[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]
Well, to be fair to her, she did call it a “little” lie. But she actually said “lies.” So there must be more. Was there something you said was at the bottom of page 1 that was actually at the top of page 2, or something like that?
[/QUOTE]
I think the other thing she (or it) is characterizing as a “lie” is that I said that the IPCC Report “thoroughly documented” the fact that global warming was not due to natural causes, evidently because the Summary for Policymakers doesn’t itself contain the primary references and the analysis that will be provided in the full report.
Given that the “documentation” she has provided so far consists of links to JunkScience.com and right-wing websites, that she was unaware of the existence of previous IPCC reports, and that she hasn’t shown much evidence of ever having read any of the primary literature, her pretense that she actually wanted to see the primary references so she could assess them for herself is obviously a smokescreen to distract attention from her own lack of knowledge of the subject.
[QUOTE=Colibri]
…her pretense that she actually wanted to see the primary references…
[/QUOTE]
You know, I pass this stuff out at dinner parties and AA meetings all the time, and it’s astounding, the number of people who will actually stop what they’re doing, sit down, and eagerly digest papers with titles like “Improved silver staining protocols for high sensitivity protein identification using matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization-time of flight analysis.”
If only the publishers would print more copies, I’m sure that the Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences could be on the New York Times best sellers list.
Huh. Maybe this really does belong here rather than in a debate thread. I’m not going to debate whether water is wet or unsupported objects fall to earth, so I won’t debate global warming, personally. I won’t debate whether there’s a race of super-advanced aliens living below the surface of Mars, either. (One of my friends DOES believe this and, well, we just don’t talk about it. I don’t tell her that she needs to take her meds, either. We just enjoy ur friendship on other grounds.) The more interesting question is why anyone believes it is a topic for debate. For instance, A.J., the Carthage Republican party head in the original article, may have believed it for some other reason. But I’d bet a lot that he said it because he personally dislikes Al Gore so much.
[QUOTE=Colibri]
She is accusing me of lying that there was a link to the IPCC report in the OP of the original thread because it wasn’t a one-click link. The OP linked to a news story which provided another link labeled “IPCC Report.” Being a cretin, she was unable to locate it, and accused me of lying to hide her own stupidity.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Anise]
I won’t debate whether there’s a race of super-advanced aliens living below the surface of Mars, either. (One of my friends DOES believe this and, well, we just don’t talk about it. I don’t tell her that she needs to take her meds, either. We just enjoy ur friendship on other grounds.)
[/QUOTE]
What is her name and address, and where exactly did she receive this information?
Just out of purely intellectual curiosity, you understand.
[QUOTE=Kimstu]
Interesting. Where did you get that figure? Is there any scientific reason that we should believe your 1/3 figure rather than the IPCC’s estimate that most of the recent warming is anthropogenic?
What do you mean, “when doom ensues”? AFAIK, most climate scientists aren’t suggesting that anthropogenic climate change is going to be a sudden definite onset of “doom” like a nuclear explosion. Rather, it’s predicted to involve extensive changes to global climate over timescales from decades to millennia. (And where are you getting the “freeze” predictions, by the way?)
Well, there probably won’t be any totally economically pain-free way out of the problem of anthropogenic climate change. As I noted above, though, the longer the problem continues unchecked, the more painful the solutions are likely to be; and this is likely to be even more true for third-world countries.
Weather is not the same thing as climate. Climate-change skeptics would add about 30 points to their perceived IQ in these debates if they could just learn to stop making that one stupid error.
[/QUOTE]
The 1/3 thing. Maybe you missed the “I guess” part. Most of the recent sure but the “recent” is on top of the “not so recent”. So (all numbers are invented, just trying to make a point) let’s say that temp has gone up 10 degrees in the last 100 years. 7 are due to natural causes and 3 to humans. Human contributed 1 of those degress in the first 80 years an 2 in the last 10. Nature has 6 in the first 80 years and 1 in the last 20. In this (invented) scenario most of the **recent ** increase is human without humans being responsible for **most ** of the total. My 1/3 was of the total increase since mid 19th century. No reason to believe it.
Sorry you didn’t get the “doom” pun. I didn’t mean a catastrophic event, I meant when climate gets incredibly fucked up.
So us 3rd world countries get fucked both ways by rich countries? Screw you all. We’re fucked up already so, unless you rich countries start doing something for us go fuck you mums with barbed-wired dildos. For a guy like you “not pain-free” means inconveniences such as buying a better fridge; for a fourth of my country (who aren’t getting more than 1 crappy meal a day, if so much) it means that economic deceleration would kill them. Please, pollute, increase your production, consume recklessly, we need it. Sorry I missed your comments on china and India.
The “freeze” thing. Apparently (at least in some places talking about GW and not the movie BTW) the ocean current bringing warm water into Europe and the US atlantic coast will stop or get slower as evertyhing get hotter, and make the US and Europe freeze. You can’r freeze AND have (ocean)beachfront propertry on the Susquehana river at the same time.
Man, you’re prion-picking the viruses that attack the bacteria in the nits. Sorry I made a mistake O GREAT SAGE OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE. Me am only a tird worl ehspanich ehspeekin person and no espeeko eengleech mucho good.
BTW, your perception of my intelligence isn’t good enough to wipe my neighbour’s dog’s ass.
How did she miss those, and all of the rest like them? There is a list here of hundreds of papers, online results, scientific presentations, and books, almost all of which questions some aspect of the consensus.
[/quote]
(1) She looked at a random sample of papers…not all papers. Her point was not that no such papers exist but that they are only a tiny fraction of the total number of papers published in the refereed scientific literature.
(2) The list that you directed to, as you note, does not just include refereed papers but also various online stuff, pieces in non-refereed journals (even non-science journals), etc.
(3) Also of the papers he listed that are really in refereed scientific journals, the question is whether they really lead to the conclusions he summarizes at the top of the page. As just one example, how does the Damon and Laut paper, which actually shows the various errors that have been made by people trying to claim a correlation between solar activity and climate, argue against AGW? I cite that article to people quite regularly myself.
You have misread her study. Oreskes did not pass judgement on whether they successfully refuted this hypothesis. She is not even qualified to do so as she is not a climate scientist. Rather, she looked at whether the paper (actually, the abstract) argued for or against that point-of-view (or took no position). Here is a description from her paper:
[QUOTE=Homo Ergaster]
5) Man, you’re prion-picking the viruses that attack the bacteria in the nits. Sorry I made a mistake O GREAT SAGE OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE. Me am only a tird worl ehspanich ehspeekin person and no espeeko eengleech mucho good.
BTW, your perception of my intelligence isn’t good enough to wipe my neighbour’s dog’s ass.
[/QUOTE]
The difference between “weather” and “climate” is not a language nitpick. It is a very important one. Since the atmosphere is chaotic, it is absolutely impossible to predict the weather a month or so from now, let alone 100 years from now. However, predicting climate is a very different problem.
[QUOTE=jshore]
The difference between “weather” and “climate” is not a language nitpick. It is a very important one. Since the atmosphere is chaotic, it is absolutely impossible to predict the weather a month or so from now, let alone 100 years from now. However, predicting climate is a very different problem.
[/QUOTE]
It IS nitpicking if no one is confused. I made a mistake, granted.
Elucidator you’re right, but if they’re gonna be dead anyway at least my country would not be so fucked up until then. You’re right about the justice part, however if you fuck a whore and then give ME an STD, do not complain if I don’t pay the whore’s fee.
[QUOTE=El_Kabong]
Speaking solely as someone who’s been following the debate, without any particular axe to grind: what, precisely, has Colibri lied about? I point out that the “SDSAB” under that poster’s handle stands for “Straight Dope Science Advisory Board”. Effectively you are accusing him of lying about information in a field for which, presumably, the editors of The Straight Dope may call upon him for references. That’s a pretty serious charge.
[/QUOTE]
He claimed that certain things were “thoroughly documented” in an IPCC report. However, he was unable to provide a link to that report and it soon became clear that he had never actually read the report, just a summary, and that the actual report hasn’t even been released yet.
The summary relies on citations to this forthcoming report. So it doesn’t thoroughly document anything and it isn’t even a report. He also claimed that the report was linked in the original post, but it wasn’t – just a news article that contains a link to the summary.
As far as I can tell, he still won’t admit that the non-report report doesn’t thoroughly document anything.
[QUOTE=stutteringjane]
He claimed that certain things were “thoroughly documented” in an IPCC report. However, he was unable to provide a link to that report and it soon became clear that he had never actually read the report, just a summary, and that the actual report hasn’t even been released yet.
The summary relies on citations to this forthcoming report. So it doesn’t thoroughly document anything and it isn’t even a report. He also claimed that the report was linked in the original post, but it wasn’t – just a news article that contains a link to the summary.
As far as I can tell, he still won’t admit that the non-report report doesn’t thoroughly document anything.
[/QUOTE]
Your semantic claims about a summary report versus a full report would perhaps be more meaningful if you gave even a hint of an ability to consume either report with any sort of comprehension.
However, the fact that you are still on about your own inability to find links to the summary report in question, it’s safe to say you wouldn’t know what to do if handed a full report, a summary report, an overview, a brochure, a flyer, or perhaps even a pencil and piece of paper.
[QUOTE=Homo Ergaster]
4) The “freeze” thing. Apparently (at least in some places talking about GW and not the movie BTW) the ocean current bringing warm water into Europe and the US atlantic coast will stop or get slower as evertyhing get hotter, and make the US and Europe freeze. You can’r freeze AND have (ocean)beachfront propertry on the Susquehana river at the same time.
[/QUOTE]
Why not?
If sea levels rise, it wouldn’t matter what the local temperature is, you’d still have flooded coastal areas.
[Quote=stutteringjane]
The summary relies on citations to this forthcoming report. So it doesn’t thoroughly document anything and it isn’t even a report. He also claimed that the report was linked in the original post, but it wasn’t – just a news article that contains a link to the summary.
As far as I can tell, he still won’t admit that the non-report report doesn’t thoroughly document anything.
[/Quote]
Geez Louise, everyone else who has posted to this thread seems to understand what the linked document is, and how to find and read it. How did you manage to even find this board?
OK, so you don’t like the conclusions of the IPCC. Why don’t you just say so, instead of making yourself look like a person who can’t understand plain English?
Please tell me, do you dispute this statement from the IPCC summary (first page):
[Quote=IPCC Summary for Policymakers]
Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values determined from ice cores spanning many thousands of years (see Figure SPM-1). The global increases in carbon dioxide concentration are due primarily to fossil fuel use and land-use change, while those of methane and nitrous oxide are primarily due to agriculture. {2.3, 6.4, 7.3}
[/Quote]
If you do dispute this, on what factual basis do you dispute it? If you prefer to dispute anything else in the summary (there, in deference to your obviously strong feelings on the subject, I haven’t called it a report) feel free to do so.
[QUOTE=stutteringjane]
He claimed that certain things were “thoroughly documented” in an IPCC report. However, he was unable to provide a link to that report and it soon became clear that he had never actually read the report, just a summary, and that the actual report hasn’t even been released yet.
The summary relies on citations to this forthcoming report. So it doesn’t thoroughly document anything and it isn’t even a report. He also claimed that the report was linked in the original post, but it wasn’t – just a news article that contains a link to the summary.
As far as I can tell, he still won’t admit that the non-report report doesn’t thoroughly document anything.
[/QUOTE]
You really do seem to be intent on calling attention to your own idiocy over and over again. As has already been pointed out, the Summary for Policymakers is itself a report by any normal definition of the word. I also referred to it that way because that’s how it was being referred to in the thread, and that’s what the link was labeled in the news story linked to in the OP. The fact that you were unable to locate it even given this information proves quite conclusively that you couldn’t find your own ass using both hands.
The information in the Summary for Policymakers is thoroughly documented in the full report. Given the fact that you wouldn’t be able to understand any two consecutive paragraphs even in the dumbed-down Summary Report, and the fact that you haven’t provided any cites for any of your own claims beyond Junkscience.com and right-wing websites, your request for further documentation is simply laughable.
[QUOTE=Squink]
Can you find nothing for yourself?**
[/quote]
Well, I certainly can’t find this “full report” that colibri has so carefully read. My feeling is that the “full report” he is referring to hasn’t even been released yet and that colibri is LYING again.
