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 #45 - Jan 17^th, 2013 at 3:27pm

adelcrow wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 3:24pm:

http://www.desmogblog.com/really-inconvenient-truth-gwpf-debunking-gwpf-briefing...

Yeh you see, that brainwashed article is old. Too bad. You got something that bebunks this NEW article of NEW data that is peer-reviewed, STRIKINGLY different from the old data.

Nah you say. We'll wait.

Back to top

IP Logged

adelcrow

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20133
everywhere
Gender: male

Re: 31,422 errors in IPCC report
Reply #46 - Jan 17^th, 2013 at 3:27pm

progressiveslol wrote on 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.

Rubbish,..it has nothing to do with anything you or the GWPF are claiming

Back to top

Go the Bunnies

IP Logged

adelcrow

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20133
everywhere
Gender: male

Re: 31,422 errors in IPCC report
Reply #47 - Jan 17^th, 2013 at 3:58pm

An example of taking a small snippet as proof of a full statement
"Blah blah is a wanker" now for the full conversation "Mike thinks Blah blah is a wanker but I have indisputable proof that he is a decent fella and after talking to Mike he now agrees with me"
And I wont even begin to tell you the difference between the Stratosphere and Troposphere and the other layers that make up our Atmosphere..look it up.

Back to top

Go the Bunnies

IP Logged

progressiveslol

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17029

Re: 31,422 errors in IPCC report
Reply #48 - Jan 17^th, 2013 at 4:01pm

adelcrow wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 3:58pm:

An example of taking a small snippet as proof of a full statement
"Blah blah is a wanker" now for the full conversation "Mike thinks Blah blah is a wanker but I have indisputable proof that he is a decent fella and after talking to Mike he now agrees with me"
And I wont even begin to tell you the difference between the Stratosphere and Troposphere and the other layers that make up our Atmosphere..look it up.

lol. If that is what you call debunking, we poor bastards are in for a long wait.

Back to top

IP Logged

adelcrow Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 20133 everywhere Gender:	Re: 31,422 errors in IPCC report Reply #49 - Jan 17^th, 2013 at 4:06pm Another "snippet" from nature.com the site you said is debunking carbon pollution and climate change http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v493/n7432/full/493304d.html
Back to top	Go the Bunnies IP Logged

progressiveslol

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17029

Re: 31,422 errors in IPCC report
Reply #50 - Jan 17^th, 2013 at 4:06pm

In an area where I have expertise on, extremes and their impacts, the report by the US Global Change Research Program is well out of step with the scientific literature, including the very literature it cites and conclusions of the IPCC. Questions should (but probably won’t) be asked about how a major scientific assessment has apparently became captured as a tool of advocacy via misrepresentation of the scientific literature — a phenomena that occurs repeated in the area of extreme events. Given the strength of the science on this subject, the USGCRP must have gone to some effort to mischaracterize it by 180 degrees. How is it that it got things so wrong? –Roger Pielke Jr., 15 January 2013

Back to top

IP Logged

progressiveslol Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 17029	Re: 31,422 errors in IPCC report Reply #51 - Jan 17^th, 2013 at 4:08pm adelcrow wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 4:06pm: Another "snippet" from nature.com the site you said is debunking carbon pollution and climate change http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v493/n7432/full/493304d.html
Back to top	IP Logged

adelcrow Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 20133 everywhere Gender:	Re: 31,422 errors in IPCC report Reply #52 - Jan 17^th, 2013 at 4:09pm Another snippet from your fave source..nature.com http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v493/n7432/full/493275e.html
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 #53 - Jan 17^th, 2013 at 4:11pm Yep..the good people at nature.com are in complete agreement with the denialists
Back to top	Go the Bunnies IP Logged

progressiveslol Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 17029	Re: 31,422 errors in IPCC report Reply #54 - Jan 17^th, 2013 at 4:16pm adelcrow wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 4:11pm: Yep..the good people at nature.com are in complete agreement with the denialists another I dont even see how you came to a conclusion that you had to suggest anything close to what you did. If this is your way of debunking, we poor bastards in in for a long wait.
Back to top	IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: 31,422 errors in IPCC report
Reply #55 - Jan 17^th, 2013 at 4:40pm

progressiveslol wrote on 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.

You can't debate a fact: progs hates your childrens childrens children!

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: 31,422 errors in IPCC report
Reply #56 - Jan 17^th, 2013 at 4:48pm

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.

you've said it, but it isnt true. the number of sceptic scientists is very large and growing daily. If you were anywhere NEAR as open-minded as you claim to be then you wouldn't dismiss each and every published report that isnt to your liking.

Back to top

IP Logged

gold_medal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3897
Gender: male

Re: 31,422 errors in IPCC report
Reply #57 - Jan 17^th, 2013 at 4:50pm

progressiveslol wrote on 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

smells just like the hockey stick scandal. they refused to provide date or methodology in complete contradiction to accepted scientific protocol and govt rules. The reasons were obvious. When they were finally (year later) discovered they were found to be crap.

same thing here.

Back to top

IP Logged

gold_medal Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 3897 Gender:	Re: 31,422 errors in IPCC report Reply #58 - Jan 17^th, 2013 at 4:51pm adelcrow wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 3:26pm: http://www.carbonbrief.org/profiles/global-warming-policy-foundation so your insert laugh scientific method is to attack sceptic sites using climate hysteric sites??? oh the irony...
Back to top	IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 138585
Gender: male

Re: 31,422 errors in IPCC report
Reply #59 - Jan 17^th, 2013 at 4:55pm

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

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.

Ignoring the shock jocks, crazy old farts and self serving pollies (which most people do), why would you automatically trust "the word of the majority of experts"?

Back to top

IP Logged