Australian Politics Forum - Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #105 - 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.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Dec 31^st, 2012 at 7:14pm by MOTR »

Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings

"What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions."

IP Logged

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #106 - 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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

Back to top

Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings

"What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions."

IP Logged

MOTR Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 6646	Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings. Reply #107 - Dec 31^st, 2012 at 6:53pm
Back to top	Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings "What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions." IP Logged

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #108 - 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.

Back to top

Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings

"What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions."

IP Logged

Rider

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2669
OnTheRoad
Gender: male

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #109 - 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.

Back to top

IP Logged

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #110 - Dec 31^st, 2012 at 7:29pm

Rider wrote 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.

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.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Dec 31^st, 2012 at 7:38pm by MOTR »

Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings

"What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions."

IP Logged

Rider Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 2669 OnTheRoad Gender:	Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings. Reply #111 - Jan 1^st, 2013 at 6:38am Whatever, its still junk science. Polishing turds will just give you a nicely polished turd MOTR.
Back to top	IP Logged

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #112 - 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":

Back to top

Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings

"What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions."

IP Logged

adelcrow Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 20133 everywhere Gender:	Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings. Reply #113 - 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.
Back to top	Go the Bunnies IP Logged

Maqqa

Gold Member

Offline

14% - that low?!

Posts: 16000

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #114 - 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:

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

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???

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?

Back to top

Bill 14% is not the alcohol content of that wine. It's your poll number

IP Logged

Maqqa

Gold Member

Offline

14% - that low?!

Posts: 16000

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #115 - 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

Back to top

Bill 14% is not the alcohol content of that wine. It's your poll number

IP Logged

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #116 - 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.

Back to top

Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings

"What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions."

IP Logged

gold_medal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3897
Gender: male

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #117 - 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:

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.

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.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/FR11_All.gif

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

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

gold_medal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3897
Gender: male

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #118 - 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 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":

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

Back to top

IP Logged

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #119 - 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:

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.

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.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/FR11_All.gif

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

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.

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.

Back to top

Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings

"What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions."

IP Logged