What is the IPCC

[CrusaderFrank]

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?

AGW is a theory that has been proven false. That occurred about 15 years ago. Since that time the proponents have resorted to wholesale data falsification in a effort to prop up their now fraudulent work.

Climatology was a legit branch of science till then, now it is discredited by all except those who are poised to benefit from the greatest fraud in human history.

So, you believe the vast majority of the world's scientists are either liars or idiots. Which is it?

You keep lying about the 97%

 

[Crick]

I'm done "showing" you stuff.

Of course you are; because you never had anything to show me in the first place. If you actually had anything significant to put forth, it would be a peer reviewed paper or at least a white paper or signed response by qualified individuals. But you've never had such things. You've given us your own personal arguments. You've quoted denier blogs. You've attacked the names you were told to attack. If you actually had valid support for your arguments, you could identify them in a good deal less space than this disclaimer - a disclaimer I've seen more of from you than anything resembling real support.

Because you CHOOSE to ignore everything that doesn't support your preconceived notions.

It's a sad truth that, to varying degrees, everyone pays less attention to conflicting information than they do to affirming information. You and yours certainly are in no position to claim immunity from such habits. However, I - and others like me - have an advantage. Since I base my opinion on the majority opinion of the experts in this field, the viewpoints I adopt have survived - or are the product of - thousands and thousand of opportunities to objectively examine such conflicting information. Were I applying only my own feeble intellect to this issue, there would exist a far greater chance that those innate biases would prevent me from seeing all sides of the picture, from seeing the mistakes I may have made or the crucial points I had overlooked. Take your opinion for instance. It's never been widely held among climate scientists, has it. It's based almost entirely on your own thinking, isn't it. Who is it, then, that has prevented you from making this particular, commonplace mistake?

Much like you ignore the preconcieved Mission Statement of the IPCC which I've told you about NUMEROUS times.

I'm beginning to wonder about you. I haven't been here for a month and you hadn't been in this forum for a great deal further back than that. When and where are you claiming to have told me your theories regarding the IPCC mission statement? For that matter, where on Earth did you ever get the idea that anyone would be impressed with such fantasies? The IPCC was formed to investiage human-caused global warming. There is no conspiracy. There is no more innate bias in this than exists in the investigation of ANY hypothesis.

And 2 weeks from now you will pretend you've never about it.

There'll be no pretending. Two weeks from now I will still hold, correctly, that your point is meaningless drivel.

Same deal with the hockey stick graphs. I've repeatedly given you the words of climatologists who have been involved in their making. Words that acknowledge there is insufficient temporal resolution in a Global proxy study to even begin to see 100 or 200 year events. Never mind 50 or 60 year events like our current observations.

Really? You and I have some interestingly divergent recollections. The only place I recall discussing temporal resolution with anyone on this forum (and not actually with you) is in the Holocene work of Shakun and Marcott. Temporal resolution has never been an issue with MBH 98 or any of its descendants and Jeremy Shakun and Shaun Marcott did not produce hockey stick graphs. Just so you avoid such embarrassing mistakes in the future, though, the span of a dataset does not control its temporal resolution. MBH 98's proxy data has far better resolution than 100 to 200 years and the 20th century spike in that graph is instrument data, not proxies.

Nonetheless -- you CONTINUE to post them and pretend to have never heard such criticisms.

You're almost funny. I continue to post them because you have consistently failed to create in me the slightest doubt as to their validity; by ANY of the arguments you have ever presented.

My take is that you've heard them, but since you have so much trouble with really simple charts and data -- you just don't understand any of it.

Of course I've heard them. At least the ones you actually made and that I actually read. For the last 32 years I have been collecting data - hundreds of thousands of records per event, performing calculations with the collected data, performing statistical analyses on those results, assembling the data (in graphic and tabular formats) and my comments into reports and publishing it to appropriate government agencies and naval commands. What have you been doing? Sitting in front of your computer arguing with the other retirees?

Those hockeysticks are a literal "cut and paste" construct designed to get stupid folks to infer that the current warming data is "unprecendented".

The current warming rate is unprecedented in human history. The current CO2 spike is unprecedented in millions of years. We're not the ones being stupid.

One of your favorite words --- aint it Bullwinkle? There's only one thing unprecedented about this.. And that's the amount of time you've wasted throwing a juvenile hissyfit and making no real points or progress with your cause.

Ah... I should have read ahead. I didn't realize you were talking to someone else.

Tell me in your own words how a math process with a time resolution of several hundred years shows an accurate representation of a 50 yr spike at its right side. And what that sucky cumulative resolution would do to an event like the Med. Warm Period.

Otherwise -- I'm done with your "memory" issues..

Well, if I was this Bullwinkle person, I'd ask you what "math process" you're talking about and to explain where you got the idea that the instrumented data of MBH 98 has a time resolution of several hundred years.

 

[Crick]

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?

AGW is a theory that has been proven false. That occurred about 15 years ago. Since that time the proponents have resorted to wholesale data falsification in a effort to prop up their now fraudulent work.

Climatology was a legit branch of science till then, now it is discredited by all except those who are poised to benefit from the greatest fraud in human history.

So, you believe the vast majority of the world's scientists are either liars or idiots. Which is it?

You keep lying about the 97%

No, Frank, I am not.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

And what is the root word of the word that the 'I' in IPCC stands for?
All you need to know.

 

[flacaltenn]

I'm done "showing" you stuff.

Of course you are; because you never had anything to show me in the first place. If you actually had anything significant to put forth, it would be a peer reviewed paper or at least a white paper or signed response by qualified individuals. But you've never had such things. You've given us your own personal arguments. You've quoted denier blogs. You've attacked the names you were told to attack. If you actually had valid support for your arguments, you could identify them in a good deal less space than this disclaimer - a disclaimer I've seen more of from you than anything resembling real support.

Because you CHOOSE to ignore everything that doesn't support your preconceived notions.

It's a sad truth that, to varying degrees, everyone pays less attention to conflicting information than they do to affirming information. You and yours certainly are in no position to claim immunity from such habits. However, I - and others like me - have an advantage. Since I base my opinion on the majority opinion of the experts in this field, the viewpoints I adopt have survived - or are the product of - thousands and thousand of opportunities to objectively examine such conflicting information. Were I applying only my own feeble intellect to this issue, there would exist a far greater chance that those innate biases would prevent me from seeing all sides of the picture, from seeing the mistakes I may have made or the crucial points I had overlooked. Take your opinion for instance. It's never been widely held among climate scientists, has it. It's based almost entirely on your own thinking, isn't it. Who is it, then, that has prevented you from making this particular, commonplace mistake?

Much like you ignore the preconcieved Mission Statement of the IPCC which I've told you about NUMEROUS times.

I'm beginning to wonder about you. I haven't been here for a month and you hadn't been in this forum for a great deal further back than that. When and where are you claiming to have told me your theories regarding the IPCC mission statement? For that matter, where on Earth did you ever get the idea that anyone would be impressed with such fantasies? The IPCC was formed to investiage human-caused global warming. There is no conspiracy. There is no more innate bias in this than exists in the investigation of ANY hypothesis.

And 2 weeks from now you will pretend you've never about it.

There'll be no pretending. Two weeks from now I will still hold, correctly, that your point is meaningless drivel.

Same deal with the hockey stick graphs. I've repeatedly given you the words of climatologists who have been involved in their making. Words that acknowledge there is insufficient temporal resolution in a Global proxy study to even begin to see 100 or 200 year events. Never mind 50 or 60 year events like our current observations.

Really? You and I have some interestingly divergent recollections. The only place I recall discussing temporal resolution with anyone on this forum (and not actually with you) is in the Holocene work of Shakun and Marcott. Temporal resolution has never been an issue with MBH 98 or any of its descendants and Jeremy Shakun and Shaun Marcott did not produce hockey stick graphs. Just so you avoid such embarrassing mistakes in the future, though, the span of a dataset does not control its temporal resolution. MBH 98's proxy data has far better resolution than 100 to 200 years and the 20th century spike in that graph is instrument data, not proxies.

Nonetheless -- you CONTINUE to post them and pretend to have never heard such criticisms.

You're almost funny. I continue to post them because you have consistently failed to create in me the slightest doubt as to their validity; by ANY of the arguments you have ever presented.

My take is that you've heard them, but since you have so much trouble with really simple charts and data -- you just don't understand any of it.

Of course I've heard them. At least the ones you actually made and that I actually read. For the last 32 years I have been collecting data - hundreds of thousands of records per event, performing calculations with the collected data, performing statistical analyses on those results, assembling the data (in graphic and tabular formats) and my comments into reports and publishing it to appropriate government agencies and naval commands. What have you been doing? Sitting in front of your computer arguing with the other retirees?

Those hockeysticks are a literal "cut and paste" construct designed to get stupid folks to infer that the current warming data is "unprecendented".

The current warming rate is unprecedented in human history. The current CO2 spike is unprecedented in millions of years. We're not the ones being stupid.

One of your favorite words --- aint it Bullwinkle? There's only one thing unprecedented about this.. And that's the amount of time you've wasted throwing a juvenile hissyfit and making no real points or progress with your cause.

Ah... I should have read ahead. I didn't realize you were talking to someone else.

Tell me in your own words how a math process with a time resolution of several hundred years shows an accurate representation of a 50 yr spike at its right side. And what that sucky cumulative resolution would do to an event like the Med. Warm Period.

Otherwise -- I'm done with your "memory" issues..

Well, if I was this Bullwinkle person, I'd ask you what "math process" you're talking about and to explain where you got the idea that the instrumented data of MBH 98 has a time resolution of several hundred years.

You are so full of Bullwinkle, I got my tractor shoes on. BOTH the Mann study and the Marcott study are "hockey sticks". Let's remove all of OUR subjective analysis and listen to how Marcott compared their results to the Mann results in the paper that accompanied their work..

http://judithcurry.com/2013/03/11/lets-play-hockey-again/

The paper contains a comparison in Figure 1B to a version of the TAR hockey stick chart in which the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) disappeared, and ‘Mike’s Nature trick’ was used to ‘hide the [recent proxy] decline’ by pasting in thermometer temperatures. The paper found good agreement of their reconstruction with Mann et al.’s previous reconstructions: “indistiguishable within uncertainty”.

The difference between them is that Marcott/Shakun made their process more transparent and Marcott later publicly acknowledged that his work had limitations in it that would make the "unprecendented warming" claim invalid (laughable), whereas Mann is a unrepentant fraud and BullWinkle artist who got caught fudging his cut and paste propaganda piece and juggling tree rings to force a result.

Whatever this "instrumented data" is that you think Mann used that makes his shady work more viable is a figment of your imagination...

The link I gave goes on to say...

How has the MWP almost disappeared again, just in time to perhaps go missing in IPCC AR5? Science’ supplemental information says the average resolution of the 73 paleoclimate series is 160 years, and the median is 120. The proxy selection was deliberately weighted toward ‘low frequency’ resolution, since the entire Holocene was being assessed. Figure S18c (below) shows there is no statistically valid resolution to the combined proxy set for anything less than 300-year periods. [“Gain” was defined as the ratio of output variance to input white noise in simulations ‘stressing’ combined proxy statistical reliability. In other words, for periods less than three hundred years, white noise in is white noise out (no matter whether the Monte Carlo sampling interval is 20 or 120 years) while for periods over 2000 years the output is about 90% ‘valid’ signal.] The paper itself said, “…our temperature stack does not fully resolve variability at periods shorter than 2000 years…”

Bless their little hearts (Marcott/Shakun) for admitting that their paper was misinterpreted by the AGW regime. At least they WARNED the folks who cared to check on the details..

Mann et al simply didn't care about being used as a tool.. Those days are over Rover.

 

[flacaltenn]

I'll bet a steak dinner that Crickham still doesn't understand why those hockey sticks don't say the current warrming is "unprecendented".

They are not evidence relevent to that statement. You'd have to be paying attention to know why..

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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?

AGW is a theory that has been proven false. That occurred about 15 years ago. Since that time the proponents have resorted to wholesale data falsification in a effort to prop up their now fraudulent work.

Climatology was a legit branch of science till then, now it is discredited by all except those who are poised to benefit from the greatest fraud in human history.

So, you believe the vast majority of the world's scientists are either liars or idiots. Which is it?

You keep lying about the 97%

No, Frank, I am not.

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.

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.

You're a complete, total lying scumbag.

100% complete lying scumbag.

Edenhofer was a lead author of IPCC 4. He's on at least 3 other major climate groups.

He's not some guy expressing his personal opinion. He admitted the IPCC has NOTHING to do with science, but is about global wealth redistribution

 

[flacaltenn]

This IPCC guy Edenhofer, was not speaking personally off the cuff. His CAREER is in foundations dedicated to global redistribution using Climate Change as the public ruse..

From an interview in Germany's NZZ online..
Climate Talks or Wealth Redistribution Talks

NZZ: De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy.

Edenhofer: First of all, developed countries have basically expropriatedthe atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

THAT - is what the IPCC is all about.. Seriously, it's that simple. It's not the science stupid. The science is a rented sideshow.

 

[Crick]

And what is the root word of the word that the 'I' in IPCC stands for?
All you need to know.

Inter- or -governmental?

And, I'm sorry, but you're going to have to explain. It's not all you need to know.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

And what is the root word of the word that the 'I' in IPCC stands for?
All you need to know.

Inter- or -governmental?

And, I'm sorry, but you're going to have to explain. It's not all you need to know.

The 'I' word is intergovernmental.
The root word is government.
It's all you need to know.

 

[Wyld Kard]

I'm done "showing" you stuff. Because you CHOOSE to ignore everything that doesn't support your preconceived notions. Much like you ignore the preconcieved Mission Statement of the IPCC which I've told you about NUMEROUS times. And 2 weeks from now you will pretend you've never about it.

Same deal with the hockey stick graphs. I've repeatedly given you the words of climatologists who have been involved in their making. Words that acknowledge there is insufficient temporal resolution in a Global proxy study to even begin to see 100 or 200 year events. Never mind 50 or 60 year events like our current observations.

Nonetheless -- you CONTINUE to post them and pretend to have never heard such criticisms. My take is that you've heard them, but since you have so much trouble with really simple charts and data -- you just don't understand any of it.

Those hockeysticks are a literal "cut and paste" construct designed to get stupid folks to infer that the current warming data is "unprecendented". One of your favorite words --- aint it Bullwinkle? There's only one thing unprecedented about this.. And that's the amount of time you've wasted throwing a juvenile hissyfit and making no real points or progress with your cause.

Tell me in your own words how a math process with a time resolution of several hundred years shows an accurate representation of a 50 yr spike at its right side. And what that sucky cumulative resolution would do to an event like the Med. Warm Period.

Otherwise -- I'm done with your "memory" issues..

That's why facts don't stop morons like Crick from believing in stupid stuff.

They would rather stand by the BS and defend it no matter how preposterous it really is.

 

[Wyld Kard]

 

[Old Rocks]

Wildcard, all you have presented is stupid cartoons and unsupported flap yap. How about some evidence from real scientists, presented in a peer reviewed journal. You do know what those are, right?

 

[Wyld Kard]

Wildcard, all you have presented is stupid cartoons and unsupported flap yap. How about some evidence from real scientists, presented in a peer reviewed journal. You do know what those are, right?

Old Crock, all you have ever presented over and over is bullshit upon bullshit upon even more bullshit, and hoping that someone is convinced by your brainwashed beliefs.

How about some evidence to support the claims that you make? Oh I almost forgot, you can't.

AGW/CC is a lie and a scam.

 

[orogenicman]

I find it telling that the right wing nuts in this country actually believe that Al Gore has supernatural powers.

 

[Wyld Kard]

I find it telling that the right wing nuts in this country actually believe that Al Gore has supernatural powers.

I find it telling that the left wing nuts in this country were just gullible enough to actually believe in the bullshit that AGW/CC is based on.

 

[Old Rocks]

Wildcard, all you have presented is stupid cartoons and unsupported flap yap. How about some evidence from real scientists, presented in a peer reviewed journal. You do know what those are, right?

Old Crock, all you have ever presented over and over is bullshit upon bullshit upon even more bullshit, and hoping that someone is convinced by your brainwashed beliefs.
How about some evidence to support the claims that you make? Oh I almost forgot, you can't.

AGW/CC is a lie and a scam.

And you are a liar and a fool;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Global Warming Science Union of Concerned Scientists

Scientists know that certain gases trap heat and act like a blanket to warm the planet. One of the most important is carbon dioxide (CO2), which we release into the atmosphere when we burn fossil fuels — oil, coal, and natural gas — to generate electricity, power our vehicles, and heat our homes.

As we overload our atmosphere with carbon dioxide, more and more heat is trapped — and Earth steadily warms up in response. How do we know? The scientific evidence is overwhelming.

 

[Wyld Kard]

Wildcard, all you have presented is stupid cartoons and unsupported flap yap. How about some evidence from real scientists, presented in a peer reviewed journal. You do know what those are, right?

Old Crock, all you have ever presented over and over is bullshit upon bullshit upon even more bullshit, and hoping that someone is convinced by your brainwashed beliefs.
How about some evidence to support the claims that you make? Oh I almost forgot, you can't.

AGW/CC is a lie and a scam.

And you are a liar and a fool;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Global Warming Science Union of Concerned Scientists

Scientists know that certain gases trap heat and act like a blanket to warm the planet. One of the most important is carbon dioxide (CO2), which we release into the atmosphere when we burn fossil fuels — oil, coal, and natural gas — to generate electricity, power our vehicles, and heat our homes.

As we overload our atmosphere with carbon dioxide, more and more heat is trapped — and Earth steadily warms up in response. How do we know? The scientific evidence is overwhelming.

Like I said before, no matter what you post in trying to prove AGW/CC is real, and that it's man-made and that it's a threat to the planet, it's all BULLSHIT!

You're just too ignorant to realize it.

 

[Old Rocks]

The Geological Society of America - Position Statement on Climate Change

Position Statement
Decades of scientific research have shown that climate can change from both natural and anthropogenic causes. The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2011), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse-gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s. If current trends continue, the projected increase in global temperature by the end of the twenty-first century will result in significant impacts on humans and other species. Addressing the challenges posed by climate change will require a combination of adaptation to the changes that are likely to occur and global reductions of CO2 emissions from anthropogenic sources.

Purpose
This position statement (1) summarizes the strengthened basis for the conclusion that humans are a major factor responsible for recent global warming; (2) describes the significant effects on humans and ecosystems as greenhouse-gas concentrations and global climate reach projected levels; and (3) provides information for policy decisions guiding mitigation and adaptation strategies designed to address the future impacts of anthropogenic warming.

One of the larger Scientific Societies concerned with earth sciences.

 

[Old Rocks]

Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet Consensus

AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC SOCIETIES
Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations

"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (2009)2

• 
  
  American Association for the Advancement of Science
  "The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (2006)3
  
  
  
• 
  
  American Chemical Society
  "Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." (2004)4
  
  
  
• 
  
  American Geophysical Union
  "Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)5
  
  
  
• 
  
  American Medical Association
  "Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2013)6
  
  
  
• 
  
  American Meteorological Society
  "It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide." (2012)7
  
  
  
• 
  
  American Physical Society
  "The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." (2007)8
  
  
  
• 
  
  The Geological Society of America
  "The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s." (2006; revised 2010)9
  
  

SCIENCE ACADEMIES
International academies: Joint statement
"Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)." (2005, 11 international science academies)10

• 
  
  U.S. National Academy of Sciences
  "The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere." (2005)11
  
  

U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

• 
  
  U.S. Global Change Research Program
  "The global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases. Human 'fingerprints' also have been identified in many other aspects of the climate system, including changes in ocean heat content, precipitation, atmospheric moisture, and Arctic sea ice." (2009, 13 U.S. government departments and agencies)12

So, you just know so much more than all of these scientists.