You can make the point you want, but it still doesn’t answer the question, i.e., what is the budget of the IPCC?
I’ll accept, without doing any research about it, as to the volunteer work of many/most scientists at the IPCC; therefore that point (their volunteer work) is over.
I don’t think anyhting I have mentioned points to a conflict of interest at all. I apologize and take back any word pharse whatsoever that point to a conflict of interest.
However, funding people/institutions to help you in your stated goals is not a conflict of interest.
As pointed many times before, and you still choose to ignore, in a forum I prefer debating people that actually participate in the forum and not Jim Hansen or Pachauri who are only present via quotes. That would hold true even if everything yopu posted was 100% true. I cannot ask Hansen about his research in this thread. I can ask you what you personally on your own make of it.
[/QUOTE]
As the link in GQ and that thread showed, there was no evidence whatsoever brought by you even there.
[/QUOTE]
I said “more” and you didn’t post a comparison. That’s my W and your L.
First of all this thread is about if I changed my mind.
Second, I asked for a comparison and I didn’t get one, only one side of the equation.
“For years…” How many years?
Cite for the 61?
But, it’s not important. I fully and unreservedly accept that people/institutions for their own good/nefarious reasons fund people/institution who strive to find flaws in the currently accepted models of GW/AGW/CAGW/CC. We can drop that part.
I’m interestd in total ammounts and comparisons.
It is interesting how you can find more ways to spectacularly miss the point. Requesting someone’s opinion of a poster on an anonymous message board is the equivalent to kill the messenger when plenty of scientific evidence is telling us what the educated opinion is.
You are **demanding **that I come up with a different opinion from what one can get from the experts on the field, and as you continue to miss it, that is my opinion on this subject, there is no need to invent a different point of view when the evidence is telling us what is taking place. I will look at the ones that know better, and in this case there is plenty of evidence that the ones you rely for information are being paid to seed FUD, and the worst thing is that history shows that most of the same false experts that are coming with that FUD also started as false experts for another industry that needed to make millions on profit before the regulations came to diminish it, the tobacco industry.
The IPCC’s budget in 2007 was around 17.5 million Swiss francs, or approximately $15 million US dollars in 2007. Cite in PDF
There is considerable confusion about this: The IPCC only has a staff of about a dozen permanent positions:
The thousands of authors who contribute to IPCC reports generally are paid by other institutions, for example Bjorn Lomborg gets paychecks from the Copenhagen Business School and Michael Mann gets paychecks from Pennsylvania State University. Work they do at those institutions may be contributed to an IPCC report, but is not paid for by the IPCC. As you can see, the IPCC has no money to pay for all this work.
If I ask “Who is better Hendrix or Malmsteen?” and then you quote “Guitar World’s Greatest Guitarrists”, “Modern Guitar’s Top 100”, and “Guitar Magazine’s 15 guys for eternity” and then nothing else, you didn’t particiapte in the thread.
You must, at the very minimum, explain why you think those quotes helped form you opinion. I’m asking for you to go check every thermometer in the world, but to explain why you personally think that a specific set of readings is better than other, not why Dr. XYH says so.
And that is why I specified that this is applicable only when the scientific evidence is coming out like a fire hose.
And I do it too, the reality is that the explanations are short and can be quoted as even you have shown. Once again, you are demanding what creationists do, and use, when science is against a cherished belief. The real objective is to get diverse opinions in discussions to undermine what the science says.
This is also a tactic to avoid dealing with the inconvenient science that is brought forth into a discussion, it is also a maneuver to not deal with the clear spectacular failures that many skeptics have run into recently.
So to get back to the subject, I agree with jshore (who is a scientist BTW), Muller in essence did only confirm what was known for more than 20 years, the value for this discussion remains the fact that the BEST research was deemed by Watts and other fake skeptics of being the one that would demonstrate that they were correct as it was funded by people that are actively looking to push FUD.
Evidence? You mean like “97% of climate scientists agree with AGW” ended up being 75 guys?
The fact that you yourself are convinced by your own arguments, does not make them true.
I don’t get your last sentence. Are you saying that trying to get diverse opinions to undermine the other side in a debate is somehow immoral?
I don’t get you obsession with Watts. You have even stated that you wouldn’t accept information form him until he apologised or something like that. Your problems with him, are yours, not mine.
I have no fear of inconvenient truths, stop saying/implyng that. I can read, and have read, most of the websites you quote; I know and fully understand their informtation. The point of a debate is discussion between people. I you can’t debate, then simply say so, post a collection of links and say nothing else, if that is all you can contribute. You are not debating if 75% of what you post is someone’s stuff. Do, of course, bring data to the table, but if that’s all you can do, you still don’t get debate.
Science is, of course, data-based and rational. Can you imagine giving a press conference about discovering the Higgs Bosson and saying “good morning, I’ve sent e-mails with the readings of our machines, thank you, good day”.
You’d be giving the scientific information but not debating or explaining.
Still no response on BEST being non-peer-reviewed. Since in many places you discard anything that isn’t peer-reviewed I don’t see why I should accept it.
If you do accept their own reasoning about peer reviewing, then it shall apply to others too; not only when you want it.
What was demonstrated there was you have no idea how polls work, as pointed out several other polls showed that they were on the money, so I have no idea where are you getting this.
I base my opinion here on the fact of what they did to scientists like Phil Jones.
Demanding a different opinion separated from the facts found by the scientists is really silly, even more so in a message board that looks for the best evidence out there.
Well no, as it seem that you are only an ignorant of one of the most influential skeptics out there that is not a scientist. A few of the biggest names from the right in this message board have relied on articles from him in the past to make points that are shot like fish in a barrel, the point here is that if he or many others that claim to be skeptics were indeed that they claim, they would already had dropped many of the discredited points they made. In other words, I ask them to demonstrate progress. But what we are getting is a doubling down of the misleading information.
And as it was made clear in the recent senate hearing, Watts’ unpublished and debunked paper in less than 24 hours, was still used as a cite to get yahoos like Senator Inhofe to continue the delay on doing anything about the issue.
Piffle, every time there is a thread very few agree with your assessment. What you are doing is in reality is just avoiding dealing with the facts as it is more convenient to demonstrate that a poster on a message board is wrong.
And here you demonstrate how out of it you are, scientists had a huge debate, 50 years ago. Now the issue is finding how big the problem will get as it is clear that the delays are ensuring that the troublesome scenarios will become a reality.
There it was in the quote I made in post 70 so pay attention:
“Boredom arrives from the Berkeley team itself, with a new (but again, as-yet unpublished) paper about the Berkeley global land-only temperature estimate. Temperature-wise, the numbers are updated through November 2011 and the overall picture is pretty much unchanged. What’s new is that they have subjected the results to some analysis, concluding that recent global temperature increase is due to human activity (greenhouse gases) and that volcanic eruptions also influence global temperature. Good job catching up with climate science — circa 1980.”
Most scientists are only amused at Muller and BEST, precisely for that unpublished bit (and IIUC only one of the 3 previous papers was published) , once again, any usefulness from that research is on the fact that it was mostly funded to discredit the science made so far. That it failed on that is just another item added into the spectacular lists of recent failures from the skeptics to get evidence for their arguments.
It’s not my fault that you don’t remember, as has been pointed out to you many times, that the number 97% comes from 75 out of 77 scientists in a poll with 10000 recipients and 3000 answers. Or that the question were not really sprecific like “do you beleive that CO2 feedback is more than X?”, no no no, they were (and you must reember because it has been demosntrated to you on several occasions)
When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?
and super-turbo-gigantic majortiy of skeptics will agree on 1 and, depending on what “significant” is taken to mean, a great majority will say yes in 2.
[/QUOTE]
I base my opinion here on the fact of what they did to scientists like Phil Jones.
Demanding a different opinion separated from the facts found by the scientists is really silly, even more so in a message board that looks for the best evidence out there.
[/QUOTE]
I’ll cut the middleman, then.
You continue your classical “debate generic guy” stuff.
You bring him up because you want.
I cannot, at the same time, NOT know who he is AND be a pawn in his nefarious game of eco-evil-destructionism.
You still don’t get it that I DO get the facts.
[/QUOTE]
And here you demonstrate how out of it you are, scientists had a huge debate, 50 years ago. Now the issue is finding how big the problem will get as it is clear that the delays are ensuring that the troublesome scenarios will become a reality.
[/QUOTE]
I’ll cut the middleman again.
“So pay attention”, are you my 2nd grade teacher?
Still non responsive to my point: BEST is non-peer-review, if you accept it it means that not being peer reviewed doens’t make it wrong.
Nope, still telling others that you do not get what polling is doesn’t make a good argument, neither is to assume that others will miss that you are ignoring that other pools that confirmed what most climate scientists are reporting, the fact is that if that was not the case then you would **not **see the same skeptical climate scientists popping up in senatorial hearings invited by Republicans. One can count with their fingers the number of “serious” current skeptical climate scientists.
You are also clueless in insisting that I’m accepting the BEST results as science, when I said pay attention it was to point out that the use of that Muller research (except the previous paper that they did publish) is only useful in the context of demonstrating that lots of money from fossil fuel companies or conservative outfits is going into money pits that gets them the opposite of what they demand; this is just because, shucks, they actually hired scientists to check the data and the evidence told them that many others were right. And as BEST demonstrated before they will follow trough with publication, then it will also be added to the mountain of evidence that we already have on the subject.
And BTW I’m a teacher, not of language arts, as I’m aware of my limitations.
Still avoiding, still avoiding.
Did the 97% come for 75 out 3000 scientists? (Hint: the answer is yes)
If BEST is not science, but simply backfiring FUD, then I take back saying that you said it was science.
Since I don’t care what others do for their personal purposes, I won’t comment on it; we’ll only comment on science.
This is however, not a GW thread.
And again, a complete lack of understanding how polls and surveys work.
Simple logic would say that if those polls are not showing where the scientific opinion is, then we shroud have thousands of climate scientists telling us the diverse ways the evidence should be interpreted, instead the opposite is seen: the same few skeptical faces that not only are becoming less prominent, but willing to use ideology to get egg in their peer reviewed faces:
As you have more experience on papers and journals, I’m curious to know if what the Berkeley BEST team is reporting on their site is correct, They already got the latest paper to be peer reviewed? Since June?
