Leaked IPCC report: 90% confidence in AGW is now 95% -- and sea level will rise!

[GIGObuster]

@magellan01

Yeah, you claim this again and again. But—newsflash—it doesn’t make it true. Drowning this silly claim is the mountains of evidence to the contrary. Namely, countless posts advertising your zealotry, attitude, and desparate-to-save-the-world missionary-grade need to quash any dissent and ridicule it speaks for itself. Understandable though, I guess, as you are the one who has been called to save the world. :rolleyes:

The cite from Roy Spencer comes from Answers In Genesis. A creationist site that Spencer contributes for also, It is true.

@magellan01

Oh, now you choose to spew complete bullshit. I’m unsurprised.

One overall comment, thanks for proving my point.

Can I get an AMEN, Gigs!?

So you deny that most of the ones I cited often, Bickmore, Emmanuel, Richard Alley and others already mentioned and cited are not Republicans or conservatives, :rolleyes:

Even with a little bit of googling everyone can see that what you just said was the bullshit.

An again with the Godwin like maneuver, once you accuse me or the scientists of using religion you admit that you have no ideas left.

[magellan01]

@Lobohan

Well, if you were telling the truth, you’d be actually qualified to talk about it. Unlike Aji and myself.

Yet, you’re talking about it, and telling people what is valid for them to talk about or not. Interesting.

[GIGObuster]

Everyone just should look at post #108 to see that indeed Barry Bickmore is the real deal, conservative, Republican, was an skeptic, found that the evidence was overwhelming and now tells his party that they need to drop the anti-science act.

Scientists leave GOP due to attitudes toward science

Scientists leave GOP due to attitudes toward science
Do the Republicans drive away researchers tackling the world’s key scientific problems?

By Judy Fahys Aug 28 2013

The Salt Lake Tribune

Scientists used to be well represented among the nearly half of Americans who voted Republican. But that’s changed over the years, and one poll found that just 6 percent of scientists call themselves part of the GOP now.

What happened? There might not be textbook answers, but there are theories.

Barry Bickmore, a professor of geology at Brigham Young University and onetime Republican convention delegate in crimson-red Utah County in the nation’s reddest state, has pondered the issue at length. He contends his party is increasingly ruled by zealots and a demand for “ideological purity” that turns off scientists.

He says most examples are in the environmental sciences. And he points to the time in 2009 when majority-party Republicans in the Utah Capitol put climate-science doubters on a pedestal — while rejecting the mainstream scientist view about the danger global warming poses and even taking a beef about a Utah State University physicist to the university president.

[magellan01]

@GIGObuster

So you deny that most of the ones cites, Bickmore, Emmanuel, Richard Alley and others already mentioned and cited are not Republicans or conservatives, :rolleyes:

Just, exactly, do you think I deny. And what leads you to those conclusions. Please be specific.

@GIGObuster

Even with a little bit of googling everyone can see that what you just said was the bullshit.

What was bullshit? Fell free to do the little bit of googling you mention. I’ll wait.

My call of “bullshit” form you was referring to this:

[QUOTE=GIGObuster]
And there is plenty of past post history from you to report that you never would approve of any related environmentalist solution just because there are mostly liberals talking about it;
[/QUOTE]

@GIGObuster

An again with the Godwin like maneuver, once you accuse me or the scientists of using religion you admit that you have no ideas left.

I never accused you of using religion. Nope. I accused you—and DO accuse you—of coming to this debate like a Born-Again Southern Evangelist determined to rid the world of sin. Thou shalt not countenance any dissent! Thou shalt agree 1000% with the powers that be or heathen you shall be called! Try to be more accurate next time. Thank you.

[magellan01]

@GIGObuster

Everyone just should look at post #108 to see that indeed Barry Bickmore is the real deal, conservative, Republican, was an skeptic, found that the evidence was overwhelming and now tells his party that they need to drop the anti-science act.

Scientists leave GOP due to attitudes toward science - The Salt Lake Tribune

Ah, how nice. Yet another cite that doesn’t address what you are being asked. Again, unsurprising.

So, how about starting that thread I suggested that will help people understand your position better and, possibly, sway more people to the side of the scientists and action that can save the world?

If not, why not?

[Trinopus]

@GIGObuster

Everyone just should look at post #108 to see that indeed Barry Bickmore is the real deal, conservative, Republican, was an skeptic, found that the evidence was overwhelming and now tells his party that they need to drop the anti-science act. . . .

Only six per cent of scientists say they are Republicans? Holy crap! We knew there was an inverse correlation between education and conservatism, but, wow. Six per cent? Fifteen to one odds against? That’s remarkably depressing.

[GIGObuster]

@magellan01

What was bullshit? Fell free to do the little bit of googling you mention. I’ll wait.

My call of “bullshit” form you was referring to this:

No, are you aware of what you type?

[QUOTE=GIGObuster]

As it was demonstrated many times, it is the contrarians the ones that use religion to tell others to not look at the evidence.
[/QUOTE]

@magellan01

Yeah, you claim this again and again. But—newsflash—it doesn’t make it true.

And yeas everyone can scroll up and see that indeed you replied that to my say so of the contrarians using religion also, that and other agendas are part of what it makes the 3% that you depend on.

@magellan01

I never accused you of using religion. Nope. I accused you—and DO accuse you—of coming to this debate like a Born-Again Southern Evangelist determined to rid the world of sin. Thou shalt not countenance any dissent! Thou shalt agree 1000% with the powers that be or heathen you shall be called! Try to be more accurate next time. Thank you.

Same deal, You only admit that you have no ideas. And no rebuttals to the science.

[GIGObuster]

@magellan01

Ah, how nice. Yet another cite that doesn’t address what you are being asked. Again, unsurprising.

So, how about starting that thread I suggested that will help people understand your position better and, possibly, sway more people to the side of the scientists and action that can save the world?

If not, why not?

As it is custom, anyone can scroll up and see that the exchange did go this way:
**
Me**: “most of the conservative climate scientists continue to tell you that you are wrong on this one.”

magellan01: “Oh, now you choose to spew complete bullshit. I’m unsurprised.”

As the article reports, Barry Bickmore is indeed a Republican, and so are the other ones I mentioned, give us your evidence that that is not the case or everyone else will just realize that it is you who is making the ignorant points.

[GIGObuster]

@Trinopus

Only six per cent of scientists say they are Republicans? Holy crap! We knew there was an inverse correlation between education and conservatism, but, wow. Six per cent? Fifteen to one odds against? That’s remarkably depressing.

It was not always that way.

http://chronicle.com/article/The-Conservative-Turn-Against/135488/

In the 1968 election, Richard Nixon won the votes of 31 percent of physicists, 42 percent of biologists, 52 percent of geologists, and 62 percent of agricultural scientists (compared with 43.4 percent of the popular vote). While these data do not include party affiliation, they suggest that the scientific community of the late 1960s was much more evenly divided between the two major parties than it is now, and, with the exception of physicists, slightly more conservative than the American voting public at large.

Why have scientists fled the Republican Party? The obvious answer is that the Republican Party has spurned science. Consider Mitt Romney’s shifting position on climate change. As governor of Massachusetts in 2004, he laid out a plan for protecting the state’s climate. As presidential candidate, he has said that climate change is real, but has questioned whether humans are causing it. His stance is consistent with the Republican Party platform, which unambiguously calls for expanding the production and use of the fossil fuels that drive climate change. In 2009, Paul Ryan accused climate scientists of “clear efforts to use statistical tricks to distort their findings and intentionally mislead the public on the issue of climate change,” echoing false accusations leveled against climatologists at the University of East Anglia. Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan exemplify the conservative turn against science, but what explains it?

It seems hard to believe today, but environmental protection used to be a bipartisan affair. In the early half of the 20th century, Republican and Democratic administrations pursued conservation, setting aside land as national forests and parks but leaving pollution control to local and state governments. By the 1950s, however, pollution became a national issue. Above-ground nuclear-weapons testing spread radioactive fallout globally, along with a fear of the consequences. Rachel Carson’s 1962 book, Silent Spring, documented the adverse effects of pesticides, especially DDT. Less well remembered but equally important was the work of Clair Patterson, a geochemist at the California Institute of Technology, who showed that lead pollution from cars had reached Antarctica. By 1970 it was no longer plausible to argue that pollution was a local problem—a “neighborhood effect,” as the economist Milton Friedman called it in 1962.

[magellan01]

@GIGObuster

Same deal, You only admit that you have no ideas. And no rebuttals to the science.

And once again you demonstrate that you enjoy providing cites and answers with cites to questions that were not asked. I don’t know to be more concerned if you are aware of this or are you aren’t. Either way, you should be concerned.

[magellan01]

@GIGObuster

As it is custom, anyone can scroll up and see that the exchange did go this way:
**
Me**: “most of the conservative climate scientists continue to tell you that you are wrong on this one.”

magellan01: “Oh, now you choose to spew complete bullshit. I’m unsurprised.”

As the article reports, Barry Bickmore is indeed a Republican, and so are the other ones I mentioned, give us your evidence that that is not the case or everyone else will just realize that it is you who is making the ignorant points.

Wow. Before this I never thought you’d revert to such sleazy tactics. Luckily, anyone can scroll up to Post 264 and see that I explained what part of what you typed I was responding to. In fact, here it is:

[QUOTE=magellan01]
My call of “bullshit” form you was referring to this:

[QUOTE=GIGObuster]

And there is plenty of past post history from you to report that you never would approve of any related environmentalist solution just because there are mostly liberals talking about it;
[/QUOTE]

[/QUOTE]

The part I pointed to was in the same sentence as what you quoted. Here it is:

[QUOTE=GIGObuster]
And there is plenty of past post history from you to report that you never would approve of any related environmentalist solution just because there are mostly liberals talking about it; as it was shown before, most of the conservative climate scientists continue to tell you that you are wrong on this one.
[/QUOTE]

You made a claim and I called bullshit on it and explained where you were wrong. Now you ignore that I explained myself eliminating any confusion you might have had and continue with your same mistake and bullshit accusation. Essentially, you’re accusing me of lying. If that’s what you think I’m doing we really have nothing more to discuss.

Except your evangelical zealotry, of course, which needs to to be pointed out.

Oh—and that thread I suggested you start. Is that something we who want to save the world can look forward to to help convince the unconvinced? If not, why? Why would you not want to come to the aid of the planet and all our progeny?

[doorhinge]

@GIGObuster

And really how can one **not **call attention to ignorance like that when it was already mentioned and shown that it is?

The data they use comes from the most up to date published science, repeating this ignorant bit is sad.

What you are doing does end in inferring to others that no scientist or science is being reference for the reports.

LOL. Looks like another attempted insult - failed to convince anyone to change their mind about MMCO2GW.

…*When carbon dioxide levels alone were raised, plants grew quite a bit.

“But when we factored in realistic treatments — warming, changes in nitrogen deposition, changes in precipitation — growth was actually suppressed,” Christopher B. Field, a professor at Stanford, told ScienceDaily in 2002.

But back to PlantsNeedCO2.org’s claim. They are wrong that carbon dioxide is not considered a pollutant. According to the EPA, it is.*

And according to various sources, the EPA’s decision was based more on politics than science. Blah, blah, blah.

So they found that increasing CO2 = increased plant growth (aka more food).

But when they “factored in” other “treatments”, growth was suppressed.

So the global warming zealots naturally assumed that it was the CO2 and not the “other” treatments that were the problem??? Is that because that’s the result they were paid to produce?

[GIGObuster]

@magellan01

Wow. Before this I never thought you’d revert to such sleazy tactics. Luckily, anyone can scroll up to Post 264 and see that I explained what part of what you typed I was responding to. In fact, here it is:

The part I pointed to was in the same sentence as what you quoted. Here it is:

You made a claim and I called bullshit on it and explained where you were wrong. Now you ignore that I explained myself eliminating any confusion you might have had and continue with your same mistake and bullshit accusation. Essentially, you’re accusing me of lying. If that’s what you think I’m doing we really have nothing more to discuss.

No, it is clear that the order was what it was, you are only demanding that your confusing order of replies that caused confusion to be sleaziness when it is just that, confusing.

In any case I was not dealing anymore with that item, the one of me saying that you “never would approve of any related environmentalist solution” because many liberals are proposing that.

I’m willing to say that I do not think that was bullshit from your part, so I will work with the idea that you are not refusing the recommended solutions even though virtually all Republicans use the point of declaring that there is an liberal agenda behind those recommended solutions coming from this issue.

In any case the point I was making after ignoring that other one stands (News flash, I already know you do not want to deal with it, too bad, it is important that others know that) most of the conservative climate scientists continue to tell you that you are wrong on this one. What you are denying is the levels of support scientists actually have for this, and that actual demonstrated zealotry is driving a few of the remaining contrarian scientists.

@magellan01

Except your evangelical zealotry, of course, which needs to to be pointed out.

Just projection in the end.

@magellan01

Oh—and that thread I suggested you start. Is that something we who want to save the world can look forward to to help convince the unconvinced? If not, why? Why would you not want to come to the aid of the planet and all our progeny?

Your concern swells in sarcasm, why it should be taken seriously when ideology is driving your non informative points so far?

And really, I have other items I deal with, there is plenty of evidence to show that I rarely start threads about this item, what I’m saying here is that even your accusation of me being a zealot is a silly one, as pointed before in this subject the evidence is overwhelming and available, In the internet era it is really silly to demand that a thread should be made to spoon fed others. I deal with the ones that come our way.

Because elsewhere (and already cited too) just like creationists before, now the courts will mop with the contrarians as the case of the stink thanks against Michael Mann shows, it was very predictable as the levels of sleaziness are the ones that are demonstrated to come from the denier media.

[GIGObuster]

@doorhinge

LOL. Looks like another attempted insult - failed to convince anyone to change their mind about MMCO2GW.

…*When carbon dioxide levels alone were raised, plants grew quite a bit.

“But when we factored in realistic treatments — warming, changes in nitrogen deposition, changes in precipitation — growth was actually suppressed,” Christopher B. Field, a professor at Stanford, told ScienceDaily in 2002.

But back to PlantsNeedCO2.org’s claim. They are wrong that carbon dioxide is not considered a pollutant. According to the EPA, it is.*

And according to various sources, the EPA’s decision was based more on politics than science. Blah, blah, blah.

So they found that increasing CO2 = increased plant growth (aka more food).

But when they “factored in” other “treatments”, growth was suppressed.

So the global warming zealots naturally assumed that it was the CO2 and not the “other” treatments that were the problem??? Is that because that’s the result they were paid to produce?

And that accusation demands a big fat cite from any reliable source that shows that what you claim has a leg to stand on.

And this is because your posts have been demonstrated to be wrong so many times in this thread already. Just for starters, you are still wrong in declaring that the IPCC is not “producing useful data” they do not make it in the first place and the data they use comes from the already published peer reviewed science.

[doorhinge]

@Lobohan

It’s been mentioned before, but this is asinine.

The number of papers that didn’t say one way or the other if they support AGW isn’t meaningful. What is meaningful is the number that specifically support and detract from AGW. Notice that you have the number that take a stance one way or the other, and of them 97 plus percent are for.

Please think about this for awhile before responding.

I believe it is meaningful that LARGER number of papers didn’t say one way or the other if they support AGW.

Let’s see, they started with 12,000 papers on climate change and discounted
8,000 because the authors “don’t mention the cause”. I’m shocked that 2/3 of global warming papers DID NOT mention the cause??? But I’ve been told that the “science was settled”??? And I’ve read where several people believe there was a concensus on this issue???

And then 97% of the MMCO2GW zealots who responded agree that the authors of some of the remaining articles blamed MMCO2. Well that certainly makes me want to wait for the new-and-improved IPCC report to clear up any still-unanswered global warming/climate change questions.

[GIGObuster]

@doorhinge

I believe it is meaningful that LARGER number of papers didn’t say one way or the other if they support AGW.

Let’s see, they started with 12,000 papers on climate change and discounted
8,000 because the authors “don’t mention the cause”. I’m shocked that 2/3 of global warming papers DID NOT mention the cause??? But I’ve been told that the “science was settled”??? And I’ve read where several people believe there was a concensus on this issue???

Many biology papers do not mention the consensus that biologists have about evolution either, even though many papers take evolution into account.

@doorhinge

And then 97% of the MMCO2GW zealots who responded agree that the authors of some of the remaining articles blamed MMCO2. Well that certainly makes me want to wait for the new-and-improved IPCC report to clear up any still-unanswered global warming/climate change questions.

I pointed already at Kevin Trenberththat is a contributor to the IPCC, it is unlikely that what he said will be much different from what the IPCC will report.

The oceans can at times soak up a lot of heat. Some goes into the deep oceans where it can stay for centuries. But heat absorbed closer to the surface can easily flow back into the air. That happened in 1998, which made it one of the hottest years on record.

Trenberth says since then, the ocean has mostly been back in one of its soaking-up modes.

“They probably can’t go on much for much longer than maybe 20 years, and what happens at the end of these hiatus periods, is suddenly there’s a big jump [in temperature] up to a whole new level and you never go back to that previous level again,” he says.

You can think of it like a staircase. Temperature is flat when a natural cool spell cancels out the gradual temperature increase caused by human activity. But when there’s a natural warm spell on top of the long-term warming trend, the story is dramatically different.

“When the natural variability or when the weather is going in the same direction as global warming, suddenly we’re breaking records, we’re going outside of the bounds of previous experience, and that is when the real damage occurs,” Trenberth says.

Consider Hurricane Sandy. Trenberth figures the storm was maybe 5 or 10 percent more powerful as a result of global warming. And sea level is 8 inches higher than it was a century ago. That doesn’t seem that dramatic, but he argues that made a huge and costly difference.

“I reckon that without climate change, we would not have exceeded thresholds that caused the flooding of the subways in Manhattan and the tunnels from Manhattan to New Jersey and to Brooklyn.”

It has taken quite a few years for Trenberth and his colleagues to piece together the role of oceans in climate variability. It involved a huge amount of data, taken from ocean buoys that take the temperature of the deep sea, along with satellites that measure energy flowing into and out of the atmosphere.

[doorhinge]

@GIGObuster

And that accusation demands a big fat cite from any reliable source that shows that what you claim has a leg to stand on.

And this is because your posts have been demonstrated to be wrong so many times in this thread already. Just for starters, you are still wrong in declaring that the IPCC is not “producing useful data” they do not make it in the first place and the data they use comes from the already published peer reviewed science.

LOL. If that’s true, then there is NO reason for the IPCC to exist in the first place. The “other” sources take measurements and can propose theories. “Other” organizations can then peer review the measurements and proceedures and verify if the results are accurate. Of course, the originating organization would have to supply ALL of their man-made inputs and computer modeling to the organizations attempting to verify their research if they want their research to be fully accepted as credible.

Any organization who attempts to hide their man-made inputs and computer modeling software codes or refuses to turn over this very important information, even under FOI orders, would lack credibility in the eyes of many.

[GIGObuster]

@doorhinge

LOL. If that’s true, then there is NO reason for the IPCC to exist in the first place. The “other” sources take measurements and can propose theories. “Other” organizations can then peer review the measurements and proceedures and verify if the results are accurate. Of course, the originating organization would have to supply ALL of their man-made inputs and computer modeling to the organizations attempting to verify their research if they want their research to be fully accepted as credible.

Any organization who attempts to hide their man-made inputs and computer modeling software codes or refuses to turn over this very important information, even under FOI orders, would lack credibility in the eyes of many.

:rolleyes:

That was already shown to be wrong already, your accusations here were debunked years ago.

Did CRU tamper with temperature data?

The inquiry also briefly dealt with the allegation “that Jones was complicit in malpractice in failing to respond appropriately to allegations of fraud made against […] Professor Wei-Chyung Wang”, whose data Jones cited in a 1990 paper on the urban heat island effect. The allegedly “fabricated” claim was that few if any of a certain selection of Chinese weather stations had moved over time. Wang’s university investigated and rejected the accusation of fraud. Meanwhile, Jones responded within one year with a peer-reviewed analysis confirming the original conclusions. In any case, this was only one paper and does not change anything we know about the urban heat island effect.

The overall implication of the allegations was to cast doubt on the extent to which CRU’s work in this area could be trusted and should be relied upon and we find no evidence to support that implication. [1.3.1]

Despite being heralded as “the final nail in the coffin of anthropogenic global warming”, Climategate has not even invalidated CRU’s results, let alone the conclusions of the climate science community. In any case, the entire work of CRU comprises only a small part of the large body of evidence for anthropogenic global warming. That mountain of evidence cannot be explained away by the behaviour of a few individuals.

Most of the reheated discredited accusations you are making here came from the time when many different organizations still had contractual rights to the data, the critisism has accelerated those releases, and there was already plenty of time for contrarians to show that the data was flawed or the models wrong; as in the case of Spencer, contrarians are not able do make a model that works following the assumptions that they have, but there is no clue of that coming from the contrarian media.

[Aji_de_Gallina]

@doorhinge

I believe it is meaningful that LARGER number of papers didn’t say one way or the other if they support AGW.

Let’s see, they started with 12,000 papers on climate change and discounted
8,000 because the authors “don’t mention the cause”. I’m shocked that 2/3 of global warming papers DID NOT mention the cause??? But I’ve been told that the “science was settled”??? And I’ve read where several people believe there was a concensus on this issue???

And then 97% of the MMCO2GW zealots who responded agree that the authors of some of the remaining articles blamed MMCO2. Well that certainly makes me want to wait for the new-and-improved IPCC report to clear up any still-unanswered global warming/climate change questions.

Also, this is not self-reporting.
A group of 12 people did most of the reviews and decided the labels and criteria.
It’s not like they, you know, asked the authors or anything.

[GIGObuster]

@Aji_de_Gallina

Also, this is not self-reporting.
A group of 12 people did most of the reviews and decided the labels and criteria.
It’s not like they, you know, asked the authors or anything.

Again, you are only demonstrating ignorance of how polls and surveys work, what is your evidence that the consensus is not what the surveys and polls is not the correct one? (several already made) Indeed, there is a basic idea that a single poll is not very useful, and one can point at the smallness of a sample but that is missing the point of the poll or survey.

Previous investigations by Oreskes and others demonstrate that the survey is reflecting once again what was found before, if contrarians had such airtight evidence to debunk the published paper on the survey then it should not be a problem to find the scientific organizations that will be convinced by such evidence and lead them to ask for direct explanations from the editors of the journal that survey was reviewed.

As pointed before, I expect only to see blogessors complaining.