Damn climate change!

[Moviefan-2]

I wonder how the prediction hold up today....

You think the Himalayan glaciers will be gone by 2035?

What's particularly interesting was IPCC chair Rajendra Pachauri's reaction to the paper from India that challenged the Himalayan glaciers claim. He called it "voodoo science," even though the IPCC's claim wasn't based on any scientific evidence.

http://www.newscientist.com/article...ipcc-melting-glaciers-claim.html#.U4EFAXa9bAI

 

[blackrock13]

You think the Himalayan glaciers will be gone by 2035?

No way to be certain, but if trends of the last 60 years hold up, not like a cherry picked 17 years trend, it's a good possibility that most of the 20,000+ glaziers in the HKH will be ghosts of their historical selves.

So how are these glaciers doing today since these somewhat dated reports? Any idea?

 

[groggy]

You think the Himalayan glaciers will be gone by 2035? What's particularly interesting was IPCC chair Rajendra Pachauri's reaction to the paper from India that challenged the Himalayan glaciers claim. He called it "voodoo science," even though the IPCC's claim wasn't based on any scientific evidence. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18363-debate-heats-up-over-ipcc-melting-glaciers-claim.html#.U4EFAXa9bAI

The best you can find is one error in a 7 year old report? Besides the fact that this immaterial to the present debate, you have to admit that it shows the work of the IPCC to be rock solid. Even with a billion dollar lobbyist and disinformation campaign this is all you and they could find. Out tens if thousands of pages of research you only found one error . That's outstanding work.

It doesn't have any bearing on the new and multiple reports of dangerously increasing glacial melts, of course.

That is still the kind of empirical evidence you refuse to consider.

 

[basketcase]

I never said we should ignore the scientists. I said we should ignore the propaganda about a "consensus," which you keep falsely claiming is the same thing as scientific evidence. It isn't...

You are right. A consensus is not evidence but when that consensus is made up of people who daily deal with the evidence, it sure is more significant than your ever changing arguments.

-- Anthropogenic global warming -- the assertion that man-made CO2 emissions are causing unprecedented warming of the planet -- isn't currently supported by empirical evidence. I am skeptical of that premise (and there's no point blaming me if you think the IPCC and the Al Gore crowd are using the word "anthropogenic" incorrectly).

I'm amazed at the flat out bull shit that comes from your mouth. Yes, the exact effects of humanity on global warming is not 100% understood but every scientist worth their salt knows that humanity plays a major role. They base their conclusions on empirical evidence so if you say the evidence isn't there, you are calling the scientific community liars.

As for the second part, go look at that old thread where you tried to claim that anthropogenic global warming wasn't the same as human driven global warming.

-- You repeatedly talk about the IPCC and "scientists" as if the two are interchangeable. They are not. The IPCC is dominated by a political agenda, not a scientific one.

Yet you keep claiming that the IPCC backs you views.

The IPCC is a scientific community charged with collating all the data. It is primarily made up of scientists. Of course since you want to discuss empirical evidence and not the IPCC, you should try reading up on the hundreds and hundreds of scientific papers discussing global warming and the impact of anthropogenic CO2. Of course you would rather not and continue to play word games.


Simple fact. Over the past century, the world has been warming at a rate far greater than any other period of human civilization, atmospheric CO2 is significantly increased during that time due to human activities, and the thermal properties of CO2 are well understood. Despite all the empirical evidence, it is you who has their head in the sand.

As to why I argue with you, I have a scientific background and am mildly OCD so I get worked up when people flat out lie about science.

 

[basketcase]

...
What's particularly interesting was IPCC chair Rajendra Pachauri's reaction to the paper...

Wait. I thought you were saying the IPCC isn't scientists.

 

[Moviefan-2]

You are right. A consensus is not evidence but when that consensus is made up of people who daily deal with the evidence, it sure is more significant than your ever changing arguments.




I`m amazed at the flat out bull shit that comes from your mouth. Yes, the exact effects of humanity on global warming is not 100% understood but every scientist worth their salt knows that humanity plays a major role. They base their conclusions on empirical evidence so if you say the evidence isn`t there, you are calling the scientific community liars.

As for the second part, go look at that old thread where you tried to claim that anthropogenic global warming wasn`t the same as human driven global warming.


Yet you keep claiming that the IPCC backs you views.

The IPCC is a scientific community charged with collating all the data. It is primarily made up of scientists. Of course since you want to discuss empirical evidence and not the IPCC, you should try reading up on the hundreds and hundreds of scientific papers discussing global warming and the impact of anthropogenic CO2. Of course you would rather not and continue to play word games.


Simple fact. Over the past century, the world has been warming at a rate far greater than any other period of human civilization, atmospheric CO2 is significantly increased during that time due to human activities, and the thermal properties of CO2 are well understood. Despite all the empirical evidence, it is you who has their head in the sand.

As to why I argue with you, I have a scientific background and am mildly OCD so I get worked up when people flat out lie about science.

Sorry, but disagreeing with you does not mean a person is lying.

Once again, your post contains too many errors and misrepresentations (sadly, some misrepresentations once again appear to be intentional) to address. And, frankly, many of the errors have been dealt with before, in great detail (https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?471227-Global-Warming-Fact-or-grossly-exaggerated).

Let`s deal with just a couple:

1. Mankind`s possible influence on the climate vs. man-made global warming.

It`s surprising that someone who claims to have a background in science is struggling with this. It`s not difficult to grasp.

Most people are willing to accept that mankind`s existence on the planet -- the building of large cities, etc. -- may have affected the climate. I`m sure there`s a consensus around that.

However, the definition of anthropogenic global warming (as your side defined it) refers quite specifically to the premise that the burning of fossil fuels is causing unprecedented warming of the planet.

One can believe that mankind has affected the climate without necessarily believing the fossil fuels premise -- particularly since the predictions about how increases in man-made CO2 would affect the climate were spectacularly wrong.

2. The IPCC "backs" my views.

That`s not what I said.

I said the research findings in the IPCC`s AR5 report confirm that we don`t know whether or not man-made CO2 affects the climate.

As James Lovelock and others have clearly said, we simply don`t know what the climate is doing (http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/...-lovelock-i-was-alarmist-about-climate-change).

However, I do not claim that the activists who are driving the IPCC`s agenda support my views.

I think the IPCC could have overcome its enormous credibility problems if its AR5 report had acknowledged what was clear to everyone who looked at the actual data in the report (I`m sure you don`t need me to provide all the press reports again). Indeed, I think all of us -- regardless of our views on the issue -- would have admired such intellectual honesty.

Regrettably, though, that`s not what happened.

Instead, the politically driven IPCC responded as expected to the evidence ("nothing to see here, folks"). It circled the wagons, downplayed the results, and plowed ahead with alarmism as usual. Convincing ever-decreasing numbers of people along the way.

You claim to have a background in science. If true, then you should be leading the charge to scrap the IPCC and -- if such an international body is needed -- replace it with a body that is committed to science rather than political agendas.

 

[basketcase]

...

However, the definition of anthropogenic global warming (as your side defined it) refers quite specifically to the premise that the burning of fossil fuels is causing unprecedented warming of the planet.

One can believe that mankind has affected the climate without necessarily believing the fossil fuels premise -- particularly since the predictions about how increases in man-made CO2 would affect the climate were spectacularly wrong.

That 'premise' is the one supported by the majority of scientists who actually deal with your beloved empirical data. The only disagreement is not whether anthropogenic CO2 is causing global warming but to what extent.

Your beef with the IPCC is pathetic. The only reason you keep bringing it up is a pathetic attempt to discredit the scientific community which on the whole disagrees with you.

As I said in the other thread, if you have a scientifically backed explanation for the rapid rise in temperature in the past decades that does not involve CO2, please put it forward. You may be skeptical of the conclusions of the scientific community at large but unless there is some better theory well supported by the evidence that is being kept secret, you are scientifically full of shit.

 

[groggy]

However, I do not claim that the activists who are driving the IPCC's agenda support my views. I think the IPCC could have overcome its enormous credibility problems if its AR5 report had acknowledged what was clear to everyone who looked at the actual data in the report (I'm sure you don't need me to provide all the press reports again). Indeed, I think all of us -- regardless of our views on the issue -- would have admired such intellectual honesty. Regrettably, though, that's not what happened. Instead, the politically driven IPCC responded as expected to the evidence ("nothing to see here, folks"). It circled the wagons, downplayed the results, and plowed ahead with alarmism as usual. Convincing ever-decreasing numbers of people along the way. You claim to have a background in science. If true, then you should be leading the charge to scrap the IPCC and -- if such an international body is needed -- replace it with a body that is committed to science rather than political agendas.

This conspiracy claim that the IPCC is driven by activists or political agenda is the worst if the bullshit drivel you push.

You have provided no evidence, motive or possible explanation on how an organization that merely assembles the existing research could be doing so for political reasons. How the fuck do you make thousands of scientists in over a hundred countries all produce politically driven results? How the fuck could you corrupt 97% of climatologists? Why the fuck would any one, let alone 97% of them risk their careers to produce false reports? How the fuck would that get past the fossil fuel industry that spends a billion annually to try find faults with the IPCC?

It's fucking ridiculous.

Admit that you read this on some ex-tobacco lobbyist site and can't back up any of those allegations with 'evidence based science '.

This conspiracy theory is bullshit.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Sorry, boys, but the reality of the IPCC`s motives has already been addressed.

https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?471227-Global-Warming-Fact-or-grossly-exaggerated

So has the claim that there has been something unusual about temperature increases in the late 20th century.

We have gone nearly two decades with significant increases in man-made CO2 and no statistically significant increase in the Earth`s temperature. If the models had been correct about the impact of CO2, there should have been huge increases in the Earth`s temperature. Didn`t happen.

Over the past 60 years, the IPCC says the Earth`s temperature has only increased a little more than 0.1 degrees C per decade. There`s nothing unusual or alarming about that, and nothing that proves a causal link between the changes in the temperature and CO2.

Saying that you don`t believe or care for the evidence doesn`t make the evidence untrue. The reality is we don`t know what impact -- if any -- man-made CO2 has on the climate, and whether this is something to be concerned about.

My position remains unchanged. There is currently nothing in the short term that is a cause for alarm. And as the world continues to be transformed by advancements and innovations, the long-term predictions that are based on today`s reality are certain to be wrong.

So stop worrying about it.

 

[blackrock13]

Sorry, boys, but the reality of the IPCC`s motives has already been addressed.

https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?471227-Global-Warming-Fact-or-grossly-exaggerated

So has the claim that there has been something unusual about temperature increases in the late 20th century.

We have gone nearly two decades with significant increases in man-made CO2 and no statistically significant increase in the Earth`s temperature. If the models were sound, there should have been an increase.

Saying that you don`t believe the evidence doesn`t make it untrue. The reality is we don`t know what impact -- if any -- that man-made CO2 has on the climate, and whether this is something to be concerned about.

My position remains unchanged. There is nothing in the short term that is a cause for alarm, and advancements and innovations that will be made in the long term mean the computer-model predictions based on today`s reality are certain to be wrong.

So stop worrying about it.

Addressed and dealt with, clearly showing not to be as pervasively political as you would like others to believe, but just to review of the 1300+ posts in that thread dealt with this again?

 

[blackrock13]

Sorry, boys, but the reality of the IPCC`s motives has already been addressed.

https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?471227-Global-Warming-Fact-or-grossly-exaggerated

So has the claim that there has been something unusual about temperature increases in the late 20th century.

We have gone nearly two decades with significant increases in man-made CO2 and no statistically significant increase in the Earth`s temperature. If the models had been correct, there should have been a significant increase in the Earth`s temperature.

Saying that you don`t believe the evidence doesn`t make it untrue. The reality is we don`t know what impact -- if any -- man-made CO2 has on the climate, and whether this is something to be concerned about.

My position remains unchanged. There is currently nothing in the short term that is a cause for alarm. And as the world continues to be transformed by advancements and innovations, the long-term computer-model predictions based on today`s reality are certain to be wrong.

So stop worrying about it.

A blatant lie or total ignorance, can`t decide. As pointed out before more than once, there have been more high temperatures records set than cold temperature records set in that time frame. Rolling averages (look it up) must be increasing.

Your second point is a clear attempt at CYA. Define short term. Your certainty is clearly based on ignorance and perhaps a sense of me, me, me. You never have answered my question sometime back and asked more than once. What is wrong with taking measures to slow the effects/causes of GW?

An interesting read, check it out. Then again you`ve shown repeatedly to have trouble understanding scientific method, so meh, it`s prbably a waste of time

On mismatches between models and observations

It is a truism that all models are wrong. Just as no map can capture the real landscape and no portrait the true self, numerical models by necessity have to contain approximations to the complexity of the real world and so can never be perfect replications of reality. Similarly, any specific observations are only partial reflections of what is actually happening and have multiple sources of error. It is therefore to be expected that there will be discrepancies between models and observations. However, why these arise and what one should conclude from them are interesting and more subtle than most people realise. Indeed, such discrepancies are the classic way we learn something new – and it often isn’t what people first thought of.

The first thing to note is that any climate model-observation mismatch can have multiple (non-exclusive) causes which (simply put) are:

1. The observations are in error
2. The models are in error
3. The comparison is flawed

In climate science there have been multiple examples of each possibility and multiple ways in which each set of errors has arisen, and so we’ll take them in turn.

1. Observational Error

These errors can be straight-up mistakes in transcription, instrument failure, or data corruption etc., but these are generally easy to spot and so I won’t dwell on this class of error. More subtly, most of the “observations” that we compare climate models to are actually syntheses of large amounts of raw observations. These data products are not just a function of the raw observations, but also of the assumptions and the “model” (usually statistical) that go into building the synthesis. These assumptions can relate to space or time interpolation, corrections for non-climate related factors, or inversions of the raw data to get the relevant climate variable. Examples of these kinds of errors being responsible for a climate model/observation discrepancy range from the omission of orbital decay effects in producing the UAH MSU data sets, or the problems of no-modern analogs in the CLIMAP reconstruction of ice age ocean temperatures.
In other fields, these kinds of issues arise in unacknowledged laboratory effects or instrument calibration errors. Examples abound, most recently for instance, the supposed ‘observation’ of ‘faster-than-light’ neutrinos.

2. Model Error

There are of course many model errors. These range from the inability to resolve sub-grid features of the topography, approximations made for computational efficiency, the necessarily incomplete physical scope of the models and inevitable coding bugs. Sometimes model-observation discrepancies can be easily traced to such issues. However, more often, model output is a function of multiple aspects of a simulation, and so even if the model is undoubtedly biased (a good example is the persistent ‘double ITCZ’ bias in simulations of tropical rainfall) it can be hard to associate this with a specific conceptual or coding error. The most useful comparisons are then those that allow for the most direct assessment of the cause of any discrepancy.”Process-based” diagnostics – where comparisons are made for specific processes, rather than specific fields, are becoming very useful in this respect.
When a comparison is being made in a specific experiment though, there are a few additional considerations. Any particular simulation (and hence diagnostic from it) arises as a result from a collection of multiple assumptions – in the model physics itself, the forcings of the simulation (such as the history of aerosols in a 20th Century experiment), and the initial conditions used in the simulation. Each potential source of the mismatch needs to be independently examined.

3. Flawed Comparisons

Even with a near-perfect model and accurate observations, model-observation comparisons can show big discrepancies because the diagnostics being compared while similar in both cases, actually end up be subtly (and perhaps importantly) biased. This can be as simple as assuming an estimate of the global mean surface temperature anomaly is truly global when it in fact has large gaps in regions that are behaving anomalously. This can be dealt with by masking the model fields prior to averaging, but it isn’t always done. Other examples have involved assuming the MSU-TMT record can be compared to temperatures at a specific height in the model, instead of using the full weighting profile. Yet another might be comparing satellite retrievals of low clouds with the model averages, but forgetting that satellites can’t see low clouds if they are hiding behind upper level ones. In paleo-climate, simple transfer functions of proxies like isotopes can often be complicated by other influences on the proxy (e.g. Werner et al, 2000). It is therefore incumbent on the modellers to try and produce diagnostics that are commensurate with what the observations actually represent.
Flaws in comparisons can be more conceptual as well – for instance comparing the ensemble mean of a set of model runs to the single realisation of the real world. Or comparing a single run with its own weather to a short term observation. These are not wrong so much as potentially misleading – since it is obvious why there is going to be a discrepancy, albeit one that doesn’t have much implications for our understanding.

Implications

The implications of any specific discrepancy therefore aren’t immediately obvious (for those who like their philosophy a little more academic, this is basically a rephrasing of the Quine/Duhem position on scientific underdetermination). Since any actual model prediction depends on a collection of hypotheses together, as do the ‘observation’ and the comparison, there are multiple chances for errors to creep in. It takes work to figure out where though.
The alternative ‘Popperian’ view – well encapsulated by Richard Feynman:

… we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience, compare it directly with observation, to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong.
​

actually doesn’t work except in the purest of circumstances (and I’m not even sure I can think of a clean example). A recent obvious counter-example in physics was the fact that the ‘faster-than-light’ neutrino experiment has not falsified special relativity – despite Feynman’s dictum.
But does this exposition help in any current issues related to climate science? I think it does – mainly because it forces one to think about the other ancillary hypotheses are. For three particular mismatches – sea ice loss rates being much too low in CMIP3, tropical MSU-TMT rising too fast in CMIP5, or the ensemble mean global mean temperatures diverging from HadCRUT4 – it is likely that there are multiple sources of these mismatches across all three categories described above. The sea ice loss rate seems to be very sensitive to model resolution and has improved in CMIP5 – implicating aspects of the model structure as the main source of the problem. MSU-TMT trends have a lot of structural uncertainty in the observations (note the differences in trends between the UAH and RSS products). And global mean temperature trends are quite sensitive to observational products, masking, forcings in the models, and initial condition sensitivity.
Working out what is responsible for what is, as they say, an “active research question”.

“our earth is a globe
whose surface we probe
no map can replace her
but just try to trace her”
– Steve Waterman, The World of Maps

The primary sourcel article;​

M. Werner, U. Mikolajewicz, M. Heimann, and G. Hoffmann, "Borehole versus isotope temperatures on Greenland: Seasonality does matter", Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 27, pp. 723-726, 2000. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/1999GL006075

 

[Moviefan-2]

You never have answered my question sometime back and asked more than once. What is wrong with taking measures to (reduce man-made CO2 emissions)?

I fixed your quote to remove the obvious bias from the question. In fact, I have answered that question before. I have no objections to steps to reduce greenhouse gases, provided they are done responsibly.

But we should try to be brighter than John Kerry.

Even if it is good policy to reduce our use of coal-fired plants, for example, that doesn't mean we should buy into the premise of global warming. The proponents of the premise have claimed the premise is based on science. If it's going to be sold as science, then it has to be judged as science, not whether or not you think it leads to good intentions.

The rest of your post is interesting. Since you don't like the evidence, you hurl insults at me. I expect Groggy and Basketcase to do the same.

It's entirely predictable and reaffirms why I think spending another month or two debating the same issues that were examined just a couple of months ago is probably pointless.

 

[blackrock13]

I fixed your quote to remove the obvious bias from the question. In fact, I have answered that question before. I have no objections to steps to reduce greenhouse gases, provided they are done responsibly.

But we should try to be brighter than John Kerry.

Even if it is good policy to reduce our use of coal-fired plants, for example, that doesn't mean we should buy into the premise of global warming. The proponents of the premise have claimed the premise is based on science. If it's going to be sold as science, then it has to be judged as science, not whether or not you think it leads to good intentions.

The rest of your post is interesting. Since you don't like the evidence, you hurl insults at me. I expect Groggy and Basketcase to do the same.

It's entirely predictable and reaffirms why I think spending another month or two debating the same issues that were examined just a couple of months ago is probably pointless.

Biased in your mind. My point was quite clear. You edit is not what I asked. They aren't insults if they are true and it's clear Groggy and BC see that they are true. Responsible based on Heartland or the IPCC.

The benefits, economic and education based, were clearly outlined in the IPCC report but it took 40+ pages to do, too much for you to read.

 

[Moviefan-2]

They aren't insults if they are true and it's clear Groggy and BC see that they are true.

I see. Hurling insults is OK as long as the insults are supported by fellow parishioners in the Church of Global Warming.

Whatever. As I have explained to you before, throwing around insults and claiming that anyone who disagrees with the Church is "anti-science" is a failed approach. There are too many well-educated people in our modern society who are capable of thinking for themselves.

 

[groggy]

Sorry, boys, but the reality of the IPCC`s motives has already been addressed.

https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?471227-Global-Warming-Fact-or-grossly-exaggerated

No, you abandoned that claim when it was shown how ridiculous it was, how your conspiracy theory requires thousands of scientists working in over 100 countries subsiding on government funding from those 100+ countries to all be in on the fix for a motive you can`t even clearly articulate. The IPCC doesn`t do the research, they only put it all together in one big report. Any conspiracy requires 100+ governments, tens of thousands of scientists and the IPCC to all be in on the fix. And it requires 97% of those governments and scientists to be in on it, not just a handful.
Its so far out as to make any 9/11 truther look positively conservative.

So has the claim that there has been something unusual about temperature increases in the late 20th century.

We have gone nearly two decades with significant increases in man-made CO2 and no statistically significant increase in the Earth`s temperature. If the models had been correct about the impact of CO2, there should have been huge increases in the Earth`s temperature. Didn`t happen.

The cherry picking argument has been destroyed repeatedly, are you really so daft?
If you move the dates forward or back a year it shows temperature increases higher then the IPCC projections, showing that the IPCC is correct to say that the noise in short term data makes short term time periods not worth using in predictions. I can pick a number of 15 year periods in the same range that show higher then IPCC projections and there is only one possible time period in which your cherry picking argument works. You refuse to acknowledge or debate this point which leads me to believe that you are either dishonest or not smart enough to understand.
Which is it?

My position remains unchanged. There is currently nothing in the short term that is a cause for alarm.

Again, there are new reports out that should change your mind.
News of increased glacial melts in Antarctica, North America and Greenland contributing to the news that we are heading towards a 10 foot increase in ocean levels.
Those are new reports.

And the recent temperature records, with April having been the warmest on record since the 2010 record showing that warming is continuing.
The increase in extreme weather events costing Canada $1 billion a year.
We hit 400ppm in CO2.
Obama and the US government have joined all legit scientific associations backing the IPCC findings.

Those are the new empirical evidences that you keep asking for then ignoring.
Why?

 

[groggy]

I see. Hurling insults is OK as long as the insults are supported by fellow parishioners in the Church of Global Warming.

Whatever. As I have explained to you before, throwing around insults and claiming that anyone who disagrees with the Church is "anti-science" is a failed approach. There are too many well-educated people in our modern society who are capable of thinking for themselves.

I'd like to look at this 'church of global warming' claim, because its really quite funny.

On the one side you have the IPCC, NASA and every legit scientific association and 97% of those who went to university to study the climate.
And on the other side you have Pat Sajak and the Koch brothers and a handful of crackpots.

Now, I think I know why you would make this claim about this 'church'. Church's represent the unknown, magic, a hand that you can't see or possibly understand. And to you, that must be what it was like when you went to junior public and possibly high school if you made it that far. University must have been like a church, a place where things you couldn't understand happen, things like science, the scientific method, research and open debate.

As Arthur C Clarke said:

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

And since we know that the IPCC represents an advanced way of thinking that to you must be magic it becomes clear why you would make this 'church of climate change' argument.

No wonder you side with those you can understand, like Pat Sajak:

I now believe global warming alarmists are unpatriotic racists knowingly misleading for their own ends. Good night.—
Pat Sajak (@patsajak) May 20, 2014

No wonder you fall for the easy to understand, though patently false, arguments thrown out by the Koch brothers ex-tobacco lobbysists in defence of their oil and shale investments.


Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[blackrock13]

I see. Hurling insults is OK as long as the insults are supported by fellow parishioners in the Church of Global Warming.

Whatever. As I have explained to you before, throwing around insults and claiming that anyone who disagrees with the Church is "anti-science" is a failed approach. There are too many well-educated people in our modern society who are capable of thinking for themselves.

One more time, but I'll type more slowly, as it might help you. They are not insults if true.

You ask for links, proofs and facts, but when offered, you clearly don't read most of them, so why should anyone accommodate your demands.

I've never claimed you were anti science, since you use other scientists along with a longer list of non scientist to support your position, even a 5th grader can figure that out, just not as knowledgable about the science and scientific method as you think. You didn't even read the offering in post #95.

 

[Moviefan-2]

And since we know that the IPCC represents an advanced way of thinking that to you must be magic it becomes clear why you would make this 'church of climate change' argument.

I'm sorry, but there's nothing particularly "advanced" or magical about the IPCC's spin-doctoring and fear-mongering. Those kinds of activities go on all the time.

You're also a bit off when you falsely assert that it's only people on one side of the argument who think global warming has become a religion. In fact, one of Time Magazine's Heroes of the Environment shares that view.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/30/james-lovelock-environmentalism-religion

 

[Moviefan-2]

You didn't even read the offering in post #95.

I read it. Another attempt to suggest that predictions that were spectacularly wrong can be characterized as not having been "perfect."

Far from perfect, in this case. Very, very far.

 

[Moviefan-2]

University must have been like a church, a place where things you couldn't understand happen, things like science, the scientific method, research and open debate.

If you actually graduated from university, then it's fair to say that particular university was a place where at least one thing happened that I can't understand -- how someone could graduate who doesn't know the difference between a table of contents and an index.

Did they have books at that university?

(Sorry, but you brought this up. :biggrin1