Climate Scientists are Laughing at You

[Crick]

The IPCC is not a journal. It does not publish papers. It makes reference to already published papers.

 

[skookerasbil]

The IPCC is not a journal. It does not publish papers. It makes reference to already published papers.

Wtf?

Fake....you cant go citing the IPCC every day like you do then go dismissing them when inconvenient information arises. You cite the IPCC more than anybody else on here.....by a mile. Stop with the fakery.

Cant have it both ways......

 

[skookerasbil]

The IPCC is not a journal. It does not publish papers. It makes reference to already published papers.

You dummy!

The role of the IPCC is to assess and clarify the current literature.

Statement by the IPCC here >>

IPCC statement: Clarifying the role of the IPCC in the context of 1.5ºC — IPCC

 

[Crick]

Assessing and clarifying the current literature is not publishing research papers.

 

[cnm]

Tell you what buckwheet....go grab yourself a dictionary and look up the word present...pick a date that suits you...the fact remains that the past has been warmer than the present for most of the past 10,000 years......

Warmer than 95 years before the 'present'? The 'present' taken as 1950?

 

[cnm]

When I hear that word I picture lab work.

Like on black holes? Which obviously can't exist as they haven't been in a lab.

 

[cnm]

Previously, Harris was an Associate with APCO Worldwide, a group known for creating The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC) which worked to advance tobacco industry interests. [4], [48]

I think that's my favourite bit. It lets everyone know where the group stands.

 

[SSDD]

So, the website of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a "bullshit site". You'd be laughable if you weren't so fucking pathetic.

If you want to see the evidence for man made global warming, see "The Physical Science Basis" at www.ipcc.ch

You keep posting up a link, but not bringing any observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...Why is that crick. Like I said, there is evidence there, but non that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

For example, the IPCC says that there is absolutely nothing remarkable about the present warming...From the IPCC

Interesting...isn't it? Ocean warming accounting for about 93% of the energy exchange inventory and the upper oceans about 64% of that...

So according to you, there is observed, measured evidence at the IPCC that the earth has warmed about 0.1 C in the past 50 years. How does that support the AGW hypothesis over natural variability?

So if you think there is observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability, step on up to the plate and bring it here... Of course, we both know, and everyone else knows by now that no such evidence will be forthcoming.

 

[SSDD]

The IPCC is not a journal. It does not publish papers. It makes reference to already published papers.

Does it make a point to keep up with retractions, and alter its conclusions based on those retractions...and keep people informed that its conclusions have changed as a result of retractions to previously referenced papers which have been retracted?

 

[SSDD]

Tell you what buckwheet....go grab yourself a dictionary and look up the word present...pick a date that suits you...the fact remains that the past has been warmer than the present for most of the past 10,000 years......

Warmer than 95 years before the 'present'? The 'present' taken as 1950?

Like I said...pick a date...the present...TODAY is cooler than it has been for most of the past 10,000 years....

 

[SSDD]

When I hear that word I picture lab work.

Like on black holes? Which obviously can't exist as they haven't been in a lab.

The atmosphere, the climate, and energy moving through the atmosphere is emminently observable, and measurable. Unlike black holes which remain theoretical.

 

[SSDD]

Previously, Harris was an Associate with APCO Worldwide, a group known for creating The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC) which worked to advance tobacco industry interests. [4], [48]

I think that's my favourite bit. It lets everyone know where the group stands.

Still stuck in logical fallacy mode? Any actual argument to the statement that the present is cooler than it has been for most of the past 10,000 years beyond weaseling about what the present means?

 

[cnm]

Like I said...pick a date...the present...TODAY is cooler than it has been for most of the past 10,000 years....

Show the data.

 

[cnm]

Unlike black holes which remain theoretical.

Even though their action on other bodies is observable and measurable. Right.

 

[cnm]

Any actual argument to the statement that the present is cooler than it has been for most of the past 10,000 years beyond weaseling about what the present means?

What 'the present' means is the base of your assertion. The ice cap series does not take 'Today' as 'the present', your misrepresentation notwithstanding.

 

[cnm]

I suppose along with Harris you'll assert 'junk science' has no relation to various cancers?

 

[cnm]

Previously, Harris was an Associate with APCO Worldwide, a group known for creating The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC) which worked to advance tobacco industry interests. [4], [48]

According to a 2001 report in the American Journal of Public Health (PDF), Philip Morris created TASSC to help it fight smoking restrictions while minimizing the group's visible connections to the tobacco industry. TASSC mentioned secondhand smoke among its examples of “unsound, incomplete, or unsubstantiated science.” [22]
[...]
TASSC's origins as a Philip Morris Astroturf group
Within two months of the EPA publishing its report on the Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking in December, 1992, Philip Morris had created a strategy for dealing with the report, as George Monbiot reports in The Guardian. [23]

In a February, 1993 memo, the tobacco company's senior vice president of corporate affairs, Ellen Merlo, sent a letter to William I Campbell, Philip Morris's chief executive officer and president, explaining: “Our overriding objective is to discredit the EPA report … Concurrently, it is our objective to prevent states and cities, as well as businesses, from passive-smoking bans.” [23]

To accomplish this, Merlo had hired the public relations company APCO. The PR company warned that “No matter how strong the arguments, industry spokespeople are, in and of themselves, not always credible or appropriate messengers,” reported Monbiot. To get around this, they suggested that PM needed to create the impression of a “grassroots” movement to fight “over regulation.” [23]

They proposed setting up a “national coalition intended to educate the media, public officials and the public about the dangers of 'junk science'. Coalition will address credibility of government's scientific studies, risk-assessment techniques and misuse of tax dollars … Upon formation of Coalition, key leaders will begin media outreach, eg editorial board tours, opinion articles, and brief elected officials in selected states.”[23]

APCO requested $150,000 for its own fees, and $75,000 for the coalition's costs to found the group, write mission statements and “prepare and place opinion articles in key markets.”[23]

A May, 1993 memo from APCO to Philip Morris lists the name of the group as The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition. It was important, further letters stated, “to ensure that TASSC has a diverse group of contributors”; to “link the tobacco issue with other more 'politically correct' products”; and to associate scientific studies that cast smoking in a bad light with “broader questions about government research and regulations” - such as “global warming”, “nuclear waste disposal” and “biotechnology.” APCO would engage in the “intensive recruitment of high-profile representatives from business and industry, scientists, public officials, and other individuals interested in promoting the use of sound science”.[23]
The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition​

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Unlike black holes which remain theoretical.

Even though their action on other bodies is observable and measurable. Right.

So atmospheric CO2 is only a theoretical construct, right?

 

[Crick]

Any actual argument to the statement that the present is cooler than it has been for most of the past 10,000 years beyond weaseling about what the present means?

What 'the present' means is the base of your assertion. The ice cap series does not take 'Today' as 'the present', your misrepresentation notwithstanding.

"Present" in data extending from contemporary times back, unless otherwise stated, means 1950.

 

[jc456]

The real laughs belong to the skeptics when it comes right down to it. After 20+ years of this "we need to do something now!!!" from the climate scientists, still nobody is giving a flying fuck! And we all know the saying....."he who laughs last laughs the hardest!"

well the observed climate by the populace understand the bullshit, especially when the finger pointing needs your money to stop pops up. Yeah, pretty clear where the BS is at. hope you're doing well today.