Top Scientists: "Warming Exagerated"

[skookerasbil]

“The data doesn't matter. We're not basing our recommendations
on the data. We're basing them on the climate models.”

- Prof. Chris Folland,
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research

 

[PMZ]

“The data doesn't matter. We're not basing our recommendations
on the data. We're basing them on the climate models.”

- Prof. Chris Folland,
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research

Data are merely numbers. They have to be assembled into a competent picture of reality in order to have meaning.

Of course denialists have no data, no models, no analytic capabilities so can only talk about what they wish was true.

 

[itfitzme]

I think that the graph that you posted would fool people who believe that surface temperature is the only indicator of global energy balance.

It also shows the actual temperature rise to be within the range of expectation.

Bullshit --- the fuel that AGW supporters run on --- is based not on the 2 or 3 outlier models that you claim made the call on temps.. Rather it is ALL BASED on the hysteria of looking at the WORST CASE projections. THOSE are what made your cult front page news.

Bullshit.. You are the one that catastrophizes and exagerates. It is why you are unable to accurately and precisely judge reality and thr science that describes it.

 

[itfitzme]

Bullshit --- the fuel that AGW supporters run on --- is based not on the 2 or 3 outlier models that you claim made the call on temps.. Rather it is ALL BASED on the hysteria of looking at the WORST CASE projections. THOSE are what made your cult front page news.

I'll be that you wish everyday that the denier cult had some supporting science.

Not a chance of that happening though.

In this biz --- you CAN reject a theory without offering an alternative.. THat's how it works.
You don't need to solve the problem to show MAJOR ERRORS and FAULTS in a proposed solution..

Looks like -- from the news above --- you've been scammed...

You want better climate science?? Drop the pre-conceived notions about the cause and start THINKING about the problem and the data.. Change the IPCC mission statement to analyzing climate change WITHOUT restricting the scope to those causes due SOLELY TO MAN...

Obviously, YOU can reject science without ever understanding it.

This here,, "Change the IPCC mission statement to analyzing climate change WITHOUT restricting the scope to those causes due SOLELY TO MAN..."

is, by far, the stupidest thing you have ever said. It demonstrates, clearly, your inability to grasp objective science and your indemic investment in emotional thinking.

The IPCC mission statement has absolutely nothing to do with the outcome of the science. You are an idiot.

 

[itfitzme]

“The data doesn't matter. We're not basing our recommendations
on the data. We're basing them on the climate models.”

- Prof. Chris Folland,
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research

What is the context? When and where was the statement made? Got a link?

My observation is that the denialists repeatedly make things up. I saw this just the other day, on this forum.

If the statement had real meaning, the meaning you wish to imply, the the entire context would be presented and it would make the point explicitly.

Science doesn't make implications, it presents things explicitly. So all you are doing is demonstrating a lack of understanding of objective evidence.

 

[flacaltenn]

I'll be that you wish everyday that the denier cult had some supporting science.

Not a chance of that happening though.

In this biz --- you CAN reject a theory without offering an alternative.. THat's how it works.
You don't need to solve the problem to show MAJOR ERRORS and FAULTS in a proposed solution..

Looks like -- from the news above --- you've been scammed...

You want better climate science?? Drop the pre-conceived notions about the cause and start THINKING about the problem and the data.. Change the IPCC mission statement to analyzing climate change WITHOUT restricting the scope to those causes due SOLELY TO MAN...

Obviously, YOU can reject science without ever understanding it.

This here,, "Change the IPCC mission statement to analyzing climate change WITHOUT restricting the scope to those causes due SOLELY TO MAN..."

is, by far, the stupidest thing you have ever said. It demonstrates, clearly, your inability to grasp objective science and your indemic investment in emotional thinking.

The IPCC mission statement has absolutely nothing to do with the outcome of the science. You are an idiot.

There is so much you don't know or won't learn... You really shouldn't be attacking me --- you should be protecting your OWN credibility..

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf

PRINCIPLES GOVERNING IPCC WORK
Approved at the Fourteenth Session (Vienna, 1-3 October 1998) on 1 October 1998, amended at the Twenty-First Session (Vienna, 3 and 6-7 November 2003), the Twenty-Fifth Session (Mauritius, 26-28 April 2006) and the Thirty-Fifth Session (Geneva, 6-9 June 2012)

ROLE
2. The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.

Why don't you go mix it up with the folks in the Hobbies or Pet forums for awhile.. Until you can DISCUSS without attacking and making such a fool of yourself....

 

[bripat9643]

In this biz --- you CAN reject a theory without offering an alternative.. THat's how it works.
You don't need to solve the problem to show MAJOR ERRORS and FAULTS in a proposed solution..

Looks like -- from the news above --- you've been scammed...

You want better climate science?? Drop the pre-conceived notions about the cause and start THINKING about the problem and the data.. Change the IPCC mission statement to analyzing climate change WITHOUT restricting the scope to those causes due SOLELY TO MAN...

Obviously, YOU can reject science without ever understanding it.

This here,, "Change the IPCC mission statement to analyzing climate change WITHOUT restricting the scope to those causes due SOLELY TO MAN..."

is, by far, the stupidest thing you have ever said. It demonstrates, clearly, your inability to grasp objective science and your indemic investment in emotional thinking.

The IPCC mission statement has absolutely nothing to do with the outcome of the science. You are an idiot.

There is so much you don't know or won't learn... You really shouldn't be attacking me --- you should be protecting your OWN credibility..

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf

PRINCIPLES GOVERNING IPCC WORK
Approved at the Fourteenth Session (Vienna, 1-3 October 1998) on 1 October 1998, amended at the Twenty-First Session (Vienna, 3 and 6-7 November 2003), the Twenty-Fifth Session (Mauritius, 26-28 April 2006) and the Thirty-Fifth Session (Geneva, 6-9 June 2012)

ROLE
2. The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.

Why don't you go mix it up with the folks in the Hobbies or Pet forums for awhile.. Until you can DISCUSS without attacking and making such a fool of yourself....

IdiotMe said something wrong? According to his own standards, that means he's a liar, a pathological liar, a sociopath and a mentally unbalanced scientific ignoramus.

 

[flacaltenn]

Obviously, YOU can reject science without ever understanding it.

This here,, "Change the IPCC mission statement to analyzing climate change WITHOUT restricting the scope to those causes due SOLELY TO MAN..."

is, by far, the stupidest thing you have ever said. It demonstrates, clearly, your inability to grasp objective science and your indemic investment in emotional thinking.

The IPCC mission statement has absolutely nothing to do with the outcome of the science. You are an idiot.

There is so much you don't know or won't learn... You really shouldn't be attacking me --- you should be protecting your OWN credibility..

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf

PRINCIPLES GOVERNING IPCC WORK
Approved at the Fourteenth Session (Vienna, 1-3 October 1998) on 1 October 1998, amended at the Twenty-First Session (Vienna, 3 and 6-7 November 2003), the Twenty-Fifth Session (Mauritius, 26-28 April 2006) and the Thirty-Fifth Session (Geneva, 6-9 June 2012)

ROLE
2. The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.

Why don't you go mix it up with the folks in the Hobbies or Pet forums for awhile.. Until you can DISCUSS without attacking and making such a fool of yourself....

IdiotMe said something wrong? According to his own standards, that means he's a liar, a pathological liar, a sociopath and a mentally unbalanced scientific ignoramus.

I say its likely TWO of those...

 

[itfitzme]

Knee jerk reactionism = global waming alarmist. See Al Gore.

Typical knee jerkwad reaction to the inconvenient truth.

I don't want it to be true.

Parents call that whining. Go ask yours.

True scientific reality seems to be getting in the way of you and Al's alarmist "truth". Enjoy life riding your unicorns on glitter island.

So, where is that accredited university science education of yours from?

Here, prove it.. What is the second derivative of y = (x^3+1)^(-1/3) ?

Show your work.

 

[itfitzme]

Anybody left on this thread that CONTINUES to ignore this part of the OP ????

Read more:

World's top climate scientists confess: Global warming is just QUARTER what we thought - and computers got the effects of greenhouse gases wrong | Mail Online

ml#ixzz2fOeKD6UW

One of the (IPCC) report’s own authors, Professor Myles Allen, the director of Oxford University’s Climate Research Network, last night said this should be the last IPCC assessment – accusing its cumbersome production process of ‘misrepresenting how science works’.

Prof Allen said: ‘The idea of producing a document of near-biblical infallibility
is a misrepresentation of how science works, and we need to look very carefully
about what the IPCC does in future

He's essentially saying that IPCC cannot continue with it's present tactics and be faithful to scientific methods. Most rational folks (excludes PMZ) should realize how bad the self-inflicted wounds at the IPCC are.

They should be put on 24hr suicide watch.. (Or maybe 22hr watch and given a rope )

It doesn't begin to say what you want it to say. And it has no bearing on the science or AWG, just on the report.

A nice report cover doesn't make it better or worse, except in your mind.

 

[itfitzme]

Not really. We have liberals who cry over the eating of livestock and think nothing of murdering an unborn child because it would inconvenience them.

Walk into an abortion clinic and tell us how the people there think nothing of what they're doing. Tell us about George W Bush's moral superiority. He opposed abortions and stem cell research but didn't seem to mind murdering 100,000 innocent Iraqis. Can we generalize that sort of ethos to all conservatives? No? Hmmm...

Demonizing your opponents is such a handy technique, isn't it. No need to discuss actual questions and issues. Just convince us that your opponent is an inhuman beast.

I love the way the same people who accuse George Bush of "murdering" Iraqis want to bomb the crap out of Syria and thereby kill thousands of civilians. They also defended bombing Libya and killing thousands of Libyan civilians.

Show these "same people". You mean like the 9/11 commission report authors? Name these people.

You can't because they don't exists and your deluded by lack of accurate and precise thinking, living in a touch feeling land of fuzzy "I don't like it" mentality.

 

[itfitzme]

Not really. We have liberals who cry over the eating of livestock and think nothing of murdering an unborn child because it would inconvenience them.

I figure that if God didn't want us to eat livestock he wouldn't have made them out of meat.

Well, that's a no-brainer......which leaves a lot of vegan liberals out.

Like these guys?

Christian vegetarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

or these?

Vegan Conservatives


A nice example of how you make up shit.

 

[itfitzme]

In this biz --- you CAN reject a theory without offering an alternative.. THat's how it works.
You don't need to solve the problem to show MAJOR ERRORS and FAULTS in a proposed solution..

Looks like -- from the news above --- you've been scammed...

You want better climate science?? Drop the pre-conceived notions about the cause and start THINKING about the problem and the data.. Change the IPCC mission statement to analyzing climate change WITHOUT restricting the scope to those causes due SOLELY TO MAN...

Obviously, YOU can reject science without ever understanding it.

This here,, "Change the IPCC mission statement to analyzing climate change WITHOUT restricting the scope to those causes due SOLELY TO MAN..."

is, by far, the stupidest thing you have ever said. It demonstrates, clearly, your inability to grasp objective science and your indemic investment in emotional thinking.

The IPCC mission statement has absolutely nothing to do with the outcome of the science. You are an idiot.

There is so much you don't know or won't learn... You really shouldn't be attacking me --- you should be protecting your OWN credibility..

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf

PRINCIPLES GOVERNING IPCC WORK
Approved at the Fourteenth Session (Vienna, 1-3 October 1998) on 1 October 1998, amended at the Twenty-First Session (Vienna, 3 and 6-7 November 2003), the Twenty-Fifth Session (Mauritius, 26-28 April 2006) and the Thirty-Fifth Session (Geneva, 6-9 June 2012)

ROLE
2. The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.

Why don't you go mix it up with the folks in the Hobbies or Pet forums for awhile.. Until you can DISCUSS without attacking and making such a fool of yourself....

Yeah, so? It wasn't commissioned to develop normal weather patterns or the effect of hormones on the growth of cattle?

A mission statement clarifies the focus of the group for all people involved.

It doesn't mean what you want it to mean. It means that the IPCC was convened for the purpose of what the mission statement says.

It doesn't say that they don't consider normal weather and climate. It just means they are only concerned with the effects of hormones on the growth of cattle IF it has a direct impact on their primary mission.

You obviously haven't worked with large groups. Indeed, I highly doubt you have ever worked in a group setting.

 

[itfitzme]

Obviously, YOU can reject science without ever understanding it.

This here,, "Change the IPCC mission statement to analyzing climate change WITHOUT restricting the scope to those causes due SOLELY TO MAN..."

is, by far, the stupidest thing you have ever said. It demonstrates, clearly, your inability to grasp objective science and your indemic investment in emotional thinking.

The IPCC mission statement has absolutely nothing to do with the outcome of the science. You are an idiot.

There is so much you don't know or won't learn... You really shouldn't be attacking me --- you should be protecting your OWN credibility..

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf

PRINCIPLES GOVERNING IPCC WORK
Approved at the Fourteenth Session (Vienna, 1-3 October 1998) on 1 October 1998, amended at the Twenty-First Session (Vienna, 3 and 6-7 November 2003), the Twenty-Fifth Session (Mauritius, 26-28 April 2006) and the Thirty-Fifth Session (Geneva, 6-9 June 2012)

ROLE
2. The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.

Why don't you go mix it up with the folks in the Hobbies or Pet forums for awhile.. Until you can DISCUSS without attacking and making such a fool of yourself....

IdiotMe said something wrong? According to his own standards, that means he's a liar, a pathological liar, a sociopath and a mentally unbalanced scientific ignoramus.

No, the standards that apply to me and others with a scientific university education who are capable of actual thinking, rather than emotional reasoning, is quite different than the standards that you apply and therefore apply to yourself. To begin with, I don't lie or misrepresent information. I don't put up a map of the Northern Elephant Seal as being representative of all elephant seals, especially knowing that the Southern Elephant Seal is the one used for temp measures.

Your just a desperate moron that misrepresents information so that you can "win at all costs" instead of seeking the actual science.

But, by all means, show how much science you know explaining what "degrees of freedom" means in evaluating scientific data.

Oh, yeah, you can't... your not capable of getting past "doo doo head". You basically are just jerking yourself off.

 

[itfitzme]

notice the climate crusaders steer waaaaaaay clear of this thread. Happens all the time.....they want stuff like this to fall away from the face page of the forum asap.


gay

Well, appears that this isn't true. Skookerasbil must be gay.

 

[PMZ]

There is so much you don't know or won't learn... You really shouldn't be attacking me --- you should be protecting your OWN credibility..



Why don't you go mix it up with the folks in the Hobbies or Pet forums for awhile.. Until you can DISCUSS without attacking and making such a fool of yourself....

IdiotMe said something wrong? According to his own standards, that means he's a liar, a pathological liar, a sociopath and a mentally unbalanced scientific ignoramus.

No, the standards that apply to me and others with a scientific university education who are capable of actual thinking, rather than emotional reasoning, is quite different than the standards that you apply and therefore apply to yourself. To begin with, I don't lie or misrepresent information. I don't put up a map of the Northern Elephant Seal as being representative of all elephant seals, especially knowing that the Southern Elephant Seal is the one used for temp measures.

Your just a desperate moron that misrepresents information so that you can "win at all costs" instead of seeking the actual science.

But, by all means, show how much science you know explaining what "degrees of freedom" means in evaluating scientific data.

Oh, yeah, you can't... your not capable of getting past "doo doo head". You basically are just jerking yourself off.

Win at all costs is the credo of all politics. Liberal politicians interpret that as govern as best you can. Conservatives, who basically are anarchists don't limit themselves in any way.

At all costs means just that.

 

[itfitzme]

So, here is the latest from the IPCC

Scientists more convinced mankind is main cause of warming | Reuters

Leading climate scientists said on Friday they were more convinced than ever that humans are the main culprits for global warming, and predicted the impact from greenhouse gas emissions could linger for centuries.

Explaining a recent slower pace of warming, the report said the past 15-year period was skewed by the fact that 1998 was an extremely warm year with an El Nino event - a warming of the ocean surface - in the Pacific.

It said warming had slowed "in roughly equal measure" because of random variations in the climate and the impact of factors such as volcanic eruptions, when ash dims sunshine, and a cyclical decline in the sun's output.

Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the IPCC, told Reuters the reduction in warming would have to last far longer - "three or four decades" - to be a sign of a new trend.

And the report predicted that the reduction in warming would not last, saying temperatures from 2016-35 were likely to be 0.3-0.7 degree Celsius (0.5 to 1.3 Fahrenheit) warmer than in 1986-2005.

Still, the report said the climate was slightly less sensitive than estimated to warming from carbon dioxide.

A doubling of carbon in the atmosphere would raise temperatures by between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 to 8.1F), it said, below the 2-4.5 (3.6-8.1F) range in the 2007 report. The new range is identical to the ranges in IPCC studies before 2007.

The report said temperatures were likely to rise by between 0.3 and 4.8 degrees Celsius (0.5 to 8.6 Fahrenheit) by the late 21st century. The low end of the range would only be achieved if governments sharply cut greenhouse gas emissions

 

[itfitzme]

Our obsession with cows is causing almost 10% of global warming emissions ? Quartz

The livestock industry is responsible for roughly 15% of global carbon emissions, according to a new climate change report released today (pdf) by the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)."

That sucks

And, I will hazard to guess that if we switched from beef to chicken, chicken would just go up and we would improve nothing.

The Mathusian Catastrophy was common as society expanded into uninhabited regions. Having expanded into the whole earth's climate, there isn't anywhere else to go.

 

[bripat9643]

IdiotMe said something wrong? According to his own standards, that means he's a liar, a pathological liar, a sociopath and a mentally unbalanced scientific ignoramus.

No, the standards that apply to me and others with a scientific university education who are capable of actual thinking, rather than emotional reasoning, is quite different than the standards that you apply and therefore apply to yourself. To begin with, I don't lie or misrepresent information. I don't put up a map of the Northern Elephant Seal as being representative of all elephant seals, especially knowing that the Southern Elephant Seal is the one used for temp measures.

Your just a desperate moron that misrepresents information so that you can "win at all costs" instead of seeking the actual science.

But, by all means, show how much science you know explaining what "degrees of freedom" means in evaluating scientific data.

Oh, yeah, you can't... your not capable of getting past "doo doo head". You basically are just jerking yourself off.

Win at all costs is the credo of all politics.

The IPCC is a political organization, so that doesn't make your case look very convincing.

Liberal politicians interpret that as govern as best you can. Conservatives, who basically are anarchists don't limit themselves in any way.

At all costs means just that.

What utter tripe. As your hero IdiotMe likes to say, stick your head in doo-doo. That's all you've said.

 

[bripat9643]

Our obsession with cows is causing almost 10% of global warming emissions ? Quartz

The livestock industry is responsible for roughly 15% of global carbon emissions, according to a new climate change report released today (pdf) by the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)."

That sucks

And, I will hazard to guess that if we switched from beef to chicken, chicken would just go up and we would improve nothing.

The Mathusian Catastrophy was common as society expanded into uninhabited regions. Having expanded into the whole earth's climate, there isn't anywhere else to go.

Hey, that's really really interesting, idiot - possibly even cute. But, where is the data for Trenberth's magical ocean energy graph? Until you produce that, his claims about the ocean swallowing the warming are just so much horseshit.