I’d also like to point out that if one says "Humans have caused 30% of the warming" you are an ignorant anti-vaxer rube.
If you say “I don’t know about sicence or statisitcs or if standard deviation is the new Häagen Dazs flavour but I agree with this article I read” you’re a martyr for science.
**Trinopus **said
Glaciers have been receding since before the 1900s. In many cases faster than now.
Black carbon…read about it.
Also, albedo.
Read it again, the thread is about the IPCC (which is only 25 years old), a “leaked” report that can’t be verified by the public yet, an increase in confidence from 90% to 95% (without clarifying who comprises the 90%), and rising sea levels.
I’m making the assertion BECAUSE the evidence no longer exists. The IPCC had man-made inputs and computer modeling. The IPCC has long admitted that they had based their earlier reports on their man-made inputs and computer modeling.
So where are these man-made inputs and computer modeling? The IPCC says it’s all gone. They lost it. And no copies exist. The early work of the IPCC can’t be replicated.
Which brings up another question. How did other organizations complete their peer reviews without being able to replicate the IPCC’s man-made inputs and computer modeling? Did they just take the IPCC’s word that the man-made inputs and computer modeling were correct? Trust us. All of our man-made inputs and computer modeling are correct. You don’t need to actually see that information. Trust us. Really. You’ve never caught us lying to you before.
I find it best to carefully consider any numbers provided by the IPCC or IPCC zealots. It’s more of a case of “fun with numbers” with them than actual science.
I’ll settle for a simple but comprehensive “proof” that CO2 or man-made CO2 is the evil that the IPCC claims it is. Maybe the new IPCC report will clear everything up? Or not.
Just saying, and once again, the IPCC depends on the published science, it is pertinent to mention how far back in time the science goes as it demonstrates how far the paradigm shift happened also.
No, it does not work that way I already explained with cites how misleading this idea is, show the evidence that other researchers did not confirm that the data is there and the original research confirmed by others.
So the Consensus Project kept reducing the numbers of eligible papers until a relatively small number of interested global warming zealots could, almost, all agree with themselves.
97% certainly sounds like a big number but knowing 97% OF WHAT is more important.
I hope the IPCC knows that a lot is riding on their next report AND that it’s findings will be questioned, whether the IPCC zealots agree with that prospect or not.
It was an evil puppy-kicking shill. No easy pickings left huh? One just just needs to realize that both you and the blogessor does not know how surveys or polls work. If the blogessor has found a big flaw he should report it to the publication and publish a rebuttal, but what the blogessor said was not encouraging, in the end he just pouts that the makers of the recent survey should feel bad.
:rolleyes:
No, if the evidence is there it is very easy to get many orgs going after the journal editors and get many experts to support the effort to shame the editors…
Or the surveys are correct and no support would come to the blogessor and he knows it.
If there was any merit on what the guy you linked, then a god chunk of the scientific organizations would have called the fraud. No pickings there.
Once again, you do not know how surveys or polls work, you guys would have a point if it was demonstrated that the same scientists are the ones being surveyed in this and all previous surveys that showed a consensus. As pointed before it follows logically that if you guys were correct then a good chuck of scientific organizations would had come condemning the fraud, as it was pointed before, there are no shill pickings there.
So where is the data and the man-made inputs that the IPCC originally used? No one has a copy? Every copy of it was lost? Not one organization has stepped forward to say they have a copy of the original numbers and inputs used to verify the original IPCC reports. It’s gone - as if by magic. You would think that something as important as the original data and inputs would be something that they would have kept in a safe place.
Everything should be sorted out in the next IPCC report. Every question should be answered. Everyone will be happy again.
That figures, you have nothing to show for after all those accusations, people with more fair sense of justice only need to check the already cited Media Matters page on the issue, the right really just misled many on that one.
And how they could do that? because the data loss was only the one Jones used for his own research, and data from stations that even contrarians like Watts advised it was flawed to use. As even I pointed before, Jones and others deserves some criticism, but until then there was not much of an incentive to save that data when the raw data and sources are still there, for even contrarians to use. The fact is that they only can complain about a moot point because they can not make the data go colder.
I’ve long held that warming can have positive as well as negative effects, depending on location and on what sector of the economy one examines. This would seem to be a good example to bear that out:
Clearly, there are many other negatives to having a lot of soot in the air; fortunately CO2 is much cleaner.
I find your optimism, bordering on naïveté, refreshing.
True enough, even though there is tons more money on the pro-AGW side.
I’ll rephrase.
Scientists who do no return the AGW results expected by their financial backers will see these resources dry up.
The effect of soot (black carbon) on glacier and arctic ice is proving to be an intereasting avenue of study, especially since China is burning “dirty” coal.
The good thing about soot is that you can reduce it without almost any effect on production. That is one of the intelligent, sicence-driven, economically-sustainable solutions to the problems that human action cause on the environment. Clear target, realtively simjple solution.
Now, the fact that there will be benefits on some regions was even noticed by me before, the problem is that with the global connections we have now it is reckless to expect that the regions affected negatively will not end up affecting the populations in the regions that benefit from this.
As I have seen, most of the basis for this argument comes from the “it will be nice in Northern Europe, Siberia, Canada or Greenland” Forgetting that research has also found that when that happens regions of the USA and many other parts of the world will not be so nice.
There is also the issue of timing, and here there is a huge item that is missed always by contrarians, and it is that as long as there is no control of the emissions, the areas that benefit will not be able to be defined or I should say stable enough to be of good benefit soon. Reacting now will make a difference, what many forget is that even if “it is too late” we are talking of preventing the arrival of even worse scenarios that will be caused for delaying action.
Global change from pollution, or land use, is much like a large oil leak from a deep well. If not stopped the effects will be global, rather than regional. The problem is the same when it comes to exerting power to force somebody to sop.
Naive or practical? The MMCO2GW issue has been argued for 25 years. It’s pretty much a stalemate at this point. “They” don’t believe “them” and “them” don’t believe “they”. (pls xcuse the wording but you get the idea) Momentum has swung both ways over the last couple of decades, much like the global tempurature itself has over eons.
So what happens next? Should we continue to rehash the old arguments? Will that actually convince anyone to change their minds at this point in time? Should we repeatedly call the “other” side ignorant? If the name-callers aren’t respected by the targets of their abuse, it’s just another excersize in futility.
I actually want the IPCC to finally succeed in producing useful data. I want them to collect factual data from properly calibrated gauges. I want them to share their calculations and inputs with ANY organization that asks for it. I want a proper and honest peer-review. I have questions and I want them to be answered in a useful and meaningful way.
No more “Incontinent Truth”. No more dead, floating polar bears. No more “the science is settled”.
