Australian Politics Forum - 31,422 errors in IPCC report

progressiveslol

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17029

Re: 31,422 errors in IPCC report
Reply #30 - Jan 17^th, 2013 at 3:03pm

adelcrow wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 2:55pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 2:48pm:

adelcrow wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 2:46pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 2:39pm:

adelcrow wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 2:37pm:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Global_Warming_Policy_Foundation#Fund...

Do they hate nature.com as well. You should be ashamed to be in the cult.

Surprisingly the interpretation of the same data is totally different on nature.com
Its just more proof that your original post was nothing but scare mongering rubbish
Telling a tiny part of the story and then submitting it as absolute proof just makes you deniers look dimwitted and desperate

I can understand why a brainwashed cultist would hate gwpf. I will not hold it against you. I am confident that once we rid ourselves of this pathetic doomsday cult and its co2 gas failure, you will be able to look at science the way science was always meant to be. Not some religious cult.

$32 for the full article from nature.com.. so are you going to purchase it and get the full paper or is the rubbish from GWPF good enough for you?

The abstract of the paper is fine. If you want to delve into how they got there, then pay the $32. I would suggest the MET pay the $32. Thats cheap compared to the millions they pay their dumb climate scientists.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jan 17^th, 2013 at 3:09pm by progressiveslol »

IP Logged

adelcrow

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20133
everywhere
Gender: male

Re: 31,422 errors in IPCC report
Reply #31 - Jan 17^th, 2013 at 3:03pm

Maqqa wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 2:55pm:

adelcrow wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 2:53pm:

Are you going to purchase the full article and then comment on it progs or are you going to continue to read your own amateur interpretation into a few lines and take that as fact.
Unfortunately that's how you deniers are played for chumps so often by these dodgy oil industry funded groups.
Honestly have you ever read a full paper or been to a lecture?

You do it all the time so why shouldn;t he?

Yep Im always quoting from oil industry funded think tanks Grin

Back to top

Go the Bunnies

IP Logged

progressiveslol

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17029

Re: 31,422 errors in IPCC report
Reply #32 - Jan 17^th, 2013 at 3:04pm

Abstract

A new data set of middle- and upper-stratospheric temperatures based on reprocessing of satellite radiances provides a view of stratospheric climate change during the period 1979–2005 that is strikingly
different from that provided by earlier data sets. The new data call into question our understanding of observed stratospheric temperature trends and our ability to test simulations of the stratospheric response to emissions of greenhouse gases and ozone-depleting substances. Here we highlight the important issues raised by the new data and suggest how the climate science community can resolve them.

Back to top

IP Logged

progressiveslol

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17029

Re: 31,422 errors in IPCC report
Reply #33 - Jan 17^th, 2013 at 3:06pm

adelcrow wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 3:03pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 2:55pm:

adelcrow wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 2:53pm:

Are you going to purchase the full article and then comment on it progs or are you going to continue to read your own amateur interpretation into a few lines and take that as fact.
Unfortunately that's how you deniers are played for chumps so often by these dodgy oil industry funded groups.
Honestly have you ever read a full paper or been to a lecture?

You do it all the time so why shouldn;t he?

Yep Im always quoting from oil industry funded think tanks Grin

der. the words of the brainwashed.

Back to top

IP Logged

adelcrow

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20133
everywhere
Gender: male

Re: 31,422 errors in IPCC report
Reply #34 - Jan 17^th, 2013 at 3:09pm

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 3:03pm:

adelcrow wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 2:55pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 2:48pm:

adelcrow wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 2:46pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 2:39pm:

adelcrow wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 2:37pm:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Global_Warming_Policy_Foundation#Fund...

Do they hate nature.com as well. You should be ashamed to be in the cult.

Surprisingly the interpretation of the same data is totally different on nature.com
Its just more proof that your original post was nothing but scare mongering rubbish
Telling a tiny part of the story and then submitting it as absolute proof just makes you deniers look dimwitted and desperate

I can understand why a brainwashed cultist would hate gwpf. I will not hold it against you. I am confident that once we rid ourselves of this pathetic doomsday cult and its co2 gas failure, you will be able to look at science the way science was always meant to be. Not some religious cult.

$32 for the full article from nature.com.. so are you going to purchase it and get the full paper or is the rubbish from GWPF good enough for you?

The abstract of the paper is fine. If you want to delve into how that got there, then pay the $32. I would suggest the MET pay the $32. Thats cheap compared to the millions they pay their dumb climate scientists.

A few lines from a paper that says nothing that the GWPF claims it says is fine?
Pay the $32 or stop wasting everyone's time..

Back to top

Go the Bunnies

IP Logged

progressiveslol

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17029

Re: 31,422 errors in IPCC report
Reply #35 - Jan 17^th, 2013 at 3:11pm

adelcrow wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 3:09pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 3:03pm:

adelcrow wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 2:55pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 2:48pm:

adelcrow wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 2:46pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 2:39pm:

adelcrow wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 2:37pm:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Global_Warming_Policy_Foundation#Fund...

Do they hate nature.com as well. You should be ashamed to be in the cult.

Surprisingly the interpretation of the same data is totally different on nature.com
Its just more proof that your original post was nothing but scare mongering rubbish
Telling a tiny part of the story and then submitting it as absolute proof just makes you deniers look dimwitted and desperate

I can understand why a brainwashed cultist would hate gwpf. I will not hold it against you. I am confident that once we rid ourselves of this pathetic doomsday cult and its co2 gas failure, you will be able to look at science the way science was always meant to be. Not some religious cult.

$32 for the full article from nature.com.. so are you going to purchase it and get the full paper or is the rubbish from GWPF good enough for you?

The abstract of the paper is fine. If you want to delve into how that got there, then pay the $32. I would suggest the MET pay the $32. Thats cheap compared to the millions they pay their dumb climate scientists.

A few lines from a paper that says nothing that the GWPF claims it says is fine?
Pay the $32 or stop wasting everyone's time..

Well then you are going to love this one, oh brainwashed cultist.

Climate Scientists Get The Stratosphere Wrong

The gravest danger to Earth these days isn’t climate skepticism; it’s the broken, Malthusian and statist green policy imagination. Wedded to grandiose and unworkable “solutions”, greens feel they must push the panic button at every opportunity to stampede the world into embracing an unworkable and unsustainable policy agenda. It won’t work. The Al Gore path (alarmism, hypocrisy, dumb policy solutions, green pig lipsticking or corporate subsidies disguised as green breakthroughs) will not bend the curve. –Walter Russell Mead, Via Meadia, 12 January 2013

more
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/16/newsbytes-new-met-office-botch

Back to top

IP Logged

adelcrow

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20133
everywhere
Gender: male

Re: 31,422 errors in IPCC report
Reply #36 - Jan 17^th, 2013 at 3:11pm

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 3:06pm:

adelcrow wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 3:03pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 2:55pm:

adelcrow wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 2:53pm:

Are you going to purchase the full article and then comment on it progs or are you going to continue to read your own amateur interpretation into a few lines and take that as fact.
Unfortunately that's how you deniers are played for chumps so often by these dodgy oil industry funded groups.
Honestly have you ever read a full paper or been to a lecture?

You do it all the time so why shouldn;t he?

Yep Im always quoting from oil industry funded think tanks Grin

der. the words of the brainwashed.

Ive always said I'll take the word of the majority of experts in any field over that of shock jocks, crazy old farts and self serving pollies.
If thats being brainwashed Im guilty as charged.

Back to top

Go the Bunnies

IP Logged

progressiveslol

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17029

Re: 31,422 errors in IPCC report
Reply #37 - Jan 17^th, 2013 at 3:13pm

adelcrow wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 3:11pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 3:06pm:

adelcrow wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 3:03pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 2:55pm:

adelcrow wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 2:53pm:

Are you going to purchase the full article and then comment on it progs or are you going to continue to read your own amateur interpretation into a few lines and take that as fact.
Unfortunately that's how you deniers are played for chumps so often by these dodgy oil industry funded groups.
Honestly have you ever read a full paper or been to a lecture?

You do it all the time so why shouldn;t he?

Yep Im always quoting from oil industry funded think tanks Grin

der. the words of the brainwashed.

Ive always said I'll take the word of the majority of experts in any field over that of shock jocks, crazy old farts and self serving pollies.
If thats being brainwashed Im guilty as charged.

Do the scientists talk about oil money. Hmm and here I was thinking they were/would have been talking about science. Oh well, thats what you get from the brainwashed cultists.

Back to top

IP Logged

adelcrow Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 20133 everywhere Gender:	Re: 31,422 errors in IPCC report Reply #38 - Jan 17^th, 2013 at 3:14pm If I want to know the best way to pump oil out of the ground I'll seek advice from experts in the oil industry and if I want to know about the science behind climate change I'll seek advice from the experts in that field. Sadly denialists confuse oil industry experts with climate change scientists
Back to top	Go the Bunnies IP Logged

progressiveslol

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17029

Re: 31,422 errors in IPCC report
Reply #39 - Jan 17^th, 2013 at 3:16pm

adelcrow wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 3:14pm:

If I want to know the best way to pump oil out of the ground I'll seek advice from experts in the oil industry and if I want to know about the science behind climate change I'll seek advice from the experts in that field.
Sadly denialists confuse oil industry experts with climate change scientists Grin

You sadly confuse other cultists with experts in their field but it would seem they are just experts at propaganda about oil money and no science.

Back to top

IP Logged

progressiveslol

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17029

Re: 31,422 errors in IPCC report
Reply #40 - Jan 17^th, 2013 at 3:20pm

This is the brainwashed cultist science. Follow the best propaganda machine without peer-review. Makes for a better story and an even better science to follow.

How did the Met Office get their data so wrong? Well there’s the rub. You see, the methodology used to develop the Met Office SSU product was never published in the peer-reviewed literature, and certain aspects of the original processing “remain unknown.” Evidently the boffins at the Met didn’t bother to write down exactly how they were massaging the raw data to get the results they reported. Indeed, those who did the data manipulation seem to have mostly retired. This is an egregious example of sloppy science, slipshod science, bad science. How other climate scientists blindly accepted the Met Office’s manufactured data, even when their models could not be reconciled with nature, leads one to question the scientific integrity of many of those in the field. This is not acceptable behavior in any realm of scientific endeavor. — Doug Hoffman, The Resilient Earth, 15 January 2013

Back to top

IP Logged

adelcrow

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20133
everywhere
Gender: male

Re: 31,422 errors in IPCC report
Reply #41 - Jan 17^th, 2013 at 3:20pm

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 3:13pm:

adelcrow wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 3:11pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 3:06pm:

adelcrow wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 3:03pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 2:55pm:

adelcrow wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 2:53pm:

Are you going to purchase the full article and then comment on it progs or are you going to continue to read your own amateur interpretation into a few lines and take that as fact.
Unfortunately that's how you deniers are played for chumps so often by these dodgy oil industry funded groups.
Honestly have you ever read a full paper or been to a lecture?

You do it all the time so why shouldn;t he?

Yep Im always quoting from oil industry funded think tanks Grin

der. the words of the brainwashed.

Ive always said I'll take the word of the majority of experts in any field over that of shock jocks, crazy old farts and self serving pollies.
If thats being brainwashed Im guilty as charged.

Do the scientists talk about oil money. Hmm and here I was thinking they were/would have been talking about science. Oh well, thats what you get from the brainwashed cultists.

The GWPF is funded by Exxon and the short exert from nature.com says nothing that GWPF claims it does. I assume GWPF does not subscribe to nature.com or they would have the full article or maybe they do and the full article is the opposite to what they are claiming and they are playing you denialists for chumps..You can tell me why GWPF does not publish the full article if you like coz its not like they dont have a spare $32 kicking around especially if its such ground breaking news

Figure it out for yourself.

Back to top

Go the Bunnies

IP Logged

adelcrow Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 20133 everywhere Gender:	Re: 31,422 errors in IPCC report Reply #42 - Jan 17^th, 2013 at 3:24pm http://www.desmogblog.com/really-inconvenient-truth-gwpf-debunking-gwpf-briefing...
Back to top	Go the Bunnies IP Logged

progressiveslol

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17029

Re: 31,422 errors in IPCC report
Reply #43 - Jan 17^th, 2013 at 3:24pm

adelcrow wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 3:20pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 3:13pm:

adelcrow wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 3:11pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 3:06pm:

adelcrow wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 3:03pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 2:55pm:

adelcrow wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 2:53pm:

Are you going to purchase the full article and then comment on it progs or are you going to continue to read your own amateur interpretation into a few lines and take that as fact.
Unfortunately that's how you deniers are played for chumps so often by these dodgy oil industry funded groups.
Honestly have you ever read a full paper or been to a lecture?

You do it all the time so why shouldn;t he?

Yep Im always quoting from oil industry funded think tanks Grin

der. the words of the brainwashed.

Ive always said I'll take the word of the majority of experts in any field over that of shock jocks, crazy old farts and self serving pollies.
If thats being brainwashed Im guilty as charged.

Do the scientists talk about oil money. Hmm and here I was thinking they were/would have been talking about science. Oh well, thats what you get from the brainwashed cultists.

The GWPF is funded by Exxon and the short exert from nature.com says nothing that GWPF claims it does. I assume GWPF does not subscribe to nature.com or they would have the full article or maybe they do and the full article is the opposite to what they are claiming and they are playing you denialists for chumps..You can tell me why GWPF does not publish the full article if you like coz its not like they dont have a spare $32 kicking around especially if its such ground breaking news

Figure it out for yourself.

The abstract is enough to go on and investigate why the old data was so STRIKINGLY different from the peer-reviewed NEW data.

Back to top

IP Logged

adelcrow Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 20133 everywhere Gender:	Re: 31,422 errors in IPCC report Reply #44 - Jan 17^th, 2013 at 3:26pm http://www.carbonbrief.org/profiles/global-warming-policy-foundation
Back to top	Go the Bunnies IP Logged