David Suzuki tries to challenge the fact the planet isn't warming

[Moviefan-2]

Even though I'm kind of bored with global warming silliness, this column was too entertaining to ignore.

It's a column by David Suzuki that is in the Sudbury Star (likely in other Sun Media publications, as well).

It has the usual anti-science stuff from Suzuki (comparing healthy skepticism with Holocaust denial, bogus "consensus" arguments, etc.) but the best part is his attempt to challenge the recent finding that the Earth hasn't warmed in 17 years, in spite of the fact there have been significant increases in man-made carbon dioxide.

Here's Suzuki:

Another recent misrepresentation concerns research by the U.K. Met Office, which deniers falsely claim shows the Earth hasn't warmed for 17 years. Science isn't perfect, but it's one of the best tools we have for understanding our place in the cosmos. When people around the world apply rigorous scientific method to study our actions and their impacts on the things that keep us alive and healthy -- clean air, water, soil and biodiverse plants and animals -- we must listen.

http://www.thesudburystar.com/2013/06/22/suzuki--the-world-ignores-scientists-at-its-peril

Say what? How does the whole "science isn't perfect" blather prove that the reporting of the Met Office findings were a "misrepresentation"?

Quick answer: It doesn't. Suzuki can't offer even one proof point to support his assertion that the reports were a "misrepresentation."

Indeed, even lefties like the New York Times and the New Republic admit that global warming has hit something of a "plateau" (although, of course, they have newly discovered explanations for it):

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/science/earth/what-to-make-of-a-climate-change-plateau.html?_r=2&

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/113533/global-warming-hiatus-where-did-heat-go#

I guess the New York Times and the New Republic are now part of the Koch Brothers' Evil Empire. :biggrin1:

 

[canada-man]

how many Canadians actually take David Suzuki seriously?

 

[Moviefan-2]

how many Canadians actually take David Suzuki seriously?

Why, I'll have you know that Dr. Suzuki was ranked No. 5 in the CBC's list of greatest Canadians.

 

[shakenbake]

Why, I'll have you know that Dr. Suzuki was ranked No. 5 in the CBC's list of greatest Canadians.

Big fat furry farking deal.

 

[blackrock13]

You and CM make a great couple as your claim is not what the Sudbury article says, but that's not new. Exactly what is wrong with hit a plateau. That might actually mean what is being done might be doing something, but what it probably means is that the industrial output might have lessened because of economic down turn inn the previous years.

 

[blackrock13]

Big fat furry farking deal.

It means MF2 and CM didn't vote for him for sure.

 

[canada-man]

how was your Saturday dinner blackrock13?

 

[Moviefan-2]

You and CM make a great couple as your claim is not what the Sudbury article says, but that's not new. Exactly what is wrong with hit a plateau. That might actually mean what is being done might be doing something, but what it probably means is that the industrial output might have lessened because of economic down turn inn the previous years.

What's "not new" is your inability to read plain English.

Suzuki claimed the Met Office research showing the Earth's temperature hadn't changed in 17 years had been "misrepresented." Suzuki's statement was false.

 

[blackrock13]

What's "not new" is your inability to read plain English.

Suzuki claimed the Met Office research showing the Earth's temperature hadn't changed in 17 years had been "misrepresented." Suzuki's statement was false.

No it's not but feel free to milk this again for all you can. We've been over this already. You are truly insane by the classic definition.

 

[blackrock13]

how was your Saturday dinner blackrock13?

You're so behind the time. At least MF2 has the backbone to respond.

 

[Moviefan-2]

No it's not but feel free to milk this again for all you can. We've been over this already. You are truly insane by the classic definition.

Not at all.

What we debated in previous threads is the relevance of the 15- to 17-year "pause" in global warming, in terms of whether or not we should still believe the computer-model predictions.

Suzuki is claiming no such pause has occurred at all. He says the "deniers falsely claim" that has occurred.

According to what Suzuki wrote, the New York Times and the New Republic can be added to the list of "deniers" making false claims. So can the IPCC and the BBC, for that matter.

 

[fuji]

Moviefan, repeating misinformation doesn't make you clever.

Suzuki is correct that 97% of research has concluded that human activity causes climate change.

It is also correct that denies cherry pick years to make those spurious claims, and his point is people should rely on the research rather than whatever unqualified idiot blog the cherry picked clay was from.

You're just blathering on, apparently believing that if you spout enough nonsense enough times it will become a "debate" instead of the ass kicking it actually is.

97%, deal with it.

 

[Moviefan-2]

97%, deal with it.

Interesting that you completely avoid the main point of the thread -- that Suzuki's statement about the Met Office research was completely false.

So be it.

You want to get into the "consensus" discussion. Fine with me.

Here's the reality: The numbers are a crock. Time and time again, it has been shown that the calculations are dishonest.

But it really doesn't matter. Because even if there is a "consensus," that has absolutely nothing to do with science.

Science is about measuring data, not collecting opinions.

Science is about being right. And, so far, the predictions based on the computer models have proven to be completely wrong.

The arguments about a "consensus" have nothing to do with science. In fact, they are a complete rejection of science. Anyone who disagrees with me on that point doesn't understand how real science works.

So, which is it Fuji? Do you believe in science, or in the "consensus" arguments. You can believe in one or the other, but not both.

Make your pick.

 

[saxon]

I find it hard to believe in global warming. In this planets history there has been times where the planet was almost completely covered with water, another age saw everything tropical and of course we also had the ice age. This planet has changed itself so many times over the thousands of years. we may have a minute part in the way the earth changes but if mother nature wants to have another severe change in climate there is nothing we can do to stop it.

 

[fuji]

Interesting that you completely avoid the main point of the thread -- that Suzuki's statement about the Met Office research was completely false.

Except his statements were correct, you're just too dense to get his point, and yes, 97% of the published studies (i.e., serious and proper analysis of data) conclude that human activity has caused climate change.

Choosing which study to believe based on what you already believe is just stupid, but that is what you are doing. You pick studies that confirm your cockamanie views and prefer editorials and blogs to research.

Your whole approach is just completely anti scientific, foolish, and farcical.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Except his statements were correct, you're just too dense to get his point, and yes, 97% of the published studies (i.e., serious and proper analysis of data) conclude that human activity has caused climate change.

Sticking with the "consensus" argument. Which means you unequivocally reject science.

Got it.

 

[groggy]

Interesting that you completely avoid the main point of the thread -- that Suzuki's statement about the Met Office research was completely false.

So be it.

You want to get into the "consensus" discussion. Fine with me.

Here's the reality: The numbers are a crock. Time and time again, it has been shown that the calculations are dishonest.

But it really doesn't matter. Because even if there is a "consensus," that has absolutely nothing to do with science.

Science is about measuring data, not collecting opinions.

And measuring the data supplied by the people who study the climate shows that 97% of the data backs the work of the IPCC.
You are backing the crackpots funded by Exxon and its ilk.

Arguing why you are wrong about the Met office data is pointless, as you don't understand the science well enough to grasp the arguments.
Google the Dunnig-Kruger effect just to read about why you aren't smart enough to know how ignorant you are.

And then side yourself with the crackpots while ignoring who is giving them money.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Arguing why you are wrong about the Met office data is pointless, as you don't understand the science well enough to grasp the arguments.

If you and Suzuki are right, then not only do I not understand it, but neither do the New York Times, the BBC ... or the IPCC.

 

[groggy]

If you and Suzuki are right, then not only do I not understand it, but neither do the New York Times, the BBC ... or the IPCC.

The NYT and BBC quite probably understand it, but they are probably under pressure from their advertisers to present deniers as legit.
The IPCC has no advertising budget to exact any editorial presence whatsoever.

 

[Moviefan-2]

The NYT and BBC quite probably understand it, but they are probably under pressure from their advertisers to present deniers as legit.
The IPCC has no advertising budget to exact any editorial presence whatsoever.

It's not a question of presenting the "deniers" as anything. They reported the Met Office finding that said the Earth hasn't warmed in 17 years.

That means they are "deniers" who make false claims, according to Suzuki.