Climate Change Debate Held.... Very interesting outcome...

[Crick]

Are you claiming there was no reaction to the Himalaya fiasco? Do you believe the IPCC made no changes in response?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Are you claiming there was no reaction to the Himalaya fiasco? Do you believe the IPCC made no changes in response?

WAIT! I thought you were the one that said THIS NEVER HAPPENED? Flip flop when it is convenient or your outed as a ......... and act like it never happened...

Otmar Edenhoffer made it abundantly clear in Cancun that it is not about Global warming, Climate Change, Climate Disruption, or Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (or what ever dishonest name you attach to the meme) at all..

They only swallowed hard and kept right on doing what they were doing..

 

[Crick]

I did not say it had not happened. I said your contentions and those of your buddies, that any significant portion of the IPCC's sources - much less the all you all claimed - were "grey" was horseshit. That is a fact and you've presented nothing to support your charge. The Himalaya incident is hardly evidence of IPCC policy or intent. It was a microscopic portion of AR4.

 

[Mr.Right]

I've never thought the alarmist side had an argument. Their predictions have all failed to materialize, they've been caught falsifying research results trying to manipulate public opinion, and they're being paid to say there's a crisis when there isn't one. What credibility do they have?

Ahh...none?

 

[Crick]

Ahh... infinitely more than the deniers around...

 

[IanC]

the IPCC uses a subsection of science papers that are heavily skewed to the positions of the lead authors.

Prove it.

As a journal guest editor, IPCC lead author Andrew Challinor approved the publication of 9 research papers that are now being cited as evidence in his IPCC chapter.

But it gets better. Challinor is himself the co-author of three of these 20 papers (seehere, here, and here). So first he writes three papers. Then, wearing his journal editor hat, he decides that all three of them are worthy of publication in the very same edition of a peer-reviewed journal. Then, wearing his IPCC lead author hat, he arranges for two of his own works to be cited in the IPCC’s Chapter 7.

It’s also worth noting that the Challinor paper in the news this week was co-written with five others. Every last one of these people served with Challinor as an IPCC Chapter 7 author.

• James Watson (contributing author)
• David Lobell (lead author)
• Mark Howden (lead author)
• Daniel Smith (contributing author)
• Netra Chhetri (contributing author)

The IPCC wants us to believe these people discharged their IPCC duties in an objective, rigorous, and neutral manner. But Challinor and company look an awful lot like an incestuous cabal.

read the whole thing at Conflict-of-Interest in the IPCC s New Chapter 7 Climate News Analysis



there are many more instances of this type of thing. remember when I showed you how one specific journal issue had nearly every article cited by the IPPC report? funny thing was, it was published after the IPCC report was finalized! all the while, IPCC was swearing up and down that they followed their rules about only using published peer-reviewed material. I would like to believe that the 50+ citations to that miracle edition were the only examples but I know better. the Amman and Wahl papers that the IPCC needed to counter McIntyre's rebuttal of Mann's hockeystick were a travesty of rule breaking. and a major factor in Jones' call to delete all AR4 emails to thwart FOI. a thorough description of that story can be found at - Bishop Hill blog - Caspar and the Jesus paper

Wahl and Amman's response was to refuse any access to the verification numbers, a clear flouting of the journal's rules. As a justification of this extraordinary action, they claimed that they had shown that McIntyre's criticisms had been rebutted in their forthcoming GRL paper, despite the fact that the paper had been rejected by the journal some days earlier. At the start of July, with his review of the CC paper complete, McIntyre took the opportunity to probe this point, by asking the journal to find out the anticipated publication date of the GRL paper. Wahl and Amman were forced to admit the rejection, but they declared that it was unjustified and that they would seek publication elsewhere.

 

[Crick]

One too many?

You will watch the sea rise around your feet while you continue to whine about peccadilloes and minutiae... Anything other than admitting the science has been correct since AR1.

The primary cause of the warming of the last 150 years is human GHG emissions and deforestation. That is the forest deniers miss for the trees - for their political prejudices, for their anti-science biases, for their contrarian ignorance.

That warming continues now; it has never stopped.

 

[jc456]

One too many?

You will watch the sea rise around your feet while you continue to whine about peccadilloes and minutiae... Anything other than admitting the science has been correct since AR1.

The primary cause of the warming of the last 150 years is human GHG emissions and deforestation. That is the forest deniers miss for the trees - for their political prejudices, for their anti-science biases, for their contrarian ignorance.

That warming continues now; it has never stopped.

hahahahahaaha, and yet no proof of any of it from your side. just k00k material made up. Again crick, you think that 120 ppm of CO2 is far more harmful than the initial 280? Come on now, how do you vote here.

 

[Billy_Bob]

CIMP5 models Vs Reality show the three skeptics were right about how the models have failed miserably..

 

[Crick]

One too many?

You will watch the sea rise around your feet while you continue to whine about peccadilloes and minutiae... Anything other than admitting the science has been correct since AR1.

The primary cause of the warming of the last 150 years is human GHG emissions and deforestation. That is the forest deniers miss for the trees - for their political prejudices, for their anti-science biases, for their contrarian ignorance.

That warming continues now; it has never stopped.

hahahahahaaha, and yet no proof of any of it from your side. just k00k material made up. Again crick, you think that 120 ppm of CO2 is far more harmful than the initial 280? Come on now, how do you vote here.

I vote that you're the stupidest twit I've ever had the displeasure to know.

The initial 280 ppm was what was keeping the Earth at the pre-Industrial revolution temperatures. The added 120 ppm is what caused the warmed we've experienced and even with no more added, the further warming we'll see over the next century.

 

[jc456]

One too many?

You will watch the sea rise around your feet while you continue to whine about peccadilloes and minutiae... Anything other than admitting the science has been correct since AR1.

The primary cause of the warming of the last 150 years is human GHG emissions and deforestation. That is the forest deniers miss for the trees - for their political prejudices, for their anti-science biases, for their contrarian ignorance.

That warming continues now; it has never stopped.

hahahahahaaha, and yet no proof of any of it from your side. just k00k material made up. Again crick, you think that 120 ppm of CO2 is far more harmful than the initial 280? Come on now, how do you vote here.

I vote that you're the stupidest twit I've ever had the displeasure to know.

The initial 280 ppm was what was keeping the Earth at the pre-Industrial revolution temperatures. The added 120 ppm is what caused the warmed we've experienced and even with no more added, the further warming we'll see over the next century.

And you think it's evil! Now you're just silly!

 

[westwall]

One too many?

You will watch the sea rise around your feet while you continue to whine about peccadilloes and minutiae... Anything other than admitting the science has been correct since AR1.

The primary cause of the warming of the last 150 years is human GHG emissions and deforestation. That is the forest deniers miss for the trees - for their political prejudices, for their anti-science biases, for their contrarian ignorance.

That warming continues now; it has never stopped.

What warming would that be? .01 C with error bars of .1 C are a tad hard to believe unless you're a religious kook.

 

[Crick]

Impossible to reject unless you're an ignorant ass.

 

[westwall]

Impossible to reject unless you're an ignorant ass.

What's funny is you can't even understand that based on the numbers your precious little bullshit "study" provided I can just as accurately claim that the globe has cooled by .05 degree's C. It is every bit as valid a statement. But, like all idiots of your ilk, you can't even understand that little bit.

 

[BluePhantom]

My brother tells a very interesting story about scientific support for man-made climate change. At one point he was working at Arizona State University and needed a grant to conduct some research. He approached the dean to arrange for one and the dean apparently told him that in order to get his grant he had to sign a letter, that several other professors had signed, in support of man-made global warming (as it was called then). He said he didn't want to sign it because he disagreed with the scientific evidence, although that was not his area of expertise, and the dean apparently said "no signature, no grant". So he was basically forced to sign it. He said he talked to several other professors who had signed and they told of a similar account. Climate change research generates so much money for universities that opposing it is almost career suicide, he explained. Take it for what you will, I suppose, but according to my brother, a lot of that apparent support is because scientists have been blackmailed into it in order to avoid damage to their careers.

 

[Billy_Bob]

My brother tells a very interesting story about scientific support for man-made climate change. At one point he was working at Arizona State University and needed a grant to conduct some research. He approached the dean to arrange for one and the dean apparently told him that in order to get his grant he had to sign a letter, that several other professors had signed, in support of man-made global warming (as it was called then). He said he didn't want to sign it because he disagreed with the scientific evidence, although that was not his area of expertise, and the dean apparently said "no signature, no grant". So he was basically forced to sign it. He said he talked to several other professors who had signed and they told of a similar account. Climate change research generates so much money for universities that opposing it is almost career suicide, he explained. Take it for what you will, I suppose, but according to my brother, a lot of that apparent support is because scientists have been blackmailed into it in order to avoid damage to their careers.

Much of the so called consensus is coerced... This plague of control and pseudo science games is played hard in academia. Funded by huge government grants to prove their reasons for agenda correct at any cost.

co·erce
kōˈərs/
verb
past tense: coerced; past participle: coerced

1. persuade (an unwilling person) to do something by using force or threats.
   "they were coerced into silence"
   synonyms: pressure, pressurize, press, push, constrain;More
   force, compel, oblige, browbeat, bludgeon, bully, threaten, intimidate, dragoon, twist someone's arm;
   informalrailroad, squeeze, lean on
   "he was coerced into giving evidence"
   • obtain (something) by using force or threats.
     "their confessions were allegedly coerced by torture"

 

[BluePhantom]

My brother tells a very interesting story about scientific support for man-made climate change. At one point he was working at Arizona State University and needed a grant to conduct some research. He approached the dean to arrange for one and the dean apparently told him that in order to get his grant he had to sign a letter, that several other professors had signed, in support of man-made global warming (as it was called then). He said he didn't want to sign it because he disagreed with the scientific evidence, although that was not his area of expertise, and the dean apparently said "no signature, no grant". So he was basically forced to sign it. He said he talked to several other professors who had signed and they told of a similar account. Climate change research generates so much money for universities that opposing it is almost career suicide, he explained. Take it for what you will, I suppose, but according to my brother, a lot of that apparent support is because scientists have been blackmailed into it in order to avoid damage to their careers.

Much of the so called consensus is coerced... This plague of control and pseudo science games is played hard in academia. Funded by huge government grants to prove their reasons for agenda correct at any cost.

co·erce
kōˈərs/
verb
past tense: coerced; past participle: coerced

1. persuade (an unwilling person) to do something by using force or threats.
   "they were coerced into silence"
   synonyms: pressure, pressurize, press, push, constrain;More
   force, compel, oblige, browbeat, bludgeon, bully, threaten, intimidate, dragoon, twist someone's arm;
   informalrailroad, squeeze, lean on
   "he was coerced into giving evidence"
   • obtain (something) by using force or threats.
     "their confessions were allegedly coerced by torture"

According to my brother, yes that seems to be the case. He actually went so far as to say that most scientists think it's total bullshit but they don't dare say so in public. He said it is a little like a French bakery speaking out against the use of butter.

 

[Billy_Bob]

My brother tells a very interesting story about scientific support for man-made climate change. At one point he was working at Arizona State University and needed a grant to conduct some research. He approached the dean to arrange for one and the dean apparently told him that in order to get his grant he had to sign a letter, that several other professors had signed, in support of man-made global warming (as it was called then). He said he didn't want to sign it because he disagreed with the scientific evidence, although that was not his area of expertise, and the dean apparently said "no signature, no grant". So he was basically forced to sign it. He said he talked to several other professors who had signed and they told of a similar account. Climate change research generates so much money for universities that opposing it is almost career suicide, he explained. Take it for what you will, I suppose, but according to my brother, a lot of that apparent support is because scientists have been blackmailed into it in order to avoid damage to their careers.

Much of the so called consensus is coerced... This plague of control and pseudo science games is played hard in academia. Funded by huge government grants to prove their reasons for agenda correct at any cost.

co·erce
kōˈərs/
verb
past tense: coerced; past participle: coerced

1. persuade (an unwilling person) to do something by using force or threats.
   "they were coerced into silence"
   synonyms: pressure, pressurize, press, push, constrain;More
   force, compel, oblige, browbeat, bludgeon, bully, threaten, intimidate, dragoon, twist someone's arm;
   informalrailroad, squeeze, lean on
   "he was coerced into giving evidence"
   • obtain (something) by using force or threats.
     "their confessions were allegedly coerced by torture"

According to my brother, yes that seems to be the case. He actually went so far as to say that most scientists think it's total bullshit but they don't dare say so in public. He said it is a little like a French bakery speaking out against the use of butter.

Climategate exposed many things they did not want exposed.. It kind of resembles the bridge of deaths questions three... Monty Python is hilarious but the valley of great peril is real.. especially in academia.

 

[BluePhantom]

My brother tells a very interesting story about scientific support for man-made climate change. At one point he was working at Arizona State University and needed a grant to conduct some research. He approached the dean to arrange for one and the dean apparently told him that in order to get his grant he had to sign a letter, that several other professors had signed, in support of man-made global warming (as it was called then). He said he didn't want to sign it because he disagreed with the scientific evidence, although that was not his area of expertise, and the dean apparently said "no signature, no grant". So he was basically forced to sign it. He said he talked to several other professors who had signed and they told of a similar account. Climate change research generates so much money for universities that opposing it is almost career suicide, he explained. Take it for what you will, I suppose, but according to my brother, a lot of that apparent support is because scientists have been blackmailed into it in order to avoid damage to their careers.

Much of the so called consensus is coerced... This plague of control and pseudo science games is played hard in academia. Funded by huge government grants to prove their reasons for agenda correct at any cost.

co·erce
kōˈərs/
verb
past tense: coerced; past participle: coerced

1. persuade (an unwilling person) to do something by using force or threats.
   "they were coerced into silence"
   synonyms: pressure, pressurize, press, push, constrain;More
   force, compel, oblige, browbeat, bludgeon, bully, threaten, intimidate, dragoon, twist someone's arm;
   informalrailroad, squeeze, lean on
   "he was coerced into giving evidence"
   • obtain (something) by using force or threats.
     "their confessions were allegedly coerced by torture"

According to my brother, yes that seems to be the case. He actually went so far as to say that most scientists think it's total bullshit but they don't dare say so in public. He said it is a little like a French bakery speaking out against the use of butter.

Climategate exposed many things they did not want exposed.. It kind of resembles the bridge of deaths questions three... Monty Python is hilarious but the valley of great peril is real.. especially in academia.

Oh that whole situation was so humiliating I am flat out astonished that the whole theory hasn't gone the way of the "saved the spotted owl" society. But you know....say something enough times and people will start to believe it. Or phrase it creatively and you can influence perception. One of my favorite examples is an article I read several years ago. The headline read something like 'Research Shows the Chances of Getting Cancer From Second Hand Smoke Double What Was Previously Believed'. Ok...but if you actually go read the study it said that the chances were something like one in 500,000,000 instead of one in 1,000,000,000. They didn't lie....technically, they told the truth.

 

[Crick]

Why did your brother disagree with AGW?