Australian Politics Forum - Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
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.

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 #1 - 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'?

Back to top

IP Logged

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #2 - 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.

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 #3 - 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.
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

progressiveslol

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17029

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #4 - 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'.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Dec 30^th, 2012 at 7:05pm by progressiveslol »

IP Logged

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #5 - 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.

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

progressiveslol

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17029

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #6 - Dec 30^th, 2012 at 7:19pm

MOTR wrote 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.

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.
Grin

Back to top

IP Logged

woof woof

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1518
Gender: male

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #7 - 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.

Back to top

IP Logged

progressiveslol

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17029

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #8 - Dec 30^th, 2012 at 7:48pm

woof woof wrote 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.

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

Maqqa Gold Member Offline 14% - that low?! Posts: 16000	Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings. Reply #9 - Dec 30^th, 2012 at 7:53pm The title says "Deniers nailed...." Does anyone know what we are supposed to be "denying"
Back to top	Bill 14% is not the alcohol content of that wine. It's your poll number IP Logged

progressiveslol Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 17029	Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings. Reply #10 - 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.
Back to top	IP Logged

MOTR Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 6646	Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings. Reply #11 - 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.
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

Maqqa

Gold Member

Offline

14% - that low?!

Posts: 16000

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #12 - 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

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 #13 - 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

Back to top

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

IP Logged

gold_medal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3897
Gender: male

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #14 - 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.

Back to top

IP Logged