How does money produce "the desired model results"? And what are "the desired model results"? And who is providing the money and who is receiving the money? Let's flesh out this assertion just a little bit, eh.
Global Warming Liars
- Thread starter ChemEngineer
- Start date
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
Nobel Prize winner Michael Mann doesn't work for free.
Not many people do. So what? The question here was how does money give the IPCC epistemic authority and Ding claimed that it was by producing sensational model results. I wanted some elucidation on this claim. That Dr Mann gets paid does not provide such elucidation.
My comment about crime was not a non-sequitur. It was in response to your comments in Post #385 stating: "where as the truth is if you can't put a name or face on it then it surely is a scam"
My response to your comments about scientific opinions were clear and justified. Your comment about sagging left wing economies WAS irrelevant. You have not justified or supported any of your nonsense. What sort of help you seek is your choice to make. I just note that your comments clearly indicate a lacking that really ought to be addressed.
There's been an entire niche built upon the catastrophe narrative. No prediction of catastrophe, no need for the niche to exist.
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
Michael Mann has shown that AGW fiction can be profitable.
Even considering the legal fees he still owes.
Frankeneinstein
Gold Member
Which is an obvious truth
Frankeneinstein
Gold Member
Making the claim of irrelevance only means we shouldn't concern ourselves with where the money is going [more proof its a scam] not that it isn't going there, so we just need to cough it up.
ChemEngineer
Diamond Member
- Feb 5, 2019
- 7,600
- 7,932
- 1,940
- Thread starter
- #409
The charge that in order to get rich, all the world's climate scientists have been lying to us for the last few decades has been the absolute cornerstone of the denier position. - CRICK
MASSIVE LIE
___________________________________________
“The warmest temperatures in the U.S. have not risen in the past fifty years,” Koonin writes, according to the U.S. government’s Climate Science Special Report.
“The rate of global sea-level rise 70 years ago was as large as what we observe today,” according to the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
“The net economic impact of human-induced climate change will be minimal through at least the end of this century.” - IPCC
The country with the largest human population has recently experienced “the coldest records since the monitoring service first operated,” the “lowest [air temperature] in 44 years,” and “the coldest temperature in the past 59 years” during prolonged cold waves that directly led to excess mortality (Ho et al., 2020).
HOW MANY MORE OF THESE WILL IT TAKE FOR YOU TO STOP LYING?
MASSIVE LIE
___________________________________________
“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” – Kevin Trenbarth, IPCC lead author on physical science, regarding the pause in measured warming from 1999 t0 2009
“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.” – Ottmar Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015
“The warmest temperatures in the U.S. have not risen in the past fifty years,” Koonin writes, according to the U.S. government’s Climate Science Special Report.
“The rate of global sea-level rise 70 years ago was as large as what we observe today,” according to the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
“The net economic impact of human-induced climate change will be minimal through at least the end of this century.” - IPCC
Whistleblowers at the U.S. government’s official keeper of the global warming stats, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), claim their agency doctored temperature data to hide the fact that global temperatures plateaued almost 20 years ago.
Lawrence Solomon: Finally it's safe for the whistleblowers of corrupted climate science to speak outThe country with the largest human population has recently experienced “the coldest records since the monitoring service first operated,” the “lowest [air temperature] in 44 years,” and “the coldest temperature in the past 59 years” during prolonged cold waves that directly led to excess mortality (Ho et al., 2020).
“The inconvenient truth is that it’s not about carbon – it’s about capitalism. … we can seize this existential crisis to transform our failed economic system and build something radically better [socialism, of course].” – Naomi Klein, This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate
The long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” – United Nations International Panel on Climate Control, 2007
HOW MANY MORE OF THESE WILL IT TAKE FOR YOU TO STOP LYING?
You apparently missed a decade or so. PS: His name is spelled Trenberth
Climate change: global temperature
Earth's surface temperature has risen about 2 degrees Fahrenheit since the start of the NOAA record in 1850. It may seem like a small change, but it's a tremendous increase in stored heat.
This comment is the opinion of an individual about UN policy which rather ignores the fact that the IPCC has no policy-setting authority whatsoever. It has NOTHING to do with the validity of AGW.
Did You Know? | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)
A suite of notes that attempt to explain or clarify complex climate phenomena, Climate Monitoring products and methodologies, and climate system insights
Climate Change: Global Sea Level
Global average sea level has risen 8-9 inches since 1880, and the rate is accelerating thanks to glacier and ice sheet melt.
A New Book Manages to Get Climate Science Badly Wrong
In Unsettled, Steven Koonin deploys that highly misleading label to falsely suggest that we don’t understand the risks well enough to take action
So, did you buy Koonin's book or get these from the reviews? Do you happen to have Koonin's definition of the word "minimal"? The IPCC devotes over a thousand pages to what Koonin gives one sentence. From AR6 Summary for Policymakers:
SPM.B.1.1 Widespread, pervasive impacts to ecosystems, people, settlements, and infrastructure have resulted from observed increases in the frequency and intensity of climate and weather extremes, including hot extremes on land and in the ocean, heavy precipitation events, drought and fire weather (high confidence). Increasingly since AR5, these observed impacts have been attributed 28 to human-induced climate change particularly through increased frequency and severity of extreme events. These include increased heatrelated human mortality (medium confidence), warm-water coral bleaching and mortality (high confidence), and increased drought related tree mortality (high confidence). Observed increases in areas burned by wildfires have been attributed to human-induced climate change in some regions (medium to high confidence). Adverse impacts from tropical cyclones, with related losses and damages19, have increased due to sea level rise and the 29 increase in heavy precipitation (medium confidence). Impacts in natural and human systems from slow-onset processes such as ocean acidification, sea level rise or regional decreases in precipitation have also been attributed to human induced climate change (high confidence).
SPM.B.1.2 Climate change has caused substantial damages, and increasingly irreversible losses, in terrestrial, freshwater and coastal and open ocean marine ecosystems (high confidence). The extent and magnitude of climate change impacts are larger than estimated in previous assessments (high confidence). Widespread deterioration of ecosystem structure and function, resilience and natural adaptive capacity, as well as shifts in seasonal timing have occurred due to climate change (high confidence), with adverse socioeconomic consequences (high confidence). Approximately half of the species assessed globally have shifted polewards or, on land, also to higher elevations (very high confidence). Hundreds of local losses of species have been driven by increases in the magnitude of heat extremes (high confidence), as well as mass mortality events on land and in the ocean (very high confidence) and loss of kelp forests (high confidence). Some losses are already irreversible, such as the first species extinctions driven by climate change (medium confidence). Other impacts are approaching irreversibility such as the impacts of hydrological changes resulting from the retreat of glaciers, or the changes in some mountain (medium confidence) and Arctic ecosystems driven by permafrost thaw (high confidence).
First, explain the following without resorting to conspiratorial fantasies:
Climate Change - NASA Science
NASA is a global leader in studying Earth’s changing climate.
climate.nasa.gov
Then, there is this, illustrating the actual magnitude of the change to which your whistleblower is alerting us:
Then, explain this from the same arsTechnica article which indicates that your whistleblower didn't know what he was talking about and had been recently demoted by Tom Karl, the senior scientist his "revelations" attacked:
The whistleblower
Bates recently retired from NOAA after a career working primarily on satellite measurements used for weather forecasting. Recently, he was also in charge of data-archiving efforts for satellite and surface temperature records. Bates alleges that NOAA's Tom Karl and the rest of the team behind the paper failed to adequately follow NOAA’s internal processes for archiving their data and stress-testing the updated databases they used.Bates also questions the way in which some sea surface temperature measurements were adjusted to sync them up with the rest of the measurements, falsely claiming that the technique alters the warming trend.
In a blog post, Maynooth University research Peter Thorne—who worked on both the land and sea databases underlying the Karl paper but not the Karl paper itself—disputed many of Bates’ claims. First off, Thorne notes that Bates was not personally involved in the research at any stage. And while Bates claims that Karl made a series of choices to exaggerate the apparent warming trend, Thorne points out that this would be difficult for Karl to do since he didn’t contribute to the underlying databases. Karl’s paper simply ran those updated databases through the same algorithm NOAA was already using.
Ars talked with Thomas Peterson, a co-author on the Karl paper who has since retired. Peterson provided some useful context for understanding Bates’ allegations. The satellites that Bates worked with were expensive hardware that couldn't be fixed if anything went wrong after they were launched. The engineering of the software running those satellites sensibly involved testing and re-testing and re-testing again to ensure no surprises would pop up once it was too late.
Bates expected the same approach from his surface temperature counterparts, but Peterson explained that their work with weather station data was not nearly so high-stakes—problems could easily be fixed on the fly. The engineering-style process NOAA was using for endlessly double-checking the software for all dataset updates could drag on for quite a long time—years, in fact—and Bates opposed any attempt to speed this up. Peterson and other scientists were naturally anxious to incorporate changes they knew were scientifically important.
Bates alleges that the Karl paper was “rushed” for political reasons, but Peterson said the reality was that NOAA was well behind the times, waiting to include known improvements like additional recording stations in the rapidly warming Arctic. “I had been arguing for years that we were putting out data that did not reflect our understanding of how the temperature was actually warming—[for] literally years we slowed down to try to account for some of these processing things that we had to do,” Peterson said. (At the time of the Karl paper, NOAA’s dataset showed less warming in recent years than other datasets, like NASA’s.)
Bates also claims that there were bugs in the land station database software that were ignored in the Karl paper. But according to Peterson, the slight day-to-day variability seen in the software’s output was simply the result of the fact that new data was added every day. Stations that straddled statistical cut-offs might fall on one side of the dividing line today, and on the other side tomorrow. There was nothing wrong with the software, they realized. It was just silly to re-run it every single day.
There may also be something beyond simple “engineers vs. scientists” tension behind Bates’ decision to go public with his allegations. Two former NOAA staffers confirmed to Ars that Tom Karl essentially demoted John Bates in 2012, when Karl was Director of NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information. Bates had held the title of Supervisory Meteorologist and Chief of the Remote Sensing Applications Division, but Karl removed him from that position partly due to a failure to maintain professionalism with colleagues, assigning him to a position in which he would no longer supervise other staff. It was apparently no secret that the demotion did not sit well with Bates.
Article names “whistleblower” who claims that NOAA manipulated data [Updated]
Allegations in a Daily Mail article seem more office politics than science.
arstechnica.com
An irrelevant opinion of an individual. Ms Klein is not disputing AGW in the slightest. Is English your native tongue?
IPCC stands for Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. We have no idea here who made this statement or where it appeared since you have not provided links for ANYTHING you've brought up here.
I am not lying. If you contend that these comments refute AGW, then it is you who are lying, though I am willing to consider the possibility that you simply speak from pure ignorance.
ReinyDays
Platinum Member
You apparently missed a decade or so. PS: His name is spelled Trenberth
View attachment 687225
Climate change: global temperature
Earth's surface temperature has risen about 2 degrees Fahrenheit since the start of the NOAA record in 1850. It may seem like a small change, but it's a tremendous increase in stored heat.www.climate.gov
This comment is the opinion of an individual about UN policy which rather ignores the fact that the IPCC has no policy-setting authority whatsoever. It has NOTHING to do with the validity of AGW.
View attachment 687229
Did You Know? | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)
A suite of notes that attempt to explain or clarify complex climate phenomena, Climate Monitoring products and methodologies, and climate system insightswww.ncei.noaa.gov
View attachment 687231
The trouble is that while seas have risen eight to nine inches since 1880, more than 30 percent of that increase has occurred during the last two decades: 30 percent of the historical record over the past 14 percent of the time series. This is why rising sea levels are expected with very high confidence to exaggerate coastal exposure and economic consequences [Section 19.6.2.1].Climate Change: Global Sea Level
Global average sea level has risen 8-9 inches since 1880, and the rate is accelerating thanks to glacier and ice sheet melt.
A New Book Manages to Get Climate Science Badly Wrong
In Unsettled, Steven Koonin deploys that highly misleading label to falsely suggest that we don’t understand the risks well enough to take actionwww.scientificamerican.com
So, did you buy Koonin's book or get these from the reviews? Do you happen to have Koonin's definition of the word "minimal"? The IPCC devotes over a thousand pages to what Koonin gives one sentence. From AR6 Summary for Policymakers:
SPM.B.1.1 Widespread, pervasive impacts to ecosystems, people, settlements, and infrastructure have resulted from observed increases in the frequency and intensity of climate and weather extremes, including hot extremes on land and in the ocean, heavy precipitation events, drought and fire weather (high confidence). Increasingly since AR5, these observed impacts have been attributed 28 to human-induced climate change particularly through increased frequency and severity of extreme events. These include increased heatrelated human mortality (medium confidence), warm-water coral bleaching and mortality (high confidence), and increased drought related tree mortality (high confidence). Observed increases in areas burned by wildfires have been attributed to human-induced climate change in some regions (medium to high confidence). Adverse impacts from tropical cyclones, with related losses and damages19, have increased due to sea level rise and the 29 increase in heavy precipitation (medium confidence). Impacts in natural and human systems from slow-onset processes such as ocean acidification, sea level rise or regional decreases in precipitation have also been attributed to human induced climate change (high confidence).
SPM.B.1.2 Climate change has caused substantial damages, and increasingly irreversible losses, in terrestrial, freshwater and coastal and open ocean marine ecosystems (high confidence). The extent and magnitude of climate change impacts are larger than estimated in previous assessments (high confidence). Widespread deterioration of ecosystem structure and function, resilience and natural adaptive capacity, as well as shifts in seasonal timing have occurred due to climate change (high confidence), with adverse socioeconomic consequences (high confidence). Approximately half of the species assessed globally have shifted polewards or, on land, also to higher elevations (very high confidence). Hundreds of local losses of species have been driven by increases in the magnitude of heat extremes (high confidence), as well as mass mortality events on land and in the ocean (very high confidence) and loss of kelp forests (high confidence). Some losses are already irreversible, such as the first species extinctions driven by climate change (medium confidence). Other impacts are approaching irreversibility such as the impacts of hydrological changes resulting from the retreat of glaciers, or the changes in some mountain (medium confidence) and Arctic ecosystems driven by permafrost thaw (high confidence).
First, explain the following without resorting to conspiratorial fantasies:
View attachment 687246
Climate Change - NASA Science
NASA is a global leader in studying Earth’s changing climate.
Then, there is this, illustrating the actual magnitude of the change to which your whistleblower is alerting us:
View attachment 687254
Then, explain this from the same arsTechnica article which indicates that your whistleblower didn't know what he was talking about and had been recently demoted by Tom Karl, the senior scientist his "revelations" attacked:
The whistleblower
Bates recently retired from NOAA after a career working primarily on satellite measurements used for weather forecasting. Recently, he was also in charge of data-archiving efforts for satellite and surface temperature records. Bates alleges that NOAA's Tom Karl and the rest of the team behind the paper failed to adequately follow NOAA’s internal processes for archiving their data and stress-testing the updated databases they used.
Bates also questions the way in which some sea surface temperature measurements were adjusted to sync them up with the rest of the measurements, falsely claiming that the technique alters the warming trend.
In a blog post, Maynooth University research Peter Thorne—who worked on both the land and sea databases underlying the Karl paper but not the Karl paper itself—disputed many of Bates’ claims. First off, Thorne notes that Bates was not personally involved in the research at any stage. And while Bates claims that Karl made a series of choices to exaggerate the apparent warming trend, Thorne points out that this would be difficult for Karl to do since he didn’t contribute to the underlying databases. Karl’s paper simply ran those updated databases through the same algorithm NOAA was already using.
Ars talked with Thomas Peterson, a co-author on the Karl paper who has since retired. Peterson provided some useful context for understanding Bates’ allegations. The satellites that Bates worked with were expensive hardware that couldn't be fixed if anything went wrong after they were launched. The engineering of the software running those satellites sensibly involved testing and re-testing and re-testing again to ensure no surprises would pop up once it was too late.
Bates expected the same approach from his surface temperature counterparts, but Peterson explained that their work with weather station data was not nearly so high-stakes—problems could easily be fixed on the fly. The engineering-style process NOAA was using for endlessly double-checking the software for all dataset updates could drag on for quite a long time—years, in fact—and Bates opposed any attempt to speed this up. Peterson and other scientists were naturally anxious to incorporate changes they knew were scientifically important.
Bates alleges that the Karl paper was “rushed” for political reasons, but Peterson said the reality was that NOAA was well behind the times, waiting to include known improvements like additional recording stations in the rapidly warming Arctic. “I had been arguing for years that we were putting out data that did not reflect our understanding of how the temperature was actually warming—[for] literally years we slowed down to try to account for some of these processing things that we had to do,” Peterson said. (At the time of the Karl paper, NOAA’s dataset showed less warming in recent years than other datasets, like NASA’s.)
Bates also claims that there were bugs in the land station database software that were ignored in the Karl paper. But according to Peterson, the slight day-to-day variability seen in the software’s output was simply the result of the fact that new data was added every day. Stations that straddled statistical cut-offs might fall on one side of the dividing line today, and on the other side tomorrow. There was nothing wrong with the software, they realized. It was just silly to re-run it every single day.
There may also be something beyond simple “engineers vs. scientists” tension behind Bates’ decision to go public with his allegations. Two former NOAA staffers confirmed to Ars that Tom Karl essentially demoted John Bates in 2012, when Karl was Director of NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information. Bates had held the title of Supervisory Meteorologist and Chief of the Remote Sensing Applications Division, but Karl removed him from that position partly due to a failure to maintain professionalism with colleagues, assigning him to a position in which he would no longer supervise other staff. It was apparently no secret that the demotion did not sit well with Bates.
Article names “whistleblower” who claims that NOAA manipulated data [Updated]
Allegations in a Daily Mail article seem more office politics than science.
An irrelevant opinion of an individual. Ms Klein is not disputing AGW in the slightest. Is English your native tongue?
IPCC stands for Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. We have no idea here who made this statement or where it appeared since you have not provided links for ANYTHING you've brought up here.
I am not lying. If you contend that these comments refute AGW, then it is you who are lying, though I am willing to consider the possibility that you simply speak from pure ignorance.
The shear length of this post speaks to your lying tongue ...
What is the numerical relationship between carbon dioxide concentrations and temperature? ...
mamooth
Diamond Member
So tell us you're a brainwashed cultist without saying it out loud. Do that by getting triggered hard by any facts and data which debunk TheParty's wildly dishonest propaganda. Like you just did there.
EMERGENCY! DEFLECT! DEFLECT! DEFLECT!
Just what did that have to do with the topic of your propaganda getting debunked? I mean, we can give you an answer to your question. Anyone minimally informed on the topic knows it. Why are you so uninformed, and why did you choose that particular deflection?
How can the feedback from the GHG effect from CO2 be 2 to 3 times greater than the GHG effect of CO2 itself?
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
It's magic.
mamooth
Diamond Member
Are you aware of recycling refrigerant gases and the ozone?
Lol. True. Nobody reads Ayn Rand after high school.
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
Higher CO2 causes more water vapor which makes it warmer and causes more water vapor?
We're doomed!!!
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
Nobody reads Marx.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
-
US Marine Kicked Out of US Senate Hearing Yelling "No One Wants to Fight for Israel!"- Started by munkle
- Replies: 4
-
Are you good with Trump the fascist Nazi dictator totalitarian as long as all of his actions benefit America as a whole?- Started by BrokeLoser
- Replies: 26
