Climate change natural says new study

[spike]

Nice propaganda site though.

I like how you dismiss anything that shows you to be incorrect as propaganda while spouting your own propaganda.

How do you suppose we could go about agreeing on a neutral source for info?

 

[ResearchMonkey]

How do you suppose we could go about agreeing on a neutral source for info?

Shhhhhhh.... listen/read!

 

[spike]

Seems we've done that.

 

[Gato_Solo]

In point of fact the models predict a much more rapid rise in upper atmosphere temperatures than have been observed and it's the upper atmosphere that matters in a global climatological change. Nice propaganda site though. Golly such things are easy to find, aren't they? Too bad that more and more scientists are starting to notice that CO2 levels follow rather than precede global temperature changes.

Too late! We're all going to diiieeeee!!!

 

[jimpeel]

Yeah, everything has been fixed since then

Kinda how you ignore everything to the contrary huh?

If I ignored everything to the contrary I wouldn't know what the contrary was all about, would I. I read studies on both sides and I also read the analyses of them.

Are you aware that I have been a vehement proponent of hydrogen power for the past thirty years? Of course not; because this is the first I have mentioned it.

Would it surprise you to know that global warming theory has shaken that belief? Of course it would because you believe me to be a simple one-sided guy.

What is the output of a hydrogen engine at the tailpipe? Water and water vapor.

What is the most prevalent, abundant, and efficacious global warming gas? Water vapor.

Now ...

If there were millions upon millions of hydrogen powered vehicles and standing power plants all spewing water vapor -- the most prevalent, abundant, and efficacious global warming gas -- into the atmosphere; what would the result be in the global warming scheme? I believe that it could have a significant impact.

Yes, here I am, the one-sided, ignorant, self absorbed global warming denier that you think I am having serious doubts on a technology I have espoused for thirty years because of its possible effect on global warming. Imagine that -- if you can -- but I doubt it.

You are the one who sees only one side of the debate -- the one you have embraced. I am able to see both sides, analyze the studies, make informed decisions, and act on those decisions.

At this time, having read what I have read, seen what I have seen, and having a clear and intelligent ability to make an informed decision based upon that input have decided that the preponderance of the information calls for more strudy on this issue. The debate is NOT over. There IS NO CONCENSUS BECAUSE SCIENCE IS NOT ABOUT CONCENSUS!!!!!. If you believe either, you will be shown for the fool you are at a later date; which will be determined not by men and scientists but by the Earth itself.

Reports from last month here.

http://www.ipcc.ch/

No.. No.. No.. No.. No. Do I have to lead you by the hand?

I asked for something more recent from your source and you give me another source that is wholly unrelated to the first source. In addition, you give me a source which is prejudiced to the GW side and has everything to lose -- power, money, and prestige -- by GW failing to be anything but man made. Of course they are going to say that GW is anthropomorphic in nature.

It is in their best interest to do so.

 

[jimpeel]

Re: Still doing everything in his power ...

Obviously better to wait until it's too late.

Like the best you can come up with is theory. Only yours are supported by far less scientists/

But that list is growing as the theory falls apart and more real scientific findings make their way into the debate.

Your theories are bullshit. Hopefully not many will believe you.

They are not MY theories. They are facts based upon REAL evidence gathered by REAL scientists.

Your hockey stick was a "fact" until it was thouroughly debunked.

Your side stated that the hottest year on record was 1998 until it was debunked and it was found that 1934 was the hottest year on record.

Maybe you need to bone up on what is to be found HERE. I hope you're up to it.

Now whose theories are bullshit; and how many are now beginning to realize they have been hoodwinked? You will eventually join their ranks but it will not be without quite a bit of kicking and screaming on your part.

 

[jimpeel]

Empirical observations do support the models yet so many mindlessly accept opposing theories as "gospel".

That site is not incorrect that CO2 is rising. Where they err is where they think it is coming from and what its effect will be. It is now a proven fact that CO2 lags temperature so how can CO2 CAUSE temperature rise when it is not even in play when the temperature starts to rise?

Also, that page is based upon the question "There is no empirical evidence or proof of anthropogenic global warming - it's all based on computer models."

The evidence now presented in the thread header is that the models cannot even "predict" climate that has already occurred! If they are accurate enough to predict what is going to be; why then are they not accurate enough to mirror what has already been?

 

[jimpeel]

I like how you dismiss anything that shows you to be incorrect as propaganda while spouting your own propaganda.

How do you suppose we could go about agreeing on a neutral source for info?

Is NASA neutral? NOAA? National Geographic?

 

[chcr]

I like how you dismiss anything that shows you to be incorrect as propaganda while spouting your own propaganda.

I do nothing of the kind. I've read the reports and several books on climate theory. You? That sight you linked is clearly written my global warming proponents parroting the party line with no new, cogent information to add. Propaganda by definition. It's what used to be referred to as "calling a spade a spade."

 

[chcr]

Too late! We're all going to diiieeeee!!!

In fact, we are. Well, maybe not spike.

 

[jimpeel]

Originally Posted by spike


I like how you dismiss anything that shows you to be incorrect as propaganda while spouting your own propaganda.

How do you suppose we could go about agreeing on a neutral source for info?

Is NASA neutral? NOAA? National Geographic?

 

[jimpeel]

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/968

IPCC must come clean on real numbers of scientist supporters


The UN Climate Change Numbers Hoax
By Tom Harris: John McLean Friday, December 14, 2007


It’s an assertion repeated by politicians and climate campaigners the world over – ‘2,500 scientists of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) agree that humans are causing a climate crisis’.

But it’s not true. And, for the first time ever, the public can now see the extent to which they have been misled. As lies go, it’s a whopper. Here’s the real situation.

Like the three IPCC ‘assessment reports’ before it, the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) released during 2007 (upon which the UN climate conference in Bali was based) includes the reports of the IPCC’s three working groups. Working Group I (WG I) is assigned to report on the extent and possible causes of past climate change as well as future ‘projections’. Its report is titled “The Physical Science Basis”. The reports from working groups II and II are titled “Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability” and “Mitigation of Climate Change” respectively, and since these are based on the results of WG I, it is crucially important that the WG I report stands up to close scrutiny.

There is, of course serious debate among scientists about the actual technical content of the roughly 1,000-page WG I report, especially its politically motivated Summary for Policymakers which is often the only part read by politicians and non-scientists. The technical content can be difficult for non-scientists to follow and so most people simply assume that if that large numbers of scientists agree, they must be right.

Consensus never proves the truth of a scientific claim, but is somehow widely believed to do so for the IPCC reports, so we need to ask how many scientists really did agree with the most important IPCC conclusion, namely that humans are causing significant climate change--in other words the key parts of WG I?

The numbers of scientist reviewers involved in WG I is actually less than a quarter of the whole, a little over 600 in total. The other 1,900 reviewers assessed the other working group reports. They had nothing to say about the causes of climate change or its future trajectory. Still, 600 “scientific expert reviewers” sounds pretty impressive. After all, they submitted their comments to the IPCC editors who assure us that “all substantive government and expert review comments received appropriate consideration.” And since these experts reviewers are all listed in Annex III of the report, they must have endorsed it, right?

Wrong.

For the first time ever, the UN has released on the Web the comments of reviewers who assessed the drafts of the WG I report and the IPCC editors’ responses. This release was almost certainly a result of intense pressure applied by “hockey-stick” co-debunker Steve McIntyre of Toronto and his allies. Unlike the other IPCC working groups, WG I is based in the U.S. and McIntyre had used the robust Freedom of Information legislation to request certain details when the full comments were released.

An examination of reviewers’ comments on the last draft of the WG I report before final report assembly (i.e. the ‘Second Order Revision’ or SOR) completely debunks the illusion of hundreds of experts diligently poring over all the chapters of the report and providing extensive feedback to the editing teams. Here’s the reality.

A total of 308 reviewers commented on the SOR, but only 32 reviewers commented on more than three chapters and only five reviewers commented on all 11 chapters of the report. Only about half the reviewers commented more than one chapter. It is logical that reviewers would generally limit their comments to their areas of expertise but it’s a far cry from the idea of thousands of scientists agreeing to anything.

Compounding this is the fact that IPCC editors could, and often did, ignore reviewers’ comments. Some editor responses were banal and others showed inconsistencies with other comments. Reviewers had to justify their requested changes but the responding editors appear to have been under no such obligation. Reviewers were sometimes flatly told they were wrong but no reasons or reliable references were provided. In other cases reviewers tried to dilute the certainty being expressed and they often provided supporting evidence, but their comments were often flatly rejected. Some comments were rejected on the basis of a lack of space – an incredible assertion in such an important document. The attitude of the editors seemed to be that simple corrections were accepted, requests for improved clarity tolerated but the assertions and interpretations that appear in the text were to be defended against any challenge.

An example of rampant misrepresentation of IPCC reports is the frequent assertion that ‘hundreds of IPCC scientists’ are known to support the following statement, arguably the most important of the WG I report, namely “Greenhouse gas forcing has very likely caused most of the observed global warming over the last 50 years.”

In total, only 62 scientists reviewed the chapter in which this statement appears, the critical chapter 9, “Understanding and Attributing Climate Change”. Of the comments received from the 62 reviewers of this critical chapter, almost 60% of them were rejected by IPCC editors. And of the 62 expert reviewers of this chapter, 55 had serious vested interest, leaving only seven expert reviewers who appear impartial.

Two of these seven were contacted by NRSP for the purposes of this article - Dr. Vincent Gray of New Zealand and Dr. Ross McKitrick of the University of Guelph, Canada. Concerning the “Greenhouse gas forcing …” statement above, Professor McKitrick explained “A categorical summary statement like this is not supported by the evidence in the IPCC WG I report. Evidence shown in the report suggests that other factors play a major role in climate change, and the specific effects expected from greenhouse gases have not been observed.”

Dr. Gray labeled the WG I statement as “Typical IPCC doubletalk” asserting “The text of the IPCC report shows that this is decided by a guess from persons with a conflict of interest, not from a tested model.”

Determining the level of support expressed by reviewers’ comments is subjective but a slightly generous evaluation indicates that just five reviewers endorsed the crucial ninth chapter. Four had vested interests and the other made only a single comment for the entire 11-chapter report. The claim that 2,500 independent scientist reviewers agreed with this, the most important statement of the UN climate reports released this year, or any other statement in the UN climate reports, is nonsense.

“The IPCC owe it to the world to explain who among their expert reviewers actually agree with their conclusions and who don’t,” says Natural Resources Stewardship Project Chair climatologist Dr. Timothy Ball. “Otherwise, their credibility, and the public’s trust of science in general, will be even further eroded.”

That the IPCC have let this deception continue for so long is a disgrace. Secretary General Ban Kai-Moon must instruct the UN climate body to either completely revise their operating procedures, welcoming dissenting input from scientist reviewers and indicating if reviewers have vested interests, or close the agency down completely. Until then, their conclusions, and any reached at the Bali conference based on IPCC conclusions, should be ignored entirely as politically skewed and dishonest.

John McLean is climate data analyst based in Melbourne, Australia. Tom Harris is the Ottawa-based Executive Director of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (nrsp.com).

 

[spike]

You are the one who sees only one side of the debate -- the one you have embraced. I am able to see both sides, analyze the studies, make informed decisions, and act on those decisions.

Nope, you're ignoring one side while I see both. See how easy it is to say that?

the preponderance of the information calls for more strudy on this issue. The debate is NOT over. [/quote]

I'll agree with you there. Kinda blows that whole "Hoax" thing though.

I asked for something more recent from your source and you give me another source that is wholly unrelated to the first source.

You were hung up on the dates of the articles. I pointed out that nothing has changed since then and gave you more recent articles supporting my argument. You are ignoring all of them with weak excuses about dates or prejudice while you flaunt your prejudiced articles.

 

[SouthernN'Proud]

It reminds me of the creationists (sorry, the "proponents of intelligent design").

You had it right the first time. Creation and intelligent design are not the same thing. ID is basically creation without saying the word God. Big word to leave out, and far too PC for my tastes.

It's like AA and it's "higher power" garbage. They won't say God because it might run off a prospective convert, and that's bad for business, so we'll use "higher power" instead and make it to where even the atheists can join AA by saying their higher power can be a rutabega.

So desperate not to believe, but wanting the benefits of the believers. Slick, I gotta admmit.

 

[chcr]

ID is basically creation without saying the word God.

More than "basically."

It's like AA and it's "higher power" garbage.

Yup.

 

[spike]

Lord knows ya shouldn't have atheists in AA.

 

[ResearchMonkey]

Lord knows ya shouldn't have atheists in AA.

- when they first get there they are.

 

[ResearchMonkey]

Nope, you're ignoring one side while I see both. See how easy it is to say that?

I'll agree with you there. Kinda blows that whole "Hoax" thing though.

You were hung up on the dates of the articles. I pointed out that nothing has changed since then and gave you more recent articles supporting my argument. You are ignoring all of them with weak excuses about dates or prejudice while you flaunt your prejudiced articles.

Prejudiced by real science and scientist that have NO gains with politically trumped-up science.

Yeah, this emo looks stable enough to be objective and deal with the matter.

 

[spike]

Prejudiced by real science and scientist that have NO gains with politically trumped-up science.

No gains? That's a riot of naivity.

Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today.

Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Travel expenses and additional payments were also offered.

The UN report was written by international experts and is widely regarded as the most comprehensive review yet of climate change science. It will underpin international negotiations on new emissions targets to succeed the Kyoto agreement, the first phase of which expires in 2012. World governments were given a draft last year and invited to comment.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/feb/02/frontpagenews.climatechange

Yeah, this emo looks stable enough to be objective and deal with the matter.

You're right, they don't look stable. I can tell be their noses.

 

[jimpeel]

Nope, you're ignoring one side while I see both. See how easy it is to say that?

the preponderance of the information calls for more strudy on this issue. The debate is NOT over.

I'll agree with you there. Kinda blows that whole "Hoax" thing though.

Once again you err in your reading of what I say. I have never stated that GW is a hoax. What I have said is that it is a scam.

The entire thing is a money maker for those who play it right -- like Al Gore.

You were hung up on the dates of the articles. I pointed out that nothing has changed since then and gave you more recent articles supporting my argument. You are ignoring all of them with weak excuses about dates or prejudice while you flaunt your prejudiced articles.

What you keep giving me are one-sided articles from one-sided sources.

• I give you NOAA, National Geographic, and NASA.
• I give you sources which show that the hockey stick was mathematically flawed and even the IPCC doesn't use it any more and you send me to sites which still do.
• I send you to sites which show that your sites are incorrect on basic claims such as the hottest years on record.
• I send you to sites which show that the models, as curently configured and upon which you rely, cannot even replicate climate which has already occurred so how can they possibly be accurate for future predictions?
• I send you to sites which show that the heat island effect is skewing the temperature readings upon which your swcientists rely for their predictions.
• I send you to sites which show that the number claimed for the number of scientists who agree on AGW are not as large as the IPCC claims.
• I send you to sites which show that the things being claimed are not happening at all.

Conversely:

• You send me to sites which still use the hockey stick.
• You send me to sites which still claim that CO2 leads temperature rise.
• You send me to sites which still claim that the hottest year on record was some fluke anomaly and that is is insignificant even though NASA acknowledges it to be correct.
• You send me to sites which make claims which cannot be supported.