Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678
Results 169 to 183 of 183

Thread: Climate Alarmists Foiled: No US Warming Since 2005

  1. #169
    Quote Originally Posted by Frankfooter View Post
    Please provide the IPCC report and quote that back your claims that the IPCC cannot find a theorized hot spot.
    https://sciencespeak.com/MissingSignature.pdf
    The Missing Hotspot
    Dr David Evans ([email protected])
    21 July 2008
    Last major revision 22 Mar 2009, Last minor revision 18 Sept 2010
    Web address: http://sciencespeak.com/MissingSignature.pdf
    An easy two-page version of this paper is at sciencespeak.com/SimpleHotspot.pdf
    Signatures From the IPCC, for 1958 − 1999
    The published theoretical signatures produced by the IPCC climate theory that best
    matches the period of the observed warming pattern (1979 – 1999) appeared in the US
    Climate Change Science Program, 2006, Chapter 1,
    http://www.climatescience.gov/Librar...inal-chap1.pdf.
    It shows six signature diagrams in Figure 1.3, in Section 1.5 on page 25, for the period
    1958 − 1999, which are reproduced here:
    T
    hese diagrams show what the IPCC say occurred, according to their climate models.
    In particular, diagram A is the signature of warming due to an increase in greenhouse
    gases other than water vapor, that is, from carbon emissions. And diagram F is the
    warming pattern expected from the sum of all the five signatures A – E in the
    7
    proportions the IPCC believe those causes contributed to global temperature changes;
    it is dominated by signature A because the IPCC’s theory is that the warming was
    mainly due to carbon emissions.
    These signatures are for 1958 – 1999. But since there was little warming or cooling
    from 1958 to 1978, they are fairly directly comparable to the observed warming
    pattern for 1979 − 1999.
    Notice that the signature A for increased greenhouse warming has two main features:
    1. A hotspot over the tropics at about 10 – 12 kms.
    2. Broad stratospheric cooling and broad tropospheric warming.
    That second feature is also present in signature C for ozone depletion.
    Conclusion 1: IPCC Climate theory is wrong
    Compare the observed warming for 1979 − 1999 in Figure 1 to what the IPCC climate
    models say happened for 1958 – 1999 in Figure 3F:
    Figure 5: Observed warming (left) versus IPCC theory (right).
     The IPCC climate theory predicts a hotspot.
     There was no hotspot.
    =˃ IPCC climate theory is wrong.
    Below we examine the role of water vapor feedback in IPCC climate theory. That
    feedback both creates the hotspot and is responsible for a half to two-thirds of the
    temperature rises predicted by the IPCC climate models. So the hotspot is not an
    incidental or optional part of the IPCC’s climate theory—it is an integral part.
    Thus the
    missing hotspot shows that IPCC climate theory is fundamentally wrong.



    The IPCC climate model similuations are found on page 675 of the fourth IPCC assessment report chapter 9
    https://wg1.ipcc.ch/publications/wg1...1-chapter9.pdf
    Note simulation (c) is the same as the right hand picture above

    From Cahpter 9 page 675
    Zonal mean atmospheric temperature change from 1890 to 1999 (C per century) as simulated by the PCM model from (a) solar forcing, (b) volcanoes, (c) wellmixed greenhouse gases, (d) tropospheric and stratospheric ozone changes, (e) direct sulphate aerosol forcing and (f) the sum of all forcings. Plot is from 1,000 hPa to 10 hPa
    (shown on left scale) and from 0 km to 30 km (shown on right). See Appendix 9.C for additional information. Based on Santer et al. (2003a)
    You will not be able to understand this let alone pick it apart
    You now have someone new you need to apply Character Assassination to: Dr. David Evans

    Your list of permanent scientist who you slag off is growing

  2. #170
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnLarue View Post
    https://sciencespeak.com/MissingSignature.pdf




    T






    The IPCC climate model similuations are found on page 675 of the fourth IPCC assessment report chapter 9
    https://wg1.ipcc.ch/publications/wg1...1-chapter9.pdf
    Note simulation (c) is the same as the right hand picture above

    From Cahpter 9 page 675


    You will not be able to understand this let alone pick it apart
    You now have someone new you need to apply Character Assassination to: Dr. David Evans

    Your list of permanent scientist who you slag off is growing
    Ah, gotcha.

    Its a 10 year old false claim that there should be a hotspot in the troposphere. Its not a claim made in the IPCC reports, its a claim made by misinterpreting charts.
    The lack of a 'hotspot' does not prove anything about surface warming, as its not related.

    What is to be expected with adding GHG into the atmosphere is that the surface and lower troposphere will warm and the stratosphere will cool. That's what the IPCC proposed and that's what they saw, but the deniers misinterpreted that and claimed that only a 'hotspot' in the troposphere would be proof of global warming, which is a false claim.

    Skeptical science explains it better than I can.
    Climate “skeptics” apparently became convinced that the “hot spot” in Figure 9.1c was the fingerprint of anthropogenic warming the IPCC was referring to, rather than stratospheric cooling coupled with tropospheric warming.

    As he so often does, Monckton serves as a useful example of getting things wrong, claiming:

    the models predict that if and only if Man is the cause of warming, the tropical upper air, six miles above the ground, should warm up to thrice as fast as the surface, but this tropical upper-troposphere “hot-spot” has not been observed...
    This unequivocally incorrect claim was also made in the NIPCC "skeptic" report (Section 3.4), which was signed off on by such supposedly "serious" contrarians as Craig Idso and S. Fred Singer.

    The mistaken belief in “skeptic” circles is that the existence of anthropogenic warming somehow hinges on the existence of the tropospheric “hot spot”- it does not. Period. Tropospheric amplification of warming with altitude is the predicted response to increasing radiative forcing from natural sources, such as an increase in solar irradiance, as well. Stratospheric cooling is the real "fingerprint" of enhanced greenhouse vs. natural (e.g. increased solar) warming.
    https://skepticalscience.com/troposp...t-advanced.htm

    And note that there are major issues with measuring the temp of the upper troposphere, which includes measurements made by Christy and Spencer.

    So no, when investigated, the IPCC made no such prediction.

    Try again.
    To abandon facts is to abandon freedom. If nothing is true, then no one can criticize power, because there is no basis upon which to do so. If nothing is true, then all is spectacle

  3. #171
    Quote Originally Posted by Frankfooter View Post
    Ah, gotcha.

    Its a 10 year old false claim that there should be a hotspot in the troposphere. Its not a claim made in the IPCC reports, its a claim made by misinterpreting charts.
    The lack of a 'hotspot' does not prove anything about surface warming, as its not related.

    What is to be expected with adding GHG into the atmosphere is that the surface and lower troposphere will warm and the stratosphere will cool. That's what the IPCC proposed and that's what they saw, but the deniers misinterpreted that and claimed that only a 'hotspot' in the troposphere would be proof of global warming, which is a false claim.

    Skeptical science explains it better than I can.

    https://skepticalscience.com/troposp...t-advanced.htm

    And note that there are major issues with measuring the temp of the upper troposphere, which includes measurements made by Christy and Spencer.

    So no, when investigated, the IPCC made no such prediction.

    Try again.
    That is a really lame

    If you carefully read what "Skeptical Science" says he offers no proof, no evidence, he just says "no the missing hot spot does not matter" because "I say so"
    That is not a scientific response.
    It is a propaganda response, typical of so many of these sites, particularly the ones by the well funded John, ( thumb on the scale) Cook


    too bad Alarmists have been searching for the hot spot for decades. What do you think the millions of weather balloons were for?

    Too bad if a model / theory predicts an event and the event does not occur then the model/ theory is flawed....... period
    That is how science works
    Again the hot spot was predicted by the IPCC models/ Theory

    All the IPCC models are based upon a positive feedback being present. This feedback & the hot spot are part of the same theory
    They did not change the theory, they just stop publishing those predictions because they were not occurring as predicted.
    Confession by silence
    No hotspot, No feedback>>>>>>>, nice gentle warming which will has peaked out

    A positive feedback loop will become a runaway event, by definition
    Ask yourself , how often does run away event occur in nature? Never?
    The earth has had CO2 levels 10X today's level and runaway heating did not occur. The planet did not turn into a roasted hunk of rock

    Further more
    As per Dr. David Evans
    Below we examine the role of water vapor feedback in IPCC climate theory. That
    feedback both creates the hotspot and is responsible for a half to two-thirds of the
    temperature rises predicted by the IPCC climate models.
    So the hotspot is not an
    incidental or optional part of the IPCC’s climate theory—it is an integral part.
    Thus the
    missing hotspot shows that IPCC climate theory is fundamentally wrong.

  4. #172
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnLarue View Post
    If you read what "Skeptical Science" says
    The offer no proof, no evidence, they just say no the missing hot spot does not matter
    Sure they do, they detail the science, with links peppered throughout the post and a list of references at the bottom:
    Allen, R.J. and S.C. Sherwood (2008): Warming maximum in the tropical upper troposphere deduced from thermal winds. Nature Geoscience, 1, 399-403, doi:10.1038/ngeo208.
    Bengtsson, L. and K.I. Hodges (2009): On the evaluation of temperature trends in the tropical troposphere. Climate Dynamics, “Online First”, doi:10.1007/s00382-009-0680-y.
    Johnson, N.C. and S.-P. Xie (2010): Changes in the sea surface temperature threshold for tropical convection. Nature Geoscience, 3, 842–845, doi:10.1038/ngeo1008.
    Randel, W.J. and F. Wu (2006): Biases in Stratospheric and Tropospheric Temperature Trends Derived from Historical Radiosonde Data. Journal of Climate, 19, 10, 2094-2104, doi:10.1175/JCLI3717.1.
    Sherwood, S.C., et al. (2008): Robust Tropospheric Warming Revealed by Iteratively Homogenized Radiosonde Data. Journal of Climate, 21, 20, 5336-5352, doi:10.1175/2008JCLI2320.1 .
    Sobel, A. (2010): Raised bar for rain. Nature Geoscience, 3, 821–822, doi:10.1038/ngeo1025.
    Thorne, P.W., et al. (2007): Tropical vertical temperature trends: A real discrepancy? Geophysical Research Letters, 34, L16702, doi:10.1029/2007GL029875.
    Thorne, P.W. (2008): The answer is blowing in the wind. Nature Geoscience, 1, 347-348, doi:10.1038/ngeo209.
    Thorne, P.W., et al. (2010) Tropospheric temperature trends: history of an ongoing controversy. WIRES: Climate Change, in press, doi:10.1002/wcc.80.
    Zhang, G.J., and H. Wang (2006): Toward mitigating the double ITCZ problem in NCAR CCSM3. Geophysical Research Letters, 33, L06709, doi:10.1029/2005GL025229.
    This is exactly how you would ask for a post on a scientific question.
    They give the science behind it, give links to the reports backing their findings and fully credit their post.
    Lots and lots of facts.

    Too bad if a model predicts an event and the event does not occur then the model is flawed period
    That is how science works
    Again the hot spot was predicted by the model
    Further more
    The model didn't predict it, that's the central flaw with your claim.
    Your quote claims
    So the hotspot is not an
    incidental or optional part of the IPCC’s climate theory—it is an integral part.
    But that's editorial, as the IPCC didn't make that claim, they made the claim that its 'integral', the IPCC stated it was 'incidental'.

    Its just more hot air from you, larue.
    One little hot spot of hot air, 'cuz its not in the IPCC like you claimed.
    To abandon facts is to abandon freedom. If nothing is true, then no one can criticize power, because there is no basis upon which to do so. If nothing is true, then all is spectacle

  5. #173
    [QUOTE=Frankfooter;6497448]
    Sure they do, they detail the science, with links peppered throughout the post and a list of references at the bottom:
    If you carefully read what "Skeptical Science" says he offers no proof, no evidence, he just says "no the missing hot spot does not matter" because "I say so"
    Explaining why the hot spot did not appear would be proof
    Show us which one of the references explains how their theory can predict two events (runaway positive feedback) and the hotspot
    But still remains valid when one of events does not occur (hotspot) and the other is empirically impossible to prove
    Besides if the runaway feedback were to occur it would push hot air into the upper troposphere & be detectable

    This is a propaganda response, typical of so many of these sites, particularly the ones by the well funded John, ( thumb on the scale) Cook
    He must have be paying a pretty penny to google as his site is always first in any search
    Real scientist are far more interested in the truth vs spreading propaganda


    The model didn't predict it, that's the central flaw with your claim.
    Your quote claims
    But that's editorial, as the IPCC didn't make that claim, they made the claim that its 'integral', the IPCC stated it was 'incidental'.
    Oh, so when the part of the feedback theory which can be tested does not materialize it was just "incidental", where as they will stick with the part which can not be empirically tested.
    any graduate student would be immediately disqualified if they presented that
    Puedo science pure and simple

    When a model / theory predicts an event & it does not occur, the model / theory are flawed. Period

  6. #174
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnLarue View Post

    If you carefully read what "Skeptical Science" says he offers no proof, no evidence, he just says "no the missing hot spot does not matter" because "I say so"
    The editorializing about the hot spot came from your claims, that this hotspot somehow proved or disproved all of climatology.
    Your link says:
    So the hotspot is not an incidental or optional part of the IPCC’s climate theory
    (That's what the IPCC says about this hotspot)
    —it is an integral part.
    That is the claim David Evans makes about this hotspot.
    Its not the IPCC"s claim.

    Skeptical Science makes this clear through quotes from the report and the studies to prove it.

    The problem with your argument is your claims come from Dr David Evans alone.
    Nobody else has made this claim and nobody else backs it.
    What he says about the IPCC is just not right, it wasn't right 11 years ago when he said and has been totally dropped since then.
    To abandon facts is to abandon freedom. If nothing is true, then no one can criticize power, because there is no basis upon which to do so. If nothing is true, then all is spectacle

  7. #175
    Quote Originally Posted by Frankfooter View Post
    The editorializing about the hot spot came from your claims, that this hotspot somehow proved or disproved all of climatology.
    Your link says:

    (That's what the IPCC says about this hotspot)

    That is the claim David Evans makes about this hotspot.
    Its not the IPCC"s claim.

    Skeptical Science makes this clear through quotes from the report and the studies to prove it.

    The problem with your argument is your claims come from Dr David Evans alone.
    Nobody else has made this claim and nobody else backs it.
    What he says about the IPCC is just not right, it wasn't right 11 years ago when he said and has been totally dropped since then.
    Look, the theory states the hotspot should be observed if there is a feedback & the IPCC's models based upon that theory predicted it. as displayed by the IPCC in their report
    You cant have a theory which is only right about the stuff which can not be observed

    Puedo science pure and simple

    Skeptical Science makes this clear through quotes from the report and the studies to prove it.
    You mean John Cook the guy who came up with the 97% by assigning a favourable rating requardless of the scientist conculsion?
    Odd how he could not produce the working papers for an audit
    He is not the one to trust on this subject

    has been totally dropped since then.
    Perhaps it is time you understood something
    Thee is no statute of limitations on bad scientific theory

    Old bullshit is still bullshit & since the IPCC is sticking to its bad theory the models are still flawed
    You have a real hard time with simple logic dont you?

  8. #176
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnLarue View Post
    Look, the theory states the hotspot should be observed if there is a feedback & the IPCC's models based upon that theory predicted it. as displayed by the IPCC in their report
    You cant have a theory which is only right about the stuff which can not be observed

    Puedo science pure and simple
    This is David Evans theory, not the IPCC's theory.
    This hotspot claim is nonsense, its not in the IPCC as confirmed by the quote you provided.

    You mean John Cook the guy who came up with the 97% by assigning a favourable rating requardless of the scientist conculsion?
    Odd how he could not produce the working papers for an audit
    He is not the one to trust on this subject
    The consensus has been confirmed by multiple studies.
    And its easily confirmed by noting that you quote only 3 climate change deniers here.
    If the consensus is false, where are all these scientists who dispute its happening?



    Perhaps it is time you understood something
    Thee is no statute of limitations on bad scientific theory
    Is that why you keep posting 10 year old, previously debunked, nonsense?
    Like the decades old Time cover, the 9 year old false claim about AMS and your 5 year old bait and switched atmospheric chart?

    Old bullshit is still bullshit & since the IPCC is sticking to its bad theory the models are still flawed
    You have a real hard time with simple logic dont you?
    The IPCC is sticking to the same theory that Exxon's own scientists found, they are sticking to the century old theory of the greenhouse effect.
    And you want to know why?
    Because every year it gets more solid, with more evidence to back it up as the planet keeps getting warmer.

    How do you explain the fact that Exxon's own scientists came up with the same findings as the IPCC?
    https://www.theguardian.com/environm...hange-warnings
    To abandon facts is to abandon freedom. If nothing is true, then no one can criticize power, because there is no basis upon which to do so. If nothing is true, then all is spectacle

  9. #177
    This is the Loonie Left in a nutshell, folks

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhteoMQ_LPI

  10. #178
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnLarue View Post
    Shut down the fossil fuel industry & you will see a significant decline in human population & it will be rapid
    And more of your bullshit. No one with half a brain advocates shutting down fossil fuels.

    It is quite obvious that your ridiculous statements are simply because you are afraid to actually discuss science.

  11. #179
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario
    Posts
    21,317
    Blog Entries
    172
    Quote Originally Posted by basketcase View Post
    And more of your bullshit. No one with half a brain advocates shutting down fossil fuels.

    It is quite obvious that your ridiculous statements are simply because you are afraid to actually discuss science.

    explain this.


    https://www.greenparty.ca/en/mission-possible
    quote by Steph from Vixens

    I'm a western woman. Here is what i've learned, both in my own life and from what my girlfriends tell me.
    Women want a man that is worthy of their RESPECT. Period. It doesn't matter to most of us if you drive a fancy car, or if you're 6 feet tall or if you make a gazillion dollars. We want to respect you. As MEN.



    https://private.kinky-blogging.com/

    https://canadaman2019.blogspot.com/

  12. #180
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    3,036
    Blog Entries
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by basketcase View Post
    And more of your bullshit. No one with half a brain advocates shutting down fossil fuels.

    It is quite obvious that your ridiculous statements are simply because you are afraid to actually discuss science.
    More bullshit on your part.. I don't see you debating science with John Laure. Afraid that you lose to him.


    Pat&Stu took this graph from Obama's Science Adviser, Dr. Holdren, and completely blew it to pieces!



  13. #181
    Quote Originally Posted by Frankfooter View Post
    This is David Evans theory, not the IPCC's theory.
    This hotspot claim is nonsense, its not in the IPCC as confirmed by the quote you provided.
    Look oh uneducated one
    The hot spot is predicted because of the positive feedbacks which all of the IPCC models have.
    It is the feedbacks which are the fundamental difference between how Alarmists and rational scientists view the greenhouse effect
    The positive feedbacks drive the prediction of the hot spot.
    These positive feedbacks are still in the IPCC models, otherwise they would be predicting much lower temperature changes
    The only difference is the IPCC no longer publishes the prediction of the hot spot because it clearly displays their models are flawed.

    The consensus has been confirmed by multiple studies.
    And this absolves John Cook of his fraud how?
    Once a so called scientist perpetrate a fraud with an attempt to mislead others his words are worthless
    Something you (Groggy) should know but ignore


    And its easily confirmed by noting that you quote only 3 climate change deniers here.
    If the consensus is false, where are all these scientists who dispute its happening?
    How many times do you need to be told a consensus is of zero value when proving or disproving a scientific hypothesis?

    Science is only proven / disproven through empirical testing
    If any of the testing results do not align with the expected values , the hypothesis has to be rejected

    Had previous scientist adopted a proof by consensus approach which is unique to Climate science, teh innovate progress of man would have been retarded by centuries
    The truth is only attained because some question the status quo of time
    alarmists are using concesous & media hype to Silence dissent

    So the real question is what is best for humanity?
    Healthy debate in which open minded scientists debate and re-examine hypothesis
    or
    The view of a well funded propaganda machine which brow beats and harasses anyone with an opposing view, while removing their access to research funding



    The consensus has been confirmed by multiple studies.
    And its easily confirmed by noting that you quote only 3 climate change deniers here.
    If the consensus is false, where are all these scientists who dispute its happening?
    Look
    When a perpetual lair such as your self routinely resorts to Character Assassination in a malicious and despicable attempt to smart hard working honest scientist it raises serious question about your integrity
    The fact that you obviously do not understand the science at all prompts the question, What is going on here?
    I looked at both sides & was appalled by the amount of mis-information and deceit of Alarmists

    John Cook is probably the worst example
    However the internet is filled with examples of some "Explaining the Greenhouse effect" without showing or mentioning the concentrations of CO2 as in parts per million or worse not mentioning Water Vapor at all.
    In addition every single weather event has been attributed to Global Warming
    The Alarmist have been caught screwing with the data, Climategate
    And several scientist have express a lot of concerns about the behaviour of the IPCC
    https://www.climatedepot.com/2013/08...shback-report/
    Here is a very small sampling of what current and former UN scientists have to say about the UN’s climate claims and its scientific methods.

    Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

    “The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” – Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

    “Temperature measurements show that the [climate model-predicted mid-troposphere] hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them!”- UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Steven M. Japar, a PhD atmospheric chemist who was part of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Second (1995) and Third (2001) Assessment Reports, and has authored 83 peer-reviewed publications and in the areas of climate change, atmospheric chemistry, air pollutions and vehicle emissions.

    UN IPCC Scientist Kenneth P. Green Declares ‘A Death Spiral for Climate Alarmism’ – September 30, 2009 – ‘We can expect climate crisis industry to grow increasingly shrill, and increasingly hostile toward anyone who questions their authority’ – Dr. Kenneth Green was a Working Group 1 expert reviewer for the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2001

    ‘The whole climate change issue is about to fall apart — Heads will roll!’ -South African UN Scientist Dr. Will Alexander, April 12, 2009 – Professor Alexander, is Emeritus of the Department of Civil and Biosystems Engineering at the University of Pretoria in South Africa, and a former member of the United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters.

    “I was at the table with three Europeans, and we were having lunch. And they were talking about their role as lead authors. And they were talking about how they were trying to make the report so dramatic that the United States would just have to sign that Kyoto Protocol,” Christy told CNN on May 2, 2007. – Alabama State Climatologist Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, served as a UN IPCC lead author in 2001 for the 3rd assessment report and detailed how he personally witnessed UN scientists attempting to distort the science for political purposes.

    “Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” – Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.

    “The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil… I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science.” – South African Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.

    “The claims of the IPCC are dangerous unscientific nonsense” – declared IPCC reviewer and climate researcher Dr Vincent Gray, of New Zealand in 2007. Gray was an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports going back to 1990, author of more than 100 scientific publications. (LINK) & (LINK)

    “After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri’s asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it’s hard to remain quiet.” – Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society’s Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.

    UN IPCC Lead Author Tom Tripp Dissents on man-made warming: ‘We’re not scientifically there yet’ – July 16, 2009

    The UN IPCC’s Kevin Trenberth’s claim that the UN IPCC is an “very open” also needs examining. The IPCC summary for policymakers is used to scare politicians and goad the public into action. The UN is all about politics.

    UN special climate envoy Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland declared “it’s completely immoral, even, to question” the UN’s alleged global warming “consensus,” according to a May 10, 2007 article. Sounds scientific, doesn’t it?

    Dr. John Brignell, a UK Emeritus Engineering Professor at the University of Southampton who held the Chair in Industrial Instrumentation at Southampton, accused the UN of “censorship” on July 23, 2008. “Here was a purely political body posing as a scientific institution. Through the power of patronage it rapidly attracted acolytes. Peer review soon rapidly evolved from the old style refereeing to a much more sinister imposition of The Censorship. As Wegman demonstrated, new circles of like-minded propagandists formed, acting as judge and jury for each other. Above all, they acted in concert to keep out alien and hostile opinion. ‘Peer review’ developed into a mantra that was picked up by political activists who clearly had no idea of the procedures of science or its learned societies. It became an imprimatur of political acceptability, whose absence was equivalent to placement on the proscribed list,” Brignell wrote.

    Research by Australian climate data analyst John McLean revealed that the IPCC’s peer-review process for the Summary for Policymakers leaves much to be desired. (LINK) (LINK) (LINK) & (LINK) McLean’s research revealed that the UN IPCC peer-review process is “an illusion.” McLean’s study found that very few scientists are actively involved in the UN’s peer-review process. The report contained devastating revelations to the central IPCC assertion that ‘it is very highly likely that greenhouse gas forcing has been the dominant cause of the observed global warming over the last 50 years.” The analysis by McLean states: “The IPCC leads us to believe that this statement is very much supported by the majority of reviewers. The reality is that there is surprisingly little explicit support for this key notion. Among the 23 independent reviewers just 4 explicitly endorsed the chapter with its hypothesis, and one other endorsed only a specific section. Moreover, only 62 of the IPCC’s 308 reviewers commented on this chapter at all.” Repeating: Only four UN scientists in the IPCC peer-review process explicitly endorsed the key chapter blaming mankind for warming the past 50 years, according to this recent analysis.
    Now here is typical Frankfooters bovine scatology

    Is that why you keep posting 10 year old, previously debunked, nonsense?
    There is no statute of limitations on bad science
    You seem to feel you have the authority to define something as debunked. You a scientific know nothing?
    THE IPCC models predicted a hot spot which never appeared & the models will still predict a hot spot , they just do not publish these predictions
    Dr. David Evans worked on these models for years. He understand them infinitely better than you & infinitely better than John Cook


    Like the decades old Time cover,
    Despite your best despicable efforts to change history you can not
    There was a global cooling hysteria in he 1970s, ask some people who are in their sixties now
    the 9 year old false claim about AMS
    That document with its results was published by the AMS, again you want to re-write history
    I am willing to concede a more recent survey with differing results exists, however The AMS did publish a survey which showed a much lower level of Alarmism
    It was most certainly not posted as an attempt to mislead anyone as you imply

    and your 5 year old bait and switched atmospheric chart?
    Look
    You can not seem to understand the importance of atmospheric temperature change, despite the fact the greenhouse effect occurs in the atmosphere
    Your insistence that the surface temperature record is the only record worth viewing because "That's is where the peoples are" just reaffirms
    1. Your lack of any scientific understanding
    2. Your pathological obsession to spew propaganda

    the surface record is biased by the Urban Heat Island effect and its incomplete coverage of the planet
    these are inconvenient truths you just choose to ignore
    That is not how objective & rational people view an issue and it is most definitely not good enough if you are insisting I change my way of life

    The IPCC is sticking to the same theory that Exxon's own scientists found, they are sticking to the century old theory of the greenhouse effect.
    And you want to know why?
    Because every year it gets more solid, with more evidence to back it up as the planet keeps getting warmer.
    You were asked to explain how the surface could be heating up at a faster rate than the atmosphere on a continuous basis despite it being a physical impossibility
    and all you did was display how very little of the science you actually understand with some garbled nonsense that would get a F at a grade 7 level

  14. #182
    Quote Originally Posted by basketcase View Post
    And more of your bullshit. No one with half a brain advocates shutting down fossil fuels.

    It is quite obvious that your ridiculous statements are simply because you are afraid to actually discuss science.
    What?

    Just goggle the phrase "The need to shut down fossil fuels"
    there is no end of those with "Half a brain" as you describe

    Gerald Butts the unelected puppet master for the "Half a brain" Justin Trudeau most definitely wants to shut down fossil fuels
    https://torontosun.com/opinion/colum...ndustry-crisis

    His principal secretary Gerald Butts once said he didn’t want Canada to have a fossil fuel sector by the middle of this century.
    https://business.financialpost.com/o...t-was-the-plan

    In October 2008, American activist Michael J. Marx, representing a U.S. organization called Corporate Ethics International, based in San Francisco, was asked by two major U.S. foundations — Hewlett and Rockefeller Brothers — to recruit, organize and fund a donation “re-granting agency” for a campaign to shut down Canada’s oilsands. Writes Marx: “From the very beginning, the campaign strategy was to land-lock the tar sands so their crude could not reach the international market where it could fetch a high price per barrel. This meant national and grassroots organizing to block all proposed pipelines.
    Why did Gerald / (Justin) spend $4.5 B of your tax dollars to buy a pipeline & then not defend the pipeline in court?

    Among the Canadian green groups cited by Marx as eager recipients of funding were Environmental Defence Canada, World Wildlife Fund Canada, ForestEthics Canada, Greenpeace and others. At the time, in 2008, the head of World Wildlife Fund Canada was Gerald Butts, currently Prime Minister Trudeau’s principle secretary and top adviser. Other green activists sit on panels and outside cabinet rooms, providing bad advice and misguidance to politicians and business leaders.
    As pointed out shutting down the fossil fuel industry will result in a decimation of human population & these "Half Brains" are fanatical about accomplishing just that
    Wake up!

  15. #183
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnLarue View Post
    Look oh uneducated one
    The hot spot is predicted because of the positive feedbacks which all of the IPCC models have.
    It is the feedbacks which are the fundamental difference between how Alarmists and rational scientists view the greenhouse effect
    The positive feedbacks drive the prediction of the hot spot.
    These positive feedbacks are still in the IPCC models, otherwise they would be predicting much lower temperature changes
    The only difference is the IPCC no longer publishes the prediction of the hot spot because it clearly displays their models are flawed.
    Wrong.
    According to what you posted there is one Australian hack, Dr Evans something or other, who came up with this claim. And according to the quotes you provided it was your guy that said this hotspot was both missing and important.
    Its not in the IPCC links you gave.
    You need to read your own links and to do your own research.
    (and stop with the insults)


    And this absolves John Cook of his fraud how?
    Cook's work has been validated by multiple studies, including polls you mischaracterized by AMS.
    There is no fraud.



    How many times do you need to be told a consensus is of zero value when proving or disproving a scientific hypothesis?
    How many times do you need to be told that you need a valid alternate theory, and if there was one 99% of climatologists wouldn't be backing the work supported by the IPCC.
    Your deniers don't have one solid theory between them.

    Science is only proven / disproven through empirical testing
    If any of the testing results do not align with the expected values , the hypothesis has to be rejected
    I agree, the problem is you refuse to accept the testing because you disagree with the results.
    That's why you are a science denier.



    So the real question is what is best for humanity?
    Healthy debate in which open minded scientists debate and re-examine hypothesis
    or
    The view of a well funded propaganda machine which brow beats and harasses anyone with an opposing view, while removing their access to research funding
    The well funded propaganda machine is the one funded by the oil industry. That's where the money is and that's who spends money on the shite you read.
    You really can't see that?



    Look
    When a perpetual lair
    Stop with the insults, it'll get you banned.
    If you really think I am a 'lair' (hope I'm a nice batcave) then prove it.
    I've called you on this multiple times and each time you just squirm away.




    The Alarmist have been caught screwing with the data, Climategate
    Climategate was investigated 7 times and each time they found the researchers truthful.
    Climategate was a criminal hacking paid for by the oil industry.



    Now here is typical Frankfooters bovine scatology

    Stop with the insults larue.
    Phil will report you.


    There is no statute of limitations on bad science
    I know, I see it here every day when you post total garbage.
    But the fact that most of the crap you post is 10 year old, weak crap shows how little you've got.


    There was a global cooling hysteria in he 1970s, ask some people who are in their sixties now
    Nope. bullshit claim complete with bullshitting about Time covers.

    I am willing to concede a more recent survey with differing results exists, however The AMS did publish a survey which showed a much lower level of Alarmism
    It was most certainly not posted as an attempt to mislead anyone as you imply
    I'll give you the credit that you don't think you're posting bullshit. The problem is that you can't tell when you're posting bullshit so I have to point it out each time.
    The AMS poll was a prime example.


    You can not seem to understand the importance of atmospheric temperature change, despite the fact the greenhouse effect occurs in the atmosphere
    Your insistence that the surface temperature record is the only record worth viewing because "That's is where the peoples are" just reaffirms
    1. Your lack of any scientific understanding
    2. Your pathological obsession to spew propaganda
    Stop with the insults.
    I never said discussing the upper atmosphere is irrelevant, I said that in a debate about surface temperatures trying to bait and switch with a chart showing troposphere temperatures, where its 40C cooler, is dishonest.

    the surface record is biased by the Urban Heat Island effect and its incomplete coverage of the planet
    Covered and dealt with.
    Its very naive of you to think that climatologists don't know or adjust for heat island effects.

    ]You were asked to explain how the surface could be heating up at a faster rate than the atmosphere on a continuous basis despite it being a physical impossibility
    and all you did was display how very little of the science you actually understand with some garbled nonsense that would get a F at a grade 7 level
    I dumbed it down as much as possible.
    My apologies if it still went over your head.
    If you can't understand that, then there really isn't much hope.
    To abandon facts is to abandon freedom. If nothing is true, then no one can criticize power, because there is no basis upon which to do so. If nothing is true, then all is spectacle

Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •