I always enjoy watching climate alarmists jump on that ride at the amusement part, the one that spins you around and around and around, especially if it is the type where the bottom drops out. Now, in an article entitled Missteps By Climate Scientists Threatens Climate Change Agenda (which rather proves that it is all about something other than science), the AP shows just how obdurate and pig headed the True Believers are, instead of being broad minded and inquisitive, the optimal position for scientists.
After laying out all the issues involved with the UN IPCC report through the first six paragraphs, we are treated to
Climate researchers say the errors do not disprove the U.N. panel’s central conclusion: Climate change is happening, and humans are causing it. Some researchers said the U.N. panel’s attitude-appearing to promise that its results were infallible, and reacting slowly to evidence that they were not-could undermine the rest of its work.
Even Phil Jones has acknowledged that much of the data is bunk, that it was just as warm, if not warmer, during the Medieval Warm Period, and that there has been no statistical warming over the past 15 years. Something all the climate alarmist computer models said was impossible.
“What’s happened here is that there’s an industry of climate-change denialists who are trying to make it seem as though you can’t trust anything that is between the covers” of the panel’s report, said Jeffrey Kargel, a professor at the University of Arizona who studies glaciers. “It’s really heartbreaking to see this happen, and to see that the IPCC left themselves open” to being attacked.
Got that? It is the fault of people whose minds are open and are interested in the actual real data and real science who are at fault, but not the fault of those who are falsifying, spinning, alarming, and just making it up as they go, scientists who have enormous amounts of prestige, power, and money at stake for pushing man made global warming theories and scare-mongering.
“The underlying science is certainly there, but the citation process the IPCC went through is sloppy. There’s no other word for it,” said Doug Boucher, director of the Tropical Forest and Climate Initiative at the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Ah, the old “fake but accurate” argument. Makes one wonder when actual science will begin on the alarmist side.
Correct. More lies exposed. Finally.
It’s all they have.
OMG, Teach. You are so in over your head, and you’re making a fool of yourself by showing it to the world. When are you going to realize this?
First of all, you’re claiming that a “good chunk” of the IPCC report is “fake”? Really? I only know of two or three small discrepancies, and all are in working group II and III reports, which deal with the effects of a warming climate, and remediation and/or adaptation, respectively. Has anything been scrutinized from the WGI report, which is the one that contains the proof that the planet is warming, and that it’s primarily anthropogenic in nature? No.
Secondly, Phil Jones has not definitely NOT “acknowledged that much of the data is bunk”. This is a horrendous misrepresentation of what he said in his interview. Oh, and what is “statistical warming”? That doesn’t even make sense. This is so utterly ludicrous. You can’t even get the terminology right. What Jones said was that he agreed that there has been no “statistically-significant warming” since 1995, but (and here’s the part that you deniers conveniently omit) that it’s primarily because of the short time frame. I don’t expect you to understand this, but I’m going to try to explain it for you anyway:
The interannual variability in temperature is so high that over short time periods (less than 30 years or so), it is extremely difficult to determine a trend in ANY direction that is significant at the 95% significance level. There is a trend, and that trend is positive 0.12 deg C per year over the past 15 years.
I’m sure you’ll just continue on with your overly simplistic examination of this very complex scientific issue, and your generalization about an entire body of work, based on a few examples which you have blown out of proportion, but at least now you have seen the other side of the argument.
So, yes, a couple of errors have been found. And yes, I would even agree that you could say that they call other evidence into question. However, they do not disprove anything, and THIS is what you and your denier friends are trying to claim. You jump to the conclusion that the entire report is bunk, based on a few very trivial examples that have nothing to do with the scientific evidence for man’s role in causing our planet to warm. When you have proof that any of the evidence supporting AGW is false, let me know. I’d love to see it.
REASIC’S BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACK!
If any of the data they used are wrong, poorly obtained or just plain made up, then they ought to get back to the drawing board and start fresh. Plain and simple. And look who’s over their heads, I’d say the IPCC.
I certainly wouldn’t want this shoddy work done on the designers of cars, planes and ships, would you? Could cause much death and mayhem. Well, it amounts to the same effect on our lives to know what parts of the AGW are true and which are false. In the meantime, let’s not be rushing to ruin our economy based on falsehoods, even if it’s only parts, not the whole thing.
And I don’t know what drives anyone to defend this behavior. Period.
If any of the data they used are wrong, poorly obtained or just plain made up, then they ought to get back to the drawing board and start fresh. Plain and simple. And look who’s over their heads, I’d say the IPCC.
I certainly wouldn’t want this shoddy work done on the designers of cars, planes and ships, would you? Could cause much death and mayhem. Well, it amounts to the same effect on our lives to know what parts of the AGW are true and which are false. In the meantime, let’s not be rushing to ruin our economy based on falsehoods, even if it’s only parts, not the whole thing.
And I don’t know what drives anyone to defend this behavior. Period.
Ah. So, one person makes a typo in the second working group’s report, making 2350 into 2035, and now they need to start over on the entire project, even the reports that had nothing to do with that section?
I’m sorry, but that’s nonsense, Trish.
I’ll agree that they can start over with that claim about the Himalayan glacier, or just remove it. There. Problem solved. Now why would they need to remove anything else again?
That’s exactly what I’m trying to get across to you people. None of the claims made about the IPCC reports have anything to do with whether AGW is true. That is addressed in the WGI report. The only valid concerns I’ve seen so far have been from the WGII and maybe WGIII reports. AGW is still intact. What don’t you understand about that?
It’s very easy to just sit there and call for throwing the whole thing out when you don’t understand the first thing about climate change, the IPCC, or their processes, but that just doesn’t reflect the reality of the situation.
That is, unless of course you can show me something I’ve missed. Do you have any evidence that AGW has been disproved? Or are you just generalizing about the entire several-thousand-page report, based on a clerical error?
Wow. You get climate trolls? Cool.
All I ever get is spam.
LOL! Now it is typo’s “that ate my AGW.” Denial.
And of course, Teach has no specific rebuttals to any of my arguments. He never does. He only ignores the facts and then re-surfaces later with the same debunked claims again. Thank you for being so predictable, Teach.
That’s because you don’t even bother to make an argument based on the FACTS, realsick.
There’s nothing to answer. It is all agw fluff.
My arguments aren’t based on the “FACTS”?! Please, Otter, go back to my first comment in this thread and explain for me which of my points were not factual. I’d love to see you get specific with your allegations, something no one hear ever seems willing to do.
hear… lol. Oops.
I believe in climate change. I believe that over the eons, there has been boatloads of climate change. I believe that the earth is ever evolving, ever changing. And it is in patterns of climate change that we see with our own eyes, and those we weren’t here to witness, that made our beautiful planet what it is today. I believe that we should clean her up, and make her pretty for our own sakes and the sakes of future generations.
I do not however subscribe to the notion that ANYthing we do is going to endanger the earth. The planet will survive anything we can do to it, but we will have to live with the tragedy of our own making if we don’t understand the results. I do not entirely include CO2 in that equation, as it is found throughout nature and is given off in greater amounts by bigger forces than us. (see: Volcanoes, Rain Forests etc) I’d concede that we can and should develop alternate means of power over the next 100 years, but not to the ludicrous extent of forced and immediate limitations these folks are proposing.
However, at any given time in any given year, I do believe that the earth could explode in a new burst of “change”- be it volcanic, climatic or meteoric, and we could be gone in a split second.
(have you ever watched the History channel? I love those shows!)
Poof- gone in a flash, and we just squandered our last years fighting and ruining our lives over this stupid subject; whether man is greater than nature/God/the Earth!
Meanwhile Reasic, it’s good to have you back, and as long as we agree to disagree, all is right with the world!
Trish,
I want to be sure I understand your arguments, so I will restate them, for clarity. Please correct me if I’m wrong:
1. Climate has always changed. Before the Industrial Revolution, that change was natural. Therefore, current change is also natural.
2. Man couldn’t possibly do anything to harm the planet.
3. Carbon dioxide cannot negatively impact the planet because it occurs naturally.
3a. Or maybe it was that human carbon dioxide emissions couldn’t negatively impact the planet because they are dwarfed by natural carbon dioxide emissions?
Please verify your arguments so that I can further address them.
Thanks for the kind words. I don’t have negative feelings toward any of you. Except Otter.
Just kidding.