The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Political Ammunition => Global Warming, Its Myths and Its Truths => Topic started by: bijou on September 02, 2010, 04:35:27 PM
-
If this keeps up, no one's going to trust any scientists.
The global-warming establishment took a body blow this week, as the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change received a stunning rebuke from a top-notch independent investigation.
For two decades, the IPCC has spearheaded efforts to convince the world's governments that man-made carbon emissions pose a threat to the global temperature equilibrium -- and to civilization itself. IPCC reports, collated from the work of hundreds of climate scientists and bureaucrats, are widely cited as evidence for the urgent need for drastic action to "save the planet."
But the prestigious InterAcademy Council, an independent association of "the best scientists and engineers worldwide" (as the group's own Web site puts it) formed in 2000 to give "high-quality advice to international bodies," has finished a thorough review of IPCC practices -- and found them badly wanting. ...
Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/meltdown_of_the_climate_consensus_G0kWdclUvwhVr6DYH6A4uJ#ixzz0yPVUUkof
-
Nothin' like a good old-fashioned asswhipping to liven the day!
:yahoo:
-
Would you care to say exactly what flaws they found with the consensus, and how they went about proving them? Or are you just reposting articles that agree with you? Any chance of a direct link to an actual study? I'm a hopeful, I know.
Last check, 97% of scientists were at a consensus on this.
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
Here is an actual study that shows this. Notice the closer you get to the actual science(or "conspiracy" as I'm sure some will suggest, and never be able to prove) the more confident they get. There is a huge disconnect between the science and public opinion largely because it's been politicised by the right wing/big business and it's really complicated stuff that you have to be a climatologist to understand. The "it's complicated" thing is used as a reason why scientists can't predict the climate, but apparently anonymous right wing keyboard warriors can? Give them a break. They work hard at this stuff.
I doubt "climategate" affected this notably and ultimately seems to be hurting the reputation of the deniers for 1) Not even reading the emails in full, 2) Assuming that one scientist represents the whole CRU, 3) Assuming the CRU isn't just one of dozens of such centers worldwide, 4) Not realising the famous "data" was taken from another source anyway, so they could only delete their copy.
That's not saying you have to agree with them. You can be the 3%. But acting like the "real" scientists are against the idea of AGW, or that scientists can't be trusted(yet you trust them on all the theories that keep your computer running, and that it's not devil magic) doesn't make serious people want to debate you on this.
If you have a genuine reason why AGW seems unlikely to, and not just a bunch of crossposted articles with what someone wants you to think, then by all means let's talk about that. But don't post flat out made up shit about there being no consensus on global warming when clearly there is. If you can accept that fact and debate it anyway without insisting all scientists that disagree with you are commie spies, then more the power to you.
-
One of the leaders of the IPCC, Mr. Hulme, recently wrote a report admitting that the supposed thousands of scientists was really just "a few dozen."
http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php/topic,45651.0.html
You're behind the time, toots.
-
Would you care to say exactly what flaws they found with the consensus, and how they went about proving them? Or are you just reposting articles that agree with you? Any chance of a direct link to an actual study? I'm a hopeful, I know.
Last check, 97% of scientists were at a consensus on this.
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
Here is an actual study that shows this. Notice the closer you get to the actual science(or "conspiracy" as I'm sure some will suggest, and never be able to prove) the more confident they get. There is a huge disconnect between the science and public opinion largely because it's been politicised by the right wing/big business and it's really complicated stuff that you have to be a climatologist to understand. The "it's complicated" thing is used as a reason why scientists can't predict the climate, but apparently anonymous right wing keyboard warriors can? Give them a break. They work hard at this stuff.
I doubt "climategate" affected this notably and ultimately seems to be hurting the reputation of the deniers for 1) Not even reading the emails in full, 2) Assuming that one scientist represents the whole CRU, 3) Assuming the CRU isn't just one of dozens of such centers worldwide, 4) Not realising the famous "data" was taken from another source anyway, so they could only delete their copy.
That's not saying you have to agree with them. You can be the 3%. But acting like the "real" scientists are against the idea of AGW, or that scientists can't be trusted(yet you trust them on all the theories that keep your computer running, and that it's not devil magic) doesn't make serious people want to debate you on this.
If you have a genuine reason why AGW seems unlikely to, and not just a bunch of crossposted articles with what someone wants you to think, then by all means let's talk about that. But don't post flat out made up shit about there being no consensus on global warming when clearly there is. If you can accept that fact and debate it anyway without insisting all scientists that disagree with you are commie spies, then more the power to you.
The number one flaw with the consensus is it was an alleged consensus. Which, scientifically, means nothing.
-
One of the leaders of the IPCC, Mr. Hulme, recently wrote a report admitting that the supposed thousands of scientists was really just "a few dozen."
http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php/topic,45651.0.html
You're behind the time, toots.
Sorry bro, Mr. Hulme didn't mean for you to use his report that way.
Give this a gander:
http://mikehulme.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Correcting-reports-of-the-PiPG-paper.pdf
First, I did not say the ‘IPCC misleads’ anyone – it is claims that are made by other commentators, such as the caricatured claim I offer in the paper, that have the potential to mislead. Second, they have a potential to mislead if they give the impression that every statement in IPCC reports is ‘signed off’ by every IPCC author and reviewer. Patently they are not, and cannot. Third, it is the chapter lead authors – say 10 to 20 experts – on detection and attribution who craft the sentence about detection and attribution, which is then scrutinised and vetted by reviewers and government officials. Similarly, statements about what may happen to the meridional overturning circulation (MOC) of the ocean are crafted by those expert in ocean science, statements about future sea-level rise by sea-level experts, and so on.
This is why crosspointing news articles makes for bad arguments. Do you even realise what was being said? Climategate was only a scandal because of this practice.
I also don't believe that deals with the study I posted anyway.
-
The number one flaw with the consensus is it was an alleged consensus. Which, scientifically, means nothing.
Did you read the survey?
What do you even mean by alleged? They sent this out to thousands of people, and these are the results that came back. This might not be perfect, but it's hardly going to be completley divorced from reality, unless you're going to push another ridiculous conspiracy where the deniers had a gun to their head and couldn't tell the truth(then why did a few do it anyway?).
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
Please get into the habit of reading studies and accepting their validity if they check out... some studies leave a lot of leeway so they don't prove anything outright, but this one is hard to refute. I would have a lot of respect for you if you could accept there is some truth to this survey.
-
Ever notice how Al Gore says consenus.....Con-since-us....maybe someone has a gun to Al's head and he's trying to tell us something.
-
(http://longrangeweather.com/images/GTEMPS.gif)
-
(http://longrangeweather.com/images/GTEMPS.gif)
I know it's a pretty pictue with colors but that is information overload for DUmmies.
-
Did you read the survey?
What do you even mean by alleged? They sent this out to thousands of people, and these are the results that came back. This might not be perfect, but it's hardly going to be completley divorced from reality, unless you're going to push another ridiculous conspiracy where the deniers had a gun to their head and couldn't tell the truth(then why did a few do it anyway?).
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
Please get into the habit of reading studies and accepting their validity if they check out... some studies leave a lot of leeway so they don't prove anything outright, but this one is hard to refute. I would have a lot of respect for you if you could accept there is some truth to this survey.
The whole idea of a "scientific consensus" means nothing. It certainly has nothing to do with science. Why not a consensus of Helens?
[youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDTZcj8Xink[/youtube]
-
Would you care to say exactly what flaws they found with the consensus, and how they went about proving them? Or are you just reposting articles that agree with you? Any chance of a direct link to an actual study? I'm a hopeful, I know.
Last check, 97% of scientists were at a consensus on this.
<snip for sanity>
Look, before you (a newbie) become embroiled in a discussion that has been attempted by more articulate and educated lefties than yourself, I suggest that you spend some time reading ALL of the arguments that have been proffered by the AGW alarmists here in the past, and as a quick scan will yield to you, there have been many attempts, and all have failed.......failed, because on close examination, the entire concept of AGW, and a "consensus" is so severely flawed, as to be ludicrous.
I am a scientist (albeit retired), one set of the entirely useless groups of letters behind my name on my CV, happens to be "FAAC".......just in cast you are not aware, this stands for "Fellow of the American Academy of Science".......therefore I know a bit about the subject. So I'll start with one simple fact:
There is no such thing as a "consensus" in science.........the world was not determined to be spherical because of a majority vote........it was so determined by examining the evidence and establishing repeatable and irrefutable calculations that moved the concept from the area of "theory" into that of established, observable fact.
Although "climate science" is not my discipline, I have read EVERY paper presented at Kyoto, and Copenhagen, as well as all of the releases from the IPCC (what a collection of garbage these are), and have managed to arrive at a reasonable conclusion based on all of the "science" that has been presented in support of the "concept" of AGW (I use the word "concept", because it doesn't even meet the scientific test to be referred to as a "theory").
My conclusion is this: There is absolutely NO pure unadulterated, unmanipulated data, which can be replicated in accordance with scientific method, and supported by corroborating geological or biological evidence to reinforce the concept (that word again) of AGW.......it simply doesn't pass the test of scientific reality......END OF DISCUSSION.
What I did find........is unquestionable evidence of a leftist cabal dedicated to establishing significant control of the world's resources (and economy), and redistributing wealth from industrialized nations to third-world ones, under the guise of capping and controlling carbon dioxide emissions, restricting use of carbon-based fuels,all of which are a natural presence in the planet's ecosystem. Essentially, AGW is a public relations stunt of biblical proportions designed to hoodwink the uneducated and uninitiated into believing that some sort of "global emergency" exists.......it's been attempted before (although not on this scale), and failed as well.
Therefore, it is my renewed suggestion that you aquaint yourself with the arguments presented here in the past, before you bore the hell out of us recycling all the old discredited discussions..........it will be greatly appreciated.
Oh.....and as an aside, as a moderator here, if I catch you using a reference or a link from the website www.realclimate.org I will toss you out of this forum so fast that you will have trouble standing up for a week (figuratively, of course)........capiche?
doc
-
I learned something at www.realclimate.org
climate change contrarians: Dat what eye R.
-
Hey Endora if you believe global warming errr climate change errr weather disruption is melting polar bears than why not do your part to stop it? Stop using any fossil fuels of any kind. That includes turning off all power to your house. Hell according to you loons everytime we breathe out we add even more carbon to the air. So just the fact that any of us breathe is melting polar bears.
I used to think it was a joke that Democrats would figure out how to tax the air we breathe well ladies and gentlesmurfs looks like they found a way.
:banghead: