Australian Politics Forum

Australian Politics Forum
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl General Discussion >> Federal Politics >> Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings. http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1356856163 Message started by MOTR on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 6:29pm

Title: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by MOTR on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 6:29pm

I'm sure you all remember this thread, http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1355784035/0#0

It's progs, breathlessly claiming that the IPCC has admitted ACC is false. Of course it wasn't true, but that wasn't the point. The point of such headlines throughout the denier blogosphere, and unfortunately also in the mainstream press, is to keep the average punter disengaged. The strategy is to create the impression that the science is largely unresolved and lull us into a false sense of security. Many, including myself, have been quite complicit. We're happy not to think about it because we really don't want to face the enormity of the problem. We really don't want to face the huge risks we are almost certainly creating for our children.

Well what does the lead author of the chapter in question say about this particular claim.

Quote:

Professor Steve Sherwood is a director of the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of New South Wales.

He is also a lead author of chapter seven of the IPCC report, which happens to be the one the sceptics are claiming for their side.

But Professor Sherwood is scornful of the idea that the chapter he helped write confirms a greater role for solar and other cosmic rays in global warming.

STEVE SHERWOOD: Oh that's completely ridiculous. I'm sure you could go and read those paragraphs yourself and the summary of it and see that we conclude exactly the opposite, that this cosmic ray effect that the paragraph is discussing appears to be negligible.

MARK COLVIN: They're saying that it is the first indication that the IPCC recognises something called solar forcing.

STEVE SHERWOOD: It's not the first time it recognises it. What it shows is that we looked at this. We look at everything. The IPCC has a very comprehensive process where we try to look at all the influences on climate and so we looked at this one.

And there have been a couple of papers suggesting that solar forcing affects climate through cosmic ray/cloud interactions, but most of the literature on this shows that that doesn't actually work.

MARK COLVIN: So you're saying that you've managed to basically eliminate this idea that sunspots or whatever are more responsible for global warming than human activity.

STEVE SHERWOOD: Based on the peer-reviewed literature that's available now, that looks extremely unlikely.

MARK COLVIN: So what have these people done? Is this just a case of cherry-picking a sentence?

STEVE SHERWOOD: Yeah, it's a pretty severe case of that, because even the sentence doesn't say what they say and certainly if you look at the context, we're really saying the opposite.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by gold_medal on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 6:34pm

I can do better than that.

here is one of your 'stars' James Hansen who is worshipped by you non-critical thinkers while so reviled by his collegaues that they sent out an open letter pleading for someone to shut this freak up.

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/12/13/james-hansen-mathematical-mental-midget/

he is so statistically incompetent that he would be on SOB's level
he lies so completely and with such a stright face that adlecrow would call him a friend

and of course his classic warming that we would all be frying by 2006

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/12/05/hansen-1986-two-degrees-warming-by-2006-hottest-in-100000-years/

and you believe these weirdos???

where is your much-vaunted and self-proclaiimed 'critical reasoning'?

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by MOTR on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 6:39pm

It's a strategy that has been used over and over again to manufacture the impression of doubt when in the scientific community there is very little. Data is cherry picked, quotes are taken out of context and those relatively few climate scientists who are not yet ready to accept the AGW hypothesis are given a platform in the media totally incommensurate with their numbers and influence on other scientists.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by MOTR on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 6:45pm

Apologies, I was wrong. It wasn't progs, it was goldie who went all apoplectic over a blogger getting it ass end up.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by progressiveslol on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 6:59pm

lol well what does the LEAD AUTHOR, no...... the LEAD AUTHOR (more authoritive within the cult) say about it. bwhaaa
Thanks for the sorry, but you should also say sorry to the leakers of the IPCC information.

The lead author does nothing to stem that flow except make you look like a jack AZZ. It is a bit like the GWB you lefties love to hate saying 'nothing to see here'.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by MOTR on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 7:14pm

By the way Steven Goddard is a pseudonym for a blogger who gets it wrong so often even progs mate, Anthony Watts, has given up on him.

Hansen is of course the James E. Hansen who heads the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. He has held this position since 1981. He is also an adjunct professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University.

Hansen was elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1996 for his "development of pioneering radiative transfer models and studies of planetary atmospheres; development of simplified and three-dimensional global climate models; explication of climate forcing mechanisms; analysis of current climate trends from observational data; and projections of anthropogenic impacts on the global climate system." In 2006, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) selected James Hansen to receive its Award for Scientific Freedom and Responsibility "for his courageous and steadfast advocacy in support of scientists' responsibilities to communicate their scientific opinions and findings openly and honestly on matters of public importance."

In 2007, Hansen shared the US $1-million Dan David Prize for "achievements having an outstanding scientific, technological, cultural or social impact on our world". In 2008, he received the PNC Bank Common Wealth Award of Distinguished Service for his "outstanding achievements" in science.

In 2009, Hansen was awarded the 2009 Carl-Gustaf Rossby Research Medal, the highest honor bestowed by the American Meteorological Society, for his "outstanding contributions to climate modeling, understanding climate change forcings and sensitivity, and for clear communication of climate science in the public arena."

Hansen is a man worth listening to. He is a man of intellect and integrity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWInyaMWBY8&sns=em

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by progressiveslol on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 7:19pm

MOTR wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 7:14pm:

Quote:

Hansen was elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1996 for his "development of pioneering radiative transfer models and studies of planetary atmospheres; development of simplified and three-dimensional global climate models; explication of climate forcing mechanisms; analysis of current climate trends from observational data; and projections of anthropogenic impacts on the global climate system."

Yeh we see that in scenario A, B and C. We see that in 2006 2 degrees warmer. We see that in the no temperature data in the
Arctic, so lets make some up. We see that in the cooling the past and warming the present. We see that in Antarctica not losing 40% of ice.

The guy could not predict himself farting within 5 milliseconds of the event.

BTW Steven Goddard goes by the predictions. He goes by the data. And you, you got nothing on him because the data is correct and the predictions he goes off were predicted.
;D ;D

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by woof woof on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 7:45pm

you know when the news says it was the hotest wetest driest whatever day since 1914 or whenever, does that mean we had more severe weather events before CO2 was supposed to be the problem????

Global warming climate change can't and and wont be effected by anything us humans do, but if we in orbit move a bit closer to the sun or if the earth moves off its axis, massive changes will occur, nione of which you or I can do anything about.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by progressiveslol on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 7:48pm

woof woof wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 7:45pm:

yes it does.

H2O in all its forms, is far too powerful for any trace gases to overcome or redo what it had already done to the climate.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by Maqqa on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 7:53pm

The title says "Deniers nailed...."

Does anyone know what we are supposed to be "denying"

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by progressiveslol on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 7:56pm

Maqqa wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 7:53pm:

The title says "Deniers nailed...."

Does anyone know what we are supposed to be "denying"

It is not us denying anything. It is the doomsday cult of anthroprogenic climate change who are denying how real science works.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by MOTR on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 7:57pm

Maqqa wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 7:53pm:

The title says "Deniers nailed...."

Does anyone know what we are supposed to be "denying"

Well, progs is denying that the planet is warming. God knows what aspects of reality you are denying.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by Maqqa on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 8:00pm

MOTR wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 7:57pm:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 7:53pm:

The title says "Deniers nailed...."

Does anyone know what we are supposed to be "denying"

Well, progs is denying that the planet is warming. God knows what aspects of reality you are denying.

really??!!

shame on you prog

the sun come up everyday to warm the planet - shame on you prog

that settles it - there are no more deniers

we all agree the sun comes up everyday to warm the planet

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by Maqqa on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 8:04pm

progressiveslol wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 7:56pm:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 7:53pm:

The title says "Deniers nailed...."

Does anyone know what we are supposed to be "denying"

It is not us denying anything. It is the doomsday cult of anthroprogenic climate change who are denying how real science works.

I know prog

It's a handy name to give to someone who does not agree with you

As per my other thread - deniers was a name given to those who denied the Holocaust ever happened.

This of course invoked massive outrage

Lefties wants to create the same outrage with people who disagree with them

It's always easier to call hurl personal insults than to provide evidence

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by gold_medal on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 8:05pm

well let's look at the '97% of climate scientists' claim that MOTR makes.

the source of this data is a survey of just two questions - both poorly written and subjective.

it was sent out to 10,000+ 'climate scientists' a massive number of 76 responded. yep, SEVENTY SIX. so in the mother of all self-selction bias surveys, 97% say they support a poorly defined ACC.

there are Womens Day surveys with more statistical credibility than that.

this is an example of the statistical nonsense that passes for science over in the climate hysterical corner.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by Maqqa on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 8:07pm

gold_medal wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 8:05pm:

sounds like my fart has more credibility than that survey

at least 100% of the people who sample it will attest to feeling nausea and light headedness

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by gold_medal on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 8:07pm

MOTR wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 7:57pm:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 7:53pm:

The title says "Deniers nailed...."

Does anyone know what we are supposed to be "denying"

Well, progs is denying that the planet is warming. God knows what aspects of reality you are denying.

and despite your refusal to respond to this on repeated occasions, that is also the positino of Phil Hughes of CRU. Hansen contineus to state that the earth is still warming and his record for data manipulation and statistical fraud is unbeleivable. however his cohort (Hughes) admits that there has been no statistically significant warming in the last 16 years.

'critical reasoning' would address this as a high priority. Cheerleading however, would ignore it.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by gold_medal on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 8:09pm

Maqqa wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 8:07pm:

gold_medal wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 8:05pm:

sounds like my fart has more credibility than that survey

at least 100% of the people who sample it will attest to feeling nausea and light headedness

'consensus' is the stupidest argument ever made for ACC. is there any other discipline that argues from consensus? no. and even then it has to be transparently obvious to anyone with a grain of critical reasoning ability that 10000 scientists can consensually be wrong while one can be right. Einstein was the calssic example when consensus was against his theory - but he was right.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by Maqqa on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 8:13pm

gold_medal wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 8:09pm:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 8:07pm:

gold_medal wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 8:05pm:

sounds like my fart has more credibility than that survey

at least 100% of the people who sample it will attest to feeling nausea and light headedness

And Observational Science

These guys looked at the composition of Greenhouse gases. Saw that water was too hard to convince people - so they picked the next gas off the rank which is CO2

They looked at temperature changes and decided to link the two together

200 years ago savages observed as the fire mountain blew its top - crops died

so they decide worship and human sacrifice was the way to go

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by progressiveslol on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 8:14pm

gold_medal wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 8:05pm:

I can tell you why they didnt respond. They would have been ridiculed by the other 76 as if 50000 dropped on them

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by progressiveslol on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 8:22pm

gold_medal wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 8:09pm:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 8:07pm:

gold_medal wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 8:05pm:

sounds like my fart has more credibility than that survey

at least 100% of the people who sample it will attest to feeling nausea and light headedness

Well it was pretty smart short term. It is a bit like as a kid 'Im gonna get my brother on to you', until your brother finally turns up and he is a 10 pound weakling, wet.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by MOTR on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 9:32pm

progressiveslol wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 8:14pm:

gold_medal wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 8:05pm:

I can tell you why they didnt respond. They would have been ridiculed by the other 76 as if 50000 dropped on them

goldie, that's another misrepresentation of the facts. Do you make this up as you are going. The survey was sent to 10,257 Earth scientists of which there were 3146 respondents. Of those respondents only 76 classified themselves as climatologists actively publishing in peer reviewed journals.

This result is confirmed by an independent study that surveys all climate scientists who have publicly signed declarations supporting or rejecting the consensus. Andregg (2010) finds between 97% to 98% of climate experts support the consensus.

Quote:

Although preliminary estimates from published literature and expert surveys suggest striking agreement among climate scientists on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the American public expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic cause and the level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC. A broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself, the distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to agreeing researchers, and the level of agreement among top climate experts has not been conducted and would inform future ACC discussions. Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by progressiveslol on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 9:39pm

MOTR wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 9:32pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 8:14pm:

gold_medal wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 8:05pm:

I can tell you why they didnt respond. They would have been ridiculed by the other 76 as if 50000 dropped on them

So he is correct. Only 76 responded (that mattered from what we hear from the cult). Of those 76, what was the percentage that agree with the cult? Of the others, what was the percent. Of the total, what was the percent that didnt bother to get harrassed and didnt respond?

Look below

You see MOTR. 97% of 77 is 75. Dam this is getting funny, I must admit.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by progressiveslol on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 9:49pm

About that overwhelming 97-98% number of scientists that say there is a climate consensus…

Larry Bell writes in his weekly Forbes column about that oft repeated but less than truthy “98% of all scientists” statistic. Supposedly, this was such an easy and quick to do survey, it was a no-brainer according to the two University of Illinois researchers who conducted it:

To maximize the response rate, the survey was designed to take less than 2 minutes to complete, and it was administered by a professional online survey site ( www.questionpro.com ) that allowed one-time participation by those who received the invitation.

I think it is hilarious that so few people who cite this survey as “proof” of consensus actually look into the survey and the puny response numbers involved. So, I decided to graph the data to give some much needed perspective. Apparently, the majority of AGU members polled didn’t think this poll on climate change consensus was worth returning

So where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.

Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”.

That anything-but-scientific survey asked two questions. The first: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?” Few would be expected to dispute this…the planet began thawing out of the “Little Ice Age” in the middle 19th century, predating the Industrial Revolution. (That was the coldest period since the last real Ice Age ended roughly 10,000 years ago.)

The second question asked: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” So what constitutes “significant”? Does “changing” include both cooling and warming… and for both “better” and “worse”? And which contributions…does this include land use changes, such as agriculture and deforestation?

much much more

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/about-that-overwhelming-98-number-of-scientists-consensus/

You see MOTR. 97% of 77 is 75. Dam this is getting funny, I must admit.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by progressiveslol on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 9:54pm

What else did the ’97% of scientists’ say?

Here are but just a few of many responses from scientists that actually took part in the survey, taken from the appendi of the MSc thesis:

“..scientific issues cannot be decided by a vote of scientists. A consensus is not, at any given time, a good predictor of where the truth actually resides..”

“..The “hockey stick” graph that the IPCC so touted has, it is my understanding, been debunked as junk science..”

“..I’m not sure what you are trying to prove, but you will undoubtably be able to prove your pre-existing opinion with this survey! I’m sorry I even started it!..” (Doran/Zimmerman feedback)

“..and I do not think that a consensus has anything to do with whether a hypothesis is correct. Check out the history of science…you will find that scientific discovery is generally made by ignoring the ‘consensus..’”

“..Science is based on scepticism and experimental proof. Whereas human GHG emissions certainly have a warming effect, the breakdown between natural and anthropogenic contributions to warming is poorly constrained.

Remember that the warming since 1650 AD (not 1900) is part of a real ‘millennial cycle’ whose amplitude cannot yet be explained by any quantitative theory.

Also, the computer climate models are both too complex to be readily understood and too simple to describe reality.

Believing their results is an act of faith…”

much reading to be done
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/what-else-did-the-97-of-scientists-say/

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by Innocent bystander on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 9:58pm

A consensus, just like the temperature rising, is proof of nothing.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by MOTR on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 10:04pm

progressiveslol wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 9:49pm:

It's a sample, progs. And Doran is not the only survey.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by progressiveslol on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 10:07pm

MOTR wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 10:04pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 9:49pm:

It's a sample, progs. And Doran is not the only survey.

Nice graph. Can I make my own. Where are the numbers apart from what could be 10000 sent, 3000 respondents and 77 climate scientists who answered, make up the numbers.

FAIL.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by MOTR on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 10:24pm

Perhaps you could do your own peer reviewed survey. Or, even easier, progs, how about you name one scientific body of national or international standing that does not accept the planet is warming largely due human activity.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by Innocent bystander on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 10:24pm

Even if all scientists really did agree that would still be proof of nothing, we may as well start facing mecca and praying to allah if all it takes is a consensus to tell us what to do.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by MOTR on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 10:27pm

Innocent bystander wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 10:24pm:

Even if all scientists really did agree that would still be proof of nothing, we may as well start facing mecca and praying to allah if all it takes is a consensus to tell us what to do.

It's evidence that those collecting the evidence find it very compelling. To not heed the warnings is irrational behaviour.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by progressiveslol on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 10:47pm

MOTR wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 10:24pm:

What are the numbers MOTR (from my previous question http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1356856163/27#27)? Why did you avoid answering that?

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by progressiveslol on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 11:05pm

In case anyone is still reading this poorly thought out thread.

I thought I would share this logical but obviously poorly understood subject. It is short and intended for thought.

Quote:

The Antarctic is a continent surrounded by ocean. As a consequence, during the summer, sea ice breaks up and drifts northward unimpeded, where the great majority of it melts every summer. This happens with or without climate change. Perhaps more significant is the thickening of the glacial ice sheet that covers the southernmost continent.

The Arctic is an ocean surrounded by land. There are few escape routes for the sea ice that forms each winter and so, although some melts each year, some stays, surviving the summer and thickening each winter. Climate alarmists would have us believe that the melting ice in the Arctic is a crisis, while the growing ice in the Antarctic is insignificant. In reality, the dynamics of both sets of pack ice are poorly understood.

In other words, it is significant that a land masse (Antartica) has its ice growing, that is unimpeeded by land to break off, escape and melt, where the Arctic is a sea masse that has land surrounding it to trap ice but is melting to normal or less extent.

There seem to be an obvious shift to a warmer north and a cooler south. That is not global. It resembles a tilt toward and away from the sun, north to south, either magnetic or axis. Not saying it is, but something to think about logically. It certainly doesnt resemble CO2 globally as we are told it has to be globally to be CO2, because co2 is not a local phenomena.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by MOTR on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 11:21pm

progressiveslol wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 10:47pm:

MOTR wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 10:24pm:

What are the numbers MOTR (from my previous question http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1356856163/27#27)? Why did you avoid answering that?

I'm not sure what you are getting at, progs. The 97% number comes from two surveys, Anderegg 2010 and Doran 2009. In the Doran survey of earth scientists, 77 climatologists who are actively publishing responded to the question on anthropogenic global temperature change. 75, or 97%, of these respondents believe humans are a significant factor in changing global temperatures.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by progressiveslol on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 11:24pm

MOTR wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 11:21pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 10:47pm:

MOTR wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 10:24pm:

What are the numbers MOTR (from my previous question http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1356856163/27#27)? Why did you avoid answering that?

You gave a graph. Do you have links to each of the surveys so we can get numbers. I would rather not stick with a limited graph with limited numbers. 99.5% would represent nothing in that grapgh you provided, unless I knew 99.5% of what total and the total of what question.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by MOTR on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 11:35pm

progressiveslol wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 11:05pm:

In case anyone is still reading this poorly thought out thread.

I thought I would share this logical but obviously poorly understood subject. It is short and intended for thought.

Quote:

How about a warmer north and a warmer south.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by MOTR on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 11:45pm

progressiveslol wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 11:24pm:

MOTR wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 11:21pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 10:47pm:

MOTR wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 10:24pm:

What are the numbers MOTR (from my previous question http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1356856163/27#27)? Why did you avoid answering that?

http://www.garnautreview.org.au/update-2011/commissioned-work/the-'scientigic-consensus-on-climate-change'.pdf

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

This is the most useful information I can find on the Doran survey.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by progressiveslol on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 11:59pm

MOTR wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 11:35pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 11:05pm:

In case anyone is still reading this poorly thought out thread.

I thought I would share this logical but obviously poorly understood subject. It is short and intended for thought.

Quote:

How about a warmer north and a warmer south.

I think the word RE-ANALYSIS should have been an alarm. But not for the likes of you. MODEL would be pretty major as well.

This would be a good place to start for anyone.
Caveats:
•Please read the problem list before using the data.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/reanalysis/problems.shtml

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by progressiveslol on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 12:00am

MOTR wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 11:45pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 11:24pm:

MOTR wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 11:21pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 10:47pm:

MOTR wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 10:24pm:

What are the numbers MOTR (from my previous question http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1356856163/27#27)? Why did you avoid answering that?

I know about the BS doran survey. I am curious of the others you put forward that were OTHERS (not doran) according to you.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by MOTR on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 5:42am

progressiveslol wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 11:59pm:

MOTR wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 11:35pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 11:05pm:

In case anyone is still reading this poorly thought out thread.

I thought I would share this logical but obviously poorly understood subject. It is short and intended for thought.

Quote:

How about a warmer north and a warmer south.

Quote:

West Antarctica warming fast, may quicken sea level rise REUTERS December 28, 2012 5:15pm

OSLO, NORWAY - West Antarctica is warming almost twice as fast as previously believed, adding to worries of a thaw that would add to sea level rise from San Francisco to Shanghai, a study showed on Sunday.

Annual average temperatures at the Byrd research station in West Antarctica had risen 2.4 degrees Celsius (4.3F) since the 1950s, one of the fastest gains on the planet and three times the global average in a changing climate, it said.

The unexpectedly big increase adds to fears the ice sheet is vulnerable to thawing. West Antarctica holds enough ice to raise world sea levels by at least 3.3 metres (11 feet) if it ever all melted, a process that would take centuries.

"The western part of the ice sheet is experiencing nearly twice as much warming as previously thought," Ohio State University said in a statement of the study led by its geography professor David Bromwich.

The warming "raises further concerns about the future contribution of Antarctica to sea level rise," it said. Higher summer temperatures raised risks of a surface melt of ice and snow even though most of Antarctica is in a year-round deep freeze.

Low-lying nations from Bangladesh to Tuvalu are especially vulnerable to sea level rise, as are coastal cities from London to Buenos Aires. Sea levels have risen by about 20 cms (8 inches) in the past century.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by MOTR on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 6:09am

So what makes you think Antarctica is getting colder, progs?

http://antarcticsun.usap.gov/science/contenthandler.cfm?id=2786

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by MOTR on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 6:16am

Quote:

After 20 years of occasionally contradictory results, an international team of 47 researchers, which included scientists from TU Delft and Utrecht University, has reached agreement on the question of how quickly the polar icecaps in Greenland and Antarctica are shrinking. This now appears to be occurring three times quicker than in the 1990s. The melting has caused sea levels to rise by 11.1 millimetres in the previous 20 years. This amounts to a fifth of the total sea-level rise in this period. The researchers will publish their results in Science on 30 November.

The amount of ice loss for Greenland since 1990 appears to match earlier reports. For Antarctica, the researchers have adjusted the loss of ice mass downwards. This means that the loss of ice mass in Greenland is now twice as great as in Antarctica between 1992 and 2011.

However, the increase in the speed of icecap melting is unequivocal: from 0.27 mm per year in 1992 to 0.95 mm per year at present. 'This means that the icecaps of Antarctica and Greenland contribute significantly to the present rise of sea levels and that this is almost certain to continue in coming decades,' according to the head of the research project, professor Michiel van den Broeke of Utrecht University.

http://phys.org/wire-news/117355825/antarctic-ice-loss-adjusted-downwards-but-melting-continues-to-i.html

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by progressiveslol on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 7:11am

MOTR wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 6:09am:

So what makes you think Antarctica is getting colder, progs?

http://antarcticsun.usap.gov/science/contenthandler.cfm?id=2786

I cant seem to get my ice to melt at -20 degrees C

What is the margin of error in the temps? A whole 50% I would suggest it is much worse than that, but in any case, it isnt a temperature measure to be relied upon to any degree.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by adelcrow on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 7:16am

All deniers have is misrepresenting the facts and until there are thousands of peer reviewed papers supporting the denialists arguments thats all they will ever have.
Cmon..with all the money the fossil fuel industry is throwing at the denialists surely they can get a few thousand peer reviewed papers up and running...or how about a few hundred if thats the best they can do.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by gold_medal on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 8:06am

adelcrow wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 7:16am:

ah.. adelcrow - the new skippy. no content, just disagreement and abuse. what a waste.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by gold_medal on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 8:09am

The Doran survey was a joke surely. TWO QUESTIONS on which we are supposed to make the claim that consensus exists??? two poorly constructed question with no check question and no external validation? and of course MASSIVE self-selection bias.

by any determination the doran survey is worthless. and even if it were a good survey, in what discipline would you claim consensus on the basis of 77 responses??? you get that on a survey HERE!!!!

consensus... the alarmists alternative to evidence.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by perceptions_now on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 8:37am

gold_medal wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 8:06am:

adelcrow wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 7:16am:

ah.. adelcrow - the new skippy. no content, just disagreement and abuse. what a waste.

Well, IF anyone is looking for an expert on those qualities, THEN perhaps I could suggest YOU, to provide some tips.

Btw, the definition of an Expert -
Someone, who was formerly a DRIP and who is now under pressure.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by progressiveslol on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 8:42am

This is how you win a horse race. Follow AGW loons system

Did we catch every single scenario lol

If it gets cooler, we can always rely on our mates to cool the past and warm the present.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by MOTR on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 8:55am

gold_medal wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 8:09am:

Yeah, we have a sample of 77 published climatologists that regularly visit this forum.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by MOTR on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 8:58am

progressiveslol wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 7:11am:

MOTR wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 6:09am:

So what makes you think Antarctica is getting colder, progs?

http://antarcticsun.usap.gov/science/contenthandler.cfm?id=2786

Prog's homespun science, trumps the research coming from real scientists in his little world.

Quote:

Antarctic ice melting from warm water below

Antarctica's massive ice shelves are shrinking because they are being eaten away from below by warm water, a new study finds. That suggests that future sea levels could rise faster than many scientists have been predicting.

The western chunk of Antarctica is losing 23 feet (seven metres) of its floating ice sheet each year. Until now, scientists weren't exactly sure how it was happening and whether or how man-made global warming might be a factor. The answer, according to a study published Wednesday in the journal Nature, is that climate change plays an indirect role — but one that has larger repercussions than if Antarctic ice were merely melting from warmer air.

Hamish Pritchard, a glaciologist at the British Antarctic Survey, said research using an ice-gazing NASA satellite showed that warmer air alone couldn't explain what was happening to Antarctica. A more detailed examination found a chain of events that explained the shrinking ice shelves.
Advertisement

Twenty ice shelves showed signs that they were melting from warm water below. Changes in wind currents pushed that relatively warmer water closer to and beneath the floating ice shelves. The wind change is likely caused by a combination of factors, including natural weather variation, the ozone hole and man-made greenhouse gases, Pritchard said in a phone interview.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/antarctic-ice-melting-from-warm-water-below-study-20120426-1xmiy.html#ixzz2GZxgKcIz

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by progressiveslol on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 9:02am

Left it long enough.

Now see what really happened

They hid the decline! In the first graph, observational data ends about 2011 or 12. In the second graph though, it ends about 2007 or 8. There are four or five years of observational data missing from the second graph. Fortunately the two graphs are scaled identically which makes it very easy to use a highly sophisticated tool called “cut and paste” to move the observational data from the first graph to the second graph and see what it should have looked like:

Well oops. Once one brings the observational data up to date, it turns out that we are currently below the entire range of models in the 5% to 95% confidence range across all emission scenarios. The light gray shading is for RCP 4.5, the most likely emission scenario. But we’re also below the dark gray which is all emission scenarios for all models, including the ones where we strangle the global economy.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by progressiveslol on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 9:07am

It gets worse.

I did a little back of the envelope math (OK, OK, a spreadsheet, who has envelopes anymore these days?) and calculated that, assuming a linear warming starting today, we’d need to get to 1.58 degrees above the reference period to get an average of +1.0 over the course of the reference period itself. If my calcs are correct, extrapolating a straight line from end of current observations through 1.6 degrees in 2035 ought to just catch the top of that black bar showing the “Likely Range” in the centre of the graph:

But now it is even worse for the IPCC. To meet the upper bound of their estimated range, the IPCC would need warming that (according to their own data) is below projections for all their models in all emission scenarios to suddenly increase to a rate higher than all their projections from all their models across all emission scenarios. In brief, the upper range of their estimate cannot be supported by their own data from their own models.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/30/ar5-chapter-11-hiding-the-decline-part-ii/

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by progressiveslol on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 9:08am

MOTR wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 8:58am:

progressiveslol wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 7:11am:

MOTR wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 6:09am:

So what makes you think Antarctica is getting colder, progs?

http://antarcticsun.usap.gov/science/contenthandler.cfm?id=2786

Prog's homespun science, trumps the research coming from real scientists in his little world.

Quote:

Hate to break it to you, but melting ice in water, does nothing for water level. Where is your science coming from.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by MOTR on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 9:12am

As long as it sounds sophisticated and appears to create doubt about warming or an anthropogenic forcing, progs will paste it.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by progressiveslol on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 9:14am

MOTR wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 9:12am:

As long as it sounds sophisticated and appears to create doubt about warming or an anthropogenic forcing, progs will paste it.

Yeh thats a good rebuttal. So tell us all how ice floating on water and melting, changes the water level. Would love to hear this new scientific evidence.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by MOTR on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 9:14am

progressiveslol wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 9:08am:

MOTR wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 8:58am:

progressiveslol wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 7:11am:

MOTR wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 6:09am:

So what makes you think Antarctica is getting colder, progs?

http://antarcticsun.usap.gov/science/contenthandler.cfm?id=2786

Prog's homespun science, trumps the research coming from real scientists in his little world.

Quote:

Hate to break it to you, but melting ice in water, does nothing for water level. Where is your science coming from.

Hard to believe those dunderheads could get something so simple wrong. Stupid dumb scientists.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by FRED. on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 9:17am

progressiveslol wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 9:14am:

MOTR wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 9:12am:

As long as it sounds sophisticated and appears to create doubt about warming or an anthropogenic forcing, progs will paste it.

Yeh thats a good rebuttal. So tell us all how ice floating on water and melting, changes the water level. Would love to hear this new scientific evidence.

Don't put ICE in your drink when it melts it flows all over the bar ;)

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by progressiveslol on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 9:18am

MOTR wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 9:14am:

progressiveslol wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 9:08am:

MOTR wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 8:58am:

progressiveslol wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 7:11am:

MOTR wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 6:09am:

So what makes you think Antarctica is getting colder, progs?

http://antarcticsun.usap.gov/science/contenthandler.cfm?id=2786

Prog's homespun science, trumps the research coming from real scientists in his little world.

Quote:

Hate to break it to you, but melting ice in water, does nothing for water level. Where is your science coming from.

Hard to believe those dunderheads could get something so simple wrong. Stupid dumb scientists.

Did you see their explanation for this new phenomenon of melting floating ice causing water levels to change? I missed it.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by MOTR on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 9:29am

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/20100108_Is_Antarctica_Melting.html

Quote:

The retreat of West Antarctica's glaciers is being accelerated by ice shelf collapse. Ice shelves are the part of a glacier that extends past the grounding line towards the ocean they are the most vulnerable to warming seas. A longstanding theory in glaciology is that these ice shelves tend to buttress (support the end wall of) glaciers, with their mass slowing the ice movement towards the sea, and this was confirmed by the spectacular collapse of the Rhode Island-sized Larsen B shelf along the Eastern edge of the Antarctic Peninsula in 2002. The disintegration, which was caught on camera by NASA's Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) imaging instruments on board its Terra and Aqua satellites, was dramatic: it took just three weeks to crumble a 12,000-year old ice shelf. Over the next few years, satellite radar data showed that some of the ice streams flowing behind Larsen B had accelerated significantly, while others, still supported by smaller ice shelves, had not 9. This dynamic process of ice flowing downhill to the sea is what enables Antarctica to continue losing mass even as surface melting declines.

Michael Schodlok, a JPL scientist who models the way ice shelves and the ocean interact, says melting of the underside of the shelf is a pre-requisite to these collapses. Thinning of the ice shelf reduces its buttressing effect on the glacier behind it, allowing glacier flow to speed up. The thinner shelf is also more likely to crack. In the summer, meltwater ponds on the surface can drain into the cracks. Since liquid water is denser than solid ice, enough meltwater on the surface can open the cracks up deeper down into the ice, leading to disintegration of the shelf. The oceans surrounding Antarctica have been warming 10, so Schodlok doesn't doubt that the ice shelves are being undermined by warmer water being brought up from the depths. But he admits that it hasn't been proven rigorously, because satellites can’t measure underneath the ice.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by MOTR on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 9:37am

FRED. wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 9:17am:

progressiveslol wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 9:14am:

MOTR wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 9:12am:

As long as it sounds sophisticated and appears to create doubt about warming or an anthropogenic forcing, progs will paste it.

Yeh thats a good rebuttal. So tell us all how ice floating on water and melting, changes the water level. Would love to hear this new scientific evidence.

Don't put ICE in your drink when it melts it flows all over the bar ;)

Looks like you've got a buddy, progs. If you read what the scientists are saying you'll find this particular analogy doesn't fit the situation.

Don't ever add ice to a drink full to the brim, you'll get your coaster wet. ;)

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by progressiveslol on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 9:40am

MOTR wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 9:37am:

FRED. wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 9:17am:

progressiveslol wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 9:14am:

MOTR wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 9:12am:

As long as it sounds sophisticated and appears to create doubt about warming or an anthropogenic forcing, progs will paste it.

Yeh thats a good rebuttal. So tell us all how ice floating on water and melting, changes the water level. Would love to hear this new scientific evidence.

Don't put ICE in your drink when it melts it flows all over the bar ;)

Looks like you've got a buddy, progs. If you read what the scientists are saying you'll find this particular analogy doesn't fit the situation.

Never does follow science or laws of physics does it.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by MOTR on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 9:44am

How about you read the article, progs. It's not as if these scientist didn't pass 5th class science.

Here's some moving pictures that might help with your comprehension.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2ceKlzF6Ak&sns=em

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by John Smith on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 10:06am

Denialists don't want to believe no matter how much evidence you provide ... there is no amount of evidence that would satisfy them.

Like the old saying goes, 'you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink' ... in the case of progs and longlooser, it's more jackass' than horses.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by Maqqa on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 11:04am

John Smith wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 10:06am:

What exactly are we "denying"

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by Maqqa on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 11:12am

progressiveslol wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 9:40am:

MOTR wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 9:37am:

FRED. wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 9:17am:

progressiveslol wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 9:14am:

MOTR wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 9:12am:

As long as it sounds sophisticated and appears to create doubt about warming or an anthropogenic forcing, progs will paste it.

Yeh thats a good rebuttal. So tell us all how ice floating on water and melting, changes the water level. Would love to hear this new scientific evidence.

Don't put ICE in your drink when it melts it flows all over the bar ;)

Looks like you've got a buddy, progs. If you read what the scientists are saying you'll find this particular analogy doesn't fit the situation.

Never does follow science or laws of physics does it.

Interesting isn't it?

The alarmists are saying that global warming cause the polar ice caps to melt - therefore sea level will rise

but if melting ice does not overflow the glass then how does that increase sea level?

if you filled a cup to 7/10 full and freeze it - chances are the resulting ice would reach nearer to the rim of the cup. Lets say its now 9/10 of the cup

If we melt it sitting inside the same cup - does it go down to 7/10?

If so - would this then translate into the real world where melting ice actually reduce sea level rather than increasing it?

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by MOTR on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 12:08pm

1. Try the experiment is salt water, Maqqa. ;)
2. You do understand they are talking about the ice that is slipping off the continent.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by gold_medal on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 12:27pm

MOTR wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 9:12am:

As long as it sounds sophisticated and appears to create doubt about warming or an anthropogenic forcing, progs will paste it.

and you dont??? yuo are still denying that warming has stopped.. which frankly makes you a DENIER since even the hysterics (except Hansen who just makes stuff up now) admit there has been NO STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT WARMING for 16 years.

but the only response I get from you is deflection to a different topic.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by gold_medal on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 12:29pm

MOTR wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 9:37am:

FRED. wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 9:17am:

progressiveslol wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 9:14am:

MOTR wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 9:12am:

As long as it sounds sophisticated and appears to create doubt about warming or an anthropogenic forcing, progs will paste it.

Yeh thats a good rebuttal. So tell us all how ice floating on water and melting, changes the water level. Would love to hear this new scientific evidence.

Don't put ICE in your drink when it melts it flows all over the bar ;)

not exactly critical analysis. ice floatin in water does NOT add to the water level when it melts. I think I learned that in grade ONE science.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by Maqqa on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 12:29pm

MOTR wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 12:08pm:

1. Try the experiment is salt water, Maqqa. ;)
2. You do understand they are talking about the ice that is slipping off the continent.

So how does an Australian Carbon Tax change this?

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by John Smith on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 12:30pm

Maqqa wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 11:04am:

John Smith wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 10:06am:

What exactly are we "denying"

the truth

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by gold_medal on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 12:30pm

MOTR wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 9:44am:

so ice sheets collapsing is a new event that has never happened before???? what happened for centuries past??? IGNORANCE of what was happening and nothing more. Now that we know that ice shelves collapse we get outselves in a panic because we think we know what is happening - and we dont.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by MOTR on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 12:31pm

gold_medal wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 12:29pm:

MOTR wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 9:37am:

FRED. wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 9:17am:

progressiveslol wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 9:14am:

MOTR wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 9:12am:

As long as it sounds sophisticated and appears to create doubt about warming or an anthropogenic forcing, progs will paste it.

Yeh thats a good rebuttal. So tell us all how ice floating on water and melting, changes the water level. Would love to hear this new scientific evidence.

Don't put ICE in your drink when it melts it flows all over the bar ;)

not exactly critical analysis. ice floatin in water does NOT add to the water level when it melts. I think I learned that in grade ONE science.

Well you're in for a surprise when you do Maqqa's little experiment with salt water and fresh water ice cubes.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by gold_medal on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 12:32pm

John Smith wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 10:06am:

the problem is that in the words of one of the worlds leading climate scientists 'THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT AGW'

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by John Smith on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 12:32pm

Maqqa wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 12:29pm:

MOTR wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 12:08pm:

1. Try the experiment is salt water, Maqqa. ;)
2. You do understand they are talking about the ice that is slipping off the continent.

So how does an Australian Carbon Tax change this?

you get to pay for the privilege of destroying the planet as we know it, instead of getting away with it for free.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by MOTR on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 12:35pm

Maqqa wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 12:29pm:

MOTR wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 12:08pm:

1. Try the experiment is salt water, Maqqa. ;)
2. You do understand they are talking about the ice that is slipping off the continent.

So how does an Australian Carbon Tax change this?

Using a price single is the most efficient way to to reduce emissions for any economy.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by MOTR on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 12:36pm

John Smith wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 12:32pm:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 12:29pm:

MOTR wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 12:08pm:

1. Try the experiment is salt water, Maqqa. ;)
2. You do understand they are talking about the ice that is slipping off the continent.

So how does an Australian Carbon Tax change this?

you get to pay for the privilege of destroying the planet as we know it, instead of getting away with it for free.

Maqqa wants his lifestyle subsidised by his children.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by gold_medal on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 12:37pm

MOTR wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 12:35pm:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 12:29pm:

MOTR wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 12:08pm:

1. Try the experiment is salt water, Maqqa. ;)
2. You do understand they are talking about the ice that is slipping off the continent.

So how does an Australian Carbon Tax change this?

Using a price single is the most efficient way to to reduce emissions for any economy.

it also takes the non-thinking masses away from wondering why our coastlines arent being flooded and our termperatures arent going up - a inconvenient fact for the hysterics.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by Maqqa on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 12:37pm

Interesting to note:

(1) If the ice and the water it floats in are of different composition then the water is displaced ie freshwater ice in salt water. The pictures we've been seeing is from Antarctica and Greenland (freshwater ice)

(2) Does anyone know what the IPCC say about recent rises in sea-level and how much it contributes to Antarctica and Greenland?

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf

Antarctic and Greenland ice sheet mass contributed to sea level rise between 1993 and 2003

Antarctica ==>> 0.21 ± 0.35 mm/year
Greenland ==>> 0.21 ± 0.07 mm/year

things to note:
(a) This is an estimate
(b) The rise is in millimetres
(c) The Antarctic margin of error wipes out the Antarctic contribution as well as offsets the Greenland contribution

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by MOTR on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 12:38pm

gold_medal wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 12:27pm:

MOTR wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 9:12am:

As long as it sounds sophisticated and appears to create doubt about warming or an anthropogenic forcing, progs will paste it.

Don't be a mug, goldie.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by Maqqa on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 12:39pm

MOTR wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 12:36pm:

John Smith wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 12:32pm:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 12:29pm:

MOTR wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 12:08pm:

1. Try the experiment is salt water, Maqqa. ;)
2. You do understand they are talking about the ice that is slipping off the continent.

So how does an Australian Carbon Tax change this?

you get to pay for the privilege of destroying the planet as we know it, instead of getting away with it for free.

Maqqa wants his lifestyle subsidised by his children.

So you can't answer the question

Didn't think so

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by MOTR on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 12:42pm

Maqqa wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 12:39pm:

MOTR wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 12:36pm:

John Smith wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 12:32pm:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 12:29pm:

MOTR wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 12:08pm:

1. Try the experiment is salt water, Maqqa. ;)
2. You do understand they are talking about the ice that is slipping off the continent.

So how does an Australian Carbon Tax change this?

you get to pay for the privilege of destroying the planet as we know it, instead of getting away with it for free.

Maqqa wants his lifestyle subsidised by his children.

So you can't answer the question

Didn't think so

What's your point, Maqqa. Australia should be excluded from the solution.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by Maqqa on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 12:48pm

MOTR wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 12:42pm:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 12:39pm:

MOTR wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 12:36pm:

John Smith wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 12:32pm:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 12:29pm:

MOTR wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 12:08pm:

1. Try the experiment is salt water, Maqqa. ;)
2. You do understand they are talking about the ice that is slipping off the continent.

So how does an Australian Carbon Tax change this?

you get to pay for the privilege of destroying the planet as we know it, instead of getting away with it for free.

Maqqa wants his lifestyle subsidised by his children.

So you can't answer the question

Didn't think so

What's your point, Maqqa. Australia should be excluded from the solution.

(1) Australia contributes 1.3% to the human carbon emissions
(2) A carbon tax to cut 5% of the 1.3% is doing SFA other than burden current and future Australians
(3) We don't even know how much carbon dioxide humans are emitting relative to everything else
(4) We don't even know if the extra 50ppm CO2 increase is caused by humans
(5) We don't know if the extra 50ppm CO2 plugs will cause warming - remember this is an extra 50 plugs out of 1,000,000 holes for heat to escape

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by gold_medal on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 1:00pm

MOTR wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 12:38pm:

gold_medal wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 12:27pm:

MOTR wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 9:12am:

As long as it sounds sophisticated and appears to create doubt about warming or an anthropogenic forcing, progs will paste it.

Don't be a mug, goldie.

on the subject of mugs... you are dead wrong.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html

MIT Professor Richard Lindzen said :

There has been no warming since 1997 and no
statistically significant warming since 1995.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/15/noaas-15-year-statement-from-2008-puts-a-kibosh-on-the-current-met-office-insignificance-claims-that-global-warming-flatlined-for-16-years/

http://www.thegwpf.org/leaked-ar5-report-global-temperature/

and another - an admission by a PRO-AGW expert

http://www.thegwpf.org/judith-curry-media-should-do-their-homework-communicate-honestly-with-the-public/

particularly note:"Raise the level of your game. Nothing in the Met Office’s statement or in Nuticelli’s argument effectively refutes Rose’s argument that there has been no increase in the global average surface temperature for the past 16 years.

Use this as an opportunity to communicate honestly with the public about what we know and what we don’t know about climate change. Take a lesson from these other scientists that acknowledge the ‘pause’, mentioned in my previous post " Prof Judith Curry

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by John Smith on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 1:08pm

gold_medal wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 12:32pm:

John Smith wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 10:06am:

the problem is that in the words of one of the worlds leading climate scientists 'THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT AGW'

which is the opposite to what the majority of climate scientists are saying ... you choose to quote that and ignore the others simply because it's what you want to believe.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by John Smith on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 1:09pm

Maqqa wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 12:39pm:

MOTR wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 12:36pm:

John Smith wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 12:32pm:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 12:29pm:

MOTR wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 12:08pm:

1. Try the experiment is salt water, Maqqa. ;)
2. You do understand they are talking about the ice that is slipping off the continent.

So how does an Australian Carbon Tax change this?

you get to pay for the privilege of destroying the planet as we know it, instead of getting away with it for free.

Maqqa wants his lifestyle subsidised by his children.

So you can't answer the question

Didn't think so

I did answer it .. the fact that it wasn't the answer you wanted does not make it any less of an answer.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by gold_medal on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 1:14pm

John Smith wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 1:08pm:

gold_medal wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 12:32pm:

John Smith wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 10:06am:

the problem is that in the words of one of the worlds leading climate scientists 'THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT AGW'

which is the opposite to what the majority of climate scientists are saying ... you choose to quote that and ignore the others simply because it's what you want to believe.

you choose to believe there are ANY climate scientists that disagree and yet here are some. and as has been comprehensively demonstrated, the standard of research of the rest has been strongly criticised and frankly the ethics of a lot has been lamblasted as well. the hockey stick for example is the new generations Piltdown man. it was so ridiculoudly obvious that it was way wrong and yet even today most still believe it.

the science is far from settled. The actual science points away from AGW - not toward it.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by MOTR on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 1:15pm

Maqqa wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 12:48pm:

You're probably the sort of bloke who doesn't follow water restrictions because you con yourself into believing your individual actions mean SFA.

All individuals and all countries have a moral responsibility to contribute to the solution. If all small to middling countries and provinces were swayed by your faulty logic there is no possible solution.

You are right in the sense that we need a global agreement, something that you and your buddies have sabotaged in the past. How can Australia play an active role in pursuing this global agreement if we assume a hypocritical position.

Further, the world is set on a path towards a global agreement and most companies are factoring in carbon pricing because they see it is inevitable. Most sane people realise the alternative is simply unpalatable. To slow the transition of our country to a low carbon economy at this point would be nothing short of economic suicide.

And finally, since we have been given a clear choice between a market solution and direct intervention, who in the right mind would want all the inefficiencies that come with the government meddling in the affairs of industry. Put a price on it and let the ingenuity of the market sort it out.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by MOTR on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 1:21pm

gold_medal wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 1:14pm:

John Smith wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 1:08pm:

gold_medal wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 12:32pm:

John Smith wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 10:06am:

the problem is that in the words of one of the worlds leading climate scientists 'THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT AGW'

which is the opposite to what the majority of climate scientists are saying ... you choose to quote that and ignore the others simply because it's what you want to believe.

That's why there is not a single scientific body of national or international standing that agrees with you. That's why surveys have shown somewhere around 97% of climate scientists believe that our planet is warming and humans are responsible for this climate change.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by Maqqa on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 1:21pm

Maqqa wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 12:37pm:

not one leftie commented on this IPCC finding?

you don't know what 0.21mm looks like? - look in your pants and multiply that by 1,000

talking about multiplying by 1,000

if we multiply 0.21mm by 1,000 years = 210mm = 21cm in 1,000 years???

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by MOTR on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 1:28pm

Maqqa wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 1:21pm:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 12:37pm:

Give me time, Maqqa.

Have you thought about using a metric other than your penis size. It doesn't seem to match any standard I'm aware of.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by Deathridesahorse on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 1:34pm

MOTR wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 6:29pm:

elizabeth kubler-ross!

lol, the world is at a series of cross-roads... not just climate change! THESE WILL BE INTERESTING TIMES INDEED :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by Deathridesahorse on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 1:40pm

Panic, in the very concrete form of resource bottlenecks, will occur as everyone-read, the worlds governments- finally realise that they actually don't want to leave a poo-sandwich as a legacy for their children: as outlined by that bloke from BEYOND ZERO!

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by John Smith on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 1:41pm

gold_medal wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 1:14pm:

John Smith wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 1:08pm:

gold_medal wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 12:32pm:

John Smith wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 10:06am:

the problem is that in the words of one of the worlds leading climate scientists 'THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT AGW'

which is the opposite to what the majority of climate scientists are saying ... you choose to quote that and ignore the others simply because it's what you want to believe.

A - I never said the science is settled
B - I never said that no climate scientists don't believe in AGW
C- the only thing comprehensively demonstrated is your complete inablity to reason without prejudice or bias...

I'm pretty sure you are not a climate scientist, in fact I doubt you even know what the temperature is outside. I also am not a climate scientist and I don't pretend to be. As such I DO NOT google one or two stories and conclude that I know it all ... as a layman, I have to listen to the experts. You will always find experts that disagree with the mainstream, that doesn't prove anything. Until general consensus from the experts say otherwise I have to listen to the majority. If ten doctors are telling you that you need to remove a growth because it could kill you, and give you their reasons, and two doctors tell you no need to remove it, you'll be right, citing their reasons ... who are you going to listen to? I'm betting you wouldn't dare leave it.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by Deathridesahorse on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 1:57pm

...goldy specialises in the shattering of minds maaaaan: he has smoked so much boring meth he reckons he can control people with the written word maaaaaan!

GO SICKNESS: GO AUSSIE: GO THE CLEVER COUNTRY MAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by Deathridesahorse on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 1:59pm

OH, GOLDY ALSO HATES THE FACT CHINA IS ROLLING OUT FIBRE-TO-THE-HOME MAAAAAAAAAAAN!

:D :D :D

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by perceptions_now on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 2:45pm

Maqqa wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 11:12am:

progressiveslol wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 9:40am:

MOTR wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 9:37am:

FRED. wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 9:17am:

progressiveslol wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 9:14am:

MOTR wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 9:12am:

As long as it sounds sophisticated and appears to create doubt about warming or an anthropogenic forcing, progs will paste it.

Yeh thats a good rebuttal. So tell us all how ice floating on water and melting, changes the water level. Would love to hear this new scientific evidence.

Don't put ICE in your drink when it melts it flows all over the bar ;)

Looks like you've got a buddy, progs. If you read what the scientists are saying you'll find this particular analogy doesn't fit the situation.

Never does follow science or laws of physics does it.

The level of the world's oceans will rise. But this is not the real problem, the problem is that these white ice caps reflect sunlight, much of which is reflected back into space, in turn cooling earth, but with the ice caps melting, the only reflector is the ocean, darker color absorbs sunlight causing further warming of the earth which can be up to 80 °C which is fatal and can cause extinction of all living organisms.

If all the ice melted, north and south pole, Antarctica, Greenland, and all, sea levels would rise between 175 and 225 feet.
Coastal areas would essentially disappear, and roughly a third of the earth's existing landmass would be submerged. it is estimated that 60% of the world's population lives in the coastal plains.
Many inland areas would be affected as well, as water tables, rivers, and lakes would all rise from their previous heights.

The melting of the north polar cap would not appreciably increase the volume of water in the oceans, since the north polar cap is resting on the water and not on the land. It would decrease the salinity of the oceans, however, and this would cause some serious problems. The melting of the south polar cap, which rests on the continent of Antarctica, would add a great deal of water to the oceans and help to raise sea level, as well as contributing to lower salinity. The melting of the glaciers of Greenland would also significantly raise sea level.

When the whole North Pole is melted, the water will rise not at all, because floating ice doesn't change sea level, but when Greenland and Antarctica melt it may raise sea levels around 7 or 8 metres. This will flood sea countries like the Netherlands so that half of the Netherlands will disappear under the sea level.

The sea levels will start to rise
If the ice-caps melt the ecosystem will go out of balance
Temperature will get hotter in the coldest places in the world.

Link -
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_will_happen_if_ice_caps_melt
============================
You're exposing yourself, AGAIN!
Or, at least, you're exposing your lack of knowledge!

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by Maqqa on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 3:10pm

perceptions_now wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 2:45pm:

climate alarmists are saying sunlight has nothing to do with it

AND

reflected or not - the extra 50ppm in carbon is keeping the heat in

ie if there's 1,000,000 escape holes for heat to go through - 350 carbon plugs will some how keep enough heat in to warm the earth

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by Maqqa on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 3:12pm

MOTR wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 1:28pm:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 1:21pm:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 12:37pm:

Give me time, Maqqa.

Have you thought about using a metric other than your penis size. It doesn't seem to match any standard I'm aware of.

penis size is about the only measurement lefties understand

you guys haven't discovered the Empirical Measurement let alone the Metric

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by perceptions_now on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 3:48pm

Maqqa wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 3:10pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 2:45pm:

At least the writer of the article, knew what was going to happen with melting ice & why, UNLIKE YOU!!!
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_will_happen_if_ice_caps_melt

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by gold_medal on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 4:06pm

MOTR wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 1:21pm:

gold_medal wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 1:14pm:

John Smith wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 1:08pm:

gold_medal wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 12:32pm:

John Smith wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 10:06am:

the problem is that in the words of one of the worlds leading climate scientists 'THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT AGW'

which is the opposite to what the majority of climate scientists are saying ... you choose to quote that and ignore the others simply because it's what you want to believe.

wow... bang goes your 'critical reasoning' claim BIG TIME! your 97% claim is so bogus yet you continue to use it hoping no one knows it means a MERE 76 people in the entire world!

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by gold_medal on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 4:08pm

do you notice how MOTR runs away from discussion of any claim about no temperature rises once an opponetn shows facts???

you are a huge disappointment MOTR. I thought you might be a credible debater but instead you are justa cheer-squad member and and ideology to support.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by Maqqa on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 5:07pm

perceptions_now wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 3:48pm:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 3:10pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 2:45pm:

At least the writer of the article, knew what was going to happen with melting ice & why, UNLIKE YOU!!!
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_will_happen_if_ice_caps_melt

If the Antarctic and Greenland Ice Sheets melt then it will increase sea levels by about 70 meters

So what's your point about the Sun?

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by Maqqa on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 5:08pm

gold_medal wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 4:08pm:

and the unwise one

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by MOTR on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 6:12pm

Maqqa wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 3:10pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 2:45pm:

That's a strawman argument, Maqqa. Climate scientists are not denying that the sun is a driver of climate. They're saying it should be having a cooling effect at this present point in time.

Just because 390ppm might not sound like a lot to a lay person, means diddly squat. Just because you are swayed by such juvenile arguments doesn't mean they have any substance whatsoever.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by MOTR on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 6:15pm

Maqqa wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 5:08pm:

gold_medal wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 4:08pm:

and the unwise one

I'll always answer a direct question when I notice it. I don't recall any direct evidence that suggests their is a downward trend in global temperatures. Since the 1950s, every decade has been warmer than the last. The most obvious way to look for the trend is to take away known short term drivers. Take the short term noise away and we a left we a very clear trend. The argument that there has been a plateauing or a reversal in the long term trend is very weak indeed.

I know progs will froth at the adjusted data because he doesn't seem to believe in the El Niño effect either.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by MOTR on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 6:31pm

Those with a little common sense will see that the only reason the deniers can statistically argue that their has been a pause in global warming is because of the massive El Niño. In fact the 1997-98 El Niño was the strongest on record. You really have to have an acute aversion to graphs or be quite gullible to fall for this sort of statistical argument.

This particular argument will fall off the perch the next time we experience a decent sort of El Niño event. But by then progs and Maqqa will be arguing it's too late to do anything about it.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by MOTR on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 6:51pm

gold_medal wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 4:06pm:

MOTR wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 1:21pm:

gold_medal wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 1:14pm:

John Smith wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 1:08pm:

gold_medal wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 12:32pm:

John Smith wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 10:06am:

the problem is that in the words of one of the worlds leading climate scientists 'THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT AGW'

which is the opposite to what the majority of climate scientists are saying ... you choose to quote that and ignore the others simply because it's what you want to believe.

wow... bang goes your 'critical reasoning' claim BIG TIME! your 97% claim is so bogus yet you continue to use it hoping no one knows it means a MERE 76 people in the entire world!

It's a sample, goldie. With a sample size of 76 you are looking at a 95% confidence interval of somewhere between 85 and 100. So which ever way you cut it, goldie, the number is quite large. The reason that the 97% is often used is because a second survey with a larger sample size came up with the exact same result.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by MOTR on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 6:53pm

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by MOTR on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 7:04pm

Anderegg 2010

Quote:

A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States (PNAS) reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and drew the following two conclusions:
(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.[13]

The reality is that there are very few climatologists who believe there is insufficient evidence to accept the AGW hypothesis. And those few published scientists who believe their is substantial doubt are finding their arguments are getting very little traction. If a paper had been published that blew AGW out of the water, a claim that is frequently made in the denier blogosphere, it would quickly become the most cited paper in scientific history. There is no doubt the AGW hypothesis is robust and deserves our undivided attention.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by Rider on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 7:24pm

The number stems from a 2008 master’s thesis by student Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at the University of Illinois, under the guidance of Peter Doran, an associate professor of Earth and environmental sciences. The two researchers obtained their results by conducting a survey of 10,257 Earth scientists. The survey results must have deeply disappointed the researchers — in the end, they chose to highlight the views of a subgroup of just 77 scientists, 75 of whom thought humans contributed to climate change. The ratio 75/77 produces the 97% figure that pundits now tout.

Junk science. No credibility.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by MOTR on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 7:29pm

Rider wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 7:24pm:

Well that's Lawrence Solomon's interpretation. I'd be stoked if I got a return of over 30% with over 3000 respondents. The climatologists were always going to be a small sub group. I'd say 75 out of 77 tells us a fair bit about the lay of the land.

Unless you're Lawrence Solomon how about you let us know where the opinion is coming from. It's always good to know which ones are coming from shills for the Heartland Institute.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by Rider on Jan 1^st, 2013 at 6:38am

Whatever, its still junk science. Polishing turds will just give you a nicely polished turd MOTR.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by MOTR on Jan 1^st, 2013 at 7:33am

Rider wrote on Jan 1^st, 2013 at 6:38am:

Whatever, its still junk science. Polishing turds will just give you a nicely polished turd MOTR.

Junk science is just one of those ad hominems that the deniers use because their case is extremely weak.

Can you name one scientific body of national or international standing that has rejected the consensus position that "most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities":

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by adelcrow on Jan 1^st, 2013 at 7:36am

Rider wrote on Jan 1^st, 2013 at 6:38am:

Whatever, its still junk science. Polishing turds will just give you a nicely polished turd MOTR.

You should submit a paper on the topic given your deep knowledge and long experience in the field.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by Maqqa on Jan 1^st, 2013 at 8:21am

Maqqa wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 3:12pm:

MOTR wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 1:28pm:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 1:21pm:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 12:37pm:

Give me time, Maqqa.

Have you thought about using a metric other than your penis size. It doesn't seem to match any standard I'm aware of.

penis size is about the only measurement lefties understand

you guys haven't discovered the Empirical Measurement let alone the Metric

Still nothing from the left about these sea level increases?

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by Maqqa on Jan 1^st, 2013 at 8:23am

MOTR wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 6:12pm:

That's a strawman argument, Maqqa. Climate scientists are not denying that the sun is a driver of climate. They're saying it should be having a cooling effect at this present point in time.

that's precious

MOTR thinks the Sun has a cooling effect on the Earth - awww isn't it cute

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by MOTR on Jan 1^st, 2013 at 8:30am

Maqqa wrote on Jan 1^st, 2013 at 8:23am:

MOTR wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 6:12pm:

That's a strawman argument, Maqqa. Climate scientists are not denying that the sun is a driver of climate. They're saying it should be having a cooling effect at this present point in time.

that's precious

MOTR thinks the Sun has a cooling effect on the Earth - awww isn't it cute

It's all relative, little man.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by gold_medal on Jan 1^st, 2013 at 9:21am

MOTR wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 6:15pm:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 5:08pm:

gold_medal wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 4:08pm:

and the unwise one

im not a great fan of 'adjusted data' either. in fact, it is part of the hysterics modus operandi to 'alter' data but often invalidly or with intent to prove a point. Even here you are quoting stats that conveniently leave out data. Climate is the sum of ALL the facts and in the real world you cant eliminate the factors yu dont understand or dont like. bottom line is that the temperature now is identical to the temperature 16 years ago.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by gold_medal on Jan 1^st, 2013 at 9:27am

MOTR wrote on Jan 1^st, 2013 at 7:33am:

Rider wrote on Jan 1^st, 2013 at 6:38am:

Whatever, its still junk science. Polishing turds will just give you a nicely polished turd MOTR.

junk science is even CONSIDERING consensus as a mentionable factor. Consensus is meaningless and in other disciplines the goal is to DISPROVE consensus.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by MOTR on Jan 1^st, 2013 at 11:04am

gold_medal wrote on Jan 1^st, 2013 at 9:21am:

MOTR wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 6:15pm:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 5:08pm:

gold_medal wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 4:08pm:

and the unwise one

You are completely missing the thrust of the argument. The period of time immediately surrounding the El Niño event of 1997/1998 was cooler than it is today. The spike in temperatures, well above the underlying trend, is explained by a very well known driver of short term climate. You are missing the wood for the trees, goldie.

See how 1998 sticks out like dogs balls

Throughout the period of significant warming which we experienced in the later half of the 20th Century, there have been numerous points which can be cherry picked to demonstrate a superficial cooling trend. The rise in temperatures is not monotonic, quite well understood short term drivers will create noise. To get to the underlying long term trend you need to remove the short term noise. This exercise is not about eliminating drivers you don't understand it is actually factoring them into your analysis.

One way to do it is to separate El Niño, La Niña and neutral years. So what is the trend in these three groups? I'm glad you were curious enough to ask, goldie.

Another method is to remove the known and well understood short term drivers.

So your whole argument is based on ignoring the short term impact of these short term drivers.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by gold_medal on Jan 1^st, 2013 at 11:40am

your argument however is still little more than taking out the negative events and pretending that temperature is rising. I know it all looks nice and pretty and I am sure you are convinced but if Global warming is to be genuine then it must be ACTUAL warming, not statistically created warming. and remember that the comments from CRU is that there has been no STATISTICALLY significant warming for 16 year and now... 17 years.

This argument can still be simplistically called 'global warming once we remove all the cooling'. When CRU and other climate hysterics admit that warming has paused then any of these silly arguments are rather embarrassing.

Argue the PAUSE - as they do - but dont pretend it hasnt happened.

and i have to repeat yet again that waht you are doing is NOT critical reasoning but rather cheer leading. Critical reasoning would acknowelge the fact and then seek an actual reasoned response. You just say that it is warming regardless of the fact that it isnt.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by MOTR on Jan 1^st, 2013 at 12:30pm

Maqqa wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 1:21pm:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 12:37pm:

What you are ignoring is the total observed increase in sea levels. Currently most of this comes from thermal expansion and the melting of ice caps and glaciers.

The observed total rate so sea level rise was reported by the IPCC in 2007 to be 3.1 ± 0.7mm per year. This can be found in the same table from which Maqqa got his information. It is significantly higher than the 1.8 ± 0.5mm rate of change observed from 1963 through to 2003. More recent data shows it has increased again to 3.3 ± 0.4 mm per year from 1993 to 2009. (Nicholls et al. 2010)

This is what it looks like over the course of the 20th Century.

In the same report, the IPCC predicted during the 21st century, sea level will rise another 18 to 59 cm (or 7.1 to 23 inches), but these numbers do not include "uncertainties in climate-carbon cycle feedbacks nor do they include the full effects of changes in ice sheet flow".

The changes to ice sheet flows are the ones we were discussing earlier in this thread. They weren't included in the estimate because not enough was known about the the physical process. The IPCC findings are really quite conservative.

Thanks, Maqqa, for yet another example of how deniers are misrepresenting IPCC findings.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by skippy. on Jan 1^st, 2013 at 12:48pm

The conga line of morons that want our children dead are too stupid to take the increase in sea levels into account.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by MOTR on Jan 1^st, 2013 at 12:57pm

Keen observers will note that sea levels have continued to rise despite the alleged 16 year pause in global warming.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by gold_medal on Jan 1^st, 2013 at 1:47pm

MOTR wrote on Jan 1^st, 2013 at 12:57pm:

Keen observers will note that sea levels have continued to rise despite the alleged 16 year pause in global warming.

an unproved correlation however. but a decent deflection from the topic of the REAL pause in temperatures.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by progressiveslol on Jan 1^st, 2013 at 1:55pm

MOTR wrote on Jan 1^st, 2013 at 12:57pm:

Keen observers will note that sea levels have continued to rise despite the alleged 16 year pause in global warming.

Keen observers will note the fact of a 16 year pause in global warming, despite CO2 levels having continued to rise.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by MOTR on Jan 1^st, 2013 at 2:26pm

gold_medal wrote on Jan 1^st, 2013 at 1:47pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 1^st, 2013 at 12:57pm:

Keen observers will note that sea levels have continued to rise despite the alleged 16 year pause in global warming.

an unproved correlation however. but a decent deflection from the topic of the REAL pause in temperatures.

A one off spike is not a pause, unless of course you want to play semantics and define it this way. I think you'll find I've made two substantial responses to this topic on the previous page. I'd be interested to know how you explain rising sea levels and shrinking ice masses in a climate system that is not warming.

We have observational evidence from our satellites that tell us methane and CO2 are trapping more energy, so physics tells us the heat must be building up somewhere, and we can see that in our atmosphere, with each subsequent decade being hotter than the next.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by gold_medal on Jan 1^st, 2013 at 2:44pm

MOTR wrote on Jan 1^st, 2013 at 2:26pm:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 1^st, 2013 at 1:47pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 1^st, 2013 at 12:57pm:

Keen observers will note that sea levels have continued to rise despite the alleged 16 year pause in global warming.

an unproved correlation however. but a decent deflection from the topic of the REAL pause in temperatures.

that is an invalid assumption. recorded temperatures have FLAT-LINED. that is indisuptable - except that you just charge forward and say 'it isnt' and bluster on etc. Why cant you just accept that temperatures have flat-lined and then build that into your GW model rather than simply deny the fact. the former would give us a debating stance while the latter just makes you look stupid.

it is hardly critical reasoning to simply deny the facts and continue to build your edifice on shifting sands.

dont you get just a little suspcious about the 'warmest year' or 'warmest decade' prounouncements and then CRU - an alarmaist group - show that temperatures have in fact flat-lined?

My reson for pushing this is to prove a point about ACC hysterics in that they dont support science but rather ideology. A scientist says that temperature has flat-lined. an alarmist says it is continuine to rise because [instert bluster and sideways evidence and the odd tree-ring].

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by MOTR on Jan 1^st, 2013 at 2:59pm

You can only say it is flat lining if you very selectively pick the starting point of 97/98. That is not an honest way to debate the existence or non existence of a trend, goldie. It's a meaningless point, goldie, because 97/98 was a massive El Niño year and we have just come off the back of two consecutive La Niña events. Pick any of the immediate years around 97/98 and you can't manufacture a cooling trend.

It's an out and out case of deceit.

Now, goldie, if you read my posts carefully you'll see they are quite cogently argued. I've made my point as clearly as I can. If you look at the historical record over the last 40 years where there is clearly a statistical warming trend, you can see there have been plenty of intermediate points where you could have made the same argument as the one you are making today. Those who made the argument back then are just as wrong as you are today.

gold_medal wrote on Jan 1^st, 2013 at 2:44pm:

dont you get just a little suspcious about the 'warmest year' or 'warmest decade' prounouncements and then CRU - an alarmaist group - show that temperatures have in fact flat-lined?

And this is where you don't quite get the statistics, 98 is not the warmest year on record. According to the Met Office, both 2005 and 2010 were hotter.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by gold_medal on Jan 1^st, 2013 at 4:13pm

MOTR wrote on Jan 1^st, 2013 at 2:59pm:

dont you get just a little suspcious about the 'warmest year' or 'warmest decade' prounouncements and then CRU - an alarmaist group - show that temperatures have in fact flat-lined?

And this is where you don't quite get the statistics, 98 is not the warmest year on record. According to the Met Office, both 2005 and 2010 were hotter.

i cant reconcile your inventive description of the temperture with thos of your fellow travellers who themsleves CONCEDE the pause in warming. so why are you right and Phil Jones wrong? Why is an alarmist professor of climate science wrong but you are right?

This is the central point of my case: that no matter what happens it is always warming. ice floes in sydney harbour? hottest year ever. reords show even temperature? nope. they show warming once you take into account this, that and the other thing and anything else we can use to ignore the actual facts.

Did you know the Hoceky STick graph in 98 actually gives credence to the idiotic notion of trees 'telecommunicating' over 400kms+? This is how some trees apparently sense temperasture and pass that information on to other trees.

Seriously, the mere mention of that should have had Mann sacked. INstead, he is lauded as an expert and NO ONE commented or crticised it at the time.

I trust physicists. I trust biologists and chemists. I may not swallow everything that say without some thought, but climate science is so poor and so ideologically driven that simply rejecting its tenets is the best thing anyone can do. Credible, they are not. Ethical they are not and certianly they are not good scientists.

this temperature garbage is just the latests in a long line of 'we are right despite all the evidence' from the alarmists.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by gold_medal on Jan 1^st, 2013 at 4:34pm

did you know that one of the temperature reconstructions by Mann used thermometer readings from the UK. The problem is that instead of averageing the YEARS temperatures he averaged the SUMMER temperatures instead. and guess what happened...

Hockey Stick graph!!!

and your lot said 'no problem'.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by MOTR on Jan 1^st, 2013 at 5:29pm

gold_medal wrote on Jan 1^st, 2013 at 4:13pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 1^st, 2013 at 2:59pm:

dont you get just a little suspcious about the 'warmest year' or 'warmest decade' prounouncements and then CRU - an alarmaist group - show that temperatures have in fact flat-lined?

And this is where you don't quite get the statistics, 98 is not the warmest year on record. According to the Met Office, both 2005 and 2010 were hotter.

Now you seem to be ranting against the same data you want to use to claim there has been a pause in global warming. Though I'm not really sure what point you are trying to make.

How about you provide me with a quote from Phil Jones, in context of course. I'm sure you'll find he is probably saying the same thing as me.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by MOTR on Jan 1^st, 2013 at 5:36pm

gold_medal wrote on Jan 1^st, 2013 at 4:34pm:

I'm sure I'll read all about it when I download the book. Although thermometer readings seem like a pretty good way to construct a record of temperatures. Pity they didn't exist in the Middle Ages. It would save quite a lot of bandwidth on the Internet.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by perceptions_now on Jan 1^st, 2013 at 6:08pm

MOTR wrote on Jan 1^st, 2013 at 5:29pm:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 1^st, 2013 at 4:13pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 1^st, 2013 at 2:59pm:

dont you get just a little suspcious about the 'warmest year' or 'warmest decade' prounouncements and then CRU - an alarmaist group - show that temperatures have in fact flat-lined?

And this is where you don't quite get the statistics, 98 is not the warmest year on record. According to the Met Office, both 2005 and 2010 were hotter.

Longy does a bit of that!

Longy also, does a bit of that!

Sorry, Longy usually flunks out on that one.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by MOTR on Jan 2^nd, 2013 at 7:32am

How can you report that the IPCC has identified a game changer when the overall report concludes that they are virtually certain humans are the cause of global warming. That's right they are 99% certain.

Cherry picking data and quotes to manufacture a sense of doubt and delay action. The benefits of delay will accrue to a few while the massive costs will be borne by us all. Even those who benefit in the short run will lose in the end. Perhaps they dont think they'll live long enough to suffer the consequences.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by gold_medal on Jan 2^nd, 2013 at 7:43am

MOTR wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2013 at 7:32am:

You shoudl read a little more about how the IPCC puts its reports together. The lead author (who is always a pro-AGW fanatic) writes the summary while the contents may actually say something significantly different. And then of course there is the IPCC summary it self given to policy maker in advance to the release which is written prior to the report being written. Then the lead authors have to edit their chapters to ensure it agrees with the summary!

yep... thats how this supposedly accurate document is put together. it is probably the most discredit methodology around. in essence it is" choose the outcome ad then write the report. Climate Science at its best!

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by progressiveslol on Jan 2^nd, 2013 at 10:21am

gold_medal wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2013 at 7:43am:

MOTR wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2013 at 7:32am:

There used to be a religion run like that in times past. Funny enough, they used the fear of god, this religion uses the fear of climate.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by MOTR on Jan 2^nd, 2013 at 10:40am

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2013 at 10:21am:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2013 at 7:43am:

MOTR wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2013 at 7:32am:

There used to be a religion run like that in times past. Funny enough, they used the fear of god, this religion uses the fear of climate.

Funny post from a man fearful of nerds.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by gold_medal on Jan 3^rd, 2013 at 11:26am

MOTR wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2013 at 10:40am:

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2013 at 10:21am:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2013 at 7:43am:

MOTR wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2013 at 7:32am:

There used to be a religion run like that in times past. Funny enough, they used the fear of god, this religion uses the fear of climate.

Funny post from a man fearful of nerds.

yet you accept the word of IPCC despite being the most discredited science group on the planet.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by MOTR on Jan 3^rd, 2013 at 11:36am

When issues become politicised the messenger is often attacked. Have a look at who is attacking them.

Quote:

Global warming estimates, media expectations, and the asymmetry of scientific challenges

William R. Freudenburg , Violetta Muselli

ABSTRACT
Mass media in the U.S. continue to suggest that scientific consensus estimates of global climate disruption, such as those from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), are ‘‘exaggerated’’ and overly pessimistic. By contrast, work on the Asymmetry of Scientific Challenge (ASC) suggests that such consensus assessments are likely to understate climate disruptions. This paper offers an initial test of the competing expectations, making use of the tendency for science to be self-correcting, over time. Rather than relying in any way on the IPCC process, the paper draws evidence about emerging science from four newspapers that have been found in past work to be biased against reporting IPCC findings, consistently reporting instead that scientific findings are ‘‘in dispute.’’ The analysis considers two time periods — one during the time when the papers were found to be overstating challenges to then- prevailing scientific consensus, and the other focusing on 2008, after the IPCC and former Vice-President Gore shared the Nobel Prize for their work on climate disruption, and before opinion polls showed the U.S. public to be growing more skeptical toward climate science once again. During both periods, new scientific findings were more than twenty times as likely to support the ASC perspective than the usual framing of the issue in the U.S. mass media. The findings indicate that supposed challenges to the scientific consensus on global warming need to be subjected to greater scrutiny, as well as showing that, if reporters wish to discuss ‘‘both sides’’ of the climate issue, the scientifically legitimate ‘‘other side’’ is that, if anything, global climate disruption may prove to be significantly worse than has been suggested in scientific consensus estimates to date

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by gold_medal on Jan 3^rd, 2013 at 11:57am

MOTR wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2013 at 11:36am:

When issues become politicised the messenger is often attacked. Have a look at who is attacking them.

Quote:

you clearly are not at all interested in believeing that the IPCC conducts its processes ina flawed and corrupt manner, predetermining the outcome before reports are written and actively rejecting any reports that dont concur with the orthodoxy.

if you were, our discussions would be a little more centrist and involve that concept you brag about but never employ: CRITICAL REASONING.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by perceptions_now on Jan 3^rd, 2013 at 12:08pm

I re-post this here, because it is relevant.

perceptions_now wrote on Jan 1^st, 2013 at 10:49pm:

3) Climate Change
The last of the major factors, why Growth will not return, is that our relatively benign Climate conditions are ending, as both nature & Humanity push towards the Peak of the current Global warming trend.

There is a great deal of argument over whether our current Climate Change is caused by man or simply part of the planets long term trend, BUT frankly that is largely irrelevant, as change is upon us & it is impacting already, to some extent, on Agricultural Production, which is again causing lower Production in some Agricultural Products and Cost increases, which again will lessen the Public Disposable Income.

BUT, more importantly, it will also cause Food & Fresh Water shortages, which will impact severely on those who can least avoid it and cause the Death rate to rise sharply in many third world countries.

That said, I believe that the argument/s put by the bulk of Scientists, particularly those who specialise in the Climate area, are likely to be found to be largely correct, that we (humans) are hastening the natural cycle AND therefore, we should take any & all measures possible, to mitigate against the worse likely outcomes, as some of those worst outcomes could change everything!

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by Deathridesahorse on Jan 3^rd, 2013 at 3:01pm

gold_medal wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2013 at 7:43am:

MOTR wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2013 at 7:32am:

...====>>>and you should talk to people who are in it!

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by Deathridesahorse on Jan 3^rd, 2013 at 3:04pm

MOTR wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2013 at 11:36am:

When issues become politicised the messenger is often attacked. Have a look at who is attacking them.

Quote:

WHEN ISSUES BECOME ABOUT THE RICH BEING ALLOWED TO DUMP EXTERNALITIES ON THE UNBORN THE MESSENGER IS OFTEN ATTACKED! [/FIXED!] ;) ;)

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by gold_medal on Jan 3^rd, 2013 at 3:43pm

perceptions_now wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2013 at 12:08pm:

I re-post this here, because it is relevant.

perceptions_now wrote on Jan 1^st, 2013 at 10:49pm:

ths ironic part of your post is that global warming increases the amount of arable land in the lower and upper lattitudes while increase CO2 improves yields per hectare. In fact, the medieval warm period was known for its improved level of prosperity and human conditions for just that reason and the obverse for the Little ice age.

so once again, your reasoning comes to the diametrically wrong conclusion.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by progressiveslol on Jan 4^th, 2013 at 9:15am

What do you think. Will this be included in the IPCC AR5 report which can take new research up to March '13?

AGW Bombshell? A new paper shows statistical tests for global warming fails to find statistically significant anthropogenic forcing

From the journal Earth System Dynamics billed as “An Interactive Open Access Journal of the European Geosciences Union” comes this paper which suggests that the posited AGW forcing effects simply isn’t statistically significant in the observations, but other natural forcings are.

Quote:

“…We show that although these anthropogenic forcings share a common stochastic trend, this trend is empirically independent of the stochastic trend in temperature and solar irradiance. Therefore, greenhouse gas forcing, aerosols, solar irradiance and global temperature are not polynomially cointegrated. This implies that recent global warming is not statistically significantly related to anthropogenic forcing. On the other hand, we find that greenhouse gas forcing might have had a temporary effect on global temperature.”

This is a most interesting paper, and potentially a bombshell, because they have taken virtually all of the significant observational datasets (including GISS and BEST) along with solar irradiance from Lean and Rind, and CO2, CH4, N2O, aerosols, and even water vapor data and put them all to statistical tests (including Lucia’s favorite, the unit root test) against forcing equations. Amazingly, it seems that they have almost entirely ruled out anthropogenic forcing in the observational data, but allowing for the possibility they could be wrong, say:

Quote:

“…our rejection of AGW is not absolute; it might be a false positive, and we cannot rule out the possibility that recent global warming has an anthropogenic footprint. However, this possibility is very small, and is not statistically significant at conventional levels.”

Abstract.

We use statistical methods for nonstationary time series to test the anthropogenic interpretation of global warming (AGW), according to which an increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations raised global temperature in the 20th century. Specifically, the methodology of polynomial cointegration is used to test AGW since during the observation period (1880–2007) global temperature and solar irradiance are stationary in 1st differences whereas greenhouse gases and aerosol forcings are stationary in 2nd differences. We show that although these anthropogenic forcings share a common stochastic trend, this trend is empirically independent of the stochastic trend in temperature and solar irradiance. Therefore, greenhouse gas forcing, aerosols, solar irradiance and global temperature are not polynomially cointegrated. This implies that recent global warming is not statistically significantly related to anthropogenic forcing. On the other hand, we find that greenhouse gas forcing might have had a temporary effect on global temperature.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/03/agw-bombshell-a-new-paper-shows-statistical-tests-for-global-warming-fails-to-find-statistically-significantly-anthropogenic-forcing/

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by Deathridesahorse on Jan 4^th, 2013 at 5:10pm

gold_medal wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2013 at 3:43pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2013 at 12:08pm:

I re-post this here, because it is relevant.

perceptions_now wrote on Jan 1^st, 2013 at 10:49pm:

GOLD_MEDAL DOESN'T UNDERSTAND COMPLEX SYSTEMS!

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by gold_medal on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 4:43pm

the IPCC in 2000 predicted a 1 degree rise by 2010. they were off by... you guessed it. ONE DEGREE.

no one needs to discredit the IPCC. they do a stellar job on their own.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by Deathridesahorse on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 5:01pm

gold_medal wrote on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 4:43pm:

the IPCC in 2000 predicted a 1 degree rise by 2010. they were off by... you guessed it. ONE DEGREE.

no one needs to discredit the IPCC. they do a stellar job on their own.

Measurement ay!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ;) ;)

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by adelcrow on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 5:07pm

The denialists are arguing that we should continue to pollute like theres no tomorrow and there will never be a downside to it.
The rest of us are calling them out for the bullshitters they are.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by greggerypeccary on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 5:12pm

adelcrow wrote on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 5:07pm:

The denialists are arguing that we should continue to pollute like theres no tomorrow and there will never be a downside to it.
The rest of us are calling them out for the bullshitters they are.

1. I'm not a "denialist", I am an AGW sceptic.

2. I certainly am not "arguing that we should continue to pollute like there's no tomorrow". I have always maintained that I have no problem with carbon taxes or any other precautionary measures.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by gold_medal on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 5:21pm

adelcrow wrote on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 5:07pm:

The denialists are arguing that we should continue to pollute like theres no tomorrow and there will never be a downside to it.
The rest of us are calling them out for the bullshitters they are.

never met a denialist. Met a lot of sceptics however. Most of them are scientists which is not surprising since scepticism is a component of the scientific method.

and the sceptics are making more sense,

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by Deathridesahorse on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 6:06pm

gold_medal wrote on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 5:21pm:

adelcrow wrote on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 5:07pm:

The denialists are arguing that we should continue to pollute like theres no tomorrow and there will never be a downside to it.
The rest of us are calling them out for the bullshitters they are.

-->> skepticism is scientific method!

lol, go hardcore gold_medal for pointing out the obvious!

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by rabbitoh07 on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 6:12pm

Maqqa wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 7:53pm:

The title says "Deniers nailed...."

Does anyone know what we are supposed to be "denying"

Strangely - there are still a handful of people why deny the existence of the vast amount of accumulated evidence that anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gasses are impacting upon the planet's climate.

Weird huh.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by rabbitoh07 on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 6:16pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 5:12pm:

adelcrow wrote on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 5:07pm:

The denialists are arguing that we should continue to pollute like theres no tomorrow and there will never be a downside to it.
The rest of us are calling them out for the bullshitters they are.

1. I'm not a "denialist", I am an AGW sceptic.

No - if you were a "sceptic", you would be able to mount some sort of coherent arguement as to why virtually the entire global scientific community is wrong in its acceptance of the long-standing theory that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emission are impacting upon the planet's climate.

You can't

You simply deny the existance of the evidence.

You are a denier.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 5:12pm:

2. I certainly am not "arguing that we should continue to pollute like there's no tomorrow". I have always maintained that I have no problem with carbon taxes or any other precautionary measures.

Why do you "have no problem with carbon taxes " if you accept the overwhelming evidence that carbon emissions are impacting upon climate?

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by rabbitoh07 on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 6:18pm

gold_medal wrote on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 5:21pm:

adelcrow wrote on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 5:07pm:

The denialists are arguing that we should continue to pollute like theres no tomorrow and there will never be a downside to it.
The rest of us are calling them out for the bullshitters they are.

never met a denialist.

Look in the mirror.

Your denial is so bad you actually tell lies to try to support it.

Why did you write:

"actually glaciers have stopped recending,"

Please provide evidence to support that statement or apologise for lying to the forum.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by gold_medal on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 6:19pm

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 6:12pm:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 7:53pm:

The title says "Deniers nailed...."

Does anyone know what we are supposed to be "denying"

the problem that you continue to deny is that there is a wealth of accumulated evidence to sugges that the current warming is entirely normal and unspectacular. real evidence supported byb real science and real scientists.

but you ignore then and refute them for only one reason: they dont agree with the consensus. Is there a worse reason to reject it than this?

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by rabbitoh07 on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 6:20pm

gold_medal wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2013 at 11:57am:

MOTR wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2013 at 11:36am:

When issues become politicised the messenger is often attacked. Have a look at who is attacking them.

Quote:

Oh dear!

Not just a liar, but a conspiracy theorist too!

Why did you write:

"actually glaciers have stopped recending,"

Please provide evidence to support that statement or apologise for lying to the forum.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by gold_medal on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 6:20pm

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 6:16pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 5:12pm:

adelcrow wrote on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 5:07pm:

The denialists are arguing that we should continue to pollute like theres no tomorrow and there will never be a downside to it.
The rest of us are calling them out for the bullshitters they are.

1. I'm not a "denialist", I am an AGW sceptic.

2. I certainly am not "arguing that we should continue to pollute like there's no tomorrow". I have always maintained that I have no problem with carbon taxes or any other precautionary measures.

Why do you "have no problem with carbon taxes " if you accept the overwhelming evidence that carbon emissions are impacting upon climate?

70 years ago the consensus in physics was that there was an 'ether' propogating E radiation. they were wrong. and the proof is schoolboy level. not a good example of hte valueof consensus.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by rabbitoh07 on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 6:23pm

gold_medal wrote on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 6:19pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 6:12pm:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 7:53pm:

The title says "Deniers nailed...."

Does anyone know what we are supposed to be "denying"

the problem that you continue to deny is that there is a wealth of accumulated evidence to sugges that the current warming is entirely normal and unspectacular.

Wait?!?!? What?!?!?

Are you telling us that there is "a wealth of accumulated evidence to sugges that the current warming is entirely normal and unspectacular"?!?!?

What warming?!?!?! You have just spent several pages on another thread telling us that earth IS NOT warming?!?!?

Do you have any idea what you are talking about?

In your little fantasy world - Is the earth warming or not? Could you at least get that straight?

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by rabbitoh07 on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 6:26pm

gold_medal wrote on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 6:20pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 6:16pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 5:12pm:

adelcrow wrote on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 5:07pm:

The denialists are arguing that we should continue to pollute like theres no tomorrow and there will never be a downside to it.
The rest of us are calling them out for the bullshitters they are.

1. I'm not a "denialist", I am an AGW sceptic.

2. I certainly am not "arguing that we should continue to pollute like there's no tomorrow". I have always maintained that I have no problem with carbon taxes or any other precautionary measures.

Why do you "have no problem with carbon taxes " if you accept the overwhelming evidence that carbon emissions are impacting upon climate?

70 years ago the consensus in physics was that there was an 'ether' propogating E radiation. they were wrong. and the proof is schoolboy level. not a good example of hte valueof consensus.

70 years ago the consensus in physics that increasing the amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere would impact upon the planet's climate.

And that consensus has grown stronger ever since.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by Deathridesahorse on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 6:27pm

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 6:12pm:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 7:53pm:

The title says "Deniers nailed...."

Does anyone know what we are supposed to be "denying"

Nuh, everyone feathers their own nest: the tryhards believe they are doing the right thing by their tryhard mates and it makes them more comfortable whenst sipping on cognac or whatever they drink!

I mean, the crack has to get boring one day....................

:D :D :D :D :D :D

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by adelcrow on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 6:32pm

Even if they consider that there is a small chance that the pollution we have been pumping into the atmosphere since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution is harmful the denialists would still rather keep on chugging away than admit that it would be far more prudent to put a halt to the polluting asap and invest in the research and development of cleaner and more sustainable alternatives.
This is why we are far better off ignoring the denialists...
There will always be an element of society that is self destructive and we should fight against them bringing the rest of us down with them.
One simple question..why not be prudent and invest in clean renewable energy sources instead of continuing to pump pollution into the atmosphere..even if there is just a tiny chance that all this pollution isn't good for us or the planet.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by gold_medal on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 6:36pm

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 6:23pm:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 6:19pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 6:12pm:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 7:53pm:

The title says "Deniers nailed...."

Does anyone know what we are supposed to be "denying"

the problem that you continue to deny is that there is a wealth of accumulated evidence to sugges that the current warming is entirely normal and unspectacular.

you could try a little contextual commentary. noone here is denying that the planet has warmed. No One. most however ARE denying that it is STILL warming and in fact, the evidence says that it isnt. We are also denying thet human-driven notion.

so try and at least represent us with the intellectual honesty your religious ACC heroes do not use themselves.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by rabbitoh07 on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 6:38pm

gold_medal wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 8:05pm:

well let's look at the '97% of climate scientists' claim that MOTR makes.

the source of this data is a survey of just two questions - both poorly written and subjective.

it was sent out to 10,000+ 'climate scientists' a massive number of 76 responded. yep, SEVENTY SIX. so in the mother of all self-selction bias surveys, 97% say they support a poorly defined ACC.

there are Womens Day surveys with more statistical credibility than that.

this is an example of the statistical nonsense that passes for science over in the climate hysterical corner.

Oh dear!!!

You really cannot help yourself lying can you!?! It is like a disease! You need help.

The ‘Scientific Consensus on Climate Change’: Doran and Zimmerman Revisited
...of the 10, 257 people approached to take part in this survey, 3,146 or 30.7% chose to participate.
http://www.garnautreview.org.au/update-2011/commissioned-work/the-'scientigic-consensus-on-climate-change'.pdf

3146.

Not 76.

Try telling the truth instead of just making stuff up.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by gold_medal on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 6:38pm

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 6:26pm:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 6:20pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 6:16pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 5:12pm:

adelcrow wrote on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 5:07pm:

The denialists are arguing that we should continue to pollute like theres no tomorrow and there will never be a downside to it.
The rest of us are calling them out for the bullshitters they are.

1. I'm not a "denialist", I am an AGW sceptic.

2. I certainly am not "arguing that we should continue to pollute like there's no tomorrow". I have always maintained that I have no problem with carbon taxes or any other precautionary measures.

Why do you "have no problem with carbon taxes " if you accept the overwhelming evidence that carbon emissions are impacting upon climate?

70 years ago the consensus in physics was that there was an 'ether' propogating E radiation. they were wrong. and the proof is schoolboy level. not a good example of hte valueof consensus.

70 years ago the consensus in physics that increasing the amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere would impact upon the planet's climate.

And that consensus has grown stronger ever since.

nice deflection and best of all 70 years ago science was predicting global cooling. so even when you deflect, you lie. bummer huh?

but please... tell us how consenus proves your point and how ether is real and that there is no subatomic structure and all the other universally held 'truths' from the past.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by gold_medal on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 6:40pm

adelcrow wrote on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 6:32pm:

so the ends justifies the means? or a well-meaning lie is better than truth?

you sold your soul for what?

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by greggerypeccary on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 6:43pm

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 6:16pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 5:12pm:

adelcrow wrote on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 5:07pm:

The denialists are arguing that we should continue to pollute like theres no tomorrow and there will never be a downside to it.
The rest of us are calling them out for the bullshitters they are.

1. I'm not a "denialist", I am an AGW sceptic.

2. I certainly am not "arguing that we should continue to pollute like there's no tomorrow". I have always maintained that I have no problem with carbon taxes or any other precautionary measures.

Why do you "have no problem with carbon taxes " if you accept the overwhelming evidence that carbon emissions are impacting upon climate?

1. I'm a a sceptic. I do not deny the existence of the evidence. Once again you are telling lies (you love to call other people liars but you seem to be the biggest liar in this forum). I have said on several occasions that the AGW alarmists have presented lots of evidence. Never denied it at all, and you have nothing to demonstrate otherwise. Once again, I am a sceptic: I do not deny the chance that the AGW hypothesis may be correct, however, currently I doubt that it is (and I don't need to mount any sort of counter argument to hold this belief - sorry, but that's the way it is). I'm making this as clear as I possibly can, so I don't expect any more lies from you on this matter.

2. I have no problem with carbon taxes because I may indeed be wrong about AGW: the hypothesis may be correct. So, seeing as the carbon tax has no negative affect on me I have absolutely no problem with such a precautionary measure, just in case I'm wrong. I'm not really sure why you can't understand this. I suppose you were just making assumptions again. Just because I'm sceptical of the AGW hypothesis you immediately think that I'm a right winger who listens to Alan Jones and is opposed to a carbon tax. Well, you'd be wrong to assume that.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by rabbitoh07 on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 6:44pm

gold_medal wrote on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 6:36pm:

Wow - I hope you have reversing beepers on while you back-peddle!

So now you are telling us the earth HAS warmed!

Then you would expect glaciers to recede, wouldn't you.

Why did you write:
"actually glaciers have stopped recending,"

Please show us evidence to support this statement of admit that you were telling a lie.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by rabbitoh07 on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 6:49pm

gold_medal wrote on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 6:38pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 6:26pm:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 6:20pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 6:16pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 5:12pm:

adelcrow wrote on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 5:07pm:

The denialists are arguing that we should continue to pollute like theres no tomorrow and there will never be a downside to it.
The rest of us are calling them out for the bullshitters they are.

1. I'm not a "denialist", I am an AGW sceptic.

2. I certainly am not "arguing that we should continue to pollute like there's no tomorrow". I have always maintained that I have no problem with carbon taxes or any other precautionary measures.

Why do you "have no problem with carbon taxes " if you accept the overwhelming evidence that carbon emissions are impacting upon climate?

70 years ago the consensus in physics was that there was an 'ether' propogating E radiation. they were wrong. and the proof is schoolboy level. not a good example of hte valueof consensus.

70 years ago the consensus in physics that increasing the amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere would impact upon the planet's climate.

And that consensus has grown stronger ever since.

Perhaps you would like to explain why you need to tell lies you promote your argument.

Why did you write:
"actually glaciers have stopped recending,"

Please show us evidence to support this statement of admit that you were telling a lie.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by gold_medal on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 6:51pm

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 6:44pm:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 6:36pm:

Ive been saying that the entire time you dimwitted dumb-bunny. You are so blinded by your religious doctrine that you cannot even understand the words people say to you. but in the last 16 years warming has stopped. Now even to a moron like you that last sentence shoudl be able to imply i believe warming has happened.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by rabbitoh07 on Jan 7^th, 2013 at 12:42pm

gold_medal wrote on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 6:51pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 6:44pm:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 6:36pm:

So - " in the last 16 years warming has stopped" - yet the hottest year ever recorded was 2010. And 12 of the hottest years every recorded were in the past 16 years.

How does that work?!?!?

How could warming have stopped in the last 16 years when 12 of those last 16 years were the hottest ever recorded?

You seem to be making things up again.

And why did you write:
"actually glaciers have stopped recending,"

Please show us evidence to support this statement of admit that you were telling a lie.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by Maqqa on Jan 7^th, 2013 at 8:21pm

Maqqa wrote on Jan 1^st, 2013 at 8:21am:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 3:12pm:

MOTR wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 1:28pm:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 1:21pm:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 12:37pm:

Give me time, Maqqa.

Have you thought about using a metric other than your penis size. It doesn't seem to match any standard I'm aware of.

penis size is about the only measurement lefties understand

you guys haven't discovered the Empirical Measurement let alone the Metric

Still nothing from the left about these sea level increases?

Still nothing from the left about these IPCC figures?

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by gold_medal on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 7:07am

Maqqa wrote on Jan 7^th, 2013 at 8:21pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jan 1^st, 2013 at 8:21am:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 3:12pm:

MOTR wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 1:28pm:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 1:21pm:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 12:37pm:

Give me time, Maqqa.

Have you thought about using a metric other than your penis size. It doesn't seem to match any standard I'm aware of.

penis size is about the only measurement lefties understand

you guys haven't discovered the Empirical Measurement let alone the Metric

Still nothing from the left about these sea level increases?

Still nothing from the left about these IPCC figures?

too smug about a few hot days around the country. NOW it is global warming because it is hot and not even close to the hottest.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by rabbitoh07 on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 1:05pm

gold_medal wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 7:07am:

Maqqa wrote on Jan 7^th, 2013 at 8:21pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jan 1^st, 2013 at 8:21am:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 3:12pm:

MOTR wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 1:28pm:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 1:21pm:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 12:37pm:

Give me time, Maqqa.

Have you thought about using a metric other than your penis size. It doesn't seem to match any standard I'm aware of.

penis size is about the only measurement lefties understand

you guys haven't discovered the Empirical Measurement let alone the Metric

Still nothing from the left about these sea level increases?

Still nothing from the left about these IPCC figures?

too smug about a few hot days around the country. NOW it is global warming because it is hot and not even close to the hottest.

Why did you tell this outright lie here:

gold_medal wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 8:05pm:

THere were 3146 respondents to the survey. Not 76.

What did you hope to gain by telling such a ridiculous lie?

That same as when you lied about glaciers receding. When are going to apologise to the forum for that lie?

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by progressiveslol on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 1:10pm

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 1:05pm:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 7:07am:

Maqqa wrote on Jan 7^th, 2013 at 8:21pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jan 1^st, 2013 at 8:21am:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 3:12pm:

MOTR wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 1:28pm:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 1:21pm:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 12:37pm:

Give me time, Maqqa.

Have you thought about using a metric other than your penis size. It doesn't seem to match any standard I'm aware of.

penis size is about the only measurement lefties understand

you guys haven't discovered the Empirical Measurement let alone the Metric

Still nothing from the left about these sea level increases?

Still nothing from the left about these IPCC figures?

too smug about a few hot days around the country. NOW it is global warming because it is hot and not even close to the hottest.

Why did you tell this outright lie here:

gold_medal wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 8:05pm:

You need to keep up. You sound like you are so far from the information at hand, you almost sound like that useful idiot I was talking about.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by rabbitoh07 on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 1:13pm

Maqqa wrote on Jan 7^th, 2013 at 8:21pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jan 1^st, 2013 at 8:21am:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 3:12pm:

MOTR wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 1:28pm:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 1:21pm:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 12:37pm:

Give me time, Maqqa.

Have you thought about using a metric other than your penis size. It doesn't seem to match any standard I'm aware of.

penis size is about the only measurement lefties understand

you guys haven't discovered the Empirical Measurement let alone the Metric

Still nothing from the left about these sea level increases?

Still nothing from the left about these IPCC figures?

What exactly is your question?!?!? Your post doesn't seem to make much sense.

Do you want to know how much of the current sea level rise is attributable to melting of continental ice shelfs?

Whatever the answer is, it would be fairly insignificant compared to current sea level rise is attributable to the thermal expansion of the liquid water in the oceans

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by rabbitoh07 on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 1:15pm

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 1:10pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 1:05pm:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 7:07am:

Maqqa wrote on Jan 7^th, 2013 at 8:21pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jan 1^st, 2013 at 8:21am:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 3:12pm:

MOTR wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 1:28pm:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 1:21pm:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 12:37pm:

Give me time, Maqqa.

Have you thought about using a metric other than your penis size. It doesn't seem to match any standard I'm aware of.

penis size is about the only measurement lefties understand

you guys haven't discovered the Empirical Measurement let alone the Metric

Still nothing from the left about these sea level increases?

Still nothing from the left about these IPCC figures?

too smug about a few hot days around the country. NOW it is global warming because it is hot and not even close to the hottest.

Why did you tell this outright lie here:

gold_medal wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 8:05pm:

You need to keep up. You sound like you are so far from the information at hand, you almost sound like that useful idiot I was talking about.

Do you know why Gold Medal told such a silly lie? Could you explain?

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by Deathridesahorse on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 1:18pm

gold_medal wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 7:07am:

Maqqa wrote on Jan 7^th, 2013 at 8:21pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jan 1^st, 2013 at 8:21am:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 3:12pm:

MOTR wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 1:28pm:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 1:21pm:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 12:37pm:

Give me time, Maqqa.

Have you thought about using a metric other than your penis size. It doesn't seem to match any standard I'm aware of.

penis size is about the only measurement lefties understand

you guys haven't discovered the Empirical Measurement let alone the Metric

Still nothing from the left about these sea level increases?

Still nothing from the left about these IPCC figures?

too smug about a few hot days around the country. NOW it is global warming because it is hot and not even close to the hottest.

HEAT CONTENT IS WHAT MATTERS... NOT TEMPERATURE!

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by progressiveslol on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 1:18pm

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 1:15pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 1:10pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 1:05pm:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 7:07am:

Maqqa wrote on Jan 7^th, 2013 at 8:21pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jan 1^st, 2013 at 8:21am:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 3:12pm:

MOTR wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 1:28pm:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 1:21pm:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 12:37pm:

Give me time, Maqqa.

Have you thought about using a metric other than your penis size. It doesn't seem to match any standard I'm aware of.

penis size is about the only measurement lefties understand

you guys haven't discovered the Empirical Measurement let alone the Metric

Still nothing from the left about these sea level increases?

Still nothing from the left about these IPCC figures?

too smug about a few hot days around the country. NOW it is global warming because it is hot and not even close to the hottest.

Why did you tell this outright lie here:

gold_medal wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 8:05pm:

You need to keep up. You sound like you are so far from the information at hand, you almost sound like that useful idiot I was talking about.

Do you know why Gold Medal told such a silly lie? Could you explain?

I know of the information of the 76 because I linked to it. It is not a lie. The 97% comes from 76 climate scientist who had published a paper that was accepted withn xxxx. Big number hey considering 3000+ respondents.

Pathetic. Started with 10000. Ended up with 3000 something responses and only ended with a 97% number of 76 out of 3000 something respondents.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by rabbitoh07 on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 1:28pm

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 1:18pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 1:15pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 1:10pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 1:05pm:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 7:07am:

Maqqa wrote on Jan 7^th, 2013 at 8:21pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jan 1^st, 2013 at 8:21am:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 3:12pm:

MOTR wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 1:28pm:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 1:21pm:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 12:37pm:

Give me time, Maqqa.

Have you thought about using a metric other than your penis size. It doesn't seem to match any standard I'm aware of.

penis size is about the only measurement lefties understand

you guys haven't discovered the Empirical Measurement let alone the Metric

Still nothing from the left about these sea level increases?

Still nothing from the left about these IPCC figures?

too smug about a few hot days around the country. NOW it is global warming because it is hot and not even close to the hottest.

Why did you tell this outright lie here:

gold_medal wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 8:05pm:

You need to keep up. You sound like you are so far from the information at hand, you almost sound like that useful idiot I was talking about.

Do you know why Gold Medal told such a silly lie? Could you explain?

Gold Medal lied.

He wrote that
it was sent out to 10,000+ 'climate scientists' a massive number of 76 responded.

That is false

And of the 10, 257 people approached to take part in this survey, 3,146 or 30.7% chose to participate.
http://www.garnautreview.org.au/update-2011/commissioned-work/the-'scientigic-consensus-on-climate-change'.pdf

79 of the 3,149 respondants were "defined as those who had both ‘nominated climate science as their area of expertise’ and ‘published more than 50% of their recent peer- reviewed papers on... climate change’"

Gold Medal told a deliberate lie. Just as he did when he told a deliberate lie about glaciers receding.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by progressiveslol on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 1:32pm

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 1:28pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 1:18pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 1:15pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 1:10pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 1:05pm:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 7:07am:

Maqqa wrote on Jan 7^th, 2013 at 8:21pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jan 1^st, 2013 at 8:21am:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 3:12pm:

MOTR wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 1:28pm:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 1:21pm:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 12:37pm:

Give me time, Maqqa.

Have you thought about using a metric other than your penis size. It doesn't seem to match any standard I'm aware of.

penis size is about the only measurement lefties understand

you guys haven't discovered the Empirical Measurement let alone the Metric

Still nothing from the left about these sea level increases?

Still nothing from the left about these IPCC figures?

too smug about a few hot days around the country. NOW it is global warming because it is hot and not even close to the hottest.

Why did you tell this outright lie here:

gold_medal wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 8:05pm:

You need to keep up. You sound like you are so far from the information at hand, you almost sound like that useful idiot I was talking about.

Do you know why Gold Medal told such a silly lie? Could you explain?

76 that were deemed worthy by the cult responded and to get the result wanted. Not hard to see how he was right. He just left out the cult worthiness.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by greggerypeccary on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 1:39pm

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 1:05pm:

THere were 3146 respondents to the survey. Not 76.

The 97% figure is taken from only 77 scientists, not 3146 respondents.

"The number stems from a 2009 online survey of 10,257 earth scientists, conducted by two researchers at the University of Illinois. The survey results must have deeply disappointed the researchers - in the end, they chose to highlight the views of a subgroup of just 77 scientists, 75 of whom thought humans contributed to climate change. The ratio 75/77 produces the 97% figure that pundits now tout."

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/that_97_solution_again/

"The Doran paper has been criticised by many sceptics in the past, where a survey of 10,256 with 3146 respondents was whittled down to 75 out of 77 “expert” ’active climate researchers’ (ACR) to give the 97% figure, based on just two very simplistic (shallow) questions that even the majority of sceptics might agree with."

Here are but just a few of many responses from scientists that actually took part in the survey, taken from the appendi of the MSc thesis:

“..scientific issues cannot be decided by a vote of scientists. A consensus is not, at any given time, a good predictor of where the truth actually resides..”

“..The “hockey stick” graph that the IPCC so touted has, it is my understanding, been debunked as junk science..”

“..I’m not sure what you are trying to prove, but you will undoubtably be able to prove your pre-existing opinion with this survey! I’m sorry I even started it!..”

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/what-else-did-the-97-of-scientists-say/

I'd have to agree that "there are Womens Day surveys with more statistical credibility than that."

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by rabbitoh07 on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 1:45pm

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 1:32pm:

76 that were deemed worthy by the cult responded and to get the result wanted. Not hard to see how he was right. He just left out the cult worthiness.

He deliberately lied.

There were not 76 respondants. There were 3146 respondents. He lied. And the responses of the 3146 respondents were represented in the study.

You can read a review of the study here:
http://www.garnautreview.org.au/update-2011/commissioned-work/the-'scientigic-consensus-on-climate-change'.pdf

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by rabbitoh07 on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 1:46pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 1:39pm:

I'd have to agree that "there are Womens Day surveys with more statistical credibility than that."

Yes - but of course, you are an idiot:

The number of respondents for the survey as a whole is large; leaving aside the question of response rates, 3,146 is a large sample by almost any measure. And with 82% of respondents as a whole agreeing that ‘human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures’ we might reasonably conclude that in this survey the proposition in question was overwhelmingly supported.
http://www.garnautreview.org.au/update-2011/commissioned-work/the-'scientigic-consensus-on-climate-change'.pdf

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by Deathridesahorse on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 1:54pm

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 1:46pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 1:39pm:

I'd have to agree that "there are Womens Day surveys with more statistical credibility than that."

greggery is not an idiot he's just pretending to be an idiot:greggery hates the kids this much!

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by greggerypeccary on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 2:00pm

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 1:46pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 1:39pm:

I'd have to agree that "there are Womens Day surveys with more statistical credibility than that."

Yes - but of course, you are an idiot:

Now that your 97% "argument" has been exposed as a sham, you resort to personal insults.

Not surprising.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by greggerypeccary on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 2:08pm

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 1:45pm:

He deliberately lied.

No he didn't "deliberately" lie, and the true figures have been revealed so it's totally irrelevant anyway.

Now that your 97% "argument" has been exposed as a sham, you're just trying to deflect.

Not surprising though.

The important thing is how many of the respondents were used to come up with the 97% figure, and now we all know the answer to that.

Stay focused my friend, and stop worrying so much about the side issues and stop hurling around personal abuse. Your constant cries of "liar" (and "idiot") are doing you (or the AGW alarmist camp) no favours. Quite frankly, it's just making you look petulant.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by rabbitoh07 on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 3:40pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 2:08pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 1:45pm:

He deliberately lied.

No he didn't "deliberately" lie,

Yes, he did.

He wrote that:
it was sent out to 10,000+ 'climate scientists' a massive number of 76 responded

It was sent to 10,257 people - not all scientists - and 3146 people responded.

If that is not a deliberate attempt to spread misinformation - I don't know what is

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 2:08pm:

and the true figures have been revealed so it's totally irrelevant anyway.

The true figures show that he told a lie.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 2:08pm:

Now that your 97% "argument" has been exposed as a sham, you're just trying to deflect.

Did I have a "97%" argument?!?! What was that?!?!?

And how was Doran's figure of 97% a sham? 97% of the people that responded to that survey who who had both ‘nominated climate science as their area of expertise’ and ‘published more than 50% of their recent peer- reviewed papers on... climate change’ agreed that ‘human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures’. All 79 of them. Where is the "sham"?

This result was very similar to that arrived at in Lichter 2008:

97% of the 489 scientists surveyed agreed that that global temperatures have risen over the past century. Moreover, 84% agreed that “human-induced greenhouse warming” is now occurring.” Only 5% disagreed with the idea that human activity is a significant cause of global warming.
http://journalistsresource.org/studies/environment/climate-change/structure-scientific-opinion-climate-change/

Is that a "sham" too?

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 2:08pm:

Stay focused my friend, and stop worrying so much about the side issues and stop hurling around personal abuse. Your constant cries of "liar" (and "idiot") are doing you (or the AGW alarmist camp) no favours. Quite frankly, it's just making you look petulant.

It pains me very greatly to have to make these accusations. But when Gold Medal claims that glaciers have stopped receding and provides no supportive evidence, or when he deliberately spreads misinformation about a surveys methodology - what other conclusions can one draw?

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by progressiveslol on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 3:42pm

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 3:40pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 2:08pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 1:45pm:

He deliberately lied.

No he didn't "deliberately" lie,

and the true figures have been revealed so it's totally irrelevant anyway.

The true figures show that he told a lie.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 2:08pm:

Now that your 97% "argument" has been exposed as a sham, you're just trying to deflect.

Did I have a "97%" argument?!?! What was that?!?!?

And how was Doran's figure of 97% a sham? 97% of the people that responded to that survey who who had both ‘nominated climate science as their area of expertise’ and ‘published more than 50% of their recent peer- reviewed papers on... climate change’ agreed that ‘human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures’. All 79 of them. Where is the "sham"?

This result was almost exactly the same as that arrived at in Lichter 2008:

97% of the 489 scientists surveyed agreed that that global temperatures have risen over the past century. Moreover, 84% agreed that “human-induced greenhouse warming” is now occurring.” Only 5% disagreed with the idea that human activity is a significant cause of global warming.
http://journalistsresource.org/studies/environment/climate-change/structure-scientific-opinion-climate-change/

Is that a "sham" too?

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 2:08pm:

There is no misinformation.

The 97% is just 76 respondants from 10000 sent out. You can disregard the others of the 3000+ because they didnt use them in the 97% figure.

You are just crying over symantics. Gold was accurate.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by greggerypeccary on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 3:56pm

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 3:42pm:

Indeed.

Everybody else in the forum understands exactly what Gold was trying to say: it was not a deliberate lie.

Ultimately, the figures speak for themselves.

I know that the AGW alarmists just love colourful little graphs, so here's one for Bunny to enjoy:

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by rabbitoh07 on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 3:56pm

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 3:42pm:

WTF?!?! Are you serious?!?!

He told an outright lie.

He wrote:
it was sent out to 10,000+ 'climate scientists' a massive number of 76 responded
THis is completely incorrect and misleading

It was sent to 10,257 Earth scientists*. 3146 responded. Of these Approximately 5% of the respondents were climate scientists, and 8.5% of the respondents indicated that more than 50% of their peer-reviewed publi- cations in the past 5 years have been on the subject of climate change.

Here is the actual report. Read it yourself
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

*NB - I wrote earlier:
It was sent to 10,257 people - not all scientists - my bad. They were all scientists:
An invitation to participate in the sur- vey was sent to 10,257 Earth scientists. The database was built from Keane and Martinez [2007], which lists all geosci- ences faculty at reporting academic insti- tutions, along with researchers at state geologic surveys associated with local universities, and researchers at U.S. fed- eral research facilities (e.g., U.S. Geo- logical Survey, NASA, and NOAA (U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) facilities; U.S. Depart- ment of Energy national laboratories; and so forth).

The "general public" data used for comparison in the report came from a different survey

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by rabbitoh07 on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 3:59pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 3:56pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 3:42pm:

Indeed.

Everybody else in the forum understands exactly what Gold was trying to say: it was not a deliberate lie.

Ultimately, the figures speak for themselves.

Yes - the figures speak for themselves.

Gold said:
it was sent out to 10,000+ 'climate scientists' a massive number of 76 responded

whereas the truth is
it was sent out to 10,000+ 'earth scientists' a massive number of 3146 responded

We understand what Gold was trying to say. He was telling a lie, just like when he wrote that glaciers had stopped receding, that an underwater volcano was melting the arctic ice cap and the the MWP was 4 degrees warmer globally than today.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by Rider on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 4:01pm

So 75 out of 10000 odd 'climate' scientists believe in AGW. The power of consensus .... :D

That's pretty embarrassing.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by Deathridesahorse on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 4:01pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 3:56pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 3:42pm:

Indeed.

Everybody else in the forum understands exactly what Gold was trying to say: it was not a deliberate lie.
Ultimately, the figures speak for themselves.

I know that the AGW alarmists just love colourful little graphs, so here's one for Bunny to enjoy:

;D ;D

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by rabbitoh07 on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 4:02pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 3:56pm:

I know that the AGW alarmists just love colourful little graphs, so here's one for Bunny to enjoy:

Yes.. THat is correct. Thank you. I hope Gold Medal looks at it.

It may stop him telling further lies like:
it was sent out to 10,000+ 'climate scientists' a massive number of 76 responded

Your graph shows he clearly lied.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by greggerypeccary on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 4:03pm

While not accurate, it was not a deliberate lie.

"it was sent out to 10,000+ 'climate scientists' a massive number of 76 responded"

... should have read:

"it was sent out to 10,000+ 'climate scientists' a massive number of 76 respondents were used to create the 97% figure"

Everybody knew exactly what he was talking about.

You're just being petulant.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by MOTR on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 4:06pm

Rider wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 4:01pm:

So 75 out of 10000 odd 'climate' scientists believe in AGW. The power of consensus .... :D

That's pretty embarrassing.

Earth scientists, rider. Climate scientists are a much smaller subset. Your comprehension skills barely rise above moronic.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by greggerypeccary on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 4:07pm

This is the important information which you're trying to ignore:

"The Doran paper has been criticised by many sceptics in the past, where a survey of 10,256 with 3146 respondents was whittled down to 75 out of 77 “expert” ’active climate researchers’ (ACR) to give the 97% figure, based on just two very simplistic (shallow) questions ... "

We all knew this was what he was referring to.

There was no deliberate lie: just a poorly worded sentence.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by Deathridesahorse on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 4:10pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 4:03pm:

ONLY THE BORN TO RULE DADDY-LOVERS ARE ALLOWED TO GET PETULANT APPARENTLY!

:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by Deathridesahorse on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 4:12pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 4:07pm:

WHAT'S GOOD FOR THE GOOSE IS GOOD FOR THE GANDER!!
;D ;D ;D :D

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by Rider on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 4:15pm

MOTR wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 4:06pm:

Rider wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 4:01pm:

So 75 out of 10000 odd 'climate' scientists believe in AGW. The power of consensus .... :D

That's pretty embarrassing.

Earth scientists, rider. Climate scientists are a much smaller subset. Your comprehension skills barely rise above moronic.

I comprehend that you constantly refer to this study as some form of proof of consensus, you are the moron.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by rabbitoh07 on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 4:16pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 4:07pm:

No - it was a deliberate lie.
The survey of 10,256 had 3146 respondents. Not 79.

Of the 3146 respondents - 79 individuals were identified as having particular expertise in climate change, having published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change. Of these 79 individuals 97% of them answered "YES" to the question:
"Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?"

Where on earth do you get this nonsense about respondents being "whittled down"?!?!? All of the responses from the 3146 respondents are included in the report. But the report also highlights that a small subset of these respondents had particular expertise in the field.

It is all very clearly spelled out in the report and there is no attempt to hide the fact that this small sub-set consisted of 79 individuals.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by MOTR on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 4:16pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 4:07pm:

geggery, how many climate scientist received the survey?

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by gold_medal on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 4:17pm

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 1:28pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 1:18pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 1:15pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 1:10pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 1:05pm:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 7:07am:

Maqqa wrote on Jan 7^th, 2013 at 8:21pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jan 1^st, 2013 at 8:21am:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 3:12pm:

MOTR wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 1:28pm:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 1:21pm:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 12:37pm:

Give me time, Maqqa.

Have you thought about using a metric other than your penis size. It doesn't seem to match any standard I'm aware of.

penis size is about the only measurement lefties understand

you guys haven't discovered the Empirical Measurement let alone the Metric

Still nothing from the left about these sea level increases?

Still nothing from the left about these IPCC figures?

too smug about a few hot days around the country. NOW it is global warming because it is hot and not even close to the hottest.

Why did you tell this outright lie here:

gold_medal wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 8:05pm:

You need to keep up. You sound like you are so far from the information at hand, you almost sound like that useful idiot I was talking about.

Do you know why Gold Medal told such a silly lie? Could you explain?

tell me again about how those 79 scientists are a meaningdul sample to draw from. is statistics yet another topic you know nothing about? it is as meaningful as a yahoo poll and less accurate.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by rabbitoh07 on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 4:19pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 4:07pm:

You forgot to give your source:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/what-else-did-the-97-of-scientists-say/

Great website! Did Jonesy put you on to that one!!!!
You will be quoting Bolty for us next!

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by gold_medal on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 4:21pm

Apart from the fact that consensus is a near-worthless value in science, we now see that this 'consensus' was achieved using a high-school level survey that had sample set that invalidated it at every turn.

The real concern is that ANYONE uses the survey to say anything at all. if this is a sample of climatologists statistics (and unfortunately it is) then the entire discipline is fatally discredited.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by gold_medal on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 4:23pm

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 4:19pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 4:07pm:

as if to prove the point that you ignore any evidence you simply dont like.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by Rider on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 4:23pm

It could be also be suggested that 70% of survey recipients thought the survey not worthy of their time as it was a total suck, poorly drafted and clearly intentioned to garner a pre determined headline.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by rabbitoh07 on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 4:24pm

gold_medal wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 4:17pm:

tell me again about how those 79 scientists are a meaningdul sample to draw from. is statistics yet another topic you know nothing about? it is as meaningful as a yahoo poll and less accurate.

First - tell us why you chose to deliberately lie, rather than representing the survey honestly.

Then you can read this review of the Doran survey which explains why those 79 scientists are a meaningdul sample to draw from:

The number of respondents for the survey as a whole is large; leaving aside the question of response rates, 3,146 is a large sample by almost any measure. And with 82% of respondents as a whole agreeing that ‘human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures’ we might reasonably conclude that in this survey the proposition in question was overwhelmingly supported.

...In a simple random survey the standard error for a sample of 79, assuming a 95% confidence interval, would be eleven percentage points; so we might interpret the result, within this confidence band, as falling somewhere between 86% and 100%.
http://www.garnautreview.org.au/update-2011/commissioned-work/the-'scientigic-consensus-on-climate-change'.pdf

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by MOTR on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 4:26pm

Rider wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 4:15pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 4:06pm:

Rider wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 4:01pm:

So 75 out of 10000 odd 'climate' scientists believe in AGW. The power of consensus .... :D

That's pretty embarrassing.

Earth scientists, rider. Climate scientists are a much smaller subset. Your comprehension skills barely rise above moronic.

I comprehend that you constantly refer to this study as some form of proof of consensus, you are the moron.

You realise that even with a sample of just 75 a result of 97 has a 95% confidence interval of between 85% and 100%. So yes there does appear to be a very clear consensus.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by rabbitoh07 on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 4:26pm

gold_medal wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 4:23pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 4:19pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 4:07pm:

as if to prove the point that you ignore any evidence you simply dont like.

What evidence have I ignored?

Greggery's blog contains exactly the same informations as Dorans survey:
it was sent out to 10,000+ 'earth scientists' a massive number of 3149 responded.

Not:
it was sent out to 10,000+ 'climate scientists' a massive number of 76 responded.
as you dishonestly stated.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by greggerypeccary on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 4:39pm

MOTR wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 4:26pm:

Rider wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 4:15pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 4:06pm:

Rider wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 4:01pm:

So 75 out of 10000 odd 'climate' scientists believe in AGW. The power of consensus .... :D

That's pretty embarrassing.

Earth scientists, rider. Climate scientists are a much smaller subset. Your comprehension skills barely rise above moronic.

I comprehend that you constantly refer to this study as some form of proof of consensus, you are the moron.

You realise that even with a sample of just 75 a result of 97 has a 95% confidence interval of between 85% and 100%. So yes there does appear to be a very clear consensus.

Here is one of many responses from scientists that actually took part in the survey:

“... scientific issues cannot be decided by a vote of scientists. A consensus is not, at any given time, a good predictor of where the truth actually resides ...”

;)

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by progressiveslol on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 4:44pm

MOTR wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 4:26pm:

Rider wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 4:15pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 4:06pm:

Rider wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 4:01pm:

So 75 out of 10000 odd 'climate' scientists believe in AGW. The power of consensus .... :D

That's pretty embarrassing.

Earth scientists, rider. Climate scientists are a much smaller subset. Your comprehension skills barely rise above moronic.

I comprehend that you constantly refer to this study as some form of proof of consensus, you are the moron.

You realise that even with a sample of just 75 a result of 97 has a 95% confidence interval of between 85% and 100%. So yes there does appear to be a very clear consensus.

lol ;D ::)

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by greggerypeccary on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 4:45pm

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 4:19pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 4:07pm:

The source doesn't matter, as long as the information is correct.

Are you saying the information is incorrect? Are you Bunny? Really?

Is this correct or not Bunny?

"where a survey of 10,256 with 3146 respondents was whittled down to 75 out of 77 “expert” ’active climate researchers’ (ACR) to give the 97% figure "

Hmmm? Or would you like to deflect again?

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by Deathridesahorse on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 4:49pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 4:39pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 4:26pm:

Rider wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 4:15pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 4:06pm:

Rider wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 4:01pm:

So 75 out of 10000 odd 'climate' scientists believe in AGW. The power of consensus .... :D

That's pretty embarrassing.

Earth scientists, rider. Climate scientists are a much smaller subset. Your comprehension skills barely rise above moronic.

I comprehend that you constantly refer to this study as some form of proof of consensus, you are the moron.

You realise that even with a sample of just 75 a result of 97 has a 95% confidence interval of between 85% and 100%. So yes there does appear to be a very clear consensus.

No, science doesn't vote!

Who said it did??

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by MOTR on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 4:49pm

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 4:44pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 4:26pm:

Rider wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 4:15pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 4:06pm:

Rider wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 4:01pm:

So 75 out of 10000 odd 'climate' scientists believe in AGW. The power of consensus .... :D

That's pretty embarrassing.

Earth scientists, rider. Climate scientists are a much smaller subset. Your comprehension skills barely rise above moronic.

I comprehend that you constantly refer to this study as some form of proof of consensus, you are the moron.

You realise that even with a sample of just 75 a result of 97 has a 95% confidence interval of between 85% and 100%. So yes there does appear to be a very clear consensus.

lol ;D ::)

What are you laughing at, progs. You don't even believe its been warming.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by greggerypeccary on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 4:53pm

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 4:49pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 4:39pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 4:26pm:

Rider wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 4:15pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 4:06pm:

Rider wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 4:01pm:

So 75 out of 10000 odd 'climate' scientists believe in AGW. The power of consensus .... :D

That's pretty embarrassing.

Earth scientists, rider. Climate scientists are a much smaller subset. Your comprehension skills barely rise above moronic.

I comprehend that you constantly refer to this study as some form of proof of consensus, you are the moron.

You realise that even with a sample of just 75 a result of 97 has a 95% confidence interval of between 85% and 100%. So yes there does appear to be a very clear consensus.

No, science doesn't vote!

Who said it did??

Just another example of the crap the AGW alarmists come up with.

They love the little '97% survey', and say things like "So yes there does appear to be a very clear consensus."

Yet one of the scientists they love so much, from the '97% survey', says “scientific issues cannot be decided by a vote of scientists. A consensus is not, at any given time, a good predictor of where the truth actually resides".

LOL

The AGW alarmists are losing credibility with each day that passes. Love it ;D

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by Deathridesahorse on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 4:59pm

greggerypeckery thinks scientists vote on issues!

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by greggerypeccary on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 5:05pm

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 4:26pm:

... it was sent out to 10,000+ 'earth scientists' a massive number of 3149 responded ...

You missed out the relevant bit (as usual):

" ... 3146 respondents was whittled down to 75 out of 77 “expert” ’active climate researchers’ (ACR) to give the 97% figure ".

;)

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by rabbitoh07 on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 5:06pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 4:45pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 4:19pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 4:07pm:

Look up Greggery. Post #211

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by greggerypeccary on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 5:10pm

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 5:06pm:

Look up Greggery. Post #211

So you were just deflecting. I thought so.

And just in case anyone missed it:

" ... 3146 respondents was whittled down to 75 out of 77 “expert” ’active climate researchers’ (ACR) to give the 97% figure ".

;D

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by rabbitoh07 on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 5:19pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 5:10pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 5:06pm:

Look up Greggery. Post #211

What do you mean by "whittled down"?

THere were 3146 respondents. Of these 79 were “expert” ’active climate researchers’ (ACR).

This is clearly spelled out in the report.

All of the responses of all respondents were reported - and further classified with respect to their level of expertise w.r.t climate science.

Do you find something unusual about this? What?

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by greggerypeccary on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 5:34pm

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 5:19pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 5:10pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 5:06pm:

Look up Greggery. Post #211

What do you mean by "whittled down"?

::)

They only used 77 climate scientists to come up with the figure of 97%.

i.e. it's 97% of 77

It's not 97% of 3146

Only 75 climate scientists agree, not 3051.

The figure 3146 is totally irrelevant.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by progressiveslol on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 5:51pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 5:34pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 5:19pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 5:10pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 5:06pm:

Look up Greggery. Post #211

What do you mean by "whittled down"?

But but 3146 gives it the credibility it needs. You cant just throw that out. Cant we just forget the 97% comes from only 75 of those.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by greggerypeccary on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 5:57pm

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 5:51pm:

But but 3146 gives it the credibility it needs. You cant just throw that out. Cant we just forget the 97% comes from only 75 of those.

Yes, that's exactly what Bunny and MOTR would like.

The truth is, however, whenever you hear someone say : "but 97% of climate scientists agree", what they're actually talking about is 75 people.

Just 75 people.

Not 10,256, not 3,146, and not even 3,051. Just 75.

But 75 doesn't sound anywhere near as good as 97%, does it?

::)

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by gold_medal on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 6:03pm

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 4:24pm:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 4:17pm:

tell me again about how those 79 scientists are a meaningdul sample to draw from. is statistics yet another topic you know nothing about? it is as meaningful as a yahoo poll and less accurate.

ah... quoting a climate hysteric to support the statistically invalid claims of another hysteric? How quaint!!!

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by Rider on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 6:16pm

And the crux of the 97% is the following two questions contained in this 'high level' AGW consensus are...

1 When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
2 Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

May as well have been a survey of which shoe lace do you tie first...this is an example of the climate science I have every reason under the sun to question, and dare i say it...be skeptical of the whole AGW discussion.

How scientific is 'do you think......??' FFS this isn't even high school, its worse, its an Arts Degree ;D ;D

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by gold_medal on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 6:18pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 5:57pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 5:51pm:

But but 3146 gives it the credibility it needs. You cant just throw that out. Cant we just forget the 97% comes from only 75 of those.

one of the disturbing aspects of this survey is that the level of statistical fraud employed in it is not remarkable in the field of paleo-climatology. in fact it is a bit better than most. the hockey-stick was a completely fabricated bit of rubbish that hysterics still claim is perfect. The lack of integrity employed by some in their supposed research is breath-taking.

this survey is nothing unusual. They probably claim a confidence level of 99% as well

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by rabbitoh07 on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 7:09pm

gold_medal wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 6:03pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 4:24pm:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 4:17pm:

tell me again about how those 79 scientists are a meaningdul sample to draw from. is statistics yet another topic you know nothing about? it is as meaningful as a yahoo poll and less accurate.

ah... quoting a climate hysteric to support the statistically invalid claims of another hysteric? How quaint!!!

Huh?!?!

Murry Goot is a "climate hysteric"?!?!?

Why?!?!?

Professor Murray Goot holds a personal chair in the Department of Politics and International Relations at Macquarie University. He specialises in public opinion, Australian politics (especially political parties, voting behaviour and electoral systems), and the mass media. He is currently working on an ARC-funded study of Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party and editing a special issue of the "InternationalJournal of Public Opinion Research" on the war in Iraq.
http://www.assa.edu.au/fellows/profile.php?id=436

What has he done for you to label him a "climate hysteric"?!?!?

Anything?

Or just something else you made up , like when you lied about glaciers?

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by rabbitoh07 on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 7:13pm

gold_medal wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 6:18pm:

the hockey-stick was a completely fabricated bit of rubbish that hysterics still claim is perfect.
this survey is nothing unusual. They probably claim a confidence level of 99% as well

Let me guess - we are just going to have to take your word on this too.

No evidence to support this opinion of yours of course.

Just another silly statement from a known liar.

BTW - you told us that glaciers had stopped receding. Will you provide us evidence to support this? Or will you be apologising for lying to the forum?

And how about that undersea volcano melting the arctic? Evidence? Or an apology for another lie?

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by rabbitoh07 on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 7:14pm

gold_medal wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 6:18pm:

one of the disturbing aspects of this survey is that the level of statistical fraud employed in it is not remarkable in the field of paleo-climatology.

Could you please point out what the "statistical fraud " was?

All of the methodology was clearly outlined in the report.

What was fraudelent?

The only fraud I have seen here so far is from the liar that wrote:

it was sent out to 10,000+ 'climate scientists' a massive number of 76 responded.

Why did you tell such a blatant lie?

Did you think no one would notice?

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by rabbitoh07 on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 7:18pm

Rider wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 6:16pm:

errr...it isn't science. It is a survey. Do you know the difference?

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by gold_medal on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 8:00pm

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 7:13pm:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 6:18pm:

the hockey-stick was a completely fabricated bit of rubbish that hysterics still claim is perfect.
this survey is nothing unusual. They probably claim a confidence level of 99% as well

there is a MASSIVE body of evidence that the hockey stick is crap. even the NAS said the methodology was nonsense. it has been debunked many times over. If you are unaware of that then you really are woefully uninformed. but please... tell me that the hockey stick is great science... there are formal rebukes, multiple papers and opinions experssed about it and several enquiries including an ethics complaint about the author himself.

please... make a fool of yourself and say how fabulous the hockey stick is!!!

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by Rider on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 8:02pm

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 7:18pm:

Rider wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 6:16pm:

errr...it isn't science. It is a survey. Do you know the difference?

err no, its the steaming pile of dog sh1t called consensus ;D ;D ;D

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by rabbitoh07 on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 8:03pm

gold_medal wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 8:00pm:

there is a MASSIVE body of evidence that the hockey stick is crap.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by rabbitoh07 on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 8:08pm

gold_medal wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 8:00pm:

please... make a fool of yourself and say how fabulous the hockey stick is!!!

You are obviously not going to show us any evidence to support you opinion - you never do. But do you even understand what the "hockey stick" is?

Could you explain to us why you think Mann's paleoclimate reconstructions are in any way relevant to the observed impact of CO2 emissions on global climate today?

Let us throw all common sense away and believe your nonsense for a minute - and say there was some fatal flaw with Mann's reconstruction? (we still await your evidence that there is)

So?!?!?!

Why do you think this is in any way relevant.

Could you explain please

And why did you describe Murry Goot as a "climate hysteric"?!?!?
It is really getting hard to keep up with your crap.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by progressiveslol on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 2:20am

Looks like the IPCC is becoming more transparent as promised. Only problem for them, it is forced and shows everything.

More IPCC AR5: THE SECRET SANTA LEAK (gigabyte of data)

Massive amounts of information is now available. Too soon to get the nuggets out yet, but there will be plenty about green activists having a say in this report.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/08/more-ipcc-ar5-the-secret-santa-leak/#more-77149

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by Spot of Borg on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 5:15am

gold_medal wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 6:34pm:

Wow you must really hate ppl that disagree with you

SOB

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by Spot of Borg on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 5:16am

Maqqa wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 7:53pm:

The title says "Deniers nailed...."

Does anyone know what we are supposed to be "denying"

Hahahaha And yet you consider yourself a denier?

SOB

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by gold_medal on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 7:46am

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 8:08pm:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 8:00pm:

please... make a fool of yourself and say how fabulous the hockey stick is!!!

the evidence hat the hockey stick is fatally flawed is mountainous to the extent that even the pro-ACC lot usually say so as well

and the reason it is still relevant is that it speaks to the credibility of the hysterics thta they cling (as you do) to a proven flawed report in the face of all the evidence. I keep waiting for MOTR to read the book about it so we can discuss it. You could too but I doubt you are up to the challenge.

The hockey stick says that increased CO2 will raise temperaters and now with the UK MET stating that it will be TWENTY YEARS without a temperature rise then... not good.

I await your hysterical response.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by adelcrow on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 7:50am

Longy maybe its time that you just admitted that you dont understand whats going on.
Its obvious that you're constantly grasping at straws because you're looking at ways of covering up your complete ignorance when it comes to basic scientific principals.
Its been explained to you time and time again and there are tens of thousands of papers everyone has easy access to so if you dont understand whats going on by now you never will.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by gold_medal on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 8:26am

adelcrow wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 7:50am:

no what you dont understand is that we are now in the 17th year of NO WARMING. after a while, the hysteria of global WARMING looks a little silly when it isnt warming. I dont care if there are a million published papers predicting doom and gloom and forever rising temperatures. When it fails to happen they are provable rubbish. But there aent that many and there are increasing numbers of published research papers showing how ACC has been oversold and that there may not be any 'A' at all. increasing numbers are seeing the recent warming over the last cenutry as nothing more than the normal cycle or warming and cooling and given that the warming has stopped, they have a powerful point.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by perceptions_now on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 11:06am

I re-post the following here, as it is relevant!

perceptions_now wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 11:51pm:

Get used to record-breaking heat: bureau

THE heatwave that has scorched the nation since Christmas is a taste of things to come, with this week’s records set to tumble again and again in the coming years, climate scientists said.

The hottest average maximum temperature ever recorded across Australia – 40.33 degrees, set on Monday – may only stand for 24 hours and be eclipsed when all of Tuesday’s readings come in. Previously, that record had stood since December 21, 1972.

‘‘The current heatwave – in terms of its duration, its intensity and its extent – is now unprecedented in our records,’’ the Bureau of Meteorology’s manager of climate monitoring and prediction, David Jones, said.

‘‘Clearly, the climate system is responding to the background warming trend. Everything that happens in the climate system now is taking place on a planet which is a degree hotter than it used to be.’’

As the warming trend increases over coming years, record-breaking heat will become more and more common, Dr Jones said.

‘‘We know that global climate doesn’t respond monotonically – it does go up and down with natural variation. That’s why some years are hotter than others because of a range of factors. But we’re getting many more hot records than we’re getting cold records. That’s not an issue that is explained away by natural variation.’’

Australia’s climate is based on an interplay of many factors including regional and local weather patterns, El Nino and La Nina climate cycles and the Indian Ocean dipole, all superimposed on the greenhouse gas-driven warming trend.

While temperatures vary on a local and regional scale, globally it has now been 27 years since the world experienced a month that was colder than average.

The impacts of the rising heat on farming, food, water and human health have been studied closely for years, and the trends being played out now mirror those laid out years ago in projections by the Bureau of Meteorology, the CSIRO and the Garnaut climate change review.

They include heightened bushfire risk, rising sea levels affecting infrastructure and houses all along the coast and, by the end of the century, massive cuts in food production in the Murray-Darling Basin.

According to a peer-reviewed study by the Australian-based Global Carbon Project, global average temperatures are on a trajectory to rise a further four to six degrees by the end of this century, with that rise felt most strongly over land areas. It would be enough to tip Tuesday’s over-40 temperatures over much of mainland Australia very close to 50 degrees in some parts.

“Those of us who spend our days trawling – and contributing to – the scientific literature on climate change are becoming increasingly gloomy about the future of human civilisation,’’ said Liz Hanna, convener of the human health division at the Australian National University’s Climate Change Adaptation Network.

‘‘We are well past the time of niceties, of avoiding the dire nature of what is unfolding, and politely trying not to scare the public. The unparalleled setting of new heat extremes is forcing the continual upwards trending of warming predictions for the future, and the timescale is contracting.’’

Around the world, 2013 could be the hottest ever recorded by modern instrumentation, according to a recent study by Britain’s Met Office.

It said that, based on the rising background warming trend, 2013 will be 0.43 degrees to 0.71 degrees hotter globally than the average temperature between 1961 and 1990, with a ‘‘best fit’’ of 0.57 degrees warmer.

If that turns out to be accurate, 2013 would surpass the previous record, held jointly by 2005 and 2010.
The Met Office findings are considered telling in the climate science community, because 2013 is set to be a relatively ‘‘neutral’’ year, without a strong El Nino warming cycle to push temperatures up.

The Australian heatwave, which is exceptional, is a continuation of the record-breaking temperatures seen across much of Australia since September, according to the special climate statement issued by the bureau on Tuesday.

The last four months of 2012 were the hottest on record, albeit by just 0.01 of a degree. ‘‘This event is ongoing with further significant records likely to be set,’’ the statement said.

Link -
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/get-used-to-recordbreaking-heat-bureau-20130108-2cet5.html
================================
This is not about who wins some BS argument, it's about following a standard business practice, of mitigating against likely/probable/possible adverse outcomes, by taking insurance against those adverse outcomes AND THESE CLIMATE CHANGE OUTCOMES ARE ABOUT AS ADVERSE AS YOU COULD THINK OF!

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by progressiveslol on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 11:10am

perceptions_now wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 11:06am:

I re-post the following here, as it is relevant!

perceptions_now wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 11:51pm:

It really isnt that good an article to spam the forum with. Even MET office says flat temps for 20 years and this article of yours says 0.71 rise.

I guess the MET office is out of favour ATM.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by greggerypeccary on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 11:11am

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 8:03pm:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 8:00pm:

there is a MASSIVE body of evidence that the hockey stick is crap.

Let me guess - we are just going to have to take your word on this too.

No evidence to support this opinion of yours of course.

Just another silly statement from a known liar.

Here's a response from one of the scientists that actually took part in the Doran Survey, taken from the appendi of the MSc thesis:

“..The “hockey stick” graph that the IPCC so touted has, it is my understanding, been debunked as junk science..”

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/what-else-did-the-97-of-scientists-say/

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by perceptions_now on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 11:28am

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 11:10am:

perceptions_now wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 11:06am:

I re-post the following here, as it is relevant!

perceptions_now wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 11:51pm:

It really isnt that good an article to spam the forum with. Even MET office says flat temps for 20 years and this article of yours says 0.71 rise.

I guess the MET office is out of favour ATM.

So Progs, you are not a believer, IN GOOD BUSINESS PRACTICE/S?

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by gold_medal on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 11:42am

The BoM and Met and simlar organistions around the world routinely say 'hottest year ever' so often that it has beomce the mantra. They are increasingly looking rather stupid. UK MET was in trouble for saying each year was the hottest ever while the reaility was that Britain had the coldest winters for 40 years.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by progressiveslol on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 12:18pm

Quote:

So Progs, you are not a believer, IN GOOD BUSINESS PRACTICE/S?

Not when the insurance becomes more than the replacement value.

It will cost more, much more to mitigate/insure than it would just to live with a few degrees warming.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by perceptions_now on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 1:04pm

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 12:18pm:

Quote:

So Progs, you are not a believer, IN GOOD BUSINESS PRACTICE/S?

Not when the insurance becomes more than the replacement value.

It will cost more, much more to mitigate/insure than it would just to live with a few degrees warming.

Progs, Progs, Progs???

It seems you may not have heard the the Stern Report suggests -

Costs
The Stern Review proposes stabilising the concentration of greenhouse-gas emissions in the atmosphere at a maximum of 550ppm CO2e by 2050. The Review estimates that this would mean cutting total greenhouse-gas emissions to three quarters of 2007 levels. The Review further estimates that the cost of these cuts would be in the range −1.0 to +3.5% of World GDP, (i.e. GWP), with an average estimate of approximately 1%. Stern has since revised his estimate to 2% of GWP. For comparison, the Gross World Product (GWP) at PPP was estimated at $74.5 trillion in 2010, thus 2% is approximately $1.5 trillion. The Review emphasises that these costs are contingent on steady reductions in the cost of low-carbon technologies. Mitigation costs will also vary according to how and when emissions are cut: early, well-planned action will minimise the costs.

Link -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_mitigation#Costs
================================
Let me ask you and others who do not agree that Climate Change is Real or at least a real problem, a few questions -
Q1) How many Business Leaders/Owners would think it prudent to take insurance cover their business, against the likes of the following Risks, even if they thought it was likely that the Risk would impact greatly or substantially on their Business?
1) Fire
2) Flood
3) Earthquake
4) Storm
5) Tsunami

A1) 100% of good Business Leaders/Owners would cover their Businesses!

Q2) How many Business Leaders/Owners would think it prudent to take insurance cover their business, against the the above sort of Risks, even if they thought it was very unlikely that the Risk would ever impact their Business?

A2) 100% of good Business Leaders/Owners would cover their Businesses, even if they thought the Risk was negligible or zero, because as is well known to the insurance industry, poo HAPPENS, even when it isn't expected & often at the most in-opportune time!

So, we are always well advised to pay a small to medium size "Premium", to try to Mitigate the likelihood of the worst case scenario's from becoming a reality!

2%, 5% 10% of Global GDP, what is an acceptable Risk Mitigation "Premium", to try to stop the worst Climate Change scenario,s???

PS - I would suggest much more than 2% of Global GDP, has already gone into trying to retain the Economic Status Quo & the chances of that happening are ZERO!

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by Andrei.Hicks on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 1:05pm

I dont half find the whole climate debate boring now.

People sure do get obsessed about it.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by rabbitoh07 on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 1:19pm

gold_medal wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 7:46am:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 8:08pm:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 8:00pm:

please... make a fool of yourself and say how fabulous the hockey stick is!!!

the evidence hat the hockey stick is fatally flawed is mountainous to the extent that even the pro-ACC lot usually say so as well

But you cannot show us this "evidence" - can you.

You lied about glaciers not receding. You could not show any evidence to support that.
You lied about the MWP being 4 degrees warmer globally than today. You could not show any evidence to support that.
You lied about glaciers an undersea volcano melting the arctic icecap. You could not show any evidence to support that.

And once again - you make another stupid statement with no evidence.

We can only assume you are lying again.

gold_medal wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 7:46am:

The hockey stick says that increased CO2 will raise temperaters and

Excuse me?!?!?!

How did the "hockey stick" say that that "increased CO2 will raise temperaters"?!?!

You don't actually know what the "hockey stick" is - do you.

gold_medal wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 7:46am:

now with the UK MET stating that it will be TWENTY YEARS without a temperature rise then... not good.

Please show us that quote from the MET.

Please show us - or apologise for lying to the forum

gold_medal wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 7:46am:

I await your hysterical response.

I await (and am still awaiting) any sort of evidence for you to suppport these silly lies you keep telling.

Start with your lie about glaciers not receding.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by rabbitoh07 on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 1:20pm

gold_medal wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 11:42am:

The BoM and Met and simlar organistions around the world routinely say 'hottest year ever' so often that it has beomce the mantra.

THat is because the planet is warming.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by progressiveslol on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 1:47pm

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 1:05pm:

I dont half find the whole climate debate boring now.

People sure do get obsessed about it.

It is the obsessed activist that will make sure you live it every day of your life, even if it is unproven.

The debate must go on until it is proven dis-proven or live your life of perpetual servitude to the cult.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by gold_medal on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 2:31pm

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 1:19pm:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 7:46am:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 8:08pm:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 8:00pm:

please... make a fool of yourself and say how fabulous the hockey stick is!!!

the evidence hat the hockey stick is fatally flawed is mountainous to the extent that even the pro-ACC lot usually say so as well

The hockey stick says that increased CO2 will raise temperaters and

now with the UK MET stating that it will be TWENTY YEARS without a temperature rise then... not good.

Please show us that quote from the MET.

Please show us - or apologise for lying to the forum

gold_medal wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 7:46am:

I await your hysterical response.

I await (and am still awaiting) any sort of evidence for you to suppport these silly lies you keep telling.

Start with your lie about glaciers not receding.

What little credibility you have is evaporating with every post. the Hockey Stick is well known as junk science and a thoroughly discredited bit of rubbish. There are more proofs around than could fit into a post but I question what the worth wuld be in giving them to you. You would dismiss each and every report for a variety of invalid reasons.

the UK MET on Dec 24 released a report (very quietly) that they expect to see no warming for the next 4-5 years. The link has been givein on here previously. If you didnt read it then it proves my point mentioned above.

the hockey stick has been linked to CO2 and the correlation has been shown to be non-existent.

I dont really care if you believe it or not because you will NEVER believe it - no matter what evidence is produced.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by perceptions_now on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 5:24pm

perceptions_now wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 1:04pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 12:18pm:

Quote:

So Progs, you are not a believer, IN GOOD BUSINESS PRACTICE/S?

Not when the insurance becomes more than the replacement value.

It will cost more, much more to mitigate/insure than it would just to live with a few degrees warming.

Progs, Progs, Progs???

It seems you may not have heard the the Stern Report suggests -

Costs
The Stern Review proposes stabilising the concentration of greenhouse-gas emissions in the atmosphere at a maximum of 550ppm CO2e by 2050. The Review estimates that this would mean cutting total greenhouse-gas emissions to three quarters of 2007 levels. The Review further estimates that the cost of these cuts would be in the range −1.0 to +3.5% of World GDP, (i.e. GWP), with an average estimate of approximately 1%. Stern has since revised his estimate to 2% of GWP. For comparison, the Gross World Product (GWP) at PPP was estimated at $74.5 trillion in 2010, thus 2% is approximately $1.5 trillion. The Review emphasises that these costs are contingent on steady reductions in the cost of low-carbon technologies. Mitigation costs will also vary according to how and when emissions are cut: early, well-planned action will minimise the costs.

Link -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_mitigation#Costs
================================
Let me ask you and others who do not agree that Climate Change is Real or at least a real problem, a few questions -
Q1) How many Business Leaders/Owners would think it prudent to take insurance cover their business, against the likes of the following Risks, even if they thought it was likely that the Risk would impact greatly or substantially on their Business?
1) Fire
2) Flood
3) Earthquake
4) Storm
5) Tsunami

A1) 100% of good Business Leaders/Owners would cover their Businesses!

Q2) How many Business Leaders/Owners would think it prudent to take insurance cover their business, against the the above sort of Risks, even if they thought it was very unlikely that the Risk would ever impact their Business?

A2) 100% of good Business Leaders/Owners would cover their Businesses, even if they thought the Risk was negligible or zero, because as is well known to the insurance industry, SH!T HAPPENS, even when it isn't expected & often at the most in-opportune time!

So, we are always well advised to pay a small to medium size "Premium", to try to Mitigate the likelihood of the worst case scenario's from becoming a reality!

2%, 5% 10% of Global GDP, what is an acceptable Risk Mitigation "Premium", to try to stop the worst Climate Change scenario,s???

PS - I would suggest much more than 2% of Global GDP, has already gone into trying to retain the Economic Status Quo & the chances of that happening are ZERO!

What, NO howls of condemnation, from Progs, nor from others purporting to support Business & the Free Enterprise Business Economy?

Is it because, the possible Costs of Mitigation are likely to be too BIG or likely to be NOT BIG ENOUGH?

Or, is it simply that there is no logical reason, Not to?

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by Deathridesahorse on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 5:38pm

-->>lib voters don't like being told the markets will decide whether climate change is an issue or not!

:o :o ::)

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by rabbitoh07 on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 6:10pm

gold_medal wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 2:31pm:

What little credibility you have is evaporating with every post. the Hockey Stick is well known as junk science and a thoroughly discredited bit of rubbish.

Really! THen you should be able to show us evidence of this

We are waiting

gold_medal wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 2:31pm:

There are more proofs around than could fit into a post but I question what the worth wuld be in giving them to you.

Really! THen you should be able to show us this evidence

We are waiting

gold_medal wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 2:31pm:

You would dismiss each and every report for a variety of invalid reasons.

You are frightened aren't.

You know you are talking crap just.

You have nothing.

THat is why you tell lies.

Why did you say glaciers were not receding?

We are still waiting

gold_medal wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 2:31pm:

the UK MET on Dec 24 released a report (very quietly) that they expect to see no warming for the next 4-5 years.

show us the quote liar

gold_medal wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 2:31pm:

The link has been givein on here previously.

Then you can post it again - liar.

gold_medal wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 2:31pm:

the hockey stick has been linked to CO2 and the correlation has been shown to be non-existent.

You said the "hockey stick" says that that "increased CO2 will raise temperaters"

Explain that statement please.

Show everybody just how ignorant you are of this subject. Tell us what you think the "hockey stick" actually is.

We are waiting.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by greggerypeccary on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 6:53pm

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 6:10pm:

Show everybody just how ignorant you are of this subject. Tell us what you think the "hockey stick" actually is.

Scientists who took part in the Doran Survey certainly know what it is, because one of them said:

“..The “hockey stick” graph that the IPCC so touted has, it is my understanding, been debunked as junk science..”

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/what-else-did-the-97-of-scientists-say/

But you knew that already, didn't you? ;)

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by progressiveslol on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 7:22pm

perceptions_now wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 5:24pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 1:04pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 12:18pm:

Quote:

So Progs, you are not a believer, IN GOOD BUSINESS PRACTICE/S?

Not when the insurance becomes more than the replacement value.

It will cost more, much more to mitigate/insure than it would just to live with a few degrees warming.

Progs, Progs, Progs???

It seems you may not have heard the the Stern Report suggests -

Costs
The Stern Review proposes stabilising the concentration of greenhouse-gas emissions in the atmosphere at a maximum of 550ppm CO2e by 2050. The Review estimates that this would mean cutting total greenhouse-gas emissions to three quarters of 2007 levels. The Review further estimates that the cost of these cuts would be in the range −1.0 to +3.5% of World GDP, (i.e. GWP), with an average estimate of approximately 1%. Stern has since revised his estimate to 2% of GWP. For comparison, the Gross World Product (GWP) at PPP was estimated at $74.5 trillion in 2010, thus 2% is approximately $1.5 trillion. The Review emphasises that these costs are contingent on steady reductions in the cost of low-carbon technologies. Mitigation costs will also vary according to how and when emissions are cut: early, well-planned action will minimise the costs.

Link -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_mitigation#Costs
================================
Let me ask you and others who do not agree that Climate Change is Real or at least a real problem, a few questions -
Q1) How many Business Leaders/Owners would think it prudent to take insurance cover their business, against the likes of the following Risks, even if they thought it was likely that the Risk would impact greatly or substantially on their Business?
1) Fire
2) Flood
3) Earthquake
4) Storm
5) Tsunami

A1) 100% of good Business Leaders/Owners would cover their Businesses!

Q2) How many Business Leaders/Owners would think it prudent to take insurance cover their business, against the the above sort of Risks, even if they thought it was very unlikely that the Risk would ever impact their Business?

A2) 100% of good Business Leaders/Owners would cover their Businesses, even if they thought the Risk was negligible or zero, because as is well known to the insurance industry, SH!T HAPPENS, even when it isn't expected & often at the most in-opportune time!

So, we are always well advised to pay a small to medium size "Premium", to try to Mitigate the likelihood of the worst case scenario's from becoming a reality!

2%, 5% 10% of Global GDP, what is an acceptable Risk Mitigation "Premium", to try to stop the worst Climate Change scenario,s???

PS - I would suggest much more than 2% of Global GDP, has already gone into trying to retain the Economic Status Quo & the chances of that happening are ZERO!

There is only so much you care to read. Im tired and couldnt be bothered right now. Been busy labouring around the property.

If I get a chance ill have a good read, but this is not the only information available, so dont expect it to be the only one that is right.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by perceptions_now on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 8:05pm

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 7:22pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 5:24pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 1:04pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 12:18pm:

Quote:

So Progs, you are not a believer, IN GOOD BUSINESS PRACTICE/S?

Not when the insurance becomes more than the replacement value.

It will cost more, much more to mitigate/insure than it would just to live with a few degrees warming.

Progs, Progs, Progs???

It seems you may not have heard the the Stern Report suggests -

Costs
The Stern Review proposes stabilising the concentration of greenhouse-gas emissions in the atmosphere at a maximum of 550ppm CO2e by 2050. The Review estimates that this would mean cutting total greenhouse-gas emissions to three quarters of 2007 levels. The Review further estimates that the cost of these cuts would be in the range −1.0 to +3.5% of World GDP, (i.e. GWP), with an average estimate of approximately 1%. Stern has since revised his estimate to 2% of GWP. For comparison, the Gross World Product (GWP) at PPP was estimated at $74.5 trillion in 2010, thus 2% is approximately $1.5 trillion. The Review emphasises that these costs are contingent on steady reductions in the cost of low-carbon technologies. Mitigation costs will also vary according to how and when emissions are cut: early, well-planned action will minimise the costs.

Link -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_mitigation#Costs
================================
Let me ask you and others who do not agree that Climate Change is Real or at least a real problem, a few questions -
Q1) How many Business Leaders/Owners would think it prudent to take insurance cover their business, against the likes of the following Risks, even if they thought it was likely that the Risk would impact greatly or substantially on their Business?
1) Fire
2) Flood
3) Earthquake
4) Storm
5) Tsunami

A1) 100% of good Business Leaders/Owners would cover their Businesses!

Q2) How many Business Leaders/Owners would think it prudent to take insurance cover their business, against the the above sort of Risks, even if they thought it was very unlikely that the Risk would ever impact their Business?

A2) 100% of good Business Leaders/Owners would cover their Businesses, even if they thought the Risk was negligible or zero, because as is well known to the insurance industry, SH!T HAPPENS, even when it isn't expected & often at the most in-opportune time!

So, we are always well advised to pay a small to medium size "Premium", to try to Mitigate the likelihood of the worst case scenario's from becoming a reality!

2%, 5% 10% of Global GDP, what is an acceptable Risk Mitigation "Premium", to try to stop the worst Climate Change scenario,s???

PS - I would suggest much more than 2% of Global GDP, has already gone into trying to retain the Economic Status Quo & the chances of that happening are ZERO!

There is only so much you care to read. Im tired and couldnt be bothered right now. Been busy labouring around the property.

If I get a chance ill have a good read, but this is not the only information available, so dont expect it to be the only one that is right.

I'm sure you're right, BUT the basics will remain that it is simply good & usual Business practice, to mitigate known Risks, even if it is considered unlikely AND part of that process involves paying a Premium to lessen the chance of the worst Risks.

At the absolute core, the Climate Change issue is no different!

Btw, I note there is a lack of "concerned anti Climate Change" supporters, who are willing to put up their reasoning, why this is different???

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by philperth2010 on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 8:29pm

It stands to reason we need to reduce carbon emissions and our reliance on fossil fuel.....Future generations will not accept we had to burn everything because the solution meant embracing change and accepting responsibility!!!

:-? :-? :-?

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by gold_medal on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 6:45am

philperth2010 wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 8:29pm:

actually it doesn't stand to reason at all. if CO2 (not carbon) is not a problem at all - as the current divergence between CO2 concentrations and temperature suggest - then spending trillions of dollars to reduce emissions is an uber-expensive waste of time.

reducing our reliance on fossil fuels is however a good thing since it is a limited resource.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by perceptions_now on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 8:11am

gold_medal wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 6:45am:

philperth2010 wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 8:29pm:

The basics will remain that it is simply good & usual Business practice, to mitigate known Risks, even if it is considered unlikely AND part of that process involves paying a Premium to lessen the chance of the worst Risks.

At the absolute core, the Climate Change issue is no different!

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by philperth2010 on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 8:17am

perceptions_now wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 8:11am:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 6:45am:

philperth2010 wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 8:29pm:

There is no need to reduce carbon emissions because according to Longy global warming is a myth unlike God!!!

::) ::) ::)

Rational arguments don't usually work on religious people. Otherwise, there wouldn't be religious people.
Doris Egan, House M.D., The Right Stuff, 2007

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by gold_medal on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 8:21am

perceptions_now wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 8:11am:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 6:45am:

philperth2010 wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 8:29pm:

thats a silly statement. it is not a 'known risk' if it is considered unlikely. And your parallel is even worse in that the hysterics actually want to radically alter and minimise human society - hardly a risk minimisation strategy. ACC has to actually have a credible backing before spending trillions of dollars on it and to date, the hypothesis is looking increasingly unlikely.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by gold_medal on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 8:23am

philperth2010 wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 8:17am:

perceptions_now wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 8:11am:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 6:45am:

philperth2010 wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 8:29pm:

The UK MET announced dec 24 2012 that they expect no more warming for the next 4-5 years and that the last 16 have shown no increase. so that makes 20+ years of no warming. you tell ME what that is because it certainly aint global WARMING. Global WARMED yes but not golbal warmING.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by philperth2010 on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 8:34am

gold_medal wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 8:23am:

philperth2010 wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 8:17am:

perceptions_now wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 8:11am:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 6:45am:

philperth2010 wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 8:29pm:

The debate continues.....

http://news.sp@m/earth/no-global-warming-hasnt-stopped-121017.html

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by perceptions_now on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 8:41am

gold_medal wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 8:21am:

perceptions_now wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 8:11am:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 6:45am:

philperth2010 wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 8:29pm:

thats a silly statement. it is not a 'known risk' if it is considered unlikely. And your parallel is even worse in that the hysterics actually want to radically alter and minimise human society - hardly a risk minimisation strategy. ACC has to actually have a credible backing before spending trillions of dollars on it and to date, the hypothesis is looking increasingly unlikely.

Obviously, YOU have never had anything to do with the insurance industry OR you would know that THERE ARE "MANY KNOWN RISKS", WHICH ARE CONSIDERED UNLIKELY TO AFFECT CERTAIN BUSINESSES OR GEOGRAPHIC AREAS, BUT THEY DO AND THEY DO IT, ALL TO OFTEN!

Try Earthquakes, which are frequent, BUT not too frequent in Newcastle!

Or, try Cyclones, which are frequent, BUT not too frequent in PERTH!

Do Businesses demand that these risks be excluded from the insurance premiums they pay? Fortunately, good Business owners & sensible insurance people understand that sh!t happens & it doesn't always happen where, when & how is commonly expected, BUT mitigation of those Risks still make good sense!

In terms of spending Trllions, that's already been done on the GFC, for very little, to NO return!

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by gold_medal on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 8:42am

philperth2010 wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 8:34am:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 8:23am:

philperth2010 wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 8:17am:

perceptions_now wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 8:11am:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 6:45am:

philperth2010 wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 8:29pm:

The debate continues.....

http://news.sp@m/earth/no-global-warming-hasnt-stopped-121017.html

when a supposed scholarly article refers to 'denialists' and 'realists' then his credibility takes a gigantic plunge. the attitude alone indicates that his view is somewhat biased and despite all those lovely little graphs, it remains unequivocably true that warming HAS stopped. the CRU admits it, the UK MET say both that it hasnt stopped and that it has stopped and those pesky climate disasters refuse to eventuate.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by gold_medal on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 8:47am

perceptions_now wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 8:41am:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 8:21am:

perceptions_now wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 8:11am:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 6:45am:

philperth2010 wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 8:29pm:

comparing ACC to the insurance industry is an interesting one - if rather silly when you think about it. A risk needs to be credible to be considered. and then it needs to be quantified so that it can be mitigated. ACC is rapidly losing the credibility stakes. and as for quantified, what prediction do you want to use to quantify it? the failed one, the really failed one or the laughably bad failed one? and therein lies the difference. insurance mitigastes KNOW risks with KNOWN outcomes. ACC is both increasinlgy unlikely and its effects utterly unknowable.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by perceptions_now on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 11:26am

gold_medal wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 8:47am:

perceptions_now wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 8:41am:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 8:21am:

perceptions_now wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 8:11am:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 6:45am:

philperth2010 wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 8:29pm:

comparing ACC to the insurance industry is an interesting one - if rather silly when you think about it. A risk needs to be credible to be considered. and then it needs to be quantified so that it can be mitigated. ACC is rapidly losing the credibility stakes. and as for quantified, what prediction do you want to use to quantify it? the failed one, the really failed one or the laughably bad failed one? and therein lies the difference. insurance mitigastes KNOW risks with KNOWN outcomes. ACC is both increasinlgy unlikely and its effects utterly unknowable.

Do You consider Earthquakes in Newcastle &/or Cyclones in PERTH, credible, usual or likely?
There is already work done on both quantifying & mitigating, BUT as usual, YOU only look at what you want to see.

I think you meant to say, "insurance mitigates KNOWN risks with KNOWN outcomes".

And, to be blunt, you wouldn't know the first thing about -
insurance
mitigation of risks
known risks
known outcomes
unknown risks
unknown outcomes

Or, as Don Rumsfeld put it -
There are known knowns; there are things we know we know.
We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say, we know there are some things we do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don’t know we don’t know.

And, there is one more just for you, Longy -
There are also knowns & unknowns – which we don’t want to know - but which we really do know.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by rabbitoh07 on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 12:27pm

gold_medal wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 8:23am:

No. The UK MET did not announce dec 24 2012 that they expect no more warming for the next 4-5 years and that the last 16 have shown no increase.

If they did you would provide a link to support your statement. But you didn't. You simply made that up.

What the UK Met actually DID announce on dec 21 2012 was:
Global temperatures are forecast to be 0.57 degrees above the long-term average next year, making 2013 one of the warmest years on record, Britain’s Met Office said. “It is very likely that 2013 will be one of the warmest 10 years in the record which goes back to 1850, and it is likely to be warmer than 2012,” the Met Office said in its annual forecast for the coming year.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/dec/21/met-office-2013-warmest-years

Please stop making things up.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by gold_medal on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 12:34pm

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 12:27pm:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 8:23am:

the link has already been given, bunny-boy. it was made VERY QUIETLY hoping no one would notice hence the Christmas eve release

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by progressiveslol on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 12:42pm

gold_medal wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 12:34pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 12:27pm:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 8:23am:

the link has already been given, bunny-boy. it was made VERY QUIETLY hoping no one would notice hence the Christmas eve release

It isnt like the MET ever get anything right apart from looking out the window and saying "yeh its raining, grab an umbrella" (unless you think odds the same as throwing a dart mean anything), but it is funny to note that they think 20 years of flat temps while co2 is going to double soon.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by Deathridesahorse on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 5:13pm

Does progs understand that heat content is absorbed by ice,... before it melts!

It's called the process of phase change!!

:P Interesting graphs associated with phase change!! :o :o :o :o :o

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by rabbitoh07 on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 5:41pm

gold_medal wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 12:34pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 12:27pm:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 8:23am:

the link has already been given, bunny-boy. it was made VERY QUIETLY hoping no one would notice hence the Christmas eve release

Don't tell lies Gold Medal.

You claimed that the UK Met announced on "dec 24 2012 that they expect no more warming for the next 4-5 years and that the last 16 have shown no increase."

SHOW US THIS ANNOUNCEMENT
You appear to be telling lies again. No such announcement exists.

I have shown you what the Met ACTUALLY said. Here is the link to the Met website where you will see their announcement:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2012/2013-global-forecast

It says very clearly:
it is very likely that 2013 will be one of the warmest ten years in the record which goes back to 1850, and it is likely to be warmer than 2012.

It DOES NOT say:
that they expect no more warming for the next 4-5 years and that the last 16 have shown no increase."

Please show us the announcement you are referring to - or apologise for telling a lie.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by rabbitoh07 on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 5:44pm

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 12:42pm:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 12:34pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 12:27pm:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 8:23am:

the link has already been given, bunny-boy. it was made VERY QUIETLY hoping no one would notice hence the Christmas eve release

Are you referring to what the MET has actually said? Or one of Gold Medals lies about what the MET has said.

They are 2 different things.

THe MET said:
“It is very likely that 2013 will be one of the warmest 10 years in the record which goes back to 1850, and it is likely to be warmer than 2012,
and I have provided teh link above to confirm it.

Gold Medal told a lie and claimed they said:
that they expect no more warming for the next 4-5 years and that the last 16 have shown no increase."

Gold Medal has provided no links to support this. THis is because Gold Medal made it up.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by gold_medal on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 6:40pm

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 5:44pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 12:42pm:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 12:34pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 12:27pm:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 8:23am:

the link has already been given, bunny-boy. it was made VERY QUIETLY hoping no one would notice hence the Christmas eve release

ths link was provided to you and you were too stupid to open it and read it. your lack of intelligence is not my problem.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by rabbitoh07 on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 6:53pm

gold_medal wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 6:40pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 5:44pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 12:42pm:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 12:34pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 12:27pm:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 8:23am:

the link has already been given, bunny-boy. it was made VERY QUIETLY hoping no one would notice hence the Christmas eve release

ths link was provided to you and you were too stupid to open it and read it. your lack of intelligence is not my problem.

No it wasn't

You are telliing a lie.

Show us where the UK MET announced:

that they expect no more warming for the next 4-5 years and that the last 16 have shown no increase."

Show us.

If you showed us before - you can show us agin.

Come on - here is your big chance to prove me wrong and prove you are not telling lies

Show us where the UK MET announced:

that they expect no more warming for the next 4-5 years and that the last 16 have shown no increase."

I am accusing you of telling a lie.

WHat have you got?

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by adelcrow on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 7:17pm

Longy has been reading into material what suits him for ages..If he ever read any of the stuff he links to..ALL THE WAY THROUGH..he would realise hes never had anything worth a rats tossbag

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by perceptions_now on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 8:00pm

adelcrow wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 7:17pm:

Longy has been reading into material what suits him for ages..If he ever read any of the stuff he links to..ALL THE WAY THROUGH..he would realise hes never had anything worth a rats tossbag

Hey, wait just a minute!

We don't want to go around insulting "rats tossbogs", DO WE?

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by perceptions_now on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 8:03pm

perceptions_now wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 11:26am:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 8:47am:

perceptions_now wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 8:41am:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 8:21am:

perceptions_now wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 8:11am:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 6:45am:

philperth2010 wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 8:29pm:

Cat got your tongue, Longy?

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by rabbitoh07 on Jan 11^th, 2013 at 12:27pm

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 6:53pm:

Show us where the UK MET announced:

that they expect no more warming for the next 4-5 years and that the last 16 have shown no increase."

Cat got your tongue, Longy?

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by gold_medal on Jan 11^th, 2013 at 4:42pm

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-09/u-k-met-office-lowers-warming-forecast-for-next-5-years.html

since you lack the capacity to read here it is again right from the MET. Now being a climate hysteric group you need to read the statistics using 'critical reasoning'. when it says 'lower forecasts' of 0.43 degrees higher it doesn't mean 0.43 higher than now or even 2000 but the AVERAGE of 1971-2000 which funnily enough is 0.40 below today's temperatures. So in short they are predicting over the next 5 years a 'rise in temperature off 0.03 degrees.

0.03 degrees which is about as close to zero as you can get. But the fun comes later on when they tell you that the RANGE of expected temperatures is 0.29-0.54 with the higher probability for the lower figure. so do the math... that means the 90% probability is .11 LOWER than today's temperatures.

MOTR. this is called critical analysis and reasoning.

global warming??? not according to the UK MET's figures... just according to their WORDS. no wonder they have been subject to parliamentary investigation!

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by rabbitoh07 on Jan 11^th, 2013 at 6:26pm

gold_medal wrote on Jan 11^th, 2013 at 4:42pm:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-09/u-k-met-office-lowers-warming-forecast-for-next-5-years.html

since you lack the capacity to read here it is again right from the MET.

Where does it say:
that they expect no more warming for the next 4-5 years and that the last 16 have shown no increase."

could you point that bit out?

BTW: your link is not "right from the MET". It is a news report. Although it does say:

Global average temperatures from 2013 through 2017 will probably be about 0.43 degree Celsius (0.77 degree Fahrenheit) above the 1971 through 2000 mean, the Met Office said in its latest near-term climate forecast. That compares with the 0.54 degree rise predicted in December 2011 for 2012 through 2016.

it DOES NOT say:
that they expect no more warming for the next 4-5 years and that the last 16 have shown no increase."

as you lied.

And if you did actually go to the MET, as link from your link - you would also see:

The forecast of continued global warming is largely driven by increasing levels of greenhouse gases.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/seasonal-to-decadal/long-range/decadal-fc

NOT:
that they expect no more warming for the next 4-5 years and that the last 16 have shown no increase."

as you lied.

gold_medal wrote on Jan 11^th, 2013 at 4:42pm:

global warming??? not according to the UK MET's figures...

The forecast of continued global warming is largely driven by increasing levels of greenhouse gases.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/seasonal-to-decadal/long-range/decadal-fc

This is what the MET said. Not:
that they expect no more warming for the next 4-5 years and that the last 16 have shown no increase."

You lied.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by MOTR on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 7:29am

Why claims anthropogenic warming has stopped for the last 16 years are absolute tosh.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_0JZRIHFtk&sns=em

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by cods on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 7:42am

HEY MODS.

shouldnt this topic be in the science forum.. or at the very least relationships?????

YAWNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by MOTR on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 8:05am

cods wrote on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 7:42am:

HEY MODS.

shouldnt this topic be in the science forum.. or at the very least relationships?????

YAWNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN

So the carbon tax has nothing to do with this. Or is it that the carbon tax is really a non issue.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by gold_medal on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 8:15am

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 11^th, 2013 at 6:26pm:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 11^th, 2013 at 4:42pm:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-09/u-k-met-office-lowers-warming-forecast-for-next-5-years.html

since you lack the capacity to read here it is again right from the MET.

global warming??? not according to the UK MET's figures...

its a pretty simple outcome if you read the facts. All you hear is the MET saying 'increase' and fail to understand the text. I am a great fan of getting raw data trather than simply accept the 'executive summary'. You'd be surprised how often the summary is little more than an opinion expressed rather tna an analysis fo the data. I not that you made not a single comment on the actual details. You just say INCREASE and your ideological side kicked in.

this is why sceptics laugh at you hysterics. you belive ANYTHING that supports your side even to the extend of misinterpreting reports that say the opposite.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by gold_medal on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 8:22am

MOTR wrote on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 7:29am:

Why claims anthropogenic warming has stopped for the last 16 years are absolute tosh.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_0JZRIHFtk&sns=em

I note that you made zero comment about my post from the MET. While I expect little from dumb-bunny I do expect a rational response to my post. And BTW those weren simply figures picked out of the air. They came from the METs own information. The temperature over the next 4-5 years i predicted by the UK MET to be no hotter than current. Some of the graphs you use that show increase in temperature over the last 16 years use processed data ie moving averages of the last 30 years. So of course they show an increase because the graph isnt showing a particular YEAR's temperature but rather the sliding average. While it can be a useful lfigure it does howevr very conveniently hid the fact that temperatures are static.

You like to claim that 2010 and 2005 were the hottest. doesnt critical reasoning therefore ask 'what happened in 2006, 2007 2008 and 2009? they were COOLER. that same mindset would ask if those two years were nothing more that statistcially insignificant peaks in an overall trend of statis.

Just dont be so naive as to accept everything you find on the net as being accurate, unbiased or even what it claims to be.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by MOTR on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 8:27am

I believe rabittoh07 has already dealt with your post about the met. Not sure there is anything left to add.

Did you actually look at the clip, goldie. You seem to have completely misunderstood it.

By the way, goldie, you do understand that nobody is predicting a monotonic rise. You seem to be arguing that because the rise is not monotonic there can't be an underlying trend.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by gold_medal on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 8:32am

MOTR wrote on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 8:27am:

I believe rabittoh07 has already dealt with your post about the met. Not sure there is anything left to add.

Did you actually look at the clip, goldie. You seem to have completely misunderstood it.

you mean his response which dealth with ABSOLUTELY NONE of the facts I discussed? the fact that the MET is literally comparing temperatures to a 30 years 1971-2000 average which is 0,4 degrees below current temperatures? While a useful measure for scientists and thos that haev a modicum of mathematical understanding it just as effectively HIDES the fact that they dont expect temperature to rise and have a 90% confidence that temperature will drop.

Come on MOTR... use that vaunted self-claimed critical reasoninng and tell me how the METs announcement isnt EXACTLY what I said - 4-5 years of no warming to come.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by gold_medal on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 8:35am

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20947224

another version of the same story but with a little bit more analysis. do read it, wont you?

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by MOTR on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 9:20am

gold_medal wrote on Jan 11^th, 2013 at 4:42pm:

What they are predicting is a five year period that will average slightly more than the highest year they have on record. That's sustained heat not driven by a one off short term driver like the massive El Niño event we experienced in 1998. However, it's just a prediction, chances are it might be slightly cooler or even hotter.

The good news is that they are not predicting an acceleration in the rate of warming. Indeed they seem to be predicting a short term slowing in the rate of warming. Unfortunately, this means the foot on the accelerator is still going down, so we shouldn't be expecting a shift towards cooler temperatures. The bad news is that periods like this are to be expected, even when there is a clear and sustained underlying trend.

What it tells us is that the exceptionally hot year we experienced in 1998 has now becoming the norm. It's scary to think what our next massive El Niño will deliver.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by gold_medal on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 12:07pm

MOTR wrote on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 9:20am:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 11^th, 2013 at 4:42pm:

well thats one way of looking at it - as long as you are not even remotely interested in truth. a predicted 0.0 3degree increase looks awfully like 'we dont think there wil lbe any increase but we need a figure that shows an increase but isnt really'. and did you see that they have a 90% confidence level for a 0.11degree DROP? you didnt mention that.

in anybodys unbiased language they are saying that they wil be no increase for the next 5 years. they are NOT comparing it to the hottest year at all but rather and average from 40 years ago.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by gold_medal on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 12:11pm

MOTR wrote on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 9:20am:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 11^th, 2013 at 4:42pm:

I wonder if you actually see the silliness in the highlighted passage. the MET admits there will be NO increase and you see it as no change in the rate of warming - which is correct. Simple logic therefore is that if there is no change predicted for the future then the rate of change is zero. With your admission of no change in the rate of change then that implies that the current rate of change is also zero. That in simple terms means the temperatures are not currently increasing....

please try and debunk the logic above.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by MOTR on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 12:45pm

Of course there will be periods of apparent cooling. There is no doubt that there has been a significant rise in global temperatures since the turn of 20th Century, yet we can clearly identify periods of cooling. The Met office is predicting that over the next five years temperatures are likely to plateau at temperatures that were considered to be exceptionally high back in 1998. However, they are not at all certain. Their 90% confidence interval ranges from a 0.28 to 0.59 above average. This means the next 5 years may be cooler than the hottest decade on record, but more likely will be slightly hotter. There is as much chance of temperatures accelerating above the current trend as there is of them falling by 0.11.

Temperature trends driven by CO2 are not monotonic, goldie. We do expect there to be short term periods of cooling. The next five years may be one of these periods.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by gold_medal on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 2:10pm

MOTR wrote on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 12:45pm:

congratulations on a complete absence of critical reasoning. I call your bluff and state that you never studid critical reasoning or that if you did, you failed. You simply repeat your mantra and then try and fit it into the facts that appear no matter how hard you try.

You should try an advanced course in statistics. the FIRST thing they teach you is how to read data impartially. They teach you that the raw data is the ONLY source of truth and that each step in processing it runs the risk of diminishing that truth. And if that processing isnt accompanied by an open mind and integrity you can end up with a hockey stick - a result debunked by almost every statistician yet supported by most climate scientists.

and that is how you get a totally accurate 30 year sliding average temperature graph demonstrating to the uninitiated or the blind that temperatures are rising when they are in fact not.

It is how when building a temperature reconstruction that you cherry pick the hottest temperatures rather than ALL the data. It is also why you use summer temperatures instead of annual temperatures.

and again, you have never yet explained the reason why so many very experienced respected prize-winning published scientist including climate scientists, say that ACC is garbage. Why is that?

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by MOTR on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 2:54pm

Your post lacks all sense, goldie. It's a massive ad hominem with a little bit of jargon thrown in to create a veneer of sophistication.

Have another go, sunshine.

How about you start with a statement in my post you disagree with. Then tell me why it is wrong. And how about rather than trying to obfuscate, you have a go at laying down a real argument that is clear, concise and logical.

I'll help you out. Explain to me why, in your opinion, this statement does not reflect the latest prediction from the Met Office.

Quote:

According to the Met the next 5 years may be cooler than the hottest decade on record (2000-2009), but more likely they will be slightly hotter. There is as much chance of temperatures accelerating above the current trend as there is of them falling by 0.11.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by cods on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 3:21pm

Snowstorm blankets Holy Land
Israeli President Shimon Peres builds a snowman in Jerusalem as a rare snowstorm sweeps across the Middle East. Sarah Sheffer reports.

At least eight people have died as fierce winter storms batter the Middle East. Source: AAP
THE worst storms in a decade left swathes of Israel and Jordan under a blanket of snow and parts of Lebanon blacked out on Thursday, bringing misery to a region accustomed to temperate weather.

Freezing temperatures and floods since Sunday across the region have claimed at least 11 lives and exacerbated the plight of hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees huddled in tent camps in Jordan, Turkey and Lebanon.

But for students in countries battered by the snow, rain and bitter winds, the storms meant they could cut classes as authorities ordered schools and universities closed in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan Israel.

With snow blanketing the war-hit Syrian capital Damascus, the education ministry on Thursday announced that mid-term exams would be postponed in the country until further notice.

In Jordan, a blizzard brought the country to a near halt, as snow blocked most of roads in Amman and other parts in the desert kingdom, police said.

Jordan's King Abdullah II ordered the army to support the government - which declared Thursday a public holiday - in opening roads and helping those stranded in the snow, the palace said.

The storm has also triggered power blackouts in Lebanon, Jordan and Israel.

In Lebanon parts of the country were plunged into darkness, leaving those who rely on electricity to heat their homes shivering.

Officials and residents blamed the outage on the storm and an open-ended strike by employees of the state-run Electricite du Liban power company over salaries and pension issues.

"There is a storm, and there is a problem in the grid. The electricity workers are on strike, and they're not letting anyone fix the problem," Lebanese Energy and Water Minister Gebran Bassil told AFP on Thursday.

The storm also highlighted the poor infrastructure in Lebanon where chronic power shortages since the end of Lebanon's 1975-1990 civil war have been a main source of grievance among Lebanese who must put up with daily rationing

d/telegraph.12/1/13

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by MOTR on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 3:24pm

Patterns, cods. We're looking for patterns.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmKlaZDw6YI&sns=em

As you can see, global warming does not mean the end of extreme cold temperatures. It just means they are less likely to occur.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by rabbitoh07 on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 3:24pm

gold_medal wrote on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 8:15am:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 11^th, 2013 at 6:26pm:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 11^th, 2013 at 4:42pm:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-09/u-k-met-office-lowers-warming-forecast-for-next-5-years.html

since you lack the capacity to read here it is again right from the MET.

global warming??? not according to the UK MET's figures...

its a pretty simple outcome if you read the facts.

Yes. It is a pretty simple outcome if you read the facts. The fact is that that you claimed the MET said:
that they expect no more warming for the next 4-5 years and that the last 16 have shown no increase."

When asked to show this "announcement" - you could not. You lied.

The MET did not say:
that they expect no more warming for the next 4-5 years and that the last 16 have shown no increase."

What the MET did say was:
Global average temperature is expected to remain between 0.28 °C and 0.59 °C (90% confidence range) above the long-term (1971-2000) average during the period 2013-2017, with values most likely to be about 0.43 °C higher than average

How exactly does this "critical reasoning" of yours lead you to read of a forecast of above average temperatures for each of the next 5 years, and come to the conclusion that "that they expect no more warming for the next 4-5 years"?!?!?

Do you know what the word "average" actually means? If the PM announced that we expect to receive above average numbers of boat people for each of the next 5 years - do you think that that would lead all of the Andrew Bolt fans to say - " Oh well done PM! THere will be no increase in the number of boat people for the next 5 years! Is this how your "critical reasoning" works

Or by "critical reasoning" - do you just mean "tell lies"?

Was it "critical reasoning that lead you to say that glaciers are not receding? Or was that just a lie. You have never shown us any evidence to support that statement, have you.

Was it "critical reasoning that lead you to say that an undersea volcano was melting the arctic ice cap? Or was that just a lie. You have never shown us any evidence to support that statement, have you.

Was it "critical reasoning that lead you to say that the MWP was 4 degrees warmer globally than today? Or was that just a lie. You have never shown us any evidence to support that statement, have you.

Was it "critical reasoning that lead you to say that the Doran 2009 survey was sent to 10,000 scientists but only 79 responded - when in fact 3146 responded? Well, that was just an outright lie wasn't it.

And now this "critical reasoning" leads you to say that the MET announced "that they expect no more warming for the next 4-5 years" - when of course - they said no such thing, the exact opposite in fact. They predicted 5 years of continuing above average temperatures.

THis "critical reasoning" of yours really doesn't work very well, does it. Why don't you just concentrate on trying to tell the truth. That would be a nice change.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by gold_medal on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 4:05pm

MOTR wrote on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 2:54pm:

simple. Because it is nothing more than a couple sentences written by you seeking to explain an entire MET press release. No analysis. Nothing but making a claim with no reference to data or analysis.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by gold_medal on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 4:07pm

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 3:24pm:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 8:15am:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 11^th, 2013 at 6:26pm:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 11^th, 2013 at 4:42pm:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-09/u-k-met-office-lowers-warming-forecast-for-next-5-years.html

since you lack the capacity to read here it is again right from the MET.

global warming??? not according to the UK MET's figures...

its a pretty simple outcome if you read the facts.

now see the highlighted bit dumb-bunny. Now tell me in terms relative to current global temperatures what this actually means. CLUE: you wont be able to work it out.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by MOTR on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 4:09pm

gold_medal wrote on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 4:05pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 2:54pm:

Pathetic, goldie.

It seems there is nothing you can identify that makes my statement false.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by cods on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 4:15pm

MOTR wrote on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 3:24pm:

I just thought this might give you some peace of mind...knowing that snow was falling in the desert.....I thought you would be happy and therefor able to sleep at night...

believe me I worry about you...

you seem determined for the world to END.in a ball of fire..you want all these..PATTERNS to be right..YOU WANT TO BE RIGHT.

thats sick,

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by MOTR on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 4:20pm

cods wrote on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 4:15pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 3:24pm:

I'm virtually certain I'm right, cods. And I'm determined to do what I can to minimise the risk to our children. Some of us can face the truth others put their collective head in the sand. Facing the truth and dealing with the truth is not sick, it's rational.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by gold_medal on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 4:24pm

MOTR wrote on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 4:09pm:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 4:05pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 2:54pm:

Pathetic, goldie.

It seems there is nothing you can identify that makes my statement false.

your statement is inadequate. it says nothing but opinion substantiated by nothing whatsoever. it makes a claim without reference, without context or without support.

I posted a detailed view on their press release and you responded with nothing more substantial than 'me too'. How about actually addressing the detail of my argument. Do you realise that you never actually address a persons argument in detail? Instead all you say is. 'no, you are wrong and here is the same old graph for the 99th time'.

You give the appearance of being intelligent and capable of debate and argument. So why arent you doing it? Ive raised multiple questions and you ahve never yet addressed a single one and still refuse to.

When I give you a list of emminent scientist who say ACC is crap what do you do????? demand their peer-reviewed papers, permission from their mums and a criminal report. A perons of your purported intelligence would engage a debate as to why, if the science is settled and the question is beyond dispute, that so many dispute it and with reasonable cause.

now when you are actually willing to engage some of those discussion than maybe a deabte mught be worthwhile. But to date, you do an awful lot of flag-waving and precious little (none actually) debate on the harder questions.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by gold_medal on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 4:26pm

MOTR wrote on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 4:20pm:

cods wrote on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 4:15pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 3:24pm:

there is a particularly insiduous arrogance that declares that you are right beyond question or debate while so many around say the opposite. the only two options are that you are THAT good OR that you are THAT STUPID.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by perceptions_now on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 4:26pm

Nothing much changes for GM aka Longweekend aka Longy aka Rip Van Winkle, he has always been a brick short, BUT nevertheless he is still nearly as intelligent as 2 London Bricks!

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by MOTR on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 4:30pm

As is evident from my posts, I'm certainly not beyond debating the issue. Now all you have to do is come up with a more persuasive argument, goldie.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by perceptions_now on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 4:31pm

gold_medal wrote on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 4:24pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 4:09pm:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 4:05pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 2:54pm:

Pathetic, goldie.

It seems there is nothing you can identify that makes my statement false.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by MOTR on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 4:34pm

gold_medal wrote on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 4:24pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 4:09pm:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 4:05pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 2:54pm:

Pathetic, goldie.

It seems there is nothing you can identify that makes my statement false.

Again, goldie, pathetic. How about you tell me exactly why my statement is false. Four paragraphs of insults is not an argument.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by MOTR on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 4:36pm

Quote:

Here it is again, goldie. Stop whinging and start debating.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by rabbitoh07 on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 5:55pm

gold_medal wrote on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 4:07pm:

now see the highlighted bit dumb-bunny. Now tell me in terms relative to current global temperatures what this actually means. CLUE: you wont be able to work it out.

Global average temperature is expected to remain between 0.28 °C and 0.59 °C (90% confidence range) above the long-term (1971-2000) average during the period 2013-2017, with values most likely to be about 0.43 °C higher than average

The highlighted bit tells us that the Met predicts that 0.43 °C is most likely to be the temperature anomaly to the long-term average during the period 2013-2017

Now - could you please explain why you lied and wrote that the Met announced:
that they expect no more warming for the next 4-5 years and that the last 16 have shown no increase."

When they said nothing of the sort?

Could you please explain how you can distort a prediction of 5 years of above average temperatures into "no more warming for the next 4-5 years".

And after that - could you please tell us why you wrote that glaciers are not receding? What lead you to say that an undersea volcano was melting the arctic ice cap? What lead you to say that the MWP was 4 degrees warmer globally than today? WHat lead you to say that the Doran 2009 survey was sent to 10,000 scientists but only 79 responded - when in fact 3146 responded?

You have told a lot of lies. Don't you think you should start explaining why?

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by rabbitoh07 on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 6:06pm

gold_medal wrote on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 4:24pm:

I posted a detailed view on their press release and you responded with nothing more substantial than 'me too'. How about actually addressing the detail of my argument. Do you realise that you never actually address a persons argument in detail? Instead all you say is. 'no, you are wrong and here is the same old graph for the 99th time'.

Ha ha ha ha!!!!

You were asked to explain why you claimed that the Met announced:
that they expect no more warming for the next 4-5 years and that the last 16 have shown no increase."

You were asked to show the quote.

Instead of apologising for telling lies - you posted a news article and pretended it was from the Met.

But even your news article did not say, as you claimed that the Met said:
that they expect no more warming for the next 4-5 years and that the last 16 have shown no increase."

And - besides this lie - you have now been caught multiple times telling other outright lies.

You claimed glaciers are not receding.
You claimed there is an underwater volcano melting the arctic ice cap
You claimed that the Doran 2009 survey was sent to 10,000 scientists but only 79 responded - when in fact 3146 responded.
you claimed that the MWP was 4 degrees warmer globally than today.

True - you did attempt once to explain that last one - you linked to a blog referring to a paper (with no reference to the paper) which seemed to indicate at one point in Antarctica, temperatures may have been 1 degree warmer than today at some point in the last 1000 years. But you have still produced no evidence to support your claim that the MWP was 4 degrees warmer globally than today.

Now - instead of you whining about people not addressing the detail of your arguments - perhaps you should ask yourself why anyone would bother addressing any details put forward by someone who continually tells lies, but is too pathetic to own up to it. And also ask yourself why anyone would bother addressing any details put forward by someone who is so clearly ignorant of the subject being discussed.

If you had any idea what you were talking about - you would not need to lie so often

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by progressiveslol on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 6:17pm

Here is some more 'this is how you do it doomsday cult style

NOAA Blows Away The Fraud Record In 2012!

NOAA publishes something called “raw” monthly data – which is supposed to be unadjusted. It shows 2012 super-duper hot.

Only problem is, this “raw” data has been massively altered. The graph below shows the difference between the “raw” monthly temperature and the GHCN HCN daily data which it is derived from.

NOAA has blown away the record for data tampering in 2012 – by a very large margin.

The red in the graph shows how big a fraud the doomsday cult is (the old cool the past and warm the present)

US temperature data from NOAA is complete crap.

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/01/12/noaa-blows-away-the-fraud-record-in-2012/

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by gold_medal on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 6:34pm

MOTR wrote on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 4:36pm:

Quote:

Here it is again, goldie. Stop whinging and start debating.

part of debating is actually responding to comments and questions by the opponent. This is something you appear totally unaware of.

Ive now asked you umpteen times to respond to the emminent list of critics and you decline to do so.

A proper critical thinker - which you claim to be but never demonstrate - would ask the serious question as to why so many, so eminent and so qualified people express the opposite opinion. Now how about you actually answer the question with some actual thinking?

Dont ask - yet again - about their peer-reviewd papers. That gets old and a little pitiful. Seeing as these are actual professors of climatology, atmospheric physics and related disciplines, how about we stipulate that yes, they have published in these fields? fiar enough?

Now over to you...

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by MOTR on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 8:48pm

gold_medal wrote on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 6:34pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 4:36pm:

Quote:

Here it is again, goldie. Stop whinging and start debating.

A critical thinker is interested in the argument. Some of the "esteemed" people that make your list support their position with arguments I find weak or specious. Some of them have arguments that have gained very little traction amongst climate scientists. I don't have the time or the inclination to go through your list and individually find out the extent if their doubts or the reason for their doubts. Particularly when some of them use such flimsy arguments as CO2 is plant food. I'm more than happy to debate any specific argument you might want to make.

Meanwhile, how about you debate the specifics rather than pursuing these tedious red herrings.

I can only conclude that you don't have the wherewithal to debate the specifics. You seem to think I have misrepresented the position of the Met Office, yet you can't seem to tell me why.

I'll assume your willing to cede that my summation is an accurate representation of the Met Office's position.

Now, how about you list one of your eminent people, and if you cant refer me to a peer reviewed paper, how about you outline their argument against the AGW hypothesis.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by greggerypeccary on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 1:23am

MOTR wrote on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 8:48pm:

Now, how about you list one of your eminent people, and if you cant refer me to a peer reviewed paper, how about you outline their argument against the AGW hypothesis.

You really don't understand what a hypothesis is, do you?

A hypothesis doesn't have to have an opposing argument for it to be a hypothesis.

Your scientific knowledge is lacking somewhat my friend.

If you and Bunny Boy are the best that the AGW alarmists can come up with ... ::)

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by Spot of Borg on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 4:53am

gold_medal wrote on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 6:34pm:

part of debating is actually responding to comments and questions by the opponent. This is something you appear totally unaware of.

Hahahahaha now follow your own advice longy

SOB

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by MOTR on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:02am

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 1:23am:

MOTR wrote on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 8:48pm:

Now, how about you list one of your eminent people, and if you cant refer me to a peer reviewed paper, how about you outline their argument against the AGW hypothesis.

Whatever, greggery. Rather than playing semantics, how about you come up with a real argument.

You are yet to produce an argument that rejects the AGW hypothesis.

By the way, the IPCC, based on the body of scientific literarture available to them, are now virtually certain that it's warming and that we are responsible.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by gold_medal on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 3:31pm

MOTR wrote on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 8:48pm:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 6:34pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 4:36pm:

Quote:

Here it is again, goldie. Stop whinging and start debating.

so the argument of the climate hysteric essentially boils down to the character assasination of ANYONE who opposes the orthodoxy? It doesnt matter if they are an esteemed Professor of Climatology coz if they disagree with the consensus they can be ignored?????

The book that I challenged you to read (and which you didnt) points out quite clearly the academic failures and professional misbehaviour of many whom you accept as unimpeachable climate scientists. You wont even discuss them and presumably never will

So why would I go to the bother of finding one of the hundreds of anti-ACC reports? You would do what every good like hysteric does and attack the person first and then dismiss his work for any reasons you can find - including manufactured ones. Ive had my own published work dismissed by one person LITERALLY for the existence of a single typo in the text.

You did correctly quote the METs stated position. You did just what is expected of a non-thinking drone who reads the headlines and happily ignores the data which actually says the opposite. You arent a critical reasoner. You cut-and-paste and think it amounts to reasoned opinion.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by gold_medal on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 3:42pm

MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:02am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 1:23am:

MOTR wrote on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 8:48pm:

Now, how about you list one of your eminent people, and if you cant refer me to a peer reviewed paper, how about you outline their argument against the AGW hypothesis.

and guess how that happens.... a lead author is chosen from the list of pro-ACC crowd and that actively and unashamedly gate-keep the anti-ACC papers away. IPCC peer-reviewers have also been told to toe the line (McKitrick 2007) and not allowed to criticise the process. And best of all IPCC releases a Summary to Policy Makers well ahead of the report. not the publication of the report but well ahead of the WRITING of the report. and then the authors have to make the report line up with the summary. does that sound like a good process to you?

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by greggerypeccary on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 3:44pm

MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:02am:

You are yet to produce an argument that rejects the AGW hypothesis.

I've already explained this to you. You obviously have no idea about science or what a hypothesis actually is.

I'm not presenting a counter position: there's no requirement for me to "produce an argument". I'm just presenting the truth.

You, however, can't handle the truth.

The truth being:

* AGW is a hypothesis; and

* It may be correct, or it may be incorrect.

Why is this so hard for you to accept?

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by Maqqa on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 3:47pm

MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:02am:

You are yet to produce an argument that rejects the AGW hypothesis.

It's up to the person who came up with the hypothesis to provide the evidence and argument to back their hypothesis

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by greggerypeccary on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 3:52pm

Maqqa wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 3:47pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:02am:

You are yet to produce an argument that rejects the AGW hypothesis.

It's up to the person who came up with the hypothesis to provide the evidence and argument to back their hypothesis

Such a simple, basic concept yet the alarmists don't seem to understand this point.

They either don't acknowledge that AGW is a hypothesis in the first place (some seem to think it's a "scientific law") or, when they do acknowledge it, they don't seem to understand exactly how hypotheses work.

I do wish they would start to embrace science instead of hyperbole, fear-mongering and ignorance.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by gold_medal on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 4:54pm

Maqqa wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 3:47pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:02am:

You are yet to produce an argument that rejects the AGW hypothesis.

It's up to the person who came up with the hypothesis to provide the evidence and argument to back their hypothesis

exactly. the prevailing and default position is logically that climate change and warming/cooling are all natural and NON-athropogenic. it is up to the proponents of the ACC hypothesis to prove their point, not the other way around. and to date, the proof has not been supplied and the evidence remains increasinly sparse.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by Deathridesahorse on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 4:56pm

Maqqa wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 3:47pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:02am:

You are yet to produce an argument that rejects the AGW hypothesis.

It's up to the person who came up with the hypothesis to provide the evidence and argument to back their hypothesis

lol, maqqa doesn't understand the role of a nul-hypothesis!

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by greggerypeccary on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 5:15pm

gold_medal wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 4:54pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 3:47pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:02am:

You are yet to produce an argument that rejects the AGW hypothesis.

It's up to the person who came up with the hypothesis to provide the evidence and argument to back their hypothesis

Yep.

I'm not sure if the alarmists don't actually get it, or if they're just playing dumb.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by Deathridesahorse on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 5:19pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 5:15pm:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 4:54pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 3:47pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:02am:

You are yet to produce an argument that rejects the AGW hypothesis.

It's up to the person who came up with the hypothesis to provide the evidence and argument to back their hypothesis

Yep.

I'm not sure if the alarmists don't actually get it, or if they're just playing dumb.

LOL, NUL-HYPOTHESIS IS CENTRAL TO SCIENCE!

YOU'RE AN AMATUER BUDDY!! ;) ;)

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by greggerypeccary on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 5:27pm

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 5:19pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 5:15pm:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 4:54pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 3:47pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:02am:

You are yet to produce an argument that rejects the AGW hypothesis.

It's up to the person who came up with the hypothesis to provide the evidence and argument to back their hypothesis

Yep.

I'm not sure if the alarmists don't actually get it, or if they're just playing dumb.

LOL, NUL-HYPOTHESIS IS CENTRAL TO SCIENCE!

Yes, but MOTR never mentioned null-hypothesis, did he now? ::)

Moreover, when did AGW alarmists start paying attention to science? :-/

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by Deathridesahorse on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 5:37pm

The denialists don't believe their own arguments!!

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by greggerypeccary on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 5:39pm

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 5:37pm:

The denialists don't believe their own arguments!!

MOTR never mentioned null-hypothesis, did he now?

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by Deathridesahorse on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 5:47pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 5:39pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 5:37pm:

The denialists don't believe their own arguments!!

MOTR never mentioned null-hypothesis, did he now?

Don't get angry! Crack is boring and you'll just have to accept it like everyone else! Friends go missing and it's really sad but we've all been thru the endless funerals....

9-11 happened and the bell of pointless consumption is tolling...

NO GOOD EVER CAME FROM THE WASTE OF RESOURCES!!

:o :o

SLEEP WELL CHILD HATER!! :-/ :o :o :o :o :o :D

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by MOTR on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 5:51pm

Maqqa wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 3:47pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:02am:

You are yet to produce an argument that rejects the AGW hypothesis.

It's up to the person who came up with the hypothesis to provide the evidence and argument to back their hypothesis

That has certainly been done.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by greggerypeccary on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 5:59pm

MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 5:51pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 3:47pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:02am:

You are yet to produce an argument that rejects the AGW hypothesis.

It's up to the person who came up with the hypothesis to provide the evidence and argument to back their hypothesis

That has certainly been done.

Yes, and nobody is denying that.

However, it's not up to sceptics to provide evidence and an argument as well.

You've completely missed the point.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by MOTR on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:02pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 3:44pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:02am:

You are yet to produce an argument that rejects the AGW hypothesis.

We have been at this point before, greggery. We don't have any argument on this point. I believe the AGW hypothesis is robust and virtually certain to be correct. It's the same position taken by the IPCC. I'd like to know why you believe it's not anthropogenic. I'd like to know why you are so adamant AGW is unlikely when the IPCC has found it to be 99% certain.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by MOTR on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:04pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 5:59pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 5:51pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 3:47pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:02am:

You are yet to produce an argument that rejects the AGW hypothesis.

It's up to the person who came up with the hypothesis to provide the evidence and argument to back their hypothesis

That has certainly been done.

Yes, and nobody is denying that.

However, it's not up to sceptics to provide evidence and an argument as well.

You've completely missed the point.

I know the evidence that has brought me to my position. I want to know why you think AGW is unlikely.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by greggerypeccary on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:10pm

MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:04pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 5:59pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 5:51pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 3:47pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:02am:

You are yet to produce an argument that rejects the AGW hypothesis.

It's up to the person who came up with the hypothesis to provide the evidence and argument to back their hypothesis

That has certainly been done.

Yes, and nobody is denying that.

However, it's not up to sceptics to provide evidence and an argument as well.

You've completely missed the point.

I know the evidence that has brought me to my position. I want to know why you think AGW is unlikely.

I'm not convinced by the evidence.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by Deathridesahorse on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:14pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:10pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:04pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 5:59pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 5:51pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 3:47pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:02am:

You are yet to produce an argument that rejects the AGW hypothesis.

It's up to the person who came up with the hypothesis to provide the evidence and argument to back their hypothesis

That has certainly been done.

Yes, and nobody is denying that.

However, it's not up to sceptics to provide evidence and an argument as well.

You've completely missed the point.

I know the evidence that has brought me to my position. I want to know why you think AGW is unlikely.

I'm not convinced by the evidence.

You are not convinced Abbott is trying to reduce carbon emissions for a fit and proper reason??

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by MOTR on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:15pm

gold_medal wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 3:31pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 8:48pm:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 6:34pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 4:36pm:

Quote:

Here it is again, goldie. Stop whinging and start debating.

So you agree that the next five years are expected to average temperatures comparable to 1998. Do you also accept that at the time 1998 was an extremely hot year relative to the temperatures of the 20th Century. The way I see it is that extremely hot years have now become the norm. If you were measuring the performance of a business you'd be extremely happy.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by greggerypeccary on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:15pm

MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:02pm:

I'd like to know why you are so adamant AGW is unlikely when the IPCC has found it to be 99% certain.

Did you not see this?:

"It may be correct, or it may be incorrect."

There doesn't seem to be much bias in that statement.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by greggerypeccary on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:17pm

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:14pm:

You are not convinced Abbott is trying to reduce carbon emissions for a fit and proper reason??

LOL ;D

Now that was funny.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by gold_medal on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:20pm

MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 5:51pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 3:47pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:02am:

You are yet to produce an argument that rejects the AGW hypothesis.

It's up to the person who came up with the hypothesis to provide the evidence and argument to back their hypothesis

That has certainly been done.

really? using what scale of judgement? the complete and total failure of all predictive model? on the abundance of junk science or open fraud?

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by Deathridesahorse on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:21pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:17pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:14pm:

You are not convinced Abbott is trying to reduce carbon emissions for a fit and proper reason??

LOL ;D

Now that was funny.

Lol, you must be a blast on the crack man!

yeh, let's all get stoned on crack with greg and STARE AT EACH OTHER FOR DAYS PLAYING THE SAME RECORD OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND ....!

;D ;D

NO WONDER SMOKING CRACK IS RESPONSIBLE FOR SO MUCH SUICIDE!!

::) ::) ::) ::)

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by Maqqa on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:22pm

gold_medal wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:20pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 5:51pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 3:47pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:02am:

You are yet to produce an argument that rejects the AGW hypothesis.

It's up to the person who came up with the hypothesis to provide the evidence and argument to back their hypothesis

That has certainly been done.

really? using what scale of judgement? the complete and total failure of all predictive model? on the abundance of junk science or open fraud?

Didn't you see the movie?

The basis for their proof is the movie AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by MOTR on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:22pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:10pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:04pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 5:59pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 5:51pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 3:47pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:02am:

You are yet to produce an argument that rejects the AGW hypothesis.

It's up to the person who came up with the hypothesis to provide the evidence and argument to back their hypothesis

That has certainly been done.

Yes, and nobody is denying that.

However, it's not up to sceptics to provide evidence and an argument as well.

You've completely missed the point.

I know the evidence that has brought me to my position. I want to know why you think AGW is unlikely.

I'm not convinced by the evidence.

I know that. I was asking you to outline how you came to this conclusion. As far as I can make out you seem to be arguing tht because their are natural drivers of climate it's unlikely to be anthropogenic. Which only makes sense if you believe that CO2 is not a significant driver.

What's so difficult about outlining your major concerns.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by gold_medal on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:23pm

MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:02pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 3:44pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:02am:

You are yet to produce an argument that rejects the AGW hypothesis.

has itr ever occured to you that the IPCC position is wrong? has it ever occured to yu that they act as gate-keepers to alternative opinions and research? if ACC were right then its predictions would be right or at least close. INstead, they fail miserably and we get the embarrassing nonse of IPCC saying that their temperature predictions were spot on - if you take out the natural variability and things they didnt know about. what exactly is that pitiful response?

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by Deathridesahorse on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:23pm

LOL, OR HOW 'BOUT GETTING BLASTED ON THE CRACK WITH GOLD MEDAL??

YEH MAN, WOW THAT WOULD BE SO COOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL I COULD DO IT FOREVER!!

:-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :o :o

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by greggerypeccary on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:23pm

MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:22pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:10pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:04pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 5:59pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 5:51pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 3:47pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:02am:

You are yet to produce an argument that rejects the AGW hypothesis.

It's up to the person who came up with the hypothesis to provide the evidence and argument to back their hypothesis

That has certainly been done.

Yes, and nobody is denying that.

However, it's not up to sceptics to provide evidence and an argument as well.

You've completely missed the point.

I know the evidence that has brought me to my position. I want to know why you think AGW is unlikely.

I'm not convinced by the evidence.

I'm concerned with just about every aspect of the AGW hypothesis.

Take your pick.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by Deathridesahorse on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:25pm

Maqqa wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:22pm:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:20pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 5:51pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 3:47pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:02am:

You are yet to produce an argument that rejects the AGW hypothesis.

It's up to the person who came up with the hypothesis to provide the evidence and argument to back their hypothesis

That has certainly been done.

really? using what scale of judgement? the complete and total failure of all predictive model? on the abundance of junk science or open fraud?

Didn't you see the movie?

The basis for their proof is the movie AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH

LOL, MAQQA WOULD BE SO COOL ON THE CRACK PICKING ARGUMENTS AND GETTING YOU TO FIGHT WITH ALL HIS/HER/ITS MATES!

;D

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by rabbitoh07 on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:25pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 3:44pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:02am:

You are yet to produce an argument that rejects the AGW hypothesis.

Actually - AGW is a theory, not a hypothesis, in that it summarises a group of hypotheses that have been supported by various pieces of collected evidence.

But essentially you are correct:

* AGW is a theory; and

* It may be correct, or it may be incorrect.

The same may be said of the theory that physical bodies attract each other with a force proportional to their masses - ie gravity.

Tell us Greggery - do you go around calling people that accept that physical bodies attract each other with a force proportional to their masses "alarmists"?

Do you live in a cave? I assume you must. You certainly could not trust the constuction of any modern engineered structure, since the the gravitation theory is central to structural engineering.

* Gravity is a theory; and

* It may be correct, or it may be incorrect.

Is that right Greggery?

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by MOTR on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:27pm

gold_medal wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:20pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 5:51pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 3:47pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:02am:

You are yet to produce an argument that rejects the AGW hypothesis.

It's up to the person who came up with the hypothesis to provide the evidence and argument to back their hypothesis

That has certainly been done.

really? using what scale of judgement? the complete and total failure of all predictive model? on the abundance of junk science or open fraud?

It's the physics, goldie. Even your mate, Montford, gets the radiative physics.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by rabbitoh07 on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:29pm

gold_medal wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:23pm:

Why is it that you are not able to construct any arguement with out telling lies?

Haven't you ever asked yourself why you need to tell lies regarding this subject?

You lied about glaciers receding.
You lied about undersea volcanos melting the arctic ice cap
You lied about the MWP being 4 degrees warmer globally than today.
You lied about the Doran 2009 survey when you claimed that only 79 scientists responded to it.
You lied about what the UK Met announced at the end of last year re their forecast for the next 5 years.

Has it ever occurred to you that if you need to continually tell lies to support your arguement - you are probably wrong?

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by gold_medal on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:30pm

MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:15pm:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 3:31pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 8:48pm:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 6:34pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 4:36pm:

Quote:

Here it is again, goldie. Stop whinging and start debating.

they didnt refer to 1998. you did. why are you unable to debate my argument using the data I provided? does the maths elude you? Does the critical reasoning that would quickly deduce that they are saying temperature WILL NOT GO UP offend you so much that you ignore it?

teh temperature argument has always been about trend. the MET are syaing that temperature will not go up over the next 5 years. by any mathematical definition this means temperatures will not go up. there is no other interpretation - except yours.

MOTR, I am finding your debating style to be intrinsically dishonest. I am disappointed that it is impossible to debate with you to any value. If I make a point, you generally just deflect, pop in a grap[h (same ones of course) and talk about the IPCC (who are a joke in scientific circles). Getting youi to address an issue you dont like is simply not possible. When I mention the very large and growing numbers of scientists joining the sceptic position, you dismiss it as worthless yet claim consensus as a killer blow at other times. Your climate position remains nothing more that flag-waving hysteria.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by gold_medal on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:33pm

MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:27pm:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:20pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 5:51pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 3:47pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:02am:

You are yet to produce an argument that rejects the AGW hypothesis.

It's up to the person who came up with the hypothesis to provide the evidence and argument to back their hypothesis

That has certainly been done.

really? using what scale of judgement? the complete and total failure of all predictive model? on the abundance of junk science or open fraud?

It's the physics, goldie. Even your mate, Montford, gets the radiative physics.

thats perhaps the stupidest resonse youve made yet. the physics of Climate isnt even understood and even now we are in the midst of radical changes in the understandong of the sun's effect on climate yet you presume to claim that the hypothesis has been proven.

the most fundamental proof of any hypothesis is the ability to replicate it or in this case to use it to build predictive models. they fail - miserably. their models are a joke.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by MOTR on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:34pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:23pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:22pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:10pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:04pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 5:59pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 5:51pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 3:47pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:02am:

You are yet to produce an argument that rejects the AGW hypothesis.

It's up to the person who came up with the hypothesis to provide the evidence and argument to back their hypothesis

That has certainly been done.

Yes, and nobody is denying that.

However, it's not up to sceptics to provide evidence and an argument as well.

You've completely missed the point.

I know the evidence that has brought me to my position. I want to know why you think AGW is unlikely.

I'm not convinced by the evidence.

I'm concerned with just about every aspect of the AGW hypothesis.

Take your pick.

It would seem you really have nothing constructive to add to the debate, beyond stating that you have concerns with the AGW hypothesis.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by Deathridesahorse on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:34pm

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:25pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 3:44pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:02am:

You are yet to produce an argument that rejects the AGW hypothesis.

i MEAN, GREGGERY COULDN'T PACK A VERY BIG SNOW CONE OR THE PIPPAY ITSELF IF IT WERENT' FOR GRAVITY!

HE OBVIOUSLY BELIEVES IN THE VALIDITY OF GRAVITY BEING PROMOTED FROM THE ECHELON OF THEORY TO THE ECHELON OF LAW!!

WAIT, PERHAPS HE DOESN'T... :o :o :o :o OH GREAT GREGGERY... WON'T YOU SPEAKETH ONCE YOU HAVE EXHALED THE POISONOUS TOKE FROM WITHIN..!??! :-/ :-/ :-? :D :D

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by Deathridesahorse on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:37pm

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:29pm:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:23pm:

PEOPLE THAT REALLY LOVE CRACK LIE TO GET IT APPARENTLY! :( :( :( :( :( :( ;) ;)

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by Maqqa on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:37pm

gold_medal wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:33pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:27pm:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:20pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 5:51pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 3:47pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:02am:

You are yet to produce an argument that rejects the AGW hypothesis.

It's up to the person who came up with the hypothesis to provide the evidence and argument to back their hypothesis

That has certainly been done.

really? using what scale of judgement? the complete and total failure of all predictive model? on the abundance of junk science or open fraud?

It's the physics, goldie. Even your mate, Montford, gets the radiative physics.

The alarmists seems to avoid the physics replacing it with "denier" tag

They are concerned with Ice Caps melting would increase sea level - but the ignore that Antarctic ice sheets only contribute 0.21mm to the increase with an error rate of 0.37mm

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by greggerypeccary on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:38pm

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:25pm:

* Gravity is a theory; and

* It may be correct, or it may be incorrect.

Is that right Greggery?

LOL This is priceless. Absolutely priceless. You're even funnier than that deathrides character.

I always thought you were a little bit ignorant on this subject, but this has destroyed any shred of credibility you may have had left.

First Hitler, and now the old "gravity" comparison.

Oh god, my sides are splitting from laughing so much.

;D

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by Deathridesahorse on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:41pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:38pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:25pm:

* Gravity is a theory; and

* It may be correct, or it may be incorrect.

Is that right Greggery?

IF GRAVITY ISN'T A THEORY PROMOTED TO THE ECHELON OF LAW THEN WHAT IS IT??

;) ;) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)i

-->> STILL WAITING!! 8-)

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by MOTR on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:42pm

gold_medal wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:33pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:27pm:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:20pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 5:51pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 3:47pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:02am:

You are yet to produce an argument that rejects the AGW hypothesis.

It's up to the person who came up with the hypothesis to provide the evidence and argument to back their hypothesis

That has certainly been done.

really? using what scale of judgement? the complete and total failure of all predictive model? on the abundance of junk science or open fraud?

It's the physics, goldie. Even your mate, Montford, gets the radiative physics.

Rubbish. You don't even accept that El Niño events have a significant impact on temperatures. You don't have enough knowledge to assess whether the predictive models are a joke or not.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by MOTR on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:47pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:38pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:25pm:

* Gravity is a theory; and

* It may be correct, or it may be incorrect.

Is that right Greggery?

greggery, you must have one massive insecurity complex. Rather than debate the science all you want to do is get caught up in this ridiculous game of semantics.

My bet is you're too scared to lay your knowledge of the science on the table.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by Deathridesahorse on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:48pm

MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:47pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:38pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:25pm:

* Gravity is a theory; and

* It may be correct, or it may be incorrect.

Is that right Greggery?

SMOKING CRACK MEANS BEING SCARED!

:o :o

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by greggerypeccary on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:49pm

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:25pm:

Actually - AGW is a theory, not a hypothesis ...

When losing an argument, resort to semantics.

Lies, fear-mongering, hyperbole, Godwin's Law, semantics, colourful graphs, data manipulation. You AGW alarmists have it all. The only thing missing is science and some convincing evidence. Get back to me when you start using those two methods, OK? There's a good lad.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by Maqqa on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:52pm

MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:47pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:38pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:25pm:

* Gravity is a theory; and

* It may be correct, or it may be incorrect.

Is that right Greggery?

Lets debate the science

Antarctic melt contributing to sea level increase is 0.21mm with an error of 0.37mm

And the fact that scientist don't know what level of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere will melt the ice

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by Deathridesahorse on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:53pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:49pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:25pm:

Actually - AGW is a theory, not a hypothesis ...

GREG IS CRYING, LOL!

NOTHING IS AS FUNNY AS SEEING A CRACK-SMOKER IN TEARS LOL!

EVERYONE HATES A DRUG-ADDICT HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

CHEER UP GREG... THE LEARNING STARTS WHEN YOU REFUSE TO GO TO ANY MORE FUNERALS!!

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by greggerypeccary on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:54pm

MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:47pm:

greggery, you must have one massive insecurity complex. Rather than debate the science all you want to do is get caught up in this ridiculous game of semantics.

I'm not playing any semantics games. My god, you don't even know the meaning of the word.

This guy is resorting to 'Hitler' and 'gravity' in order to support the AGW hypothesis.

You can't see how ridiculous that is? You can't see how that destroys his credibility?

The AGW religion is slowly dying because of ignorant fools like him. You really should have him removed from the church if you want to keep pushing your agenda with any level of success.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by rabbitoh07 on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:55pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:38pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:25pm:

* Gravity is a theory; and

* It may be correct, or it may be incorrect.

Is that right Greggery?

Answer the question Greggery.

Do you understand that, just like AGW:

* Gravity is a theory; and

* It may be correct, or it may be incorrect.

Just yes or no Greggery. I always answer your questions.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by MOTR on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:56pm

Maqqa wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:52pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:47pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:38pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:25pm:

* Gravity is a theory; and

* It may be correct, or it may be incorrect.

Is that right Greggery?

So what's the current annual rise in sea levels, Maqqa?

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by rabbitoh07 on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:57pm

Maqqa wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:52pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:47pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:38pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:25pm:

* Gravity is a theory; and

* It may be correct, or it may be incorrect.

Is that right Greggery?

What ice are you talking about?
And why do you think whatever this ice is is relevant?

THe majority of sea level rise that will impact on human societies in the coming years will be from thermal expansion. Not melting ice.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by greggerypeccary on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 7:00pm

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:55pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:38pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:25pm:

* Gravity is a theory; and

* It may be correct, or it may be incorrect.

Is that right Greggery?

You won't be getting any further answers from me Bunny. Sorry old boy.

Once you resorted to 'Hitler' and 'gravity' you revealed yourself as the troll you really are (or incredibly naive and stupid - you decide which one).

From now on I won't be replying to any of your posts.

I'm dealing with intelligent adults in the future, so I'm afraid that excludes you (and your friend deathrides).

'Hitler' and 'Gravity' LOL You wanted to be taken seriously, yet you failed so spectacularly.

Goodbye my unscientific little friend.

;D

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by rabbitoh07 on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 7:02pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:49pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:25pm:

Actually - AGW is a theory, not a hypothesis ...

Do you accuse people that accept that physical bodies attract each other with a force proportional to their masses of Lies, fear-mongering, hyperbole, Godwin's Law, semantics, colourful graphs and data manipulation.

If not - why not?

Why are you singling out one particular scientific theory over others?

Are people that accept that humans share a common ancestor with other primates also guilty of Lies, fear-mongering, hyperbole, Godwin's Law, semantics, colourful graphs and data manipulation.

Are people that accept that the movement of tectonic plates is responsible for the current location of the continents also guilty of Lies, fear-mongering, hyperbole, Godwin's Law, semantics, colourful graphs and data manipulation.

Please explain Greggory.

Yes or No.

I always answer your questions Greggery.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by Maqqa on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 7:02pm

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:57pm:

So all those images presented from alarmists about melting ice and rising sea levels as a result of it is now wrong?

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by Maqqa on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 7:03pm

MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:56pm:

So what's the current annual rise in sea levels, Maqqa?

the classic divert tactics

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by MOTR on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 7:05pm

Maqqa wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 7:03pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:56pm:

So what's the current annual rise in sea levels, Maqqa?

the classic divert tactics

I just wanted to be sure you understood that thermal expansion was the major contributor to the rise in sea level.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by rabbitoh07 on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 7:08pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:54pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:47pm:

greggery, you must have one massive insecurity complex. Rather than debate the science all you want to do is get caught up in this ridiculous game of semantics.

I'm not playing any semantics games. My god, you don't even know the meaning of the word.

Just like you don't know the meaning of the word "hypothesis".

AGW is a theory. Just like gravity.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:54pm:

This guy is resorting to 'Hitler' and 'gravity' in order to support the AGW hypothesis.

No - I am trying to find out why you call people that accept the theory of AGW as "alarmists", and what insult you may use for people that accept the theory of gravity.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:54pm:

You can't see how ridiculous that is? You can't see how that destroys his credibility?

We will see about "credibility" when you can explain whether you have the same contempt for the theory of gravity as the theory of AGW.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:54pm:

The AGW religion is slowly dying because of ignorant fools like him. You really should have him removed from the church if you want to keep pushing your agenda with any level of success.

Religion Greggery? How is acceptance of a theory based on evidence like a religion?

I would have thought that your stance on the subject is far more "religion" like.

You are completely incapable of explaining why you think that the accumulated body of evidence supporting the AGW theory is incorrect - yet you still keep chanting the mantra "it is just a hypothesis" - even though you do not even know what the word hypothesis means!

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by rabbitoh07 on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 7:12pm

Maqqa wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 7:02pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:57pm:

So all those images presented from alarmists about melting ice and rising sea levels as a result of it is now wrong?

I don't know Maqqa. What are "all these images" you are talking about?

Here is an image that shows you sea level rise due to thermal expansion:

Figure 5.19. Global sea level change due to thermal expansion for 1955 to 2003, based on Levitus et al. (2005a; black line) and Ishii et al. (2006; red line) for the 0 to 700 m layer, and based on Willis et al. (2004; green line) for the upper 750 m. The shaded area and the vertical red and green error bars represent the 90% confidence interval. The black and red curves denote the deviation from their 1961 to 1990 average, the shorter green curve the deviation from the average of the black curve for the period 1993 to 2003.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch5s5-5-3.html

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by Maqqa on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 7:13pm

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 7:12pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 7:02pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:57pm:

So all those images presented from alarmists about melting ice and rising sea levels as a result of it is now wrong?

So the melting glaciers are now out of the picture?

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by greggerypeccary on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 7:14pm

Maqqa wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 7:03pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:56pm:

So what's the current annual rise in sea levels, Maqqa?

the classic divert tactics

Yes, that's one of their methods I forgot to mention: diversion.

The AGW alarmists will use anything to promote their hypothesis: anything except science and the truth.

Tsk tsk

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by Maqqa on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 7:22pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 7:14pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 7:03pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:56pm:

So what's the current annual rise in sea levels, Maqqa?

the classic divert tactics

Yes, that's one of their methods I forgot to mention: diversion.

The AGW alarmists will use anything to promote their hypothesis: anything except science and the truth.

Tsk tsk

alarmists have been using melting glaciers which result in sea level rising as evidence of global warming

but now rabbit tells us it's thermal expansion

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by MOTR on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 7:32pm

Maqqa wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 7:22pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 7:14pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 7:03pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:56pm:

So what's the current annual rise in sea levels, Maqqa?

the classic divert tactics

Yes, that's one of their methods I forgot to mention: diversion.

The AGW alarmists will use anything to promote their hypothesis: anything except science and the truth.

Tsk tsk

alarmists have been using melting glaciers which result in sea level rising as evidence of global warming

but now rabbit tells us it's thermal expansion

It's both, Maqqa. Thermal expansion is currently having a much bigger impact that the melting of ice sheets. The melting of ice sheets will have a more dramatic effect sometime in the future.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by gold_medal on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 7:57pm

MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:42pm:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:33pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:27pm:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:20pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 5:51pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 3:47pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:02am:

You are yet to produce an argument that rejects the AGW hypothesis.

It's up to the person who came up with the hypothesis to provide the evidence and argument to back their hypothesis

That has certainly been done.

really? using what scale of judgement? the complete and total failure of all predictive model? on the abundance of junk science or open fraud?

It's the physics, goldie. Even your mate, Montford, gets the radiative physics.

Rubbish. You don't even accept that El Niño events have a significant impact on temperatures. You don't have enough knowledge to assess whether the predictive models are a joke or not.

I facilitate courses on predictive modelling in the environmental sector. the validity (and value ) of predictive modesl is their ACCURACY. The first test done is to apply your model to previous time periods and assess how accurately that match what actually happened. Are you aware that climate models have spectacularly failed this test? ALL OF THEM. the other test is that their predictions are matched by future events.

climate models fail spectacularly in both directions. don't come at me with the El nino argument. that is spurious. if the model doesn't take that into account then it is flawed -possibly fatally. If the science is so primitive that it is beset by 'random and unpredictable events' then its models cannot and will not work. Climate isn't unpredictable if you know all the science and all the interactions perfectly. The less you know,, the less accurate your model will be. your model lives and thrives on the data it has available to it.

Climate models fail - badly. ergo, the predictions they make are not worth much. and since ACC relies on these predictions then what are we to make of the 'science'?

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by gold_medal on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 8:00pm

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:55pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:38pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:25pm:

* Gravity is a theory; and

* It may be correct, or it may be incorrect.

Is that right Greggery?

did any of you retards ever do phsyics? we actually have no real idea of how gravity worls. we ahve many hyoptheses - none of them proven or easily provable. We can however with a great degree of accuracy gavity's effects and interactions.

if this was some pathetic attempt at comparison to climate science then you couldnt have chosen a worse metaphor.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by gold_medal on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 8:01pm

MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 7:05pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 7:03pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:56pm:

So what's the current annual rise in sea levels, Maqqa?

the classic divert tactics

I just wanted to be sure you understood that thermal expansion was the major contributor to the rise in sea level.

and few mms of it. hottest temperatures in history and the rise is MILLIMETRES?? by your own statements, sea level reise is no problem at all.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by greggerypeccary on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 8:05pm

gold_medal wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 8:00pm:

if this was some pathetic attempt at comparison to climate science then you couldnt have chosen a worse metaphor.

Except Hitler, maybe.

;)

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by MOTR on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 8:22pm

gold_medal wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 8:01pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 7:05pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 7:03pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:56pm:

So what's the current annual rise in sea levels, Maqqa?

the classic divert tactics

I just wanted to be sure you understood that thermal expansion was the major contributor to the rise in sea level.

and few mms of it. hottest temperatures in history and the rise is MILLIMETRES?? by your own statements, sea level reise is no problem at all.

You have a very shallow understanding if the problem, goldie. It doesn't take much to double the risk of flooding in some areas.

Quote:

A study published last March by Climate Central found sea-level rise due to global warming had already doubled the risk of extreme flood events – so-called once in a century floods – for dozens of locations up and down the Atlantic and Pacific coasts.

It singled out the California cities of Los Angeles and San Diego on the Pacific coast and Jacksonville, Florida, and Savannah, Georgia, on the Atlantic, as the most vulnerable to historic flooding due to sea-level rise.

Sandy, which produced a 9ft storm surge at Battery Park in New York City, produced one example of the dangerous combination of storm surges and rising sea level. In New York, each additional foot of water puts up to 100,000 additional people at risk, according to a map published with the study.

But tens of millions of people are potentially at risk across the country. The same report noted that more than half of the population, in some 285 US cities and towns, lived less than 1m above the high tide mark.

"In some places it takes only a few inches of sea-level rise to convert a once in a century storm to a once in a decade storm," said Ben Strauss, who directs the sea-level rise programme at Climate Central.

Large swathes of the mid-Atlantic coast, from Virginia through New Jersey, also faced elevated risk of severe flooding, because of climate change, he said.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by perceptions_now on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 8:30pm

Maqqa wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 7:03pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:56pm:

So what's the current annual rise in sea levels, Maqqa?

the classic divert tactics

Talk about, the pot calling the kettle black!

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by greggerypeccary on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 8:31pm

perceptions_now wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 8:30pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 7:03pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:56pm:

So what's the current annual rise in sea levels, Maqqa?

the classic divert tactics

Talk about, the pot calling the kettle black!

OK, talk about it.

How do sceptics divert?

I haven't seen any trying to bring Hitler or gravity into the debate (unlike the AGW alarmists).

So please, tell us about these divert tactics used by sceptics.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by MOTR on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 8:51pm

Still not a single scientific argument, greggery.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by greggerypeccary on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 8:55pm

MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 8:51pm:

Still not a single scientific argument, greggery.

That's correct: I'm not presenting an argument.

I'm sceptical of the AGW hypothesis.

Why don't you understand the difference?

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by rabbitoh07 on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 8:55pm

Maqqa wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 7:13pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 7:12pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 7:02pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:57pm:

So all those images presented from alarmists about melting ice and rising sea levels as a result of it is now wrong?

So the melting glaciers are now out of the picture?

No. The melting glaciers are not now of the picture

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by rabbitoh07 on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 8:57pm

Maqqa wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 7:22pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 7:14pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 7:03pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:56pm:

So what's the current annual rise in sea levels, Maqqa?

the classic divert tactics

Yes, that's one of their methods I forgot to mention: diversion.

The AGW alarmists will use anything to promote their hypothesis: anything except science and the truth.

Tsk tsk

alarmists have been using melting glaciers which result in sea level rising as evidence of global warming

but now rabbit tells us it's thermal expansion

Don't blame "alarmists" for your own ignorance.

The IPCC literature has always identified thermal expansion as the major cause of sea level rise in the immediate

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by rabbitoh07 on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 8:59pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 8:31pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 8:30pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 7:03pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:56pm:

So what's the current annual rise in sea levels, Maqqa?

the classic divert tactics

Talk about, the pot calling the kettle black!

Please answer Greggery.

Yes or No. Is AGW a scientific theory just like gravity is.

Yes or No. Are people who accept gravitational theory - "alarmists"?

I always answer your questions Greggery.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by greggerypeccary on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 8:59pm

Maqqa wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 7:13pm:

So the melting glaciers are now out of the picture?

It all depends.

The alarmists change their position on certain aspects of the debate (those who believe that there still is a debate) depending on whether it currently supports the AGW hypothesis or not.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by greggerypeccary on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 9:02pm

Maqqa wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 7:22pm:

alarmists have been using melting glaciers which result in sea level rising as evidence of global warming

but now rabbit tells us it's thermal expansion

Rabbit uses 'Hitler' and 'gravity' as a means to promote the AGW hypothesis.

I wouldn't be taking anything he says too seriously.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by rabbitoh07 on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 10:01pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 8:59pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 7:13pm:

So the melting glaciers are now out of the picture?

It all depends.

Yes. It all depends if you are talking to someone who knows what they are talking about. Or a complete moron.

We both know which category you fit into - don't we Greggery.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 8:59pm:

The alarmists change their position on certain aspects of the debate (those who believe that there still is a debate) depending on whether it currently supports the AGW hypothesis or not.

Which "alarmists" are you talking about Greggery?

The ones that think that physical bodies appear to attract each other with a force proportional to their masses?

Or have you dedcided to arbitrarily deride some other scientific theory?

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by rabbitoh07 on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 10:04pm

gold_medal wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 7:57pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:42pm:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:33pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:27pm:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:20pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 5:51pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 3:47pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:02am:

You are yet to produce an argument that rejects the AGW hypothesis.

It's up to the person who came up with the hypothesis to provide the evidence and argument to back their hypothesis

That has certainly been done.

really? using what scale of judgement? the complete and total failure of all predictive model? on the abundance of junk science or open fraud?

It's the physics, goldie. Even your mate, Montford, gets the radiative physics.

Rubbish. You don't even accept that El Niño events have a significant impact on temperatures. You don't have enough knowledge to assess whether the predictive models are a joke or not.

I facilitate courses on predictive modelling in the environmental sector. the validity (and value ) of predictive modesl is their ACCURACY.

Perhaps you should attend classes about not telling lies.

We are still waiting for you apologies LIAR

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by rabbitoh07 on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 10:05pm

gold_medal wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 7:57pm:

[
I facilitate courses on predictive modelling in the environmental sector. the validity (and value ) of predictive modesl is their ACCURACY. The first test done is to apply your model to previous time periods and assess how accurately that match what actually happened. Are you aware that climate models have spectacularly failed this test? ALL OF THEM. the other test is that their predictions are matched by future events.

climate models fail spectacularly in both directions. don't come at me with the El nino argument. that is spurious. if the model doesn't take that into account then it is flawed -possibly fatally. If the science is so primitive that it is beset by 'random and unpredictable events' then its models cannot and will not work. Climate isn't unpredictable if you know all the science and all the interactions perfectly. The less you know,, the less accurate your model will be. your model lives and thrives on the data it has available to it.

Climate models fail - badly. ergo, the predictions they make are not worth much. and since ACC relies on these predictions then what are we to make of the 'science'?

Why did you lie about the melting of glaciers.

Simple question.

Will we ever get an answer?

Liar.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by rabbitoh07 on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 10:12pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 7:00pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:55pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:38pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:25pm:

* Gravity is a theory; and

* It may be correct, or it may be incorrect.

Is that right Greggery?

You won't be getting any further answers from me Bunny. Sorry old boy.

Haven't had one yet. So no difference there

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 7:00pm:

Once you resorted to 'Hitler' and 'gravity' you revealed yourself as the troll you really are (or incredibly naive and stupid - you decide which one).

Good plan Greggery. Run away like a little girl when you cannot answer a question.

That will impress the chicks!

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 7:00pm:

From now on I won't be replying to any of your posts.

Good plan Greggery.
You big girls bouse.
Run away like a little girl - just because you are shown up to be a fool.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 7:00pm:

I'm dealing with intelligent adults in the future, so I'm afraid that excludes you (and your friend deathrides).

Heh!! Like your mate Gold Medal!! You are welcome to him.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 7:00pm:

'Hitler' and 'Gravity' LOL You wanted to be taken seriously, yet you failed so spectacularly.

Still waiting for an answer Greggery - why is gravity acceptable as a theory - but AGW is not.

Any answer?

Or is it still a matter of faith for you?

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by rabbitoh07 on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 10:13pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 9:02pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 7:22pm:

alarmists have been using melting glaciers which result in sea level rising as evidence of global warming

but now rabbit tells us it's thermal expansion

Rabbit uses 'Hitler' and 'gravity' as a means to promote the AGW hypothesis.

I wouldn't be taking anything he says too seriously.

Buy a dictionary.

Look up "theory"

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by rabbitoh07 on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 10:14pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 8:55pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 8:51pm:

Still not a single scientific argument, greggery.

That's correct: I'm not presenting an argument.

I'm sceptical of the AGW hypothesis.

Why don't you understand the difference?

Because you do not understand what the word "hypothesis" means.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by Karnal on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 10:17pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 9:02pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 7:22pm:

alarmists have been using melting glaciers which result in sea level rising as evidence of global warming

but now rabbit tells us it's thermal expansion

Rabbit uses 'Hitler' and 'gravity' as a means to promote the AGW hypothesis.

I wouldn't be taking anything he says too seriously.

Oh, I am.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by rabbitoh07 on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 10:57pm

Karnal wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 10:17pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 9:02pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 7:22pm:

alarmists have been using melting glaciers which result in sea level rising as evidence of global warming

but now rabbit tells us it's thermal expansion

Rabbit uses 'Hitler' and 'gravity' as a means to promote the AGW hypothesis.

I wouldn't be taking anything he says too seriously.

Oh, I am.

And so you should.

It is Hitler and his use of gravity that led us to where we are today.

Greggery is like Hitler though. He is happy to spread that unproven theory of gravity to everybody. So long as you wear smart black trousers.

Title: Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Post by gold_medal on Jan 14^th, 2013 at 8:29am

MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 8:22pm:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 8:01pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 7:05pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 7:03pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:56pm:

So what's the current annual rise in sea levels, Maqqa?

the classic divert tactics

I just wanted to be sure you understood that thermal expansion was the major contributor to the rise in sea level.

and few mms of it. hottest temperatures in history and the rise is MILLIMETRES?? by your own statements, sea level reise is no problem at all.

You have a very shallow understanding if the problem, goldie. It doesn't take much to double the risk of flooding in some areas.

Quote:

given that I facilitate flood-modelling training, I am more than aware of the concepts. But perhaps you need to be aware that 1M is ONE THOUSAND millimetres while the rises are a handful of millimetres. The concept of 'imminent risk' is nto defined as a <1% change in the set of circcumstances.