Global Warming. Fact or grossly exaggerated??

[Moviefan-2]

From your article;

I remember it well. That's what I was saying -- it was a slapdown of Michael Mann. I'm not aware that anyone else was admonished, at least not publicly, although I seem to recall that other researchers corrected the biographical info on their web pages.

You may be right. All I know about was the public slap against Mann, which is what those quoted paragraphs in the FP article were referring to.

The IPCC had to do it. The Nobel Institute was already on record as saying that Mann was full of crap:

http://www.examiner.com/article/pro...n-nobel-prize-nobel-committee-says-he-has-not

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/331738/michael-manns-false-nobel-claim-charles-c-w-cooke

 

[groggy]

If Groggy had been sincere, he would have asked me to name three leading scientists who don't support the IPCC's findings.

Of course, that would be easy.

And one of the false messages that Groggy's propaganda websites like to promote is that no one other than publicly funded "climatologists" are allowed to have an expert view on the matter. The fact that most publicly funded climatologists can only get money to do research if they back the theory doesn't seem to bother Groggy and the propagandists.

Their phony position allows Groggy and his propagandist friends to dismiss the brilliant scientists (much more brilliant than his fake "Nobel laureates") who do understand the issue and are skeptical.

I was on to Groggy's intellectually phony game and his assertion that my list of researchers who don't back the IPCC had to be climatologists. That was why I set very clear terms for the bet before I agreed to it.

Do I think the three scientists I cited are among the world's best? Nope. But the most brilliant scientists who have weighed in on this matter -- on either side -- aren't climatologists. Blame Groggy -- not me -- for the fact we are focused on climatologists.

Too bad for Groggy that he skimmed the terms of the bet before he accepted it. He lost.

Wow.

That really sums up how stupid and intellectually dishonest you are that you consider a creationist whose work is riddled with errors 'brilliant'.

You really have no clue what makes a scientist to be recognized as legit, do you?

I'll give you a book to read later, as soon as I can find one with big enough type and lots of pictures.

 

[Moviefan-2]

You really have no clue what makes a scientist to be recognized as legit, do you?

That's pretty funny coming from the guy who regularly quotes propaganda websites.

In any event, I certainly know what the terms of the bet were that you agreed to, including the definition of "legit" that you accepted.

The terms were met, in full. You lost.

Rather than trying to find a book for me, please proceed to purchase Mr. Delingpole's book for yourself, as per the agreement in the bet.

 

[Moviefan-2]

That really sums up how stupid and intellectually dishonest you are that you consider a creationist whose work is riddled with errors 'brilliant'.

Stop skimming posts and try reading them, before you comment.

I said the most "brilliant" scientists who have weighed in on the topic "aren't climatologists." I wasn't speaking about any of the names listed in response to the bet, you twit.

 

[groggy]

That's pretty funny coming from the guy who regularly quotes propaganda websites.

So you think that sites that are funded by Heartland or big oil are legit sources but publicly funded sites are propaganda?

You really have no clue how foolish that looks, do you?

 

[Moviefan-2]

So you think that sites that are funded by Heartland or big oil are legit sources but publicly funded sites are propaganda?

You really have no clue how foolish that looks, do you?

I haven't been posting links to the Heartland Institute. My links have been to primary sources, such as the IPCC.

And stop trying to change the subject. You need to focus on ordering the book as payment for the fact you lost the bet.

 

[AK-47]

How are we supposed to take groggy seriously if by his own admittance he merely skims over our posts.

Not that we would take him serious even if he fully read them :biggrin1:

 

[groggy]

I haven't been posting links to the Heartland Institute. My links have been to primary sources, such as the IPCC.

And stop trying to change the subject. You need to focus on ordering the book as payment for the fact you lost the bet.

No, every argument you parrot, yet don't understand comes from heartland, including your belief that someone who claims climate change is only the work of god is a legit scientist.

When you link to the IPCC you can't actually understand what is written there and only parrot heartland funded talking points.

 

[Moviefan-2]

How are we supposed to take groggy seriously if by his own admittance he merely skims over our posts.

Not that we would take him serious even if he fully read them :biggrin1:

True. He thinks he should be allowed to welch on a bet because he accepted the bet and its terms without ever reading the terms.

Not a chance.

When you link to the IPCC you can't actually understand what is written there....

I'm not the one who told AK-47 that he had "got most of it" after he posted a load of gibberish.

 

[basketcase]

Don't worry, it's coming. I'll post it this evening.

(And, given that your series of misrepresentations continues, it looks like I'll have to quote a description of what was actually said, that you claimed -- and have repeatedly claimed -- represents a "conspiracy theory.")

I can't wait for you explanation on how 10,000 climate change papers were submitted last year and only 0.02% are in your opinion being truthful about the science.

And yes, your view that the 99.98% are somehow deciding to ignore the scientific evidence is clearly an irrational conspiracy theory.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Still waiting for MF to explain his conspiracy theory belief that the vast majority of climate scientists are lying for political reasons.

The wait is over. We will explore the alleged "conspiracy theory" in detail.

First, some context. I never accused climate scientists of "lying." The discussion was about the IPCC, and the IPCC's claim that it had "95% certainty" that global warming is man-made.

Basketcase said the following about the 95% certainty: "There are two possibilities here. Either the scientific evidence is strong enough that it is the accepted view or there is a massive conspiracy in the scientific community."

Here is the exchange that followed (posts 443 and 471):

You missed the obvious possibility: That the IPCC is driven by a political agenda, rather than a scientific one.

So then you vote conspiracy theory then. Not surprised.

Apparently, basketcase believes my assertion that "the IPCC is driven by a political agenda" is a "conspiracy theory."

Really? Let's assess that.

We'll start with the idea that the IPCC's reports are influenced by politics. Where does that suggestion come from? The IPCC, actually:

Review is an essential part of the IPCC process to ensure objective and complete assessment of the current information. In the course of the multi-stage review process - first by experts and then by governments and experts - both expert reviewers and governments are invited to comment on the accuracy and completeness of the scientific, technical and socio-economic content and the overall balance of the drafts.

http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization_procedures.shtml#.Uxz5Oc69bAI

Scientists involved in the IPCC process have confirmed that there is a political agenda.

On June 25, 1996, Ben Santer -- the lead author on Chapter 8 of the IPCC's 1995 report -- said in a letter to the Wall Street Journal that the chapter had been reviewed by "governments, individual scientists, and non-governmental organizations.": http://www.ucar.edu/communications/quarterly/summer96/insert.html

Feb. 23, 2005 -- In an email to fellow IPCC researchers, Hans von Storch -- a leading climate scientist in Germany -- says the IPCC's decision to declare that Michael Mann's hockey-stick graph was "true," was "stupid, politically motivated" (https://sites.google.com/site/globalwarmingquestions/climategate-2). On Dec. 22, 2009, von Storch writes an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal that says scientists working for the IPCC have become politicized, "with scientists acting as politicians and politicians posturing as scientists": http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748704238104574601443947078538

---

-- 2007 -- The Nobel Peace Prize is awarded to Al Gore and the IPCC, for "their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change" (emphasis added by me). http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2007/

---

And then there's the broader interpretation in the media and the public. According to basketcase, I'm a "conspiracy theorist" whose views are outside of mainstream opinion. Apparently, most people who follow the IPCC's activities have determined that the IPCC is the definitive authority on the science of global warming, dedicated solely to the dissemination of empirical information. According to basketcase, anyone who thinks there is any kind of "agenda" is clearly on the fringes.

Is that so?

Here is a broad selection of articles (in no particular order) that appeared in the Toronto media related to the IPCC's most recent report. All of these articles cast doubts on the IPCC's reports, often accusing the IPCC of having a political/activist agenda.

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/10/08/climate-forecast-alls-well-despite-what-the-ipcc-says/

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/09/30/ipcc-climate-global-warming/

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/glob...r-problem/article14491748/#dashboard/follows/

http://www.torontosun.com/2013/09/16/climate-change-hoax

http://www.torontosun.com/2013/09/27/climate-change-what-climate-change

http://www.torontosun.com/2013/09/26/time-to-end-the-climate-of-fear

http://www.torontosun.com/2013/09/27/world-needs-pause-from-ipcc-politics

http://www.torontosun.com/2013/11/01/condescending-bbc-cools-on-global-warming

http://opinion.financialpost.com/20...ide-is-rising-on-climate-models-and-policies/

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/09/26/9000-nobel-pretenders/

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com...oure-right-in-the-end-if-no-one-believes-you/

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com...plays-high-priest-to-climate-change-religion/

---

Some select quotes:

-- Lorrie Goldstein (Toronto Sun): "The IPCC today is primarily a political and advocacy organization. It has too many scientists who think of themselves as politicians, entitled to tell everyone else how to live. It is populated and stalked by green activists, who have an ideological agenda that is anti-growth and anti-western." http://www.torontosun.com/2013/09/26/time-to-end-the-climate-of-fear

-- Margaret Wente (Globe and Mail): "Global warming’s credibility problem is not the deniers’ and the skeptics’ fault. It’s the fault of activist scientists, Al Gore, and the IPCC. They’ve cried wolf too much. They’ve vastly overstated what the science “says,” and treated anybody who is the least bit doubtful as the enemy." http://www.theglobeandmail.com/glob...r-problem/article14491748/#dashboard/follows/

-- Matt Gurney (National Post): "(A)larmism, once proven to be bogus, destroys credibility just as effectively as it sells papers and motivates politicians. I would not invest my money with someone who got the stock market as wrong as the IPCC has gotten Earth’s climate wrong since 2007." http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com...oure-right-in-the-end-if-no-one-believes-you/

-- Judith Curry (National Post): "The problem and solution were vastly oversimplified back in 1990 by the UNFCCC/IPCC, where they framed both the problem and the solution as irreducibly global. This framing was locked in by a self-reinforcing consensus-seeking approach to the science and a “speaking consensus to power” approach for decision making that pointed to only one possible course of policy action – radical emissions reductions." http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/09/30/ipcc-climate-global-warming/

-- Charles Krauthammer (National Post, via the Washington Post): "(T)hose scientists who pretend to know exactly what this will cause in 20, 30 or 50 years are white-coated propagandists." http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com...plays-high-priest-to-climate-change-religion/

---

To sum up:

The political influence in the IPCC process (from governments and NGOs, such as environmental organizations) is a confirmed fact, according to the IPCC.

It has also been confirmed by a lead author and a researcher who accused the IPCC, in an email, of a "stupid, politically motivated" decision (and by a number of others involved in the process that I couldn't be bothered to cite).

The Nobel Institute awarded the IPCC with a Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 for its activist agenda.

And the political/activist agenda has been described in various articles throughout the media (and I was only citing publications in Toronto). Some commentators have concluded that the IPCC is mostly driven by a political/activist agenda.

You can choose to disagree, if you like.

But a "conspiracy theory?" Absolute hogwash.

 

[groggy]

You still don't get it, do you?

Inviting governments and NGOs to have input on the chapter on socio economic ramifications does not infer that the results were political. They have nothing to do with the climate predictions or models.

Likewise, posting a series of opinion pieces by right wing papers doesn't disprove any of the science. You need to be able to understand each claim and weigh the evidence from both sides and lets face it, you just aren't smart enough to that.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Inviting governments and NGOs to have input...have nothing to do with the climate predictions.

How do you know?

 

[Moviefan-2]

Likewise, posting a series of opinion pieces by right wing papers doesn't disprove any of the science.

Given that these were all mainstream newspapers, it certainly does play a big role in disproving the allegation of a "conspiracy theory."

 

[groggy]

How do you know?

Because the papers that the report is based on is done well before they talk. They can't influence the science by then, its all based on peer assessed published works.

 

[groggy]

Given that these were all mainstream newspapers, it certainly does play a big role in disproving the allegation of a "conspiracy theory."

What conspiracy theory are you talking about?

 

[basketcase]

The wait is over. We will explore the alleged "conspiracy theory" in detail.
....

Actually I'm still waiting. 10,000 scientific papers were published on climate change last year. Only 2 of them said the evidence denies the anthropogenic impact on global warming. So why exactly were 99.98% of the publishing scientists backing the human impact? There are only 3 possibilities:

1) those 10,000 scientists are too dumb to understand the evidence as well as the 2 others
2) those 10,000 intentionally ignored the evidence
3) the evidence backs the 10,000

#1 means massive incompetence in the scientific community
#2 means a massive and far reaching conspiracy
#3 is what you hate to admit, the evidence for anthropogenic global warming is well supported.

 

[basketcase]

How do you know?

Exactly the kind of questions people ask when they claim 9/11 was a conspiracy.

Nothing in life is for sure but when 10,000 scientists disagree with 2, odds are pretty good.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Exactly the kind of questions people ask when they claim 9/11 was a conspiracy.

The political involvement in the IPCC is a publicly confirmed fact on the IPCC's own website, and has been confirmed by leading researchers who have worked on the reports.

The only logical explanation for the sentence quoted above is that you believe everyone involved -- the IPCC officials, the experts who work on the reports, the Nobel Institute, and many members of the media who report on the IPCC -- are all lying.

And you're calling me a "conspiracy theorist"?

 

[Moviefan-2]

Actually I'm still waiting. 10,000 scientific papers were published on climate change last year....

When you say that you're "still waiting," you're lying.

While the 10,000 number is probably crap (the two previous reports that I reviewed that made similar claims were proven, beyond any reasonable doubt, to be absolute garbage), the comments about the "conspiracy theory" had nothing to do with that.

The number hadn't even posted until after you made the allegation.

(Update: I took a look at the report with the 10,000 number. As expected, it is total crap. If there are people who are so lacking in critical thinking abilities that they can't understand why, I'll explain it on Monday.)