report? How is it, these trivial and inconsequential WG2 "Concern nuggets", aren't being brought forward from the summary reports - where the significant and positional statements of the IPCC reside? What do you mean they can't attack ? Do you expect there to be no criticism at all ? The trivial and inconsequential claims of increased avalanches and the like actual resonate with the general citizenry more than correlation studies and the like, so they're more important. Quote  Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted February 11, 2010 Report Share Posted February 11, 2010 The glacier information was WG1, I thought, because AM Tremonti was asking Andrew Weaver about that too. No - so-called, "glaciergate"... also WG2. What do you mean they can't attack ? Do you expect there to be no criticism at all ? The trivial and inconsequential claims of increased avalanches and the like actual resonate with the general citizenry more than correlation studies and the like, so they're more important. can't attack... as in... can't attack the veracity of the actual peer-reviewed WG1 focus - the Physical Science. So they settle for fabricating "Concern" by attacking the trivial and inconsequential from WG2. A good example, particularly for the MLW Concern Trolls who were so "outraged" over "glaciergate": I put up the actual IPCC statement, that spoke directly to what the Synthesis Report (the overall summary report of all the sub-groups) had to say about melting glaciers, Himalayan or otherwise... I also put up a recent AGU presentation that spoke to the most recent definitive assessment on the state of Himalayan glaciers. I challenged the MLW Concern Trolls to target their "Concern" towards those science focused statements/presentations. Crickets... go-figure! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted February 11, 2010 Report Share Posted February 11, 2010 I challenged the MLW Concern Trolls to target their "Concern" towards those science focused statements/presentations. Crickets... go-figure! But - you don't expect non-scientists to be allowed to peer review, so why put the non-scientists here up to the task ? Obviously they can't do it. The best they can do is talk about the investigations under way and maybe highlight some of the work skeptical scientists are doing. As far as WG2, if Weaver is correct - and I expect he would know - then they`re right to go after those claims, so... Quote  Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted February 11, 2010 Report Share Posted February 11, 2010 But - you don't expect non-scientists to be allowed to peer review, so why put the non-scientists here up to the task ? Obviously they can't do it. The best they can do is talk about the investigations under way and maybe highlight some of the work skeptical scientists are doing. As far as WG2, if Weaver is correct - and I expect he would know - then they`re right to go after those claims, so... the "non-scientists" here don't get a free-pass... they don't get to blindly attack from behind the cloak of feigned ignorance. Notwithstanding the Riverwind conspiracy, there is no shortage of skeptical papers... skeptical thinking... that could be brought forward by the MLW Concern Trolls. They're somewhat reserved in so doing simply because that approach, either, takes actual time/work on their part... or they're practicing risk aversion in being held to account for their parroted skeptical claims. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted February 11, 2010 Report Share Posted February 11, 2010 the "non-scientists" here don't get a free-pass... they don't get to blindly attack from behind the cloak of feigned ignorance. Notwithstanding the Riverwind conspiracy, there is no shortage of skeptical papers... skeptical thinking... that could be brought forward by the MLW Concern Trolls. They're somewhat reserved in so doing simply because that approach, either, takes actual time/work on their part... or they're practicing risk aversion in being held to account for their parroted skeptical claims. Nobody is talking about a free pass, but you can`t expect them to reasonably dissect the science on their own. They`re not climate scientists. But the WG2 claims can easily be reviewed, right ? Quote  Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted February 11, 2010 Report Share Posted February 11, 2010 Nobody is talking about a free pass, but you can`t expect them to reasonably dissect the science on their own. They`re not climate scientists. But the WG2 claims can easily be reviewed, right? they can most certainly do more than parrot the latest inadequacies of mainstream journalism or "blog-scientists" - while, at the same time, denigrating the IPCC at each and every opportunity (see Shady's overwhelming cut/paste/link contribution ). not asking (expecting) you to do it; however, if one were so inclined, he/she could put up each of these so-called WG2 "gate statements" with an emphasis on effect/impact... you know, actually bring some substance/weight to the discussion so as to presume to counter their relative insignificant, trivial and inconsequential affect. again, WG2 is a subgroup report... anything significant from a subgroup report, any subgroup report, significant in terms of formal IPCC claim or position, is reflected within the summary Synthesis Report (the summation of all subgroup reports). To my knowledge/understanding we haven't seen any of these WG2 statements reflected within the Synthesis Report... or, for that matter, the policy report - the Summary for Policymakers Report. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted June 14, 2010 Report Share Posted June 14, 2010 notwithstanding the oft demonstrated clear agenda of the National Post's Lorne Gunter/Terence Corcoran, as is the repeated pattern, Simple... your quick off the mark to link to anything your scurrying about finds, has - once again - blown up on you. A couple of links as written directly by Andrew Weaver - here: IPCC findings sound in face of all controversy & here: Prof clarifies position on climate panel. For good measure, I'm sure you'd actually like to read where University of Victoria's Andrew Weaver says climate changing faster than expected Now, in addition to Lorne Gunter in your list of people who are not to be believed is Joe D'Aleo (link), a respected meteorogist (link). Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted June 14, 2010 Report Share Posted June 14, 2010 Now, in addition to Lorne Gunter in your list of people who are not to be believed is Joe D'Aleo (link), a respected meteorogist (link). Waldo is the Joe McCarthy of the forum. His primary jobs is to undermine and destroy anyone who questions anything related to so-called climate change. It's quite disgusting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted June 14, 2010 Report Share Posted June 14, 2010 Waldo is the Joe McCarthy of the forum. His primary jobs is to undermine and destroy anyone who questions anything related to so-called climate change. It's quite disgusting. Unfortuantely for many innocent people, Joe McCarthy had some real influence and real ability to destroy people's careers and lives. When he tried to do that with a young associate of the well-regarded Hale and Dorr law firm, he got his commupance. I am not concerned about the ability of a screen name to character-assassinate a bona-fide scientist. Something that Al Gore is not. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted June 14, 2010 Report Share Posted June 14, 2010 I am not concerned about the ability of a screen name to character-assassinate a bona-fide scientist. Something that Al Gore is not. Good point. It's funny that Waldo worships the ground of pseudo-scientists like Al Gore, while at the same time, denounces real ones. It just goes to show you that it's all about politics, and less about science with him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted June 14, 2010 Report Share Posted June 14, 2010 Good point. It's funny that Waldo worships the ground of pseudo-scientists like Al Gore, while at the same time, denounces real ones. It just goes to show you that it's all about politics, and less about science with him. Not just Waldo. Just about everything in GW debate is suffused with political agenda. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted June 14, 2010 Report Share Posted June 14, 2010 Now, in addition to Lorne Gunter in your list of people who are not to be believed is Joe D'Aleo (link), a respected meteorogist (link). uhhh.... there's a link missing... presuming to espouse the "respectability" of your favoured TV weatherman! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted June 14, 2010 Report Share Posted June 14, 2010 Yay! Another thread full of internet message-board idealogs thinking their debating science The way I see it... everything is working as it should. We have very good and qualified scientists on both sides of this debate, and they are working hard to figure it out. Thats exactly how science is supposed to work. So just ignore the hacks, and ideologues like the ones in this thread, and ignore the "scientists" that publish opinions but dont commit any real work or studies for peer review, and eventually we will learn a lot more about AGW. Theres lots of really smart people working on this from both angles. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted June 14, 2010 Report Share Posted June 14, 2010 So just ignore the hacks, and ideologues like the ones in this thread, and ignore the "scientists" that publish opinions but dont commit any real work or studies for peer review, and eventually we will learn a lot more about AGW.Theres lots of really smart people working on this from both angles. a fresh breath of naivety - good on ya! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted June 14, 2010 Report Share Posted June 14, 2010 uhhh.... there's a link missing... presuming to espouse the "respectability" of your favoured TV weatherman! There was no missing link. I was pointing out your demonization of Mr. D'Aleo. I don't know your authority that he's primarily a "TV weatherman". Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted June 14, 2010 Report Share Posted June 14, 2010 There was no missing link. I was pointing out your demonization of Mr. D'Aleo. maybe check it again, hey? You write the word "link"... somehow... you missed adding it. Jbg's missing link - here: ... I certainly don't want you to lose any opportunity to present "respectability"! 'demonization' of D'Aleo? You mean where I labeled him a nutter? Apparently... in your church... the nutter label rises to the level of demonization! Oh my! Why not just say you're a fan of the nutters, Watts & D'Aleo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted June 14, 2010 Report Share Posted June 14, 2010 'demonization' of D'Aleo? You mean where I labeled him a nutter? Apparently... in your church... the nutter label rises to the level of demonization! Oh my! Excuse me, sir. I don't belong to a church. My religion doesn't have churches. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.