What is the IPCC

[eagle1462010]

 

[flacaltenn]

Ian,

precisely what HARM is done by adding more accurate, higher precision data to a dataset?

In the preinstrumented era, we have only proxy data. In contemporary times we have instrument data. The two time periods run into each other. The Earth's temperature DID exist as a continuous value across the entire period. Why are you so opposed to attempting to reconstruct the transition?

well then, why dont we just "estimate" your historical gain of knowledge on AGW by sampling a couple of Abrahams oldest posts and then splice the results with a series of pop quizes from the next coupke weeks?

We will take 2 samples a year of your first attempts at posting and compare that to actual measured knowledged knowledge. What a tremendous example of not understanding science and interpreting data.

BTW Have you done everything possible to convince folks of the honesty and objective goals of the IPCC? If so, you kinda got your ass kicked and now you are deflecting.

poor Crick simply doesnt understand how science works. there are rules in place that help avoid making false conclusions if the rules are being followed. unfortunately climate science is even worse than medicine for cheating by cherrypicking and 'peeking' at results before the methodology is fixed into place.

I suppose I could mock paleo reconstruction claims of precision and accuracy by showing (again) that virtually none of the individual proxies resemble the finished result. or that stop and start dates often make huge differences to the product. or bizarre statistical methodologies that give massive over-representation to outliers which skew the results.

I am OK with proxy reconstructions, as long as they are taken for the generalization that they are. they are our best guess at what happened in the past. obviously you can find two proxy reconstructions with different results even if they are supposedly measuring the same thing. both will have an estimation of error, but they may have no or little overlap, they may have a significantly different shape, and the authors of both will quite naturally think his study gives the right answer.

Ian, that you should believe climate scientists are all involved in a massive conspiracy or, for some other unspecified reason, are nearly universally violating the rules of the scientific method is not an indication that you enjoy a superior understanding of how science works.

What do you believe is the significance of proxy reconstructions of paleoclimate behavior with respect to anthropogenic global warming from CO2 emissions?

massive conspiracy? why are you back with that nonsense again?

physics is a 'hard' science, and they dont trust any results until the uncertainty is down to about 5 sigma. and reproduced by several independent groups.

sociology is a 'soft' science and they accept just about anything, and dont particularly care about having their results reproduced. if they can get an r^2 of 0.1 and a p of 0.5 they are ecstatic.

where does climate science exist between hard and soft science? most of the time it lies very close to the soft end of the spectrum. even when they get reasonably good data they screw it up by mixing it with poor data, or use inappropriate methodologies to analyze it. cherrypicking and data snooping is rampant. drug researchers would go to jail if they tried to use the slovenly flawed methods used in climate science. yet the average climate scientist doesnt even complain. perhaps because they know that if there were high standards to be met then there would be few results to publish.

Climate science is the study of a large, complex and deeply chaotic system. That you would expect the sort of determinism achievable in physics tells us first and foremost that either you don't understand that basic and fundamental point or that you don't care whether or not your comments are based on reality.

Guess we should rethink that "large, complex and deeply chaotic system" that is described by physics during the Big Bang.

Who stole your education money and gave you a degree? I hate them... They sold you a stocked toolbox and left you with a hammer.

Whatever Global Warming fairytale you make up. It better conforrm to the math and physics that everyone else uses..

Like for instance when you get lauded for an "Energy Balance" diagram (that actually balances Power not Energy) that excludes the major component of Ocean Storage but STILL gets the correct miniscule answer to Global Warming.. And you are STILL famous for it -- because it's on the I-Net and it lives forever as part of the fairytale..

 

[flacaltenn]

Hell -- I had no idea that Yankees could play banjo like that. Hysterical....

 

[Crick]

well then, why dont we just "estimate" your historical gain of knowledge on AGW by sampling a couple of Abrahams oldest posts and then splice the results with a series of pop quizes from the next coupke weeks?

We will take 2 samples a year of your first attempts at posting and compare that to actual measured knowledged knowledge. What a tremendous example of not understanding science and interpreting data.

BTW Have you done everything possible to convince folks of the honesty and objective goals of the IPCC? If so, you kinda got your ass kicked and now you are deflecting.

poor Crick simply doesnt understand how science works. there are rules in place that help avoid making false conclusions if the rules are being followed. unfortunately climate science is even worse than medicine for cheating by cherrypicking and 'peeking' at results before the methodology is fixed into place.

I suppose I could mock paleo reconstruction claims of precision and accuracy by showing (again) that virtually none of the individual proxies resemble the finished result. or that stop and start dates often make huge differences to the product. or bizarre statistical methodologies that give massive over-representation to outliers which skew the results.

I am OK with proxy reconstructions, as long as they are taken for the generalization that they are. they are our best guess at what happened in the past. obviously you can find two proxy reconstructions with different results even if they are supposedly measuring the same thing. both will have an estimation of error, but they may have no or little overlap, they may have a significantly different shape, and the authors of both will quite naturally think his study gives the right answer.

Ian, that you should believe climate scientists are all involved in a massive conspiracy or, for some other unspecified reason, are nearly universally violating the rules of the scientific method is not an indication that you enjoy a superior understanding of how science works.

What do you believe is the significance of proxy reconstructions of paleoclimate behavior with respect to anthropogenic global warming from CO2 emissions?

massive conspiracy? why are you back with that nonsense again?

physics is a 'hard' science, and they dont trust any results until the uncertainty is down to about 5 sigma. and reproduced by several independent groups.

sociology is a 'soft' science and they accept just about anything, and dont particularly care about having their results reproduced. if they can get an r^2 of 0.1 and a p of 0.5 they are ecstatic.

where does climate science exist between hard and soft science? most of the time it lies very close to the soft end of the spectrum. even when they get reasonably good data they screw it up by mixing it with poor data, or use inappropriate methodologies to analyze it. cherrypicking and data snooping is rampant. drug researchers would go to jail if they tried to use the slovenly flawed methods used in climate science. yet the average climate scientist doesnt even complain. perhaps because they know that if there were high standards to be met then there would be few results to publish.

Climate science is the study of a large, complex and deeply chaotic system. That you would expect the sort of determinism achievable in physics tells us first and foremost that either you don't understand that basic and fundamental point or that you don't care whether or not your comments are based on reality.

Guess we should rethink that "large, complex and deeply chaotic system" that is described by physics during the Big Bang.

Who stole your education money and gave you a degree? I hate them... They sold you a stocked toolbox and left you with a hammer.

Whatever Global Warming fairytale you make up. It better conforrm to the math and physics that everyone else uses..

Like for instance when you get lauded for an "Energy Balance" diagram (that actually balances Power not Energy) that excludes the major component of Ocean Storage but STILL gets the correct miniscule answer to Global Warming.. And you are STILL famous for it -- because it's on the I-Net and it lives forever as part of the fairytale..

You think a singularity is chaotic?

 

[flacaltenn]

poor Crick simply doesnt understand how science works. there are rules in place that help avoid making false conclusions if the rules are being followed. unfortunately climate science is even worse than medicine for cheating by cherrypicking and 'peeking' at results before the methodology is fixed into place.

I suppose I could mock paleo reconstruction claims of precision and accuracy by showing (again) that virtually none of the individual proxies resemble the finished result. or that stop and start dates often make huge differences to the product. or bizarre statistical methodologies that give massive over-representation to outliers which skew the results.

I am OK with proxy reconstructions, as long as they are taken for the generalization that they are. they are our best guess at what happened in the past. obviously you can find two proxy reconstructions with different results even if they are supposedly measuring the same thing. both will have an estimation of error, but they may have no or little overlap, they may have a significantly different shape, and the authors of both will quite naturally think his study gives the right answer.

Ian, that you should believe climate scientists are all involved in a massive conspiracy or, for some other unspecified reason, are nearly universally violating the rules of the scientific method is not an indication that you enjoy a superior understanding of how science works.

What do you believe is the significance of proxy reconstructions of paleoclimate behavior with respect to anthropogenic global warming from CO2 emissions?

massive conspiracy? why are you back with that nonsense again?

physics is a 'hard' science, and they dont trust any results until the uncertainty is down to about 5 sigma. and reproduced by several independent groups.

sociology is a 'soft' science and they accept just about anything, and dont particularly care about having their results reproduced. if they can get an r^2 of 0.1 and a p of 0.5 they are ecstatic.

where does climate science exist between hard and soft science? most of the time it lies very close to the soft end of the spectrum. even when they get reasonably good data they screw it up by mixing it with poor data, or use inappropriate methodologies to analyze it. cherrypicking and data snooping is rampant. drug researchers would go to jail if they tried to use the slovenly flawed methods used in climate science. yet the average climate scientist doesnt even complain. perhaps because they know that if there were high standards to be met then there would be few results to publish.

Climate science is the study of a large, complex and deeply chaotic system. That you would expect the sort of determinism achievable in physics tells us first and foremost that either you don't understand that basic and fundamental point or that you don't care whether or not your comments are based on reality.

Guess we should rethink that "large, complex and deeply chaotic system" that is described by physics during the Big Bang.

Who stole your education money and gave you a degree? I hate them... They sold you a stocked toolbox and left you with a hammer.

Whatever Global Warming fairytale you make up. It better conforrm to the math and physics that everyone else uses..

Like for instance when you get lauded for an "Energy Balance" diagram (that actually balances Power not Energy) that excludes the major component of Ocean Storage but STILL gets the correct miniscule answer to Global Warming.. And you are STILL famous for it -- because it's on the I-Net and it lives forever as part of the fairytale..

You think a singularity is chaotic?

Which came first? The singularity or the bang itself?
And how much are physics are you willing to dismiss when you assert that all the mass and energy in the universe occupied "the singularity"? Boy --- anyone got a compass -- I mean a GPS? I got to check what thread this is.

Pity the poor IPCC is left soooo undefended.

 

[flacaltenn]

Someone PLEASE defend the IPCC. They're getting heavily maligned here. In all fairness, maybe we should contact them for a statement.

 

[mamooth]

Many of the deniers know full well that they're frauds now. So why do they still keep up the act?

Initially, they were just good soldiers. Their political cult said they had to repeat certain statements to remain in good standing. The mantras didn't seem that crazy at the time, and made a little sense if you squinted at them a certain way, so they bleated along with the rest of the herd.

But then, something terrible happened. Science happened. All their denier conspiracy theories got shot down over and over, all the denier leaders were caught fudging and faking data again and again. By then, it was too late. They were too emotionally invested in the scam, and no way were they going to admit they'd spent years being played as usefulIdiots.

So, deniers just said "screw the truth". Given a choice between admitting the dirty liberals were right or embracing the fraud, they've chosen the fraud. Their goal is power for their right-wing-fringe political cult, not truth, and their fraud aids them in that goal.

 

[westwall]

Many of the deniers know full well that they're frauds now. So why do they still keep up the act?

Initially, they were just good soldiers. Their political cult said they had to repeat certain statements to remain in good standing. The mantras didn't seem that crazy at the time, and made a little sense if you squinted at them a certain way, so they bleated along with the rest of the herd.

But then, something terrible happened. Science happened. All their denier conspiracy theories got shot down over and over, all the denier leaders were caught fudging and faking data again and again. By then, it was too late. They were too emotionally invested in the scam, and no way were they going to admit they'd spent years being played as usefulIdiots.

So, deniers just said "screw the truth". Given a choice between admitting the dirty liberals were right or embracing the fraud, they've chosen the fraud. Their goal is power for their right-wing-fringe political cult, not truth, and their fraud aids them in that goal.

Wow, you just described the AGW cult better than I ever could! Thanks!

 

[eagle1462010]

Many of the deniers know full well that they're frauds now. So why do they still keep up the act?

Initially, they were just good soldiers. Their political cult said they had to repeat certain statements to remain in good standing. The mantras didn't seem that crazy at the time, and made a little sense if you squinted at them a certain way, so they bleated along with the rest of the herd.

But then, something terrible happened. Science happened. All their denier conspiracy theories got shot down over and over, all the denier leaders were caught fudging and faking data again and again. By then, it was too late. They were too emotionally invested in the scam, and no way were they going to admit they'd spent years being played as usefulIdiots.

So, deniers just said "screw the truth". Given a choice between admitting the dirty liberals were right or embracing the fraud, they've chosen the fraud. Their goal is power for their right-wing-fringe political cult, not truth, and their fraud aids them in that goal.

Amazing................the Climate Change Cult gets caught in it's Lies on data time and time again and the problem is with those calling out their lies..............................

Perhaps you need to chop down a single tree in a hotter place next time.................to determine the world's fate.
LOL

 

[Crick]

Many of the deniers know full well that they're frauds now. So why do they still keep up the act?

Initially, they were just good soldiers. Their political cult said they had to repeat certain statements to remain in good standing. The mantras didn't seem that crazy at the time, and made a little sense if you squinted at them a certain way, so they bleated along with the rest of the herd.

But then, something terrible happened. Science happened. All their denier conspiracy theories got shot down over and over, all the denier leaders were caught fudging and faking data again and again. By then, it was too late. They were too emotionally invested in the scam, and no way were they going to admit they'd spent years being played as usefulIdiots.

So, deniers just said "screw the truth". Given a choice between admitting the dirty liberals were right or embracing the fraud, they've chosen the fraud. Their goal is power for their right-wing-fringe political cult, not truth, and their fraud aids them in that goal.

Amazing................the Climate Change Cult gets caught in it's Lies on data time and time again and the problem is with those calling out their lies..............................

Perhaps you need to chop down a single tree in a hotter place next time.................to determine the world's fate.
LOL

I'm still waiting to see the evidence indicating that AGW or MBH 98 is based on a single tree. The first person to put that up here never came up with any evidence, but that doesn't seem to have stopped you from accepting it. Do YOU have some evidence?

 

[Crick]

Someone PLEASE defend the IPCC. They're getting heavily maligned here. In all fairness, maybe we should contact them for a statement.

www.ipcc.ch

 

[Crick]

Ian, that you should believe climate scientists are all involved in a massive conspiracy or, for some other unspecified reason, are nearly universally violating the rules of the scientific method is not an indication that you enjoy a superior understanding of how science works.

What do you believe is the significance of proxy reconstructions of paleoclimate behavior with respect to anthropogenic global warming from CO2 emissions?

massive conspiracy? why are you back with that nonsense again?

physics is a 'hard' science, and they dont trust any results until the uncertainty is down to about 5 sigma. and reproduced by several independent groups.

sociology is a 'soft' science and they accept just about anything, and dont particularly care about having their results reproduced. if they can get an r^2 of 0.1 and a p of 0.5 they are ecstatic.

where does climate science exist between hard and soft science? most of the time it lies very close to the soft end of the spectrum. even when they get reasonably good data they screw it up by mixing it with poor data, or use inappropriate methodologies to analyze it. cherrypicking and data snooping is rampant. drug researchers would go to jail if they tried to use the slovenly flawed methods used in climate science. yet the average climate scientist doesnt even complain. perhaps because they know that if there were high standards to be met then there would be few results to publish.

Climate science is the study of a large, complex and deeply chaotic system. That you would expect the sort of determinism achievable in physics tells us first and foremost that either you don't understand that basic and fundamental point or that you don't care whether or not your comments are based on reality.

Guess we should rethink that "large, complex and deeply chaotic system" that is described by physics during the Big Bang.

Who stole your education money and gave you a degree? I hate them... They sold you a stocked toolbox and left you with a hammer.

Whatever Global Warming fairytale you make up. It better conforrm to the math and physics that everyone else uses..

Like for instance when you get lauded for an "Energy Balance" diagram (that actually balances Power not Energy) that excludes the major component of Ocean Storage but STILL gets the correct miniscule answer to Global Warming.. And you are STILL famous for it -- because it's on the I-Net and it lives forever as part of the fairytale..

You think a singularity is chaotic?

Which came first? The singularity or the bang itself?
And how much are physics are you willing to dismiss when you assert that all the mass and energy in the universe occupied "the singularity"? Boy --- anyone got a compass -- I mean a GPS? I got to check what thread this is.

Pity the poor IPCC is left soooo undefended.

Do you want to suggest that my description of the Earth's climate as large, complex and chaotic was inaccurate? If so, please explain why. If not, go fuck yourself.

 

[jc456]

Ian,

precisely what HARM is done by adding more accurate, higher precision data to a dataset?

In the preinstrumented era, we have only proxy data. In contemporary times we have instrument data. The two time periods run into each other. The Earth's temperature DID exist as a continuous value across the entire period. Why are you so opposed to attempting to reconstruct the transition?

well then, why dont we just "estimate" your historical gain of knowledge on AGW by sampling a couple of Abrahams oldest posts and then splice the results with a series of pop quizes from the next coupke weeks?

We will take 2 samples a year of your first attempts at posting and compare that to actual measured knowledged knowledge. What a tremendous example of not understanding science and interpreting data.

BTW Have you done everything possible to convince folks of the honesty and objective goals of the IPCC? If so, you kinda got your ass kicked and now you are deflecting.

poor Crick simply doesnt understand how science works. there are rules in place that help avoid making false conclusions if the rules are being followed. unfortunately climate science is even worse than medicine for cheating by cherrypicking and 'peeking' at results before the methodology is fixed into place.

I suppose I could mock paleo reconstruction claims of precision and accuracy by showing (again) that virtually none of the individual proxies resemble the finished result. or that stop and start dates often make huge differences to the product. or bizarre statistical methodologies that give massive over-representation to outliers which skew the results.

I am OK with proxy reconstructions, as long as they are taken for the generalization that they are. they are our best guess at what happened in the past. obviously you can find two proxy reconstructions with different results even if they are supposedly measuring the same thing. both will have an estimation of error, but they may have no or little overlap, they may have a significantly different shape, and the authors of both will quite naturally think his study gives the right answer.

Ian, that you should believe climate scientists are all involved in a massive conspiracy or, for some other unspecified reason, are nearly universally violating the rules of the scientific method is not an indication that you enjoy a superior understanding of how science works.

What do you believe is the significance of proxy reconstructions of paleoclimate behavior with respect to anthropogenic global warming from CO2 emissions?

massive conspiracy? why are you back with that nonsense again?

physics is a 'hard' science, and they dont trust any results until the uncertainty is down to about 5 sigma. and reproduced by several independent groups.

sociology is a 'soft' science and they accept just about anything, and dont particularly care about having their results reproduced. if they can get an r^2 of 0.1 and a p of 0.5 they are ecstatic.

where does climate science exist between hard and soft science? most of the time it lies very close to the soft end of the spectrum. even when they get reasonably good data they screw it up by mixing it with poor data, or use inappropriate methodologies to analyze it. cherrypicking and data snooping is rampant. drug researchers would go to jail if they tried to use the slovenly flawed methods used in climate science. yet the average climate scientist doesnt even complain. perhaps because they know that if there were high standards to be met then there would be few results to publish.

Climate science is the study of a large, complex and deeply chaotic system. That you would expect the sort of determinism achievable in physics tells us first and foremost that either you don't understand that basic and fundamental point or that you don't care whether or not your comments are based on reality.

funny chaotic that consensus is reached on. How flippin funny!!!!

 

[westwall]

Someone PLEASE defend the IPCC. They're getting heavily maligned here. In all fairness, maybe we should contact them for a statement.

www.ipcc.ch

That's NOT a defense....that's a confession!

 

[Old Rocks]

What the hell would you know about it, Walleyes? You have been predicting cooling for over five years now, and in that time, 2010, and 2014, we have had two record years. And are working on a third right now.

 

[westwall]

What the hell would you know about it, Walleyes? You have been predicting cooling for over five years now, and in that time, 2010, and 2014, we have had two record years. And are working on a third right now.

You keep pushing that meme but it is false. When the error bars are ten times larger than your supposed warming...there HAS been no warming. But a paid political hack like you ignores those facts.

 

[flacaltenn]

What the hell would you know about it, Walleyes? You have been predicting cooling for over five years now, and in that time, 2010, and 2014, we have had two record years. And are working on a third right now.

What matters is that IPCC "science consensus" is getting WRONGER in every one of those years. With that analysis, you go all bullish about Dow Jones recent records and see where that gets ya..

If you don't understand the fundamentals, the actual charts in either case offer no guidance on the future. Isn't that what every brokerage is required to tell ya?

 

[Crick]

Where do you get the idea that the consensus among scientists is getting weaker? The chronology of studies noted in the three Wikipedia articles on the topic all show growing agreement with the IPCC.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What the hell would you know about it, Walleyes? You have been predicting cooling for over five years now, and in that time, 2010, and 2014, we have had two record years. And are working on a third right now.

Is that with or without the Oregon Oyster Eating Blob

 

[westwall]

Where do you get the idea that the consensus among scientists is getting weaker? The chronology of studies noted in the three Wikipedia articles on the topic all show growing agreement with the IPCC.

Wiki....what more need be said!