Australian Politics Forum - Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.

gold_medal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3897
Gender: male

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #135 - Jan 2^nd, 2013 at 7:43am

MOTR wrote 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.

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!

Back to top

IP Logged

progressiveslol

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17029

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #136 - 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:

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.

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!

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #137 - 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:

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.

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!

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.

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 #138 - 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:

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.

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!

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #139 - 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

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jan 3^rd, 2013 at 11:45am 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

gold_medal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3897
Gender: male

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #140 - 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:

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

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

perceptions_now

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth WA
Gender: male

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #141 - 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!

Back to top

IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #142 - 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:

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.

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!

...====>>>and you
should talk to people who are in it!

Back to top

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) *

IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #143 - 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:

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

WHEN ISSUES BECOME ABOUT THE RICH BEING ALLOWED TO DUMP EXTERNALITIES ON THE UNBORN THE MESSENGER IS OFTEN ATTACKED!

[/FIXED!]

Back to top

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) *

IP Logged

gold_medal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3897
Gender: male

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #144 - 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:

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!

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

progressiveslol

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17029

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #145 - 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-statistica...

Back to top

IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #146 - 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:

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!

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.

GOLD_MEDAL DOESN'T UNDERSTAND COMPLEX SYSTEMS!

Back to top

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) *

IP Logged

gold_medal Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 3897 Gender:	Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings. Reply #147 - 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.
Back to top	IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded Gold Member Offline MediocrityNET: because people died for this! Posts: 26966	Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings. Reply #148 - 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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Back to top	Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) IP Logged

adelcrow Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 20133 everywhere Gender:	Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings. Reply #149 - 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.
Back to top	Go the Bunnies IP Logged