Open letter to UN Secretary General from 125+ Scientists

[wyly]

Ahhhhhhhhh 594 Page report.... Yes whyly.... I'm delving into that....Nicely done..... Your a clever one....

My engineers ring(s) must refute my understanding... Silly me

engineer ya ya and I'm a nobel prize winning astrophysicist oh we can all be just so special on the internet can't we ...

I supply a simple data graph and you do what with it???? what, engineers can't interpret a simple graph? too complex?

Edited December 1, 2012 by wyly

[wyly]

Hey squid, it's always a pleasure to banter with you. you seem years older than the following...nn Instead of just being "beavis" to his "buthead"... Why don't you back your boys statement up? Are you just a cheerleader?

I would love some facts,, nay.... I say even opinion at this stage.....

facts? really what post was that? when have you ever supplied facts anywhere?...you flame, you troll. you taunt, you insult, facts have never been part of your MO since you joined the forum...

[wyly]

I would love to see a debate based on scientific merits. The trouble is the climate science community is filled with alarmist ideologues and group-think that it is impossible to have such a discussion.

Climate science has no credibility as a scientific field until the climate science community cleans up their act and demonstrates a willingness to speak out against the misrepresentation of science in the name of promoting the IPCC political agenda.

oh ya, go show me where my analysis of the start date for cherry picking data conveniently always starts at the el Nino event of 97-98....ya I thought not

[Guest]

of coarse they lied in their assumptions, they're frauds...they can't do basic science correctly so none of what they have to say is of any value...

Lied in what assumptions? One doesn't need to be a climate scientist to know we won't do anything to affect the climate now. The kind of action required to do that simply is not going to happen. People should realize that before they blow billions on mindless "green" projects and spend the money on things that will actually help.

That's not to say that every effort should not be made to reduce pollution, but it should be for its own sake. It won't affect climate change.

Edited December 1, 2012 by bcsapper

[TimG]

oh ya, go show me where my analysis of the start date for cherry picking data conveniently always starts at the el Nino event of 97-98

What does that have to do with my comment? Climate science is a field filled by people corrupted by the desire to do something they think is meaningful. As a result, they grossly exaggerate the significance of their findings and ignore facts that cast doubt on them. You accuse skeptics of cherry picking start dates - yet I have lost count of the so called 'consensus' papers that cherry pick start or end dates and draw conclusions that do not hold up if a different time range is used. So take your pathetic hypocrisy and shove it . People in glass houses should not throw stones. Edited December 1, 2012 by TimG

[bush_cheney2004]

What does that have to do with my comment? Climate science is a field filled by people corrupted by the desire to do something they think is meaningful....

Agreed...we now have organizations like 350.org that have moved beyond the debate phase and refuse to tolerate any more questioning of the new climate change religion. They want to take the battle to "Big Oil" divestment by universities, pension plans, and other organizations. I guess when they are done there will be a big group hug.

http://www.350.org/mission

Edited December 1, 2012 by bush_cheney2004

[blueblood]

Ah when in doubt,go straight back to calling anyone whom disagrees an "denier"

And for the record,I find this label offensive,therefore will report anyone who uses it!

WWWTT

Good god! It's an adjective, if you can't take the heat stay out of the kitchen.

I'm not even on wyly's side in the debate, but he isn't reporting those who use the alarmist label.

Life's tough wear a helmet.

[Michael Hardner]

I would love to see a debate based on scientific merits. The trouble is the climate science community is filled with alarmist ideologues and group-think that it is impossible to have such a discussion.

Climate science has no credibility as a scientific field until the climate science community cleans up their act and demonstrates a willingness to speak out against the misrepresentation of science in the name of promoting the IPCC political agenda.

You're back into the conspiracy theory side of this debate. Climate Scientists reflect the science, and have recently indicated that warming is slowing. Why would they do that if they had an agenda ?

[Michael Hardner]

They are scientists and I'm certain they have the ability to read and comprehend scientific studies and are familiar with the scientific method. I don't believe you are a scientist Michael and neither are those here that steadfastly hold to the AGW/CC theory. I would put far more "faith" in the scientific interpretation of AGW from the people on this list than the proponents of the sky is falling rhetoric that think they have a handle on things.

I'm as much of a scientist as some people on that list Pliny. I can see why they have doubts, however if they're up to it then can publish a paper that refutes the 100s of papers out there. Real scientists don't go on FOX, or on the UFO show "Coast to Coast" as Tim Ball has to claim that everybody's out to get him.

There are also a host of scientists and engineers who think 9/11 was done by a govt. conspiracy. I don't bow down before their credentials any more than I do to Fletch's engineering ring. If just having a degree in science made you correct ... I guess we would have 100% consensus right ? Even within Climate Science there is no consensus. So publish your paper and let's see the alternate hypothesis. Maybe Climate Change theory is wrong, but the truth will come out in science not populist politics and appeals to the mob...

[Pliny]

I'm as much of a scientist as some people on that list Pliny. I can see why they have doubts, however if they're up to it then can publish a paper that refutes the 100s of papers out there. Real scientists don't go on FOX, or on the UFO show "Coast to Coast" as Tim Ball has to claim that everybody's out to get him.

There are also a host of scientists and engineers who think 9/11 was done by a govt. conspiracy. I don't bow down before their credentials any more than I do to Fletch's engineering ring. If just having a degree in science made you correct ... I guess we would have 100% consensus right ? Even within Climate Science there is no consensus. So publish your paper and let's see the alternate hypothesis. Maybe Climate Change theory is wrong, but the truth will come out in science not populist politics and appeals to the mob...

I'm as much of a scientist as some people on that list Pliny. I can see why they have doubts, however if they're up to it then can publish a paper that refutes the 100s of papers out there. Real scientists don't go on FOX, or on the UFO show "Coast to Coast" as Tim Ball has to claim that everybody's out to get him.

There are also a host of scientists and engineers who think 9/11 was done by a govt. conspiracy. I don't bow down before their credentials any more than I do to Fletch's engineering ring. If just having a degree in science made you correct ... I guess we would have 100% consensus right ? Even within Climate Science there is no consensus. So publish your paper and let's see the alternate hypothesis. Maybe Climate Change theory is wrong, but the truth will come out in science not populist politics and appeals to the mob...

Maybe Climate Change theory is wrong? Do you wish to recant that statement?

If not, should we start building dykes on our coasts, stop using oil, throw up windmills and install solar panels wherever we can, paint all our roofs white even if Climate Change theory may be wrong?

Because the IPCC is a UN agency it and its publications are, in my mind, immediately suspect. The politics came first with worry over consumption and fear of depletion of non-renewable resources all borne out of the fear of over-population and like-minded scientists provide the data to back the policies.

Now that Obama has been re-elected we are going to see the far-left flex its muscles not just in the US but on a global scale, there will be increased Union activism, calls for action on Climate Change, the Occupy movement will intensify, all sorts of special interests will be demanding entitlement and because Obama's policies will intensify the economic hardship (all the fault of Republicans, or the global economy, or the weather) in the US there will be more social unrest which will require clamping down on, and so the vortex spins.

Edited December 1, 2012 by Pliny

[Argus]

Read the letter. They are indeed disputing climate change. It is the opening paragraph of the letter. "Global warming that has not occurred..."

They dispute the causes, not that the climate has changed. They state there has been no statistically significant warming in the past 16 years, and that his assertions, ie blaming Global Warming for Hurricane Sandy, are not supported. They also say:

Policy actions that aim to reduce CO2 emissions are unlikely to influence future climate. Policies need to focus on preparation for, and adaptation to, all dangerous climatic events, however caused

Which is rather indisputable. Even those who believe wholeheartedly in CO2 influenced warming cannot posit a methodology for substantial reductions without bankrupting most of the world.

[Michael Hardner]

If not, should we start building dykes on our coasts, stop using oil, throw up windmills and install solar panels wherever we can, paint all our roofs white even if Climate Change theory may be wrong?

The question is not whether it's possible that something is wrong, but whether it is likely and the attendant risks to each response, or to no response.

Because the IPCC is a UN agency it and its publications are, in my mind, immediately suspect...

Now we're in baby-talk land. If you think the UN is a world-wide conspiracy then we don't have a basis to start a conversation. The idea that the UN being associated with something alone makes you suspicious means that you regard authority with suspicion anyway.

And the rest of your post is just more bogeyman politics. I advise you to find a 9/11 trooth believer and engage with them.

[WWWTT]

Good god! It's an adjective, if you can't take the heat stay out of the kitchen.

I'm not even on wyly's side in the debate, but he isn't reporting those who use the alarmist label.

Life's tough wear a helmet.

If you do not follow forum rules,you get suspended!

I guess this is beyond your comprehension.

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

Maybe Climate Change theory is wrong, but the truth will come out in science not populist politics and appeals to the mob...

Maybe the truth will come with time.

WWWTT

[PIK]

and the irrelevant tim ball a geographer who claims to be a climatologist at the U of Winnipeg which didn't have a climatology department...he's a paid energy sector shill that works for "friends of science" ...

Then show us, because he has proved he has not recieved one cent for anybody in the energy sector. That is a myth .

[wyly]

Then show us, because he has proved he has not recieved one cent for anybody in the energy sector. That is a myth .

Dr. Timothy Ball is Chairman and Chair of the Scientific Advisory Committee of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (NRSP).^[1] Two of the three directors of the NRSP - Timothy Egan and Julio Lagos - are executives with the PR and lobbying company, the High Park Group (HPG).^[2] Both HPG and Egan and Lagos work for energy industry clients and companies on energy policy.^[3]

Ball is a Canadian climate change skeptic and was previously a "scientific advisor" to the oil industry-backed organization, Friends of Science.^[4] Ball is a member of the Board of Research Advisors of the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, a Canadian free-market think tank which is predominantly funded by foundations and corporations.^[5]

and "friends of science"- http://www.greenpeac...oup/blog/36895/ the U of C cut it's links with friends of science because it had a political agenda funded by energy corporations...

you need to be quite naive to believe these professional deniers travel the denial lecture circuit for free...transportation costs, hotels, meals, gifts, lecture fees, the lecture circuit is an occupation it itself...if Ball supported the AGW theory he'd be at home gathering dust in retirement...

[wyly]

what still no one refutes my points

moonbox claims " The IPCC disputes the assertion that we're causing extreme weather".- oops http://www.ipcc-wg2....X-All_FINAL.pdf ?

then in regards to the "open letter" a clear dishonest misrepresentation of the facts, a deliberate cherry picking of data that anyone with grade school science can spot... claims of warming has stopped or even cooled since 1998 , really who do these supposedly reputable125+ scientists think they're fooling, of course the answer is no one they're not reputable... a simple graph, grade school stuff and no one here wants to step up and show me where I'm wrong http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Satellite_Temperatures.png these 125+ charlatans trying to claim long term trends by deliberately using short term data , but a simple extension of the data shows a clear increase of temp....

[wyly]

Good god! It's an adjective, if you can't take the heat stay out of the kitchen.

I'm not even on wyly's side in the debate, but he isn't reporting those who use the alarmist label.

Life's tough wear a helmet.

I've lost counted of how many times I've been labeled, leftist, commie, socialist, alarmist, tree hugger, etc....

[Keepitsimple]

The question is not whether it's possible that something is wrong, but whether it is likely and the attendant risks to each response, or to no response.

Now we're in baby-talk land. If you think the UN is a world-wide conspiracy then we don't have a basis to start a conversation. The idea that the UN being associated with something alone makes you suspicious means that you regard authority with suspicion anyway.

And the rest of your post is just more bogeyman politics. I advise you to find a 9/11 trooth believer and engage with them.

Michael....there is no "conspiracy" but the IPCC/UN quickly fell into the "law of unintended consequences". By creating a mandate that focused solely on Human-induced warming, it soon became an ideology. Funding of scientists and projects flow towards that mandate. Why do you think their mandate was only for human-induced causes - when it's clear that we did not have a fundamental understanding of Natural Climate Change - and that was certainly less of an understanding back in to 80's? Simple - because there was a pre-existing "conclusion" that humans were causing Global Warming. With such a one-sided mandate, it serves as a Raison D'etre. Keep in mind that the IPCC does not conduct scientific research - they assess studies.......so if your study/paper is not related to Human-induced Climate Change, what priority does it get? Read their mandate and tell me if you think there might be just a smidgeon of bias.....

The principles that the IPCC operates under^[10] are set out in the relevant WMO Executive Council and UNEP Governing Council resolutions and decisions as well as on actions in support of the UNFCCC process.

The aims of the IPCC are to assess scientific information relevant to:^[4]

1. Human-induced climate change,
   
   
2. The impacts of human-induced climate change,
   
   
3. Options for adaptation and mitigation.
   

Link: http://en.wikipedia...._Climate_Change

Edited December 1, 2012 by Keepitsimple

[The_Squid]

Simple - because there was a pre-existing "conclusion" that humans were causing Global Warming. With such a one-sided mandate, it serves as a Raison D'etre. Keep in mind that the IPCC does not conduct scientific research - they assess studies.......so if your study/paper is not related to Human-induced Climate Change, what priority does it get?

This is a conspiracy theory.

Once science determines that there is a distinct possibility that something is happening, the natural causation is to study it more. If the data showed we were causing global cooling, the scientists would be studying that. The climate scientists focus their efforts in the direction that the science has led. There are no studies on global cooling, because it isn't happening.

Not too many scientists are getting grants to study what happens when something falls off the edge of the world because we know that the world is indeed round.

[blueblood]

If you do not follow forum rules,you get suspended!

I guess this is beyond your comprehension.

WWWTT

No, it's a little thing called discretion, try using it sometime.

For example, mr. Canada and his rant on election night warranted reporting, respectable posters using adjectives time to time as part of their arguments doesn't warrant reporting. That's stifling debate, and to report people who disagree with you is getting to be childish. This isn't kindergarten where you run to the teacher because someone called someone else a name.

If you don't like the fact that almost everyone in the forum uses labels in one form or another, the onus lies on you to leave, not force half the community left, right, and centre who DO conduct themselves in a respectable manner out.

[The_Squid]

Reporting people who use the term "denier" is childish. Grow up WWWTT.

[TimG]

You're back into the conspiracy theory side of this debate. Climate Scientists reflect the science, and have recently indicated that warming is slowing. Why would they do that if they had an agenda ?

Your childish faith the institutions is rather silly. Scientists care about staying employed first. When blind alarmism was the required religion back in 2007 then almost all scientists fell into lock step behind the agenda. No dissent was allowed.

Today, that religion has weakened as the economies weaken so some of the scientists with stronger spines are now standing up for science. This is a good thing but the fact that some scientists are rediscovering their mission today does not excuse the behavior in the the past - nor does it excuse the agenda driven activists like wyly who completely misrepresent the science. For example, many scientists have insisted that there is no link between extreme Sandy and AGW yet we here this meme repeated over and over again as if it actually had scientific support. Why aren't you calling people out who misrepresent the science on the alarmist side?

Edited December 1, 2012 by TimG

[WWWTT]

No, it's a little thing called discretion, try using it sometime.

For example, mr. Canada and his rant on election night warranted reporting, respectable posters using adjectives time to time as part of their arguments doesn't warrant reporting. That's stifling debate, and to report people who disagree with you is getting to be childish. This isn't kindergarten where you run to the teacher because someone called someone else a name.

If you don't like the fact that almost everyone in the forum uses labels in one form or another, the onus lies on you to leave, not force half the community left, right, and centre who DO conduct themselves in a respectable manner out.

So how well does this argument work when you got suspended last time?

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

Reporting people who use the term "denier" is childish. Grow up WWWTT.

You sound concerned.

Also sounds like you want to continue verbally insulting other posters!

WWWTT