Geologists On Global Climate Change

[Liminal]

The Geological Society of America concurs with the scientific evidence.
The Geological Society of America - Position Statement on Climate Change

 

[Ernie S.]

All one really has to know about the report is:

REFERENCES CITED
Reports

1. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), 2007, Summary for policymakers, in Climate Change 2007: The physical science basis: Cambridge, United Kingdom, Cambridge University Press, 18 p.
2. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), 2001, Summary for policymakers, in Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report: Cambridge, United Kingdom, Cambridge University Press, 34 p.
3. National Academies of Science (2005). Joint academes statement: Global response to climate change. (http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf)
4. National Research Council (2011). America's Climate Choices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 144 p.

IPCC has discredited itself, so anything from them is highly suspect.
In addition, as I started reading, I read that satellite data hadn't shown a temperature rise so they adjusted data until it did. IPCC all over again???

 

[Liminal]

All one really has to know about the report is:

REFERENCES CITED
Reports

1. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), 2007, Summary for policymakers, in Climate Change 2007: The physical science basis: Cambridge, United Kingdom, Cambridge University Press, 18 p.
2. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), 2001, Summary for policymakers, in Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report: Cambridge, United Kingdom, Cambridge University Press, 34 p.
3. National Academies of Science (2005). Joint academes statement: Global response to climate change. (http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf)
4. National Research Council (2011). America's Climate Choices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 144 p.

IPCC has discredited itself, so anything from them is highly suspect.
In addition, as I started reading, I read that satellite data hadn't shown a temperature rise so they adjusted data until it did. IPCC all over again???

I'm sure everyone is fortunate to have someone around who knows all one really has to know.

 

[Ernie S.]

Yet you will continue to buy into pseudo-science supported by data fudged to support the desired results. The IPCC are scam artists. The email scandals alone should put Phil Jones in the cell next to Bernie Madoff.

 

[Liminal]

Yet you will continue to buy into pseudo-science supported by data fudged to support the desired results. The IPCC are scam artists. The email scandals alone should put Phil Jones in the cell next to Bernie Madoff.

Yes, I fully understand the counter narratives being posed.

 

[Ernie S.]

And it doesn't bother you that they fudge numbers, leave out conflicting studies and alter models to ensure the "right" results because you believe what you are told.

That's so sad, really. I have this bridge for sale in Brooklyn....

 

[Liminal]

And it doesn't bother you that they fudge numbers, leave out conflicting studies and alter models to ensure the "right" results because you believe what you are told.

That's so sad, really. I have this bridge for sale in Brooklyn....

More opinions in the mix to cloud the issue, that's the purpose of contrived counter narratives.

 

[Ernie S.]

Can't comment on bogus research, huh?

 

[Liminal]

Can't comment on bogus research, huh?

I'm not a scientist, how would I know bogus research if I saw it?

 

[Ernie S.]

Can't comment on bogus research, huh?

I'm not a scientist, how would I know bogus research if saw it?

Can you read?

 

[Liminal]

Can't comment on bogus research, huh?

I'm not a scientist, how would I know bogus research if saw it?

Can you read?

Yes, I can spell and count too.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Can't comment on bogus research, huh?

I'm not a scientist, how would I know bogus research if I saw it?

Are you claiming you have to be a scientist to know bogus research when you see it? That is quite a claim, Liminal! I believe you are 100% wrong!

 

[Ernie S.]

Assistant Professors of Economics Fuhai Hong and Xiaojian Zhao — accept it as a given that the media and the science establishment routinely exaggerate the issue of climate change. However, unlike the majority of their academic colleagues — who flatly deny that any such problem exists — they go a step further and actively endorse a policy of dishonesty as a way to force through desired policy objectives.

The abstract of their paper notes:

It appears that news media and some pro-environmental organizations have the tendency to accentuate or even exaggerate the damage caused by climate change. This article provides a rationale for this tendency by using a modified International Environmental Agreement (IEA) model with asymmetric information. We find that the information manipulation has an instrumental value, as it ex post induces more countries to participate in an IEA, which will eventually enhance global welfare. From the ex ante perspective, however, the impact that manipulating information has on the level of participation in an IEA and on welfare is ambiguous.

LINK

 

[Ernie S.]

Can't comment on bogus research, huh?

I'm not a scientist, how would I know bogus research if saw it?

Can you read?

Yes, I can spell and count too.

Then read my previous post.

 

[Liminal]

Can't comment on bogus research, huh?

I'm not a scientist, how would I know bogus research if I saw it?

Are you claiming you have to be a scientist to know bogus research when you see it? That is quite a claim, Liminal! I believe you are 100% wrong!

How would you know it was bogus without a scientist to interpret the data for you?

 

[Liminal]

Assistant Professors of Economics Fuhai Hong and Xiaojian Zhao — accept it as a given that the media and the science establishment routinely exaggerate the issue of climate change. However, unlike the majority of their academic colleagues — who flatly deny that any such problem exists — they go a step further and actively endorse a policy of dishonesty as a way to force through desired policy objectives.

The abstract of their paper notes:

It appears that news media and some pro-environmental organizations have the tendency to accentuate or even exaggerate the damage caused by climate change. This article provides a rationale for this tendency by using a modified International Environmental Agreement (IEA) model with asymmetric information. We find that the information manipulation has an instrumental value, as it ex post induces more countries to participate in an IEA, which will eventually enhance global welfare. From the ex ante perspective, however, the impact that manipulating information has on the level of participation in an IEA and on welfare is ambiguous.

LINK

More opinions, we can sure use more of those.

 

[Liminal]

Can't comment on bogus research, huh?

I'm not a scientist, how would I know bogus research if saw it?

Can you read?

Yes, I can spell and count too.

Then read my previous post.

Since you put it that way I'll try extra hard to comply with your requests.

 

[Ernie S.]

Assistant Professors of Economics Fuhai Hong and Xiaojian Zhao — accept it as a given that the media and the science establishment routinely exaggerate the issue of climate change. However, unlike the majority of their academic colleagues — who flatly deny that any such problem exists — they go a step further and actively endorse a policy of dishonesty as a way to force through desired policy objectives.

The abstract of their paper notes:

It appears that news media and some pro-environmental organizations have the tendency to accentuate or even exaggerate the damage caused by climate change. This article provides a rationale for this tendency by using a modified International Environmental Agreement (IEA) model with asymmetric information. We find that the information manipulation has an instrumental value, as it ex post induces more countries to participate in an IEA, which will eventually enhance global welfare. From the ex ante perspective, however, the impact that manipulating information has on the level of participation in an IEA and on welfare is ambiguous.

LINK

More opinions, we can sure use more of those.

An admission that the data is fudged on purpose is an opinion????

 

[Ernie S.]

Can't comment on bogus research, huh?

I'm not a scientist, how would I know bogus research if saw it?

Can you read?

Yes, I can spell and count too.

Then read my previous post.

Since you put it that way I'll try extra hard to comply with your requests.

See that you do!

 

[Liminal]

Assistant Professors of Economics Fuhai Hong and Xiaojian Zhao — accept it as a given that the media and the science establishment routinely exaggerate the issue of climate change. However, unlike the majority of their academic colleagues — who flatly deny that any such problem exists — they go a step further and actively endorse a policy of dishonesty as a way to force through desired policy objectives.

The abstract of their paper notes:

It appears that news media and some pro-environmental organizations have the tendency to accentuate or even exaggerate the damage caused by climate change. This article provides a rationale for this tendency by using a modified International Environmental Agreement (IEA) model with asymmetric information. We find that the information manipulation has an instrumental value, as it ex post induces more countries to participate in an IEA, which will eventually enhance global welfare. From the ex ante perspective, however, the impact that manipulating information has on the level of participation in an IEA and on welfare is ambiguous.

LINK

More opinions, we can sure use more of those.

An admission that the data is fudged on purpose is an opinion????

Objection Your Honor, concludes facts not in evidence.