Surreal world of climate science

Discussion in 'Environment' started by IanC, Jan 13, 2012.

  1. IanC
    Online

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    9,191
    Thanks Received:
    1,070
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,441
    a lot of people still believe in consensus and settled science. so many people agree with the idea of global warming and the power of CO2 that ordinary observers would be crazy not to also agree, right? if there was something not quite right then the adults in the room would sound the alarm, right? unfortunately climate science shows many of the same hallmarks of the global economic problems. crazy schemes are accepted even though they go against past best practises. new methods are accepted because they give results that are required to keep up the charade. there are a lot of smart people looking after the money markets and yet bullshit happened that should have been stopped before it caused as much damage as it did. the same discrepancies are present in CAGW and the adults in the room are ignoring them. McIntyre only got involved because the numbers and the methods seemed fishy. his reasonable questions have been ignored, much to the detriment of climate science.

    anyway, here is an article talking about it. What Financial Meltdowns Teach Us About the IPCC « NoFrakkingConsensus

     
  2. skookerasbil
    Offline

    skookerasbil Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2009
    Messages:
    24,197
    Thanks Received:
    2,912
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Not the middle of nowhere
    Ratings:
    +6,208
    Sooner or later.......we'll be fracking our asses off. Write it down!!!
     
  3. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,470
    Thanks Received:
    5,415
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,312
  4. CrusaderFrank
    Online

    CrusaderFrank Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    81,192
    Thanks Received:
    14,906
    Trophy Points:
    2,210
    Ratings:
    +36,934
    As a real science, climate "science" falls somewhere above phrenology and below astrology
     
  5. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,470
    Thanks Received:
    5,415
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,312
    And how many Scientific Societies, how many National Academies of Science, and how many major Universities have changed their position concerning AGW? Well, I will admit one has;

    Global warming controversy

    In 2006 the AAPG was criticized for selecting Michael Crichton for their Journalism Award "for his recent science-based thriller State of Fear", in which Crichton exposed his skeptical view of global warming, and for Jurassic Park.[2] Daniel P. Schrag, a geochemist who directs the Harvard University Center for the Environment, called the award "a total embarrassment" that he said "reflects the politics of the oil industry and a lack of professionalism" on the association's part.[3] The award has since been renamed the "Geosciences in the Media" Award.[4]

    The criticism drew attention to the AAPG's 1999 position statement[5] formally rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate. The Council of the American Quaternary Association wrote in a criticism of the award that the "AAPG stands alone among scientific societies in its denial of human-induced effects on global warming."[6]

    As recently as March 2007, articles in the newsletter of the AAPG Division of Professional Affairs stated that "the data does not support human activity as the cause of global warming"[7] and characterize the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports as "wildly distorted and politicized."[8]

    [edit] 2007 AAPG revised positionAcknowledging that the association's previous policy statement on Climate Change was "not supported by a significant number of our members and prospective members",[9] AAPG's formal stance was reviewed and changed in July 2007
    .

    The new statement formally accepts human activity as at least one contributor to carbon dioxide increase, but does not confirm its link to climate change, saying its members are "divided on the degree of influence that anthropogenic CO2 has" on climate. AAPG also stated support for "research to narrow probabilistic ranges on the effect of anthropogenic CO2 on global climate."[10]

    AAPG also withdrew its earlier criticism of other scientific organizations and research stating, "Certain climate simulation models predict that the warming trend will continue, as reported through NAS, AGU, AAAS, and AMS. AAPG respects these scientific opinions but wants to add that the current climate warming projections could fall within well-documented natural variations in past climate and observed temperature data. These data do not necessarily support the maximum case scenarios forecast in some models."

    American Association of Petroleum Geologists - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    So the only Scientific Society to buck the consensus, changed it's policy because of members pressure on the leadership. In other words, the membership insisted on real science, rather than pandering to the people that employed them. Now if we could just get some of the 'Conservatives' to be that honest.

    You have made lying about the state of climate science a poltical game. As we see the climate change, and feel the consequences of that change, this is going to be a bigger political issue than you realize.

     
  6. CrusaderFrank
    Online

    CrusaderFrank Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    81,192
    Thanks Received:
    14,906
    Trophy Points:
    2,210
    Ratings:
    +36,934
    "But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy." - IPCC Official Policy
     
  7. CrusaderFrank
    Online

    CrusaderFrank Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    81,192
    Thanks Received:
    14,906
    Trophy Points:
    2,210
    Ratings:
    +36,934
    [​IMG]

    "Study the rings, look closer, closer, you are getting sleepy, so sleepy, see the manmade global warming"
     
  8. CrusaderFrank
    Online

    CrusaderFrank Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    81,192
    Thanks Received:
    14,906
    Trophy Points:
    2,210
    Ratings:
    +36,934
    BBC:" Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?

    World's Leading AGW Scientist and Head of the Data Mining Operation at East Angelia Phil Jones: Yes..."
     
  9. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,470
    Thanks Received:
    5,415
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,312
    Franky boy, you continue to quote out of context. That is just another form of lying. But then, all you people have is lies.
     

Share This Page