"Peer Review" now a Dead Letter

[Oddball]

IPCC didn't hire me to deem their political bullshit disguised as "peer review" as bunk.

A shame...I could've made bank and saved them a lot of money.

 

[Dot Com]

IOW, what the IPCC has done to this point is entirely tainted.

Thanks.

Speaking of tainted, that isn't a hole in the ground you're digging that corn out of.

good post.

 

[RollingThunder]

IOW, what the IPCC has done to this point is entirely tainted.

Your brain is the only "entirely tainted" thing here, screwball. Your OP shows that you're a lying POS.

 

[Old Rocks]

A whole bunch of wingnut 'Conservatives' blindly repeating the lies of professional liars, and never, ever going to the sources. Trakar showed you the real words of the commission, then you go back to the same old litany.

 

[Oddball]

Yeah..."Professional liars" like the people that the IPCC hired, who ultimately told them that they were lying.

 

[RollingThunder]

Yeah..."Professional liars" like the people that the IPCC hired, who ultimately told them that they were lying.

Again, screwball, all that is 'happening' only in the confines of your pathetic excuse for a brain, not in the real world. Too bad your head is jammed so far up your butt.

 

[skookerasbil]

Whats up with all the anger coming from the alarmist contingent in here? Complete mental meltdowns on many posts. And this is suppossed to be the intellectuals who have cornered the market on everything related to science as it applies to climate change.

So..........what with all the anger?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

It goes against their long held belief that man-made global warming is real. There is no way those who truly believe will ever back down from the cliff.

It is the equivalent of the Fourier complex. Hell, it IS the Fourier complex at its finest.

 

[saveliberty]

Whats up with all the anger coming from the alarmist contingent in here? Complete mental meltdowns on many posts. And this is suppossed to be the intellectuals who have cornered the market on everything related to science as it applies to climate change.

So..........what with all the anger?

Most folks get the most angry at themselves. Here they have discovered we are actually more intelligent than them. Must be a bitter pill to swallow.

 

[Dot Com]

well whaddaya know: Ice melt found across 97 percent of Greenland, satellites show - World News

 

[Dr.House]

Warmers take their religion seriously...

 

[saveliberty]

well whaddaya know: Ice melt found across 97 percent of Greenland, satellites show - World News

If it was winter you might have something. 100% of our ice is melted here

 

[Trakar]

IOW, what the IPCC has done to this point is entirely tainted.

Thanks.

Speaking of tainted, that isn't a hole in the ground you're digging that corn out of.

good post.

Just trying to be helpful, it's amazing how many people you run into on this forum who really don't seem to know the difference between their cornhole and a random hole in the ground.

 

[westwall]

Are you saying that the IPCC predictions were wrong? Because if you are stating that, you are correct. They were far too conservative, we are seeing consequences right now that we did not expect until mid-century.

They had a lot of material to review, and did an inadaquete job of reviewing all of it. Nonetheless, their information and predictions are far closer to reality than the idiotic denial we see coming from the politics of the right wing.

Really???? WHERE?

 

[daveman]

well whaddaya know: Ice melt found across 97 percent of Greenland, satellites show - World News

That's called "weather".

You're welcome.

 

[westwall]

Speaking of tainted, that isn't a hole in the ground you're digging that corn out of.

good post.

Just trying to be helpful, it's amazing how many people you run into on this forum who really don't seem to know the difference between their cornhole and a random hole in the ground.

Indeed, You and yours are a classic example of that. Yours is the only "science" that equates correlation with causation. No other science does that and the scientific method prohibits it. Yet that is the foundation of your field....

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tV7P81V_evA]Feynman on The Scientific Method - YouTube[/ame]

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Are you saying that the IPCC predictions were wrong? Because if you are stating that, you are correct. They were far too conservative, we are seeing consequences right now that we did not expect until mid-century.

They had a lot of material to review, and did an inadaquete job of reviewing all of it. Nonetheless, their information and predictions are far closer to reality than the idiotic denial we see coming from the politics of the right wing.

Really???? WHERE?

Holy shit! You can't even make this stuff up. Thanks, Old Rocks. Or should we say Head Rocks?

 

[Old Rocks]

Are you saying that the IPCC predictions were wrong? Because if you are stating that, you are correct. They were far too conservative, we are seeing consequences right now that we did not expect until mid-century.

They had a lot of material to review, and did an inadaquete job of reviewing all of it. Nonetheless, their information and predictions are far closer to reality than the idiotic denial we see coming from the politics of the right wing.

Really???? WHERE?

Kind of all over the world. From the increase in the severity and area of wildfires, to the number of extreme weather events. From the alpine glaciers to the continental ice caps. From the outgassing of the Permafrost areas, particularly the yedoma, to the Arctic Ocean Clathrates.

And here at home, record wildfires in New Mexico, Arizona, and Colorado. A significant heat wave and drought in the Mid-West. June, on the tail of a double La Nina and during a neutral ENSO, warmer than any month prior to 1997.

 

[westwall]

Are you saying that the IPCC predictions were wrong? Because if you are stating that, you are correct. They were far too conservative, we are seeing consequences right now that we did not expect until mid-century.

They had a lot of material to review, and did an inadaquete job of reviewing all of it. Nonetheless, their information and predictions are far closer to reality than the idiotic denial we see coming from the politics of the right wing.

Really???? WHERE?

Kind of all over the world. From the increase in the severity and area of wildfires, to the number of extreme weather events. From the alpine glaciers to the continental ice caps. From the outgassing of the Permafrost areas, particularly the yedoma, to the Arctic Ocean Clathrates.

And here at home, record wildfires in New Mexico, Arizona, and Colorado. A significant heat wave and drought in the Mid-West. June, on the tail of a double La Nina and during a neutral ENSO, warmer than any month prior to 1997.

I guess you missed the study that showed the wildfires are no worse than in the past huh?
Historical weather "events' were in fact more destructive and killed more people even with the urbanisation of the coastlines so that argument falls apart in the face of historical fact.
The glaciers are actually holding steady for the most part and increasing in some areas, which doesn't even address the fact that 90% of the glacial melting occured before the industrial era.

You guys only look at the last 30 years and yes when confined to that ridiculously small time frame your observations actually matter. But when placed in historical context they are revealed to be a lot of nothing. Just more religious "the end of the world is coming so repent BS"

Congrats, you're part of a religious cult who believes the world is ending yet again. So how many times do you have to be proven wrong?


"Scientists using field notes from surveys first conducted by the government before the Civil War believe they’ve gained a better understanding of how Western wildfires behaved historically.

Researchers at the University of Wyoming studied historical fire patterns across millions of acres of dry Western forests. Their findings challenge the current operating protocol of the U.S. Forest Service and other agencies that today’s fires are burning hotter and more frequently than in the past.

Combing through 13,000 firsthand descriptions of forests and retracing steps covering more than 250 miles in three states, where teams of government land surveyors first set out in the mid-1800s to map the nation’s wild lands, the researchers said they found evidence forests then were much denser than previously believed.


The 2007 Angora Fire ravaged the South Shore of Lake Tahoe. Photo/Lake Valley Fire

“More highly intense fire is not occurring now than historically in dry forests,” said William Baker, who teaches fire ecology and landscape ecology in Laramie, Wyo., where he’s been doing research more than 20 years. “These forests were much more diverse and experienced a much wider mixture of fire than we thought in the past, including substantial amounts of high-severity fire.”




University study questions USFS beliefs about fires | Lake Tahoe News

 

[Trakar]

good post.

Just trying to be helpful, it's amazing how many people you run into on this forum who really don't seem to know the difference between their cornhole and a random hole in the ground.

Indeed, You and yours are a classic example of that. Yours is the only "science" that equates correlation with causation. No other science does that and the scientific method prohibits it. Yet that is the foundation of your field....

Neither Science, nor Statistics (which is the more proper reference with regards to correlation and causation) prohibit the connection of correlation and causation, in fact, correlation is most often the first, or primary, trait observed that is considered indicative of potential causation. The only thing statistics cautions against, is assuming that every correlation is indicative of causation.

Like I said, I wouldn't eat that corn (again) if I were you.