Top Scientists: "Warming Exagerated"

[bripat9643]

No --- the OP is simply heralding the consequences of "perverting science in the public interest".. The payback starts now.. The players are starting to feud amongst themselves to avoid the humilation..



Yep --- I've said that.. The skeptics have said that.. The arrogance and bullshit was stunning ------ whilst it lasted.



Pretty much my principal objection to YOUR SETTLED SCIENCE all along. Now virtually retracted and fixed by the IPCC.. What more could a skeptic ask for heh???

Not only that but fixing the lies about the MWPeriod.. ALSO a major Skeptic point of argument.. Win win eh??

If you STILL want to diss this IPCC "come to Jesus" moment..

You still ignoring?? Keep it up.. The humiliation will just get more theraputic for ya.......

I think that the graph that you posted would fool people who believe that surface temperature is the only indicator of global energy balance.

And yet that's exactly what the models were forecasting. Are you saying the scientists and the IPCC who used those forecasts were trying to fool people?

What the models were forecasting is right there on that chart, and it bares no resemblance to what the Earth is actually doing.

 

[kwc57]

Headline: The deceased was not killed by three rounds of ammo, twas only two rounds and maybe the deceased expired before the second round hit them.

Well now.....that kind of makes a difference when you keep claiming that three rounds killed the deceased doesn't it? Facts matter.

 

[kwc57]

Say you as you use mainsream science as a source.

When have I ever used the term "mainstream science?" You, Abraham and PMS are the only ones I see using that term.

I do believe people like you have distrust of mainstream science. You have to. Knee jerk reactionism demands it

Knee jerk reactionism = global waming alarmist. See Al Gore.

 

[PMZ]

I think that the graph that you posted would fool people who believe that surface temperature is the only indicator of global energy balance.

And yet that's exactly what the models were forecasting. Are you saying the scientists and the IPCC who used those forecasts were trying to fool people?

What the models were forecasting is right there on that chart, and it bares no resemblance to what the Earth is actually doing.

''it bares no resemblance to what the Earth is actually doing.''

I was hoping that you'd do better with pictures than words.

All the lines show increasing surface temperatures.

Raising the question, where is the perfectly predictable fact of energy imbalance going?

Not at all the question of do increased GHG concentrations create energy imbalance. Science knows the answer to that.

Real scientist ask and answer the real questions.

Politicians only ask and answer the questions that might get them their way.

 

[PMZ]

When have I ever used the term "mainstream science?" You, Abraham and PMS are the only ones I see using that term.

I do believe people like you have distrust of mainstream science. You have to. Knee jerk reactionism demands it

Knee jerk reactionism = global waming alarmist. See Al Gore.

Typical knee jerkwad reaction to the inconvenient truth.

I don't want it to be true.

Parents call that whining. Go ask yours.

 

[kwc57]

I do believe people like you have distrust of mainstream science. You have to. Knee jerk reactionism demands it

Knee jerk reactionism = global waming alarmist. See Al Gore.

Typical knee jerkwad reaction to the inconvenient truth.

I don't want it to be true.

Parents call that whining. Go ask yours.

True scientific reality seems to be getting in the way of you and Al's alarmist "truth". Enjoy life riding your unicorns on glitter island.

 

[PMZ]

Knee jerk reactionism = global waming alarmist. See Al Gore.

Typical knee jerkwad reaction to the inconvenient truth.

I don't want it to be true.

Parents call that whining. Go ask yours.

True scientific reality seems to be getting in the way of you and Al's alarmist "truth". Enjoy life riding your unicorns on glitter island.

Where do conservatives get the notion that the universe conforms to their wishes? It the ultimate entitlement 'tude.

It's sort of like the myths of primitive cultures. We have no way of knowing, so we'll assume that we're the center of the universe.

 

[flacaltenn]

Anybody left on this thread that CONTINUES to ignore this part of the OP ????

Read more:

World's top climate scientists confess: Global warming is just QUARTER what we thought - and computers got the effects of greenhouse gases wrong | Mail Online

ml#ixzz2fOeKD6UW

One of the (IPCC) report’s own authors, Professor Myles Allen, the director of Oxford University’s Climate Research Network, last night said this should be the last IPCC assessment – accusing its cumbersome production process of ‘misrepresenting how science works’.

Prof Allen said: ‘The idea of producing a document of near-biblical infallibility
is a misrepresentation of how science works, and we need to look very carefully
about what the IPCC does in future

He's essentially saying that IPCC cannot continue with it's present tactics and be faithful to scientific methods. Most rational folks (excludes PMZ) should realize how bad the self-inflicted wounds at the IPCC are.

They should be put on 24hr suicide watch.. (Or maybe 22hr watch and given a rope )

 

[PMZ]

Anybody left on this thread that CONTINUES to ignore this part of the OP ????

Read more:

World's top climate scientists confess: Global warming is just QUARTER what we thought - and computers got the effects of greenhouse gases wrong | Mail Online

ml#ixzz2fOeKD6UW

One of the (IPCC) report’s own authors, Professor Myles Allen, the director of Oxford University’s Climate Research Network, last night said this should be the last IPCC assessment – accusing its cumbersome production process of ‘misrepresenting how science works’.

Prof Allen said: ‘The idea of producing a document of near-biblical infallibility
is a misrepresentation of how science works, and we need to look very carefully
about what the IPCC does in future

He's essentially saying that IPCC cannot continue with it's present tactics and be faithful to scientific methods. Most rational folks (excludes PMZ) should realize how bad the self-inflicted wounds at the IPCC are.

They should be put on 24hr suicide watch.. (Or maybe 22hr watch and given a rope )

We're waiting to see your science.

 

[PMZ]

Anybody left on this thread that CONTINUES to ignore this part of the OP ????

Read more:

World's top climate scientists confess: Global warming is just QUARTER what we thought - and computers got the effects of greenhouse gases wrong | Mail Online

ml#ixzz2fOeKD6UW

One of the (IPCC) report’s own authors, Professor Myles Allen, the director of Oxford University’s Climate Research Network, last night said this should be the last IPCC assessment – accusing its cumbersome production process of ‘misrepresenting how science works’.

Prof Allen said: ‘The idea of producing a document of near-biblical infallibility
is a misrepresentation of how science works, and we need to look very carefully
about what the IPCC does in future

He's essentially saying that IPCC cannot continue with it's present tactics and be faithful to scientific methods. Most rational folks (excludes PMZ) should realize how bad the self-inflicted wounds at the IPCC are.

They should be put on 24hr suicide watch.. (Or maybe 22hr watch and given a rope )

Your reference is a great example of what used to be called, ''yellow journalism''

''Yet the leaked report makes the extraordinary concession that over the past 15 years, recorded world temperatures have increased at only a quarter of the rate of IPCC claimed when it published its last assessment in 2007.''

''Back then, it said observed warming over the 15 years from 1990-2005 had taken place at a rate of 0.2C per decade, and it predicted this would continue for the following 20 years, on the basis of forecasts made by computer climate models.''

''But the new report says the observed warming over the more recent 15 years to 2012 was just 0.05C per decade - below almost all computer predictions.''

No extraordinary confession, but typical science. Look for what empirical data says about what's known.

Science knows, and has proven, the link between atmospheric GHG concentrations and global energy imbalance. Physics knows that the response to that is global warming that eventually shows up as warmer surface temperatures. Which it has.

Early models concluded that it would show up faster. Nature has said slower.

The process of warming needs to accept the data and determine where the excess energy is if not at the surface as higher temperatures raising OLR to what is needed to restored energy balance.

It's been determined. Deep in the ocean. Does that solve the problem? No. The OLR can't restore balance until surface temperatures dictate. So, the rebalancing has been delayed.

''The 31-page ‘summary for policymakers’ is based on a more technical 2,000-page analysis which will be issued at the same time. It also surprisingly reveals: IPCC scientists accept their forecast computers may have exaggerated the effect of increased carbon emissions on world temperatures – and not taken enough notice of natural variability.''

Everybody knows that climate has lots of random variability as well as assignable cause variability. The predictable characteristic of random variability is that it can't be predicted. If it's helping us now, it just as likely to be hurting us later.

''They recognise the global warming ‘pause’ first reported by The Mail on Sunday last year is real – and concede that their computer models did not predict it. But they cannot explain why world average temperatures have not shown any statistically significant increase since 1997.''

I just did explain it and climate scientists know a whole lot more than I do. But apparently this reporter knows a whole lot less.

 

[PMZ]

Anybody left on this thread that CONTINUES to ignore this part of the OP ????

Read more:

World's top climate scientists confess: Global warming is just QUARTER what we thought - and computers got the effects of greenhouse gases wrong | Mail Online

ml#ixzz2fOeKD6UW

One of the (IPCC) report’s own authors, Professor Myles Allen, the director of Oxford University’s Climate Research Network, last night said this should be the last IPCC assessment – accusing its cumbersome production process of ‘misrepresenting how science works’.

Prof Allen said: ‘The idea of producing a document of near-biblical infallibility
is a misrepresentation of how science works, and we need to look very carefully
about what the IPCC does in future

He's essentially saying that IPCC cannot continue with it's present tactics and be faithful to scientific methods. Most rational folks (excludes PMZ) should realize how bad the self-inflicted wounds at the IPCC are.

They should be put on 24hr suicide watch.. (Or maybe 22hr watch and given a rope )

''Prof Allen said: ‘The idea of producing a document of near-biblical infallibility is a misrepresentation of how science works, and we need to look very carefully about what the IPCC does in future[/quote]''

Big issue. Should IPCC ARs be written for climate scientists, intelligent policy makers, all policy makers, or the public, given the magnitude of the misinformation system funded by the fossil fuel industry?

I personally think that the IPCC has traditionally worried too much about the bottom of that list. There are millions of people in the world with Dunning-Kruger Syndrome. They have to be written off no matter what. So I'd shoot for the intelligent policy makers and let them worry about convincing their colleagues and constituents.

But it's a great issue to debate.

 

[kwc57]

Typical knee jerkwad reaction to the inconvenient truth.

I don't want it to be true.

Parents call that whining. Go ask yours.

True scientific reality seems to be getting in the way of you and Al's alarmist "truth". Enjoy life riding your unicorns on glitter island.

Where do conservatives get the notion that the universe conforms to their wishes? It the ultimate entitlement 'tude.

It's sort of like the myths of primitive cultures. We have no way of knowing, so we'll assume that we're the center of the universe.

We get it the same place liberals get their moral superiority smugness. It's the ultimate arrogance 'tude.

 

[PMZ]

True scientific reality seems to be getting in the way of you and Al's alarmist "truth". Enjoy life riding your unicorns on glitter island.

Where do conservatives get the notion that the universe conforms to their wishes? It the ultimate entitlement 'tude.

It's sort of like the myths of primitive cultures. We have no way of knowing, so we'll assume that we're the center of the universe.

We get it the same place liberals get their moral superiority smugness. It's the ultimate arrogance 'tude.

It would be very difficult for anyone to be morally inferior to conservatives.

 

[kwc57]

Where do conservatives get the notion that the universe conforms to their wishes? It the ultimate entitlement 'tude.

It's sort of like the myths of primitive cultures. We have no way of knowing, so we'll assume that we're the center of the universe.

We get it the same place liberals get their moral superiority smugness. It's the ultimate arrogance 'tude.

It would be very difficult for anyone to be morally inferior to conservatives.

Not really. We have liberals who cry over the eating of livestock and think nothing of murdering an unborn child because it would inconvenience them.

 

[Abraham3]

We get it the same place liberals get their moral superiority smugness. It's the ultimate arrogance 'tude.

It would be very difficult for anyone to be morally inferior to conservatives.

Not really. We have liberals who cry over the eating of livestock and think nothing of murdering an unborn child because it would inconvenience them.

Walk into an abortion clinic and tell us how the people there think nothing of what they're doing. Tell us about George W Bush's moral superiority. He opposed abortions and stem cell research but didn't seem to mind murdering 100,000 innocent Iraqis. Can we generalize that sort of ethos to all conservatives? No? Hmmm...

Demonizing your opponents is such a handy technique, isn't it. No need to discuss actual questions and issues. Just convince us that your opponent is an inhuman beast.

 

[bripat9643]

It would be very difficult for anyone to be morally inferior to conservatives.

Not really. We have liberals who cry over the eating of livestock and think nothing of murdering an unborn child because it would inconvenience them.

Walk into an abortion clinic and tell us how the people there think nothing of what they're doing. Tell us about George W Bush's moral superiority. He opposed abortions and stem cell research but didn't seem to mind murdering 100,000 innocent Iraqis. Can we generalize that sort of ethos to all conservatives? No? Hmmm...

Demonizing your opponents is such a handy technique, isn't it. No need to discuss actual questions and issues. Just convince us that your opponent is an inhuman beast.

I love the way the same people who accuse George Bush of "murdering" Iraqis want to bomb the crap out of Syria and thereby kill thousands of civilians. They also defended bombing Libya and killing thousands of Libyan civilians.

 

[bripat9643]

It would be very difficult for anyone to be morally inferior to conservatives.

Not really. We have liberals who cry over the eating of livestock and think nothing of murdering an unborn child because it would inconvenience them.

Walk into an abortion clinic and tell us how the people there think nothing of what they're doing. Tell us about George W Bush's moral superiority. He opposed abortions and stem cell research but didn't seem to mind murdering 100,000 innocent Iraqis. Can we generalize that sort of ethos to all conservatives? No? Hmmm...

Demonizing your opponents is such a handy technique, isn't it. No need to discuss actual questions and issues. Just convince us that your opponent is an inhuman beast.

Calling critics of the global warming abracadrabra "deniers" isn't "demonizing" them, is it?

 

[skookerasbil]

exaggerating by manipulating the data is gay

 

[flacaltenn]

It would be very difficult for anyone to be morally inferior to conservatives.

Not really. We have liberals who cry over the eating of livestock and think nothing of murdering an unborn child because it would inconvenience them.

Walk into an abortion clinic and tell us how the people there think nothing of what they're doing. Tell us about George W Bush's moral superiority. He opposed abortions and stem cell research but didn't seem to mind murdering 100,000 innocent Iraqis. Can we generalize that sort of ethos to all conservatives? No? Hmmm...

Demonizing your opponents is such a handy technique, isn't it. No need to discuss actual questions and issues. Just convince us that your opponent is an inhuman beast.

Lets get some facts straight.
1 GWBUSH did not attempt to stop stem cell research. He acted to freeze FEDERAL reasearch usi g EMBRIONIC stem lines. Didnt even prohibit using existing ESC lines.

2 The brainless carnage the USA inflicted on Iraq for over 12 yrs was completely BIPARTISAN. With the lowest point being that statement from MADDOG Albright that 250, 000 citizen deaths from just our EMBARGO WAS an acceptable side effect.

How could u not know these things?

 

[PMZ]

We get it the same place liberals get their moral superiority smugness. It's the ultimate arrogance 'tude.

It would be very difficult for anyone to be morally inferior to conservatives.

Not really. We have liberals who cry over the eating of livestock and think nothing of murdering an unborn child because it would inconvenience them.

I figure that if God didn't want us to eat livestock he wouldn't have made them out of meat.