What is the IPCC

[skookerasbil]

peer reviewed...............

Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis - Forbes


fAiL

 

[mamooth]

And Skook takes his attempts at fraud to new heights, by citing a survey of Alberta Petroleum Geologists and pretending it represents actual scientists.

Skook, since you got caught lying so brazenly here, why shouldn't everyone assume everything you say is a lie? The answer is "they should assume it, and will". That is, unless you now apologize to everyone for lying to them.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

IPCC openly admitted global warming has nothing to do with science but is about wealth redistribution

No, they did not. One of the thousands of individuals who work and volunteer for the IPCC expressed a personal opinion whose meaning, import and authority you and yours have chosen to grossly misinterpret. It has as much merit as would my giving the IPCC responsibility for the ignorant polemics of 'Lord' Monckton.

LIAR!

 

[jc456]

I'd like to point out that scientists - almost every man jack of them - were convinced that AGW was a valid theory and that we should be worried about anthropogenic warming, before any of these adjustments were ever made. AGW does not rely on those adjustments. Did you think that it did?

And then we have reality...

Where the rise in temp from 1900-1950 was just 0.51 deg C, stated as natural variation by the IPCC AR1, and the rise from 1951 through 2000 was just 0.50 deg C, stated as purely man made rise by the IPCC as well. Devoid of the fact that they some how stopped natural variation and allowed only man to cause the second rise. Pure fools fantasy...

Then to top it all off the last 18 years 5 months of ZERO trend despite the continued rise in CO2 showing it totally independent of any causation. Disproving CO2 drives anything...

Except for empirical evidence, the IPCC would have their fantasy land... Gia has shown them liars.. all by herself..

ding, ding, ding, ................................ding, ding, ding

 

[CrusaderFrank]

peer reviewed...............

Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis - Forbes


fAiL

Crick

 

[jc456]

And Skook takes his attempts at fraud to new heights, by citing a survey of Alberta Petroleum Geologists and pretending it represents actual scientists.

Skook, since you got caught lying so brazenly here, why shouldn't everyone assume everything you say is a lie? The answer is "they should assume it, and will". That is, unless you now apologize to everyone for lying to them.

everyone? really, everyone? you do that most all the time son/girl.

 

[jc456]

I'd like to point out that scientists - almost every man jack of them - were convinced that AGW was a valid theory and that we should be worried about anthropogenic warming, before any of these adjustments were ever made. AGW does not rely on those adjustments. Did you think that it did?

There's your main problem BullWinkle with this 4 thread campaign to resurrect the never existing credibility of the IPCC. You don't understand why these folks would alter data that didn't fit their preconceived notions. You just SAID there WERE preconceived notions didn't you? Well its vitally important to REDUCE past historical temperatures so that you make constant media claims about UNPRECEDENTED temps -- isn't it?

In terms of THIS OP -- it's a total fail. Because you failed to read and comprehend the most important statement of "What the IPCC is".. It's their Mission Statement stupid..

IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

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.

NOT to present unbiased climate science, NOT to investigate alternative views and explanations, but to look at information RELEVENT to HUMAN INDUCED climate change. It's a political body that reviews and writes the conclusions. And they SELECT those scientists who will pervert their work enough to comply with their Mission Statement.

and then they have this beauty in that document:

"IPCC reports undergo multiple rounds of drafting and review to ensure they are comprehensive and
objective and produced in an open and transparent way. Thousands of other experts contribute to
the reports by acting as reviewers, ensuring the reports reflect the full range of views in the scientific
community. Teams of Review Editors provide a thorough monitoring mechanism for making sure
that review comments are addressed. (For more details see IPCC Factsheet – How does the IPCC
select its authors? and IPCC Factsheet – How does the IPCC review process work?)."


how can it be open and transparent if it doesn't look at the entire picture? Isn't that closed and focused? I'm just saying, someone has been visiting the bad lands too frequently.

 

[flacaltenn]

I'd like to point out that scientists - almost every man jack of them - were convinced that AGW was a valid theory and that we should be worried about anthropogenic warming, before any of these adjustments were ever made. AGW does not rely on those adjustments. Did you think that it did?

Let's try this again Bullwinkle. YOU SAID in the quote right above that "every man jack of them- were convinced ... of AGW... BEFORE they doctored any data. Is that not a preconcieved notion? Just like the main IPCC Mission Statement that they are only interested in information "relevent to Human Caused Climate Change"..???

And YES.. I DO DECLARE that AGW depends on those adjustments to way past gone historical temperature records. And if you could read and understand the simple graphs you post -- MAYBE you could too.

When that happens, we'll discuss pet names. But in the meantime, the dissonance of equating you with the name of a renown scientist is far too much for me to handle.

Well, Flatass, maybe you should talk to some glacialogists about what they have been seeing since the turn of the last century.

Now one of the major predictions of the climate change driven by global warming is that the weather swings will be wider and wilder. So, this year, here in the US, as well as other nations, we are certainly seeing that in spades. The Southeast gets a very cold winter, and, here in the West, we get a record warm winter, with almost no snow. Texas is finally getting rain, and how. I do believe that this summer is going to get real interesting.

Those that are on the IPCC panel are simply compiling what all the scientists around the world have been seeing.

Thanks for weather report GoldiRocks. You are very much out on your own limb there. No science up there with you. Someone or something has frightened the cajones right off of you.. "seeing" things where they don't exist is the hallmark of every conspiracy nutjob.

 

[jc456]

I'd like to point out that scientists - almost every man jack of them - were convinced that AGW was a valid theory and that we should be worried about anthropogenic warming, before any of these adjustments were ever made. AGW does not rely on those adjustments. Did you think that it did?

Let's try this again Bullwinkle. YOU SAID in the quote right above that "every man jack of them- were convinced ... of AGW... BEFORE they doctored any data. Is that not a preconcieved notion? Just like the main IPCC Mission Statement that they are only interested in information "relevent to Human Caused Climate Change"..???

And YES.. I DO DECLARE that AGW depends on those adjustments to way past gone historical temperature records. And if you could read and understand the simple graphs you post -- MAYBE you could too.

When that happens, we'll discuss pet names. But in the meantime, the dissonance of equating you with the name of a renown scientist is far too much for me to handle.

Well, Flatass, maybe you should talk to some glacialogists about what they have been seeing since the turn of the last century.

Now one of the major predictions of the climate change driven by global warming is that the weather swings will be wider and wilder. So, this year, here in the US, as well as other nations, we are certainly seeing that in spades. The Southeast gets a very cold winter, and, here in the West, we get a record warm winter, with almost no snow. Texas is finally getting rain, and how. I do believe that this summer is going to get real interesting.

Those that are on the IPCC panel are simply compiling what all the scientists around the world have been seeing.

what is the panel made up of?

 

[flacaltenn]

Mammoth:

Do you even know what the subject is?

As I recall, it was about you trying to apply your Systems knowledge to climate, and failing at it. Which was expected, being engineer's arrogance syndrome always leads to failure.

Or is this just a spin the wheel response? No. The observations I have made about the complex response of the climate being modeled by conventional System Analysis methods can't crash. In fact, in the past couple years, MOST of what I was saying has been picked up as the excuses coming from your beleagured heroes to explain why their models and dire predictions are the actual "crash" dummies.

Ooh, megalomania. Your system can't fail. It's just can't.

More and more papers on heat storage and lags and variable inter-dependencies for feedback conditions in the Climate system. And how the expectation that temperature rise would look exactly like the intitiating stimuli is (and always was) a juvenile expectation...

You're beyond useless as a foil.. And you do nothing but damage to your cause..

You told us climate was acting like a step-response to a solar step-input from 30 or so years ago. Since the temperature curve isn't even remotely looking like it's asymptotic to a new equilibrium temperature, your theory was obviously wrong. Do you have a new theory to replace your failed theory yet?

Book learning will never fail you.. But with a memory as bad as yours, that would be a waste of time. Please don't misquote me.

What makes you think the "pause" IS NOT a new temporary thermal equilibrium? Never said to expect a "step response".. That's just your lack of refined learning. A step function INPUT however -- is generally used to investigate unknown stability of a linear system or to verify the modeling. I did not attempt to model the climate, but instead made inferences on its' behaviour given what we know about it's complexity, storage, and delays.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Remember when the AGWCult predicted the flooding in TX and OK? Yeah, me neither

 

[flacaltenn]

What ever happened to the OP topic here?
I mean the defense of the objectivity and innocence of the IPCC?

Are we done with that?

 

[flacaltenn]

Remember when the AGWCult predicted the flooding in TX and OK? Yeah, me neither

OldieRocks predicted it. He's also projecting a prolonged drought for the Houston area today.

 

[mamooth]

Me, from April 23.

Predictions Page 7 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

And soggy conditions move in on the Gulf coast, another El Nino effect.

Frank, thanks for letting me brag about that.

So Frank, can you give us your predictions now? Or are you too chicken for that?

 

[mamooth]

Are we done with that?

Probably. Given the lack of any intelligent rebuttal to Crick, I think we're all in agreement that he proved his point.

 

[jc456]

[Are we done with that?

Probably. Given the lack of any intelligent rebuttal to Crick, I think we're all in agreement that he proved his point.

right, that there wasn't one.

 

[mamooth]

What makes you think the "pause" IS NOT a new temporary thermal equilibrium?

There never was a pause. Hence, there was obviously no thermal equilibrium.

Never said to expect a "step response".. That's just your lack of refined learning. A step function INPUT however -- is generally used to investigate unknown stability of a linear system or to verify the modeling. I did not attempt to model the climate, but instead made inferences on its' behaviour given what we know about it's complexity, storage, and delays.

And the useful results of all that have been ... what? Predicting a thermal equilibrium that clearly didn't happen?

 

[jc456]

What makes you think the "pause" IS NOT a new temporary thermal equilibrium?

There never was a pause. Hence, there was obviously no thermal equilibrium.

Never said to expect a "step response".. That's just your lack of refined learning. A step function INPUT however -- is generally used to investigate unknown stability of a linear system or to verify the modeling. I did not attempt to model the climate, but instead made inferences on its' behaviour given what we know about it's complexity, storage, and delays.

And the useful results of all that have been ... what? Predicting a thermal equilibrium that clearly didn't happen?

never a pause? hahahahaahhahaha it's still ongoing, you should roll over and wake up dude/dudette. You aren't in 2015 yet. you're still in the 1990s. right friend?

 

[Crick]

I've never seen you understand a single graph you've ever presented.
Even those you've used a zillion times.

Funny, that's precisely what I'd say about you were I inclined to be that rude.

The SIGNIFICANCE of that graph to the CC argument is NOT that spike at the right side --- It's the ABSENCE of spikes in the previous 1000 yrs and the choice not to present data earlier than that.

I truly believe that you folks (you deniers) have milked the weak MWP in MBH 98 for about all you're ever going to get out of it. The significance of MY USE of that graph - which, last time I checked, was mine to set - IS that large, steep spike at the right end and the date at which those data were plotted. My point was to illustrate that anthropogenic global warming was not dependent on recent adjustments. Why you didn't understand that point - why you let your ignorance in that regard; of what precisely was being discussed in this thread, allow you to reply in an off topic manner - is your issue to explain.

 

[Crick]

The scandal of fiddled global warming data - Telegraph
http:http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterfe...acier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html

Its amazing to see what a little homogenization, break point alignment and data point manipulations will do for the historical record..

Particularly from objective, scientifically literate sources like Forbes. Why don't you skip the self-delusion and go straight to Fox News?

BTW, the only argument I ever see that these adjustments must be unjustified and deceitful, is that - at least as far as your comments about them go - they all seem to move the data in the same direction. I've yet to see ANY evidence that tells me that's not precisely where it needed to go.