Global Warming backdown

Keepitsimple · February 18, 2010

Here's what Phil Jones had to say about "The Science is stettled":

“I don't believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this. This is not my view. There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties, not just for the future, but for the [distant] past as well.”

Michael Hardner · February 18, 2010

Here's what Phil Jones had to say about "The Science is stettled":

That's a great quote, and it illustrates an instance of science behaving better than the commentators. There's another one, I believe, buried in the Climategate emails where a scientist admonishes an environmentalist for making extreme claims.

There are still valid skeptical scientists who have published papers that are still in discussion.

KiS, could you please provide a link for the quote, though ? I went up and down this thread and couldn't find it.

February 18, 2010

Here's what Phil Jones had to say about "The Science is stettled":

Yep most scientists realize there are a lot of factors that are still missing. But Jones still thinks global warming is happening.

Edited February 20, 2010 by TrueMetis

waldo · February 18, 2010

Here's what Phil Jones had to say about "The Science is stettled":

how many times have you recycled this same meme? Somehow in your pigeon-holed blindness to the overwhelming consensus... to the current scientific understanding... you keep searching for the holy grail of expressed scientific doubt to stroke your denial.

is any science settled... or not settled? Given varying degrees of confidence, there are issues where fundamental debate is no longer necessary within the overwhelming majority of the scientific community - with high confidence it is recognized that the earth is warming; with high confidence it is known that AGW climate change is occurring... neither of which suggests the "science is settled".

yours is the favoured game of the denier - look for quote snippets and attempt to exploit them by, typically, twisting their intended meaning to suit your agenda. We see a classic example of this same game played out in recent days by Shady, our own MLW purveyor of the dishonest British tabloid misinformation campaign. Granted, there is one distinction with Shady's game... he's not intentionally distorting, since that would presume he actually understood the premise behind the quote snippet he's attempting to leverage. In any case, in that same confidence vein, perhaps you could offer comment on the settled nature of Shady's quote distortion:

=> a premise of statistical significance associated with a 95% confidence level means there is only a 5% chance of a particular finding occurring purely by chance. Even accepting to playing the 15 year short-term trend game, would a 95% confidence level that measured warming of 0.15 degrees centigrade per decade occurred (over that 15 year period)... that the warming was real... that the warming was not a statistical fluke - would that 95% confidence level suggest to you that the premise behind Shady's quote distortion was settled... or not settled?

waldo · February 18, 2010

Just thought I'd throw another log onto the fire:

http://www.hs.fi/english/article/iZeusi+summoned+to+help+break+archipelago+ice/1135252749787

" The Baltic Sea is now under thicker ice than the average in the past ten years. The seven icebreakers of Arctia Shipping are opening sea lanes night and day, but it isn’t enough.

There is so much ice that many freighters have had to wait for days in some cases to get the help of an icebreaker. The state has commissioned the help of the privately-owned Zeus. "

Don't see what all the fuss is about. We have been reliably informed that the recovering ice is actually just "poor quality ice" and not any indication of a recovery side of any natural cycle. Those freighters should stop whining and just sit tight. All that ice should be gone very quickly and they won't be bothered anymore.

unrelated... essentially land-locked, brackish water, average depth of 180 feet (max depth 1500 feet), average of 120 miles wide, no multi-year ice extent exists, on average only 45% will have ice cover... a cold winter brings forward significant ice, just as a warm winter (or a series of progressive warm winters) significantly impacts the Baltic Sea ice cover... as in: Baltic sea ice cover hits an all-time low

Keepitsimple · February 18, 2010

That's a great quote, and it illustrates an instance of science behaving better than the commentators. There's another one, I believe, buried in the Climategate emails where a scientist admonishes an environmentalist for making extreme claims.

There are still valid skeptical scientists who have published papers that are still in discussion.

KiS, could you please provide a link for the quote, though ? I went up and down this thread and couldn't find it.

It's in this article by Margarate Wente of the Globe and Mail:

Link: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/the-science-isnt-settled-now-what/article1469050/

Keepitsimple · February 18, 2010

In light of the accusations of corruption and politicization of the IPCC, I thought I'd resurrect the story of Christpher Lansea, the hurricane expert who resigned from the IPCC - precisely because they made totally unfounded claims that the exceptional hurricane season of 2004 was caused by "Global Warming"......here is an Open Letter to the community explaining his reasons for resigning:

Dear colleagues,
After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from

participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel

on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the

part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become

politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC

leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.

With this open letter to the community, I wish to explain the basis for my

decision and bring awareness to what I view as a problem in the IPCC

process. The IPCC is a group of climate researchers from around the world

that every few years summarize how climate is changing and how it may be

altered in the future due to manmade global warming. I had served both as an

author for the Observations chapter and a Reviewer for the 2nd Assessment

Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, primarily on the topic

of tropical cyclones (hurricanes and typhoons). My work on hurricanes, and

tropical cyclones more generally, has been widely cited by the IPCC. For the

upcoming AR4, I was asked several weeks ago by the Observations chapter Lead

Author---Dr. Kevin Trenberth---to provide the writeup for Atlantic

hurricanes. As I had in the past, I agreed to assist the IPCC in what I

thought was to be an important, and politically-neutral determination of

what is happening with our climate.

Shortly after Dr. Trenberth requested that I draft the Atlantic hurricane

section for the AR4's Observations chapter, Dr. Trenberth participated in a

press conference organized by scientists at Harvard on the topic "Experts to

warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense

hurricane activity" along with other media interviews on the topic. The

result of this media interaction was widespread coverage that directly

connected the very busy 2004 Atlantic hurricane season as being caused by

anthropogenic greenhouse gas warming occurring today. Listening to and

reading transcripts of this press conference and media interviews, it is

apparent that Dr. Trenberth was being accurately quoted and summarized in

such statements and was not being misrepresented in the media. These media

sessions have potential to result in a widespread perception that global

warming has made recent hurricane activity much more severe.

I found it a bit perplexing that the participants in the Harvard press

conference had come to the conclusion that global warming was impacting

hurricane activity today. To my knowledge, none of the participants in that

press conference had performed any research on hurricane variability, nor

were they reporting on any new work in the field. All previous and current

research in the area of hurricane variability has shown no reliable,

long-term trend up in the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones,

either in the Atlantic or any other basin. The IPCC assessments in 1995 and

2001 also concluded that there was no global warming signal found in the

hurricane record.

Moreover, the evidence is quite strong and supported by the most recent

credible studies that any impact in the future from global warming upon

hurricane will likely be quite small. The latest results from the

Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (Knutson and Tuleya, Journal of

Climate, 2004) suggest that by around 2080, hurricanes may have winds and

rainfall about 5% more intense than today. It has been proposed that even

this tiny change may be an exaggeration as to what may happen by the end of

the 21st Century (Michaels, Knappenberger, and Landsea, Journal of Climate,

2005, submitted).

It is beyond me why my colleagues would utilize the media to push an

unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global

warming. Given Dr. Trenberth's role as the IPCC's Lead Author responsible

for preparing the text on hurricanes, his public statements so far outside

of current scientific understanding led me to concern that it would be very

difficult for the IPCC process to proceed objectively with regards to the

assessment on hurricane activity. My view is that when people identify

themselves as being associated with the IPCC and then make pronouncements

far outside current scientific understandings that this will harm the

credibility of climate change science and will in the longer term diminish

our role in public policy.

My concerns go beyond the actions of Dr. Trenberth and his colleagues to how

he and other IPCC officials responded to my concerns. I did caution Dr.

Trenberth before the media event and provided him a summary of the current

understanding within the hurricane research community. I was disappointed

when the IPCC leadership dismissed my concerns when I brought up the

misrepresentation of climate science while invoking the authority of the

IPCC. Specifically, the IPCC leadership said that Dr. Trenberth was speaking

as an individual even though he was introduced in the press conference as an

IPCC lead author; I was told that that the media was exaggerating or

misrepresenting his words, even though the audio from the press conference

and interview tells a different story (available on the web directly); and

that Dr. Trenberth was accurately reflecting conclusions from the TAR, even

though it is quite clear that the TAR stated that there was no connection

between global warming and hurricane activity. The IPCC leadership saw

nothing to be concerned with in Dr. Trenberth's unfounded pronouncements to

the media, despite his supposedly impartial important role that he must

undertake as a Lead Author on the upcoming AR4.

It is certainly true that "individual scientists can do what they wish in

their own rights", as one of the folks in the IPCC leadership suggested.

Differing conclusions and robust debates are certainly crucial to progress

in climate science. However, this case is not an honest scientific

discussion conducted at a meeting of climate researchers. Instead, a

scientist with an important role in the IPCC represented himself as a Lead

Author for the IPCC has used that position to promulgate to the media and

general public his own opinion that the busy 2004 hurricane season was

caused by global warming, which is in direct opposition to research written

in the field and is counter to conclusions in the TAR. This becomes

problematic when I am then asked to provide the draft about observed

hurricane activity variations for the AR4 with, ironically, Dr. Trenberth as

the Lead Author for this chapter. Because of Dr. Trenberth's pronouncements,

the IPCC process on our assessment of these crucial extreme events in our

climate system has been subverted and compromised, its neutrality lost.

While no one can "tell" scientists what to say or not say (nor am I

suggesting that), the IPCC did select Dr. Trenberth as a Lead Author and

entrusted to him to carry out this duty in a non-biased, neutral point of

view. When scientists hold press conferences and speak with the media, much

care is needed not to reflect poorly upon the IPCC. It is of more than

passing interest to note that Dr. Trenberth, while eager to share his views

on global warming and hurricanes with the media, declined to do so at the

Climate Variability and Change Conference in January where he made several

presentations. Perhaps he was concerned that such speculation---though

worthy in his mind of public pronouncements---would not stand up to the

scrutiny of fellow climate scientists.

I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I

view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being

scientifically unsound. As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in Dr.

Trenberth's actions and have retained him as a Lead Author for the AR4, I

have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR4.

Sincerely,

Chris Landsea

17 January 2005

Link: http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/LandseaResignationLetterFromIPCC.htm

waldo · February 19, 2010

In light of the accusations of corruption and politicization of the IPCC, I thought I'd resurrect the story of Christpher Lansea, the hurricane expert who resigned from the IPCC - precisely because they made totally unfounded claims that the exceptional hurricane season of 2004 was caused by "Global Warming"......here is an Open Letter to the community explaining his reasons for resigning:

continued Simple ton bullshit - notwithstanding Landsea's prima donna act, no individual scientist represents the IPCC to the public... no individual scientist can speak to the public on behalf of the IPCC. The IPCC reports are a matter of record, full transparency on all reviews of scientific literature & comments related to the reviews is maintained and available in the public domain.

we're talking about the physical science here... the 'real stuff'... the Working Group WG1 report. You're hopelessly attempting to suggest a difference of opinion between 2 scientists is the foundation for your grand leap of, as you say, 'corruption & politicization'. To substantiate that false claim of yours, you would need to present the related area within the AR4 WG1 report that has falsely represented the related physical science - you haven't done that... and, obviously, you can't. Certainly, if there were any areas within the WG1 report that did misrepresent the actual science, the physical science, they would be played out rabidly throughout the denialsphere - you would be feasting on them... salivating on them. Obviously, your favoured go-to denier blogs have misled you... once again!

this short email response to Landsea sums up everything anyone needs to know about another one of your desperate attempts to fabricate and distort - from Susan Solomon (writing as co-chair of WG1) to Chris Landsea:

Dear Chris,
I am writing as co-chair of WG1 of IPCC in response to your messages.

You may wish to recall that when you or I are introduced as NOAA scientists, it is well understood that we are not speaking for NOAA much less the US government. That is standard practice in scientific work in all institutions and organizations. Further, as you know, the publication date of the fourth assessment report will be 2007. I would like to suggest that it is quite clear that no person can speak on behalf of that assessment's scientific conclusions until it is available.

While different scientists involved in climate studies have different views, the assessment will represent, as in the TAR, a careful consensus based upon consideration of published scientific literature. It will, as in TAR, include consideration of observed frequency and intensity changes as well as available modeling studies. The authors of chapter 3 will weigh all relevant papers and come to a consensus as a group, with important input from an extensive review process. I am confident that the process will be a diligent one.

The appropriate means now for you to ensure your concerns are considered would be to send any reprints or preprints that you think relevant to us at [email protected]. We will also ask you if you wish to review the chapter during the expert review phase of the first order draft that will begin in the mid-2005, but of course it will be your decision whether or not you wish to do so at that time so please inform us then.

best regards,

Susan

in spite of Landsea's grand-stand ploy, he was still being asked to be a part of the AR4 WG1 review process... still being asked to contribute and review - did he? :lol: ... as I said, don't hesitate to bring forward related areas within the IPCC AR4 WG1 physical science report that misrepresented the actual physical science at the point AR4 was published. For that matter, why not present related areas within the IPCC AR4 WG1 physical science report that misrepresented the views held by Landsea at the point AR4 was published. Don't hesitate to bring forward related areas within AR4 WG1 that could actually substantiate your suggestion, your inference towards, as you say, 'corruption and politicization'. Otherwise, until you do so... you're simply following the standard Simple ton process of fabrication and distortion.

Keepitsimple · February 19, 2010

continued Simple ton bullshit - notwithstanding Landsea's prima donna act, no individual scientist represents the IPCC to the public... no individual scientist can speak to the public on behalf of the IPCC. The IPCC reports are a matter of record, full transparency on all reviews of scientific literature & comments related to the reviews is maintained and available in the public domain.

I think I see Waldo. You're saying that nobody - especially the media - should listen (or believe) anything that an IPCC "Scientist" has to say at a formal press conference unless they specifically refer to a line in the IPCC Report.....otherwise, they are on their own. So Kevin Trenberth, one of the most influential characters within the IPCC and introduced as a lead IPCC author, misrepresents/lies about hurricanes and storms at a press conference, the media incites the public with cataclysmic claims based on his comments....and the IPCC are not politicizing the issue because "individual scientists don't speak for the IPCC"? I guess I missed the part where Trenberth was sanctioned by the IPCC for making those statements.

Don't you realize how utterly stupid that sounds?

Edited February 19, 2010 by Keepitsimple

waldo · February 19, 2010

I think I see Waldo. You're saying that nobody - especially the media - should listen (or believe) anything that an IPCC "Scientist" has to say at a formal press conference unless they specifically refer to a line in the IPCC Report.....otherwise, they are on their own. So Kevin Trenberth, one of the most influential characters within the IPCC and introduced as a lead IPCC author, misrepresents/lies about hurricanes and storms at a press conference, the media incites the public with cataclysmic claims based on his comments....and the IPCC are not politicizing the issue because "individual scientists don't speak for the IPCC"?

nice deflection from the actual physical science, hey Simple? Step up to the challenge Simple - show where in Chapter 3 of the WG1 AR4 that the actual physical science of the day (when AR4 was published) misrepresented issues related to hurricanes... show where your claims of corruption and politicization, under influence of lead-author Trenberth, can be readily observed within AR4 WG1. C'mon Simple - step up!

your weak failed attempt is easily dismissed by simply pointing out to you the hundreds of skeptic scientists that have been a part of the IPCC process & reports... whose research is referenced and cited within the reports... do you refer to them as "IPCC Scientists", Simple? Do you refer to skeptical lead authors as "IPCC Scientists"... when IPCC lead author John Christy, one of the higher profile skeptics, makes his regular pronouncements that are contrary to the IPCC reports, do you refer to John Christy as an "IPCC Scientist"?

another failed attempt by Simple to fabricate and distort - shot down in flames, big time! :lol:

Keepitsimple · February 19, 2010

another failed attempt by Simple to fabricate and distort - shot down in flames, big time!

You'd better check Waldo, your clothes are on fire....

Edited February 19, 2010 by Keepitsimple

waldo · February 19, 2010

You'd better check Waldo, your clothes are on fire....

Simple... step up to the challenge... actually present something other than your fabrications... your distortions. C'mon Simple - step up! - show where in Chapter 3 of the WG1 AR4 that the actual physical science of the day (when AR4 was published) misrepresented issues related to hurricanes... show where your claims of corruption and politicization, under influence of lead-author Trenberth, can be readily observed within AR4 WG1.

c'mon Simple - step up!

Keepitsimple · February 19, 2010

Simple... step up to the challenge... actually present something other than your fabrications... your distortions. C'mon Simple - step up! - show where in Chapter 3 of the WG1 AR4 that the actual physical science of the day (when AR4 was published) misrepresented issues related to hurricanes... show where your claims of corruption and politicization, under influence of lead-author Trenberth, can be readily observed within AR4 WG1.

c'mon Simple - step up!

Are you completely dense? I never said it was in the report. He made the statements in a Press Conference even before the science was in and the report was produced. He was introduced as a Lead Author for the IPCC. His willingness to make unsupported statements about hurricanes shows the the IPCC "process" is politicized......he KNEW the information was not substantiated, yet he went ahead and blurted it out. Get yout head out of your backside.

That politicization goes hand in hand with something that DID appear in the report and yes - it's those pesky glaciers again....

Murari Lal, the lead author of the chapter in the 2007 IPCC report in which wildly inaccurate claims about melting Himalayan glaciers appeared, admitted that he knew the information was inaccurate, but “We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.”

Are you getting it yet Waldo?

Edited February 19, 2010 by Keepitsimple

waldo · February 19, 2010

Simple... step up to the challenge... actually present something other than your fabrications... your distortions. C'mon Simple - step up! - show where in Chapter 3 of the WG1 AR4 that the actual physical science of the day (when AR4 was published) misrepresented issues related to hurricanes... show where your claims of corruption and politicization, under influence of lead-author Trenberth, can be readily observed within AR4 WG1.

c'mon Simple - step up!

Are you completely dense? I never said it was in the report. He made the statements in a Press Conference even before the science was in and the report was produced. He was introduced as a Lead Author for the IPCC. His willingness to make unsupported statements about hurricanes shows the the IPCC "process" is politicized......he KNEW the information was not substantiated, yet he went ahead and blurted it out. Get yout head out of your backside.

That politicization goes hand in hand with something that DID appear in the report and yes - it's those pesky glaciers again....

Murari Lal, the lead author of the chapter in the 2007 IPCC report in which wildly inaccurate claims about melting Himalayan glaciers appeared, admitted that he knew the information was inaccurate, but “We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.”

Are you getting it yet Waldo?

noting you won't/can't take up the challenge, you really should try to keep up Simple ton... we've already dealt with the trash British tabloid journalism falsification concerning Murari Lal. But you're not getting it are you Simple - your favoured denail blogs are simply offering you up the tripe trimmings of British... ahem... tabloid "journalists", David Rose, Johnathan Leake, Piers Ackerman, etc.

as for the earlier nonsense that emanated from the scurrilous Daily Mail/David Rose, we now have the scientist involved, Murari Lal, disputing the statements attributed to him... better yet, a full blown "Rosegate" has bubbled forth, given this and the numerous past examples of unsubstantiated tripe David Rose & the Daily Mail spew forth. Although Lal's comments refuting the Daily Mail/David Rose also appear within the NYT's Dot Earth column... I've linked to this blog because it also highlights another typical practice of late... one where we see more reputable publications like US News and World Report & Science News simply reprinting unverified blog posts of erroneous stories. Of course, this makes great fodder for the MLW types who jump at any chance to similarly post unsubstantiated accounts they presume to align with their agenda. Certainly, journalistic laziness reigns supreme!

your idiocy knows no bounds - I asked you pointedly to state whether or not John Christy, a skeptical lead author of past IPCC reports, should be labeled an "IPCC scientist" when he, quite regularly, speaks to aspects of the science that are contrary to past published IPCC reports. When he does that, Simple... does that suggest the IPCC process is, as you say, politicized? There is nothing... nothing... different from that analogy to John Christy, then what you've attempted with your parroting against Trenberth. Nothing more proves your failed parroting then to highlight, again - with emphasis, that you can't bring anything related forward from within AR4 WG1 Chapter 3 (where Trenberth was one of the lead authors), to indicate that the relevant science concerning hurricanes was misrepresented... that, you can't bring anything forward to substantiate what you say, what you infer. You have nothing to substantiate that Trenberth acted to corrupt and politicize the IPCC process. Again... step up... take the challenge. The IPCC process is the process that produces the iterative reports - step up and substantiate your parroting that Trenberth corrupted and politicized the portion of the AR4 WG1 report he co-lead authored - chapter 3. Step up... or shut up.

Keepitsimple · February 19, 2010

your idiocy knows no bounds - I asked you pointedly to state whether or not John Christy, a skeptical lead author of past IPCC reports, should be labeled an "IPCC scientist" when he, quite regularly, speaks to aspects of the science that are contrary to past published IPCC reports. When he does that, Simple... does that suggest the IPCC process is, as you say, politicized? There is nothing... nothing... different from that analogy to John Christy, then what you've attempted with your parroting against Trenberth. Nothing more proves your failed parroting then to highlight, again - with emphasis, that you can't bring anything related forward from within AR4 WG1 Chapter 3 (where Trenberth was one of the lead authors), to indicate that the relevant science concerning hurricanes was misrepresented... that, you can't bring anything forward to substantiate what you say, what you infer. You have nothing to substantiate that Trenberth acted to corrupt and politicize the IPCC process. Again... step up... take the challenge. The IPCC process is the process that produces the iterative reports - step up and substantiate your parroting that Trenberth corrupted and politicized the portion of the AR4 WG1 report he co-lead authored - chapter 3. Step up... or shut up.

Not sure what your point is.....John Christy is a former contributor and lead author to the IPCC process....and that's how he could be identified if there was a need to do so. Trenberth is an active IPCC contributor and wields significant influence. So once agin Waldo - it was what Trenberth said in the Press Conference - not what ended up in the report. He should have been accountable for his misrepresentations and that's why Landsea resigned. Pretty simply and goes to the heart of the need for advocacy and politicization on behalf of the IPCC to further their APW agenda. You're a totally hopeless believer Waldo....an APW religious zeolot....incredible - but mostly amusing.

waldo · February 19, 2010

Not sure what your point is.....John Christy is a former contributor and lead author to the IPCC process....and that's how he could be identified if there was a need to do so. Trenberth is an active IPCC contributor and wields significant influence. So once agin Waldo - it was what Trenberth said in the Press Conference - not what ended up in the report. He should have been accountable for his misrepresentations and that's why Landsea resigned. Pretty simply and goes to the heart of the need for advocacy and politicization on behalf of the IPCC to further their APW agenda. You're a totally hopeless believer Waldo....an APW religious zeolot....incredible - but mostly amusing.

yes, you truly are amusing. At the point of that press conference you're so fixated on... both John Christy and Trenberth held the same status - they were both former lead authors of the IPCC 2001 TAR (third assessment report). Whatever, a scientist chooses to research... chooses to say, has no direct reflection upon an already published IPCC report - which reflects the science of the day at the point of publication. Does science move forward... do scientists adjust their knowledge, their research, their opinions over time? Of course they do. Whatever Trenberth's stated opinions were at that press conference (post-TAR, pre-AR4), however they may or may not have differed from Landsea, the result from the AR4 WG1 Chapter 3 report is there... staring you in the face, Simple! Your self-serving pronouncement on the influence of Trenberth, somehow... didn't manage to alter the IPCC AR4 WG1 Chapter 3 report to anything other than what was reflected within the science of the day, at the point AR4 was published.

you're so stoopid, somehow you're suggesting that the opinions Trenberth held prior to the TAR report... were either OK and reflected the science of that day, or... were counter to the science of the day and paralleled what he said at the post-TAR press conference. In either/or circumstance, neither the 2001 TAR WG1 report, or the 2007 AR4 WG1 report... misrepresent the science related to hurricanes of either day each respective report was published. You have nothing to suggest that the IPCC process was influenced by Trenberth - you have nothing to substantiate your claim that, as you say, as you infer, Trenberth corrupted and politicized the respective reports concerning the science related to hurricanes.

once again... much ado about another Simple (attempted, but failed) case of fabrication and distortion.

c'mon Simple... take up the challenge :lol:

Shady · February 19, 2010

You're a totally hopeless believer Waldo....an APW religious zeolot

Exactly. You're never going to be able to use logic and reason in a discussion with an AGW true-believer. You'd have better luck with one of David Koresh's Branch Davidians. :lol:

His global-warming world is crumbling around him. It just yesterday that the head of the IPCC resigned in shame. Missing data, manipulated data, inaccurate models, programming fudge factors, hiding the decline, false reports, but amid this, the brave waldo fights on. In wwII, he'd be one of the Nazi's helping move around already captured armies on the map, planning out his absolutely assured victory over those damned allies. :lol:

BubberMiley · February 20, 2010

Meanwhile, the people living in reality fight over who has rights to the opening Arctic passage. Fortunately, the deniers are considered as credible as the birthers or the truthers. They will latch onto any little thing and blow it far out of proportion to try and bring substance to their empty theories.

bush_cheney2004 · February 20, 2010

....His global-warming world is crumbling around him. It just yesterday that the head of the IPCC resigned in shame. Missing data, manipulated data, inaccurate models, programming fudge factors, hiding the decline, false reports, but amid this, the brave waldo fights on. In wwII, he'd be one of the Nazi's helping move around already captured armies on the map, planning out his absolutely assured victory over those damned allies.

Yes indeed...complete with mocking satire:

...and many others!

waldo · February 20, 2010

Exactly. You're never going to be able to use logic and reason in a discussion with an AGW true-believer. You'd have better luck with one of David Koresh's Branch Davidians.
His global-warming world is crumbling around him. It just yesterday that the head of the IPCC resigned in shame. Missing data, manipulated data, inaccurate models, programming fudge factors, hiding the decline, false reports, but amid this, the brave waldo fights on. In wwII, he'd be one of the Nazi's helping move around already captured armies on the map, planning out his absolutely assured victory over those damned allies.

coming from an idgit moran like yourself... I'm crushed. Hey Einstein... check your tabloid sources concerning the head of the IPCC resigning... in shame, no less :lol:

you've got nothing... no missing data, no manipulated data, no fudge factors, no hiding the decline... but... you interest me with your claim concerning inaccurate models. Please, let's hear more - let's see you scurry about and find something to cut&paste. And... you still have the audacity to keep your current signature - you haven't a clue, you really don't.

yours is the favoured game of the denier - look for quote snippets and attempt to exploit them by, typically, twisting their intended meaning to suit your agenda. We see a classic example of this same game played out in recent days by Shady, our own MLW purveyor of the dishonest British tabloid misinformation campaign. Granted, there is one distinction with Shady's game... he's not intentionally distorting, since that would presume he actually understood the premise behind the quote snippet he's attempting to leverage. In any case, in that same confidence vein, perhaps you could offer comment on the settled nature of Shady's quote distortion:
=> a premise of statistical significance associated with a 95% confidence level means there is only a 5% chance of a particular finding occurring purely by chance. Even accepting to playing the 15 year short-term trend game, would a 95% confidence level that measured warming of 0.15 degrees centigrade per decade occurred (over that 15 year period)... that the warming was real... that the warming was not a statistical fluke - would that 95% confidence level suggest to you that the premise behind Shady's quote distortion was settled... or not settled?

hey bush_cheney... don't be shy... I know you take a serious rubbin each time you presume to jump in and showcase your merkin prominence, but don't let that dissuade you from actually trying.

Bonam · February 20, 2010

I find it funny how people get so wound up about what some heavily politicized individuals say or do in regards to the topic of global warming. The reality is very simple, as can be shown with trivial experiments and can be derived by a college physics student, increasing the concentration of a greenhouse gas in a system exposed to a flux of radiation will cause more of the energy to be retained in the system rather than being re-emitted.

Incoming radiation coming from the sun is energetic, much of it in the visible spectrum, and CO2 is transparent to this radiation. It comes through the atmosphere and is absorbed by the Earth's surface, heating it up. The Earth's surface emits back the radiation at a much lower energy, in the infrared range, to which CO2 is not so transparent, so much of that radiation gets trapped in the atmosphere rather than being re-emitted into space.

That means that the overall system (the Earth and its atmosphere) gains energy, heating up. More C02 -> more energy retained in the atmosphere -> higher average temperature.

Everyone is arguing over some statistics gathered in some studies or about some emails that were sent between people, and yet completely ignore the easily understandable and plainly obvious reality.

Edited February 20, 2010 by Bonam

Oleg Bach · February 20, 2010

Coal fired plants is the way to go! More energy and more high definition TV - with pictures of waterfalls and beautiful meadows...Asking the kid a while back why there were no trees or greenery of any kind in his violent video games - and he answered my as a true utlitariate - "Dad we don't need trees" _Great...a kid who plans to live out his life in virtual dream land- Wonder if he will notice his failing resperation in 20 years as he joy sticks his way into suffocation.

bush_cheney2004 · February 20, 2010

hey bush_cheney... don't be shy... I know you take a serious rubbin each time you presume to jump in and showcase your merkin prominence, but don't let that dissuade you from actually trying.

Hey...that's very funny coming from a guy who sucks and blows NASA (data) just for survival on the topic.

bush_cheney2004 · February 20, 2010

...Everyone is arguing over some statistics gathered in some studies or about some emails that were sent between people, and yet completely ignore the easily understandable and plainly obvious reality.

Nope...some of us just don't care either way, until you make a move for my wallet.

Earth laughs at our puny arguments.

Oleg Bach · February 20, 2010

Nope...some of us just don't care either way, until you make a move for my wallet.

Earth laughs at our puny arguments.

Pretty good BC. Just like a dog on a hot afternoon..it will lounge and lay dripping from it's hounds yap - and seem almost dead - but go for his dish of left over meatloaf and he will slobber you to death and bite as he goes...The wallet..that fat wallet that represents pride - self esteem - food and the ability to buy favours - take that away and a man would rather global warm to death then give up his material dignity to live like a sacred cow using washabel toilet paper in India.