Who do you support for U.S. Senate in...
Oh my

Blairsville, GA

#8416 May 1, 2013
Bored wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/blairsville-g...
"SPECIAL REPORT: More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims – Challenge UN IPCC & Gore"
"The well over 1,000 dissenting scientists are almost 20 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers."
IPCC errors: facts and spin
Filed under: Climate Science Communicating Climate IPCC Reporting on climate skeptics
14 February 2010
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives...

Currently, a few errors –and supposed errors– in the last IPCC report (“AR4&#8243;) are making the media rounds – together with a lot of distortion and professional spin by parties interested in discrediting climate science....

Let’s start with a few basic facts about the IPCC. The IPCC is not, as many people seem to think, a large organization. In fact, it has only 10 full-time staff in its secretariat at the World Meteorological Organization in Geneva, plus a few staff in four technical support units that help the chairs of the three IPCC working groups and the national greenhouse gas inventories group. The actual work of the IPCC is done by unpaid volunteers – thousands of scientists at universities and research institutes around the world who contribute as authors or reviewers to the completion of the IPCC reports. A large fraction of the relevant scientific community is thus involved in the effort. The three working groups are:

Working Group 1 (WG1), which deals with the physical climate science basis, as assessed by the climatologists, including several of the Realclimate authors.

Working Group 2 (WG2), which deals with impacts of climate change on society and ecosystems, as assessed by social scientists, ecologists, etc.

Working Group 3 (WG3), which deals with mitigation options for limiting global warming, as assessed by energy experts, economists, etc.

Assessment reports are published every six or seven years and writing them takes about three years. Each working group publishes one of the three volumes of each assessment. The focus of the recent allegations is the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), which was published in 2007. Its three volumes are almost a thousand pages each, in small print. They were written by over 450 lead authors and 800 contributing authors; most were not previous IPCC authors. There are three stages of review involving more than 2,500 expert reviewers who collectively submitted 90,000 review comments on the drafts. These, together with the authors’ responses to them, are all in the public record (see here and here for WG1 and WG2 respectively).
Oh my

Blairsville, GA

#8417 May 1, 2013
Just wondering where a rational person
might turn for their information...

RealClimate
Climate Science from climate scientists
http://www.realclimate.org/

-- OR --

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Committe...
The Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) was founded in 1985. It does policy and lobbying work on the environment from a libertarian perspective. It touts itself as a conservative answer...

http://www.climatedepot.com/about/
Marc Morano, former Communications Director for the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee and senior aide, speechwriter, and climate researcher for Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), is the executive editor and chief correspondent for ClimateDepot.com , a pioneering climate and eco-news center. The news effort, begun in April 2009, is a special project of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT)...
Bored

Dawsonville, GA

#8418 May 1, 2013
ChicknButt wrote:

Hey Stumpy.
Oh my

Blairsville, GA

#8419 May 1, 2013
Bored wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/blairsville-g... #
" U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007
"Senate Report Debunks "Consensus"
" The new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee's office of the GOP Ranking Member details the views of the scientists, the overwhelming majority of whom spoke out in 2007.
Even some in the establishment media now appear to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists. In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics "appear to be expanding rather than shrinking." Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears "bite the dust." (LINK) In addition, many scientists who are also progressive environmentalists believe climate fear promotion has "co-opted" the green movement."
http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm...
And many other sires can be quoted, but why even bother if someone insists 1% equals 100%.
650 Climate Skeptics?
https://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/650Skept...

Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe's Press Blog features tidbits like:

U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007. Senate Report Debunks "Consensus" (Report Released on December 20, 2007) U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (Minority)

U.S. Senate Minority Report Update: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims (December 11, 2008)

UN Blowback: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims (December 10, 2008)

The first question that comes to mind after reading these reports is: who are all these dissenters? Can we get a list? So I went through the entire blog and pulled out all the names of alleged dissenters and looked at their credentials. There are indeed over 650 names on the list. After weeding out duplicates and people whose expertise couldn't be clearly identified (they were described simply as "scientist" or identified just by name as signers of a document, for example) I ended up with just over 600 individuals. I broke them down into four categories:

Credentials Relevant to Climate Change
Total: 98 (16%)

Credentials Possibly Relevant to Climate Change
Total: 162 (27%)

Credentials Not Relevant to Climate Change
Total: 310 (51%)

No Scientific Credentials
Total: 40 (7%)

Bottom line: 58% of the "experts" quoted on Inhofe's blog have no credentials in climate research and only 16% have top-notch credentials.

Who's A Skeptic?

By the standards used by climate change denialists, almost any scientist could be a "skeptic." A substantial fraction of so called "skeptical" remarks quoted by Inhofe are things that everybody in climate research openly admits: the uncertainty of climate models, the likelihood that solar variability plays a role in climate change, the difficulty of separating human caused change from long term natural cycles, and so on. It is entirely possible that many of the scientists quoted as "skeptics" don't know they have been so quoted and would take vigorous exception to being characterized as skeptics. The remarks attributed to "skeptical" scientists range from responsible statements of known uncertainties all the way to irresponsible, even incompetent, statements by people who knowingly distort their credentials.
Bored

Dawsonville, GA

#8420 May 1, 2013
Oh my wrote:
Just wondering where a rational person
might turn for their information...
RealClimate
Climate Science from climate scientists
http://www.realclimate.org/
-- OR --
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Committe...
The Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) was founded in 1985. It does policy and lobbying work on the environment from a libertarian perspective. It touts itself as a conservative answer...
http://www.climatedepot.com/about/
Marc Morano, former Communications Director for the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee and senior aide, speechwriter, and climate researcher for Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), is the executive editor and chief correspondent for ClimateDepot.com , a pioneering climate and eco-news center. The news effort, begun in April 2009, is a special project of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT)...

Like I posted before, you are a gullible fish called a Guppy.

" RealClimate.org is assumed by those who do not know any better to be an "objective" source on climate change. It features activist scientists with degrees in Geology, Geosciences, Mathematics, Oceanography and Physics who are all self proclaimed "climatologists". Yet skeptical scientists with equivalent credentials are not (probably because they have not proclaimed it). Essentially the site exists to promote global warming alarm-ism and attack anyone who does not agree with their declaration of doomsday (proven of course by their own computer climate models) and the need for government intervention against the life supporting, atmospheric trace gas,carbon dioxide. Standard operating procedure is to post "rebuttals" to everything they disagree with and then declare victory, making sure to censor comments challenging their position. It doesn't matter if they actual rebutted any of the science or facts just so long as they provide the existence of a criticism. This gives their fanboys "ammunition" to further promote alarmist propaganda across the Internet (and of course declare victory). Their resident propagandist William Connolley's job is to edit dissent and smear skeptical scientists on Wikipedia. In the world of global warming alarmist "science" pretending you win is apparently all that matters because in real debates they lose. The truth is that RealClimate.org is an environmentalist shill site directly connected to an eco-activist group, Environmental Media Services and Al Gore but they don't want you to know that."


Oh my

Blairsville, GA

#8421 May 1, 2013
Aggie23 wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/blairsville-g...
4. Oh, you mean the drone strikes that Obama has used upwards of 283 (as of Sept 2012 according to CNN) more than 6 times the number Bush authorized. And Obama wanting to use them WITHIN the US borders.
Let's see what a true Libertard has to say...

Rand Paul would have supported drone use in hunt for marathon bomber
By Justin Sink - 04/23/13 10:56 AM ET
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/n...

...Last month, Paul conducted a nearly 13-hour filibuster on the Senate floor after the Obama Administration said in a letter that it was theoretically possible for President Obama to authorize a lethal drone strike on an American citizen under "extraordinary circumstances." The administration subsequently clarified that they did not believe the president had the authority to "use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat."

Paul said that the question of an "imminent threat" was the pivotal one when considering drone policy.

“Here’s the distinction — I have never argued against any technology being used against having an imminent threat an act of crime going on," Paul said. "If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and $50 in cash, I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him, but it’s different if they want to come fly over your hot tub, or your yard just because they want to do surveillance on everyone, and they want to watch your activities."
ChicknButt

Decatur, GA

#8422 May 1, 2013
Oh My-

I think at this stage we've pretty much put the nail in the coffin of the dissenters with absolute facts.

The problem is, they just don't care. They LIKE the way the lies sound, so they'll knowingly keep clinging to them and repeating them.

Weird, isn't it? Just more proof that we're not dealing with intelligent rational people.
Oh my

Blairsville, GA

#8423 May 1, 2013
Bored wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/blairsville-g...
" RealClimate.org is assumed by those who do not know any better to be an "objective" source on climate change. It features activist scientists with degrees in Geology, Geosciences, Mathematics, Oceanography and Physics who are all self proclaimed "climatologists"....
Your source is The Heartland Institute...

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...
The Heartland Institute, according to the Institute's web site, is a nonprofit "think tank" that questions the reality and import of climate change, second-hand smoke health hazards, and a host of other issues that might seem to require government regulation. A July 2011 Nature editorial points out the group's lack of credibility:

"Despite criticizing climate scientists for being overconfident about their data, models and theories, the Heartland Institute proclaims a conspicuous confidence in single studies and grand interpretations....makes many bold assertions that are often questionable or misleading.... Many climate sceptics seem to review scientific data and studies not as scientists but as attorneys, magnifying doubts and treating incomplete explanations as falsehoods rather than signs of progress towards the truth.... The Heartland Institute and its ilk are not trying to build a theory of anything. They have set the bar much lower, and are happy muddying the waters."
==========
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives... (Contributors)
Cartersville Resident

Cartersville, GA

#8425 May 1, 2013
Synergy wrote:
<quoted text>
I was rather decent to you when you absolutely didn't deserve it. So! You wanna rumble? Bring it. lol
I'm BORED with all your BS. It is hopeless with you so keep on doing what you do best!

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#8426 May 1, 2013
ChicknButt wrote:
Oh My-
I think at this stage we've pretty much put the nail in the coffin of the dissenters with absolute facts.
The problem is, they just don't care. They LIKE the way the lies sound, so they'll knowingly keep clinging to them and repeating them.
Weird, isn't it? Just more proof that we're not dealing with intelligent rational people.
Oh, the irony of this post from this poster, one who has had his/her a$$ handed to him/her so many times under so many names...
Bored

Dawsonville, GA

#8427 May 1, 2013
Oh my wrote:
<quoted text>

The three working groups are:
Working Group 1 (WG1), which deals with the physical climate science basis, as assessed by the climatologists, including several of the Realclimate authors.
Working Group 2 (WG2), which deals with impacts of climate change on society and ecosystems, as assessed by social scientists, ecologists, etc.
Working Group 3 (WG3), which deals with mitigation options for limiting global warming, as assessed by energy experts, economists, etc.
When you are fed BS by a libtard website, do you really expect anyone to believe you?

Work Group 1 (known as the FOD group) you got correct, including biased scientist from that sorry website you quoted. I mean they gotta blow their own horn.

Work group 2 (the SOD group) is portrayed by your sorry website as
assessed by social scientists, ecologists, etc. WRONG.


Group 2 is made up of experts(same as group one)and Governments.

"Working Group II assesses the scientific, technical, environmental, economic and social aspects of the vulnerability (sensitivity and adaptability) to climate change of, and the negative and positive consequences for, ecological systems, socio-economic sectors and human health, with an emphasis on regional sectoral and cross-sectoral issues. At the 29th Session of the IPCC (31 August - 4 September 2008 • Geneva, Switzerland), new Working Group II co-chairs were elected to oversee development of the Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability volume of the Fifth Assessment Report: Dr. Chris Field of the United States and Dr. Vicente Barros of Argentina.



The TSU plays a strong scientific leadership role, both in content for Expert Meetings, Special Reports, and the Fifth Assessment Report, as well as in management of the complex communications and implementation associated with IPCC activities. The TSU facilitates the work of the hundreds of volunteer authors and participants who contribute to these products, and ensures wide dissemination of the findings to a broad range of audiences – from the lay public and students to the scientific community and an array of stakeholders. The TSU is housed at the Carnegie Institution for Science in Stanford, California, USA."


""hundreds of volunteer authors and participants who contribute to these products,""

Anyone who considers them self a stakeholder can volunteer, must present credentials to the IPCC. I'm sure many of the libtards on topix with their ability to create a lot of BS would qualify, go for it.


Work Group 3 (the SPM group) will be a government review of the final draft of the Summary for Policymakers. Which is entirely different than what you posted from your sorry website.

government review = politician involvement, and we are right back where we started from, biased opinions about Climate conditions.

Man has a tendency to find news ways to live off taxpayers, always have, always will.

Maybe you need a job government job, maybe you have a government job already.
ChicknButt

Decatur, GA

#8428 May 1, 2013
Oh my wrote:
<quoted text>
Your source is The Heartland Institute...
They just LOVE the Heartland Institute. It keeps telling them what they want to hear. They don't care that we've proven it's paid BS from the Big Energy companies.

The sane reaction to a company like ExxonMobil or Koch Industries intentionally flooding the American marketplace with lies is outrage and boycotts and demands for more transparency and regulations. That would be the sane reaction.

What we see instead is right-wing-whackos running over there begging for more false information. It's pathetic.
ChicknButt

Decatur, GA

#8429 May 1, 2013
Bill in Dville wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, the irony of this post from this poster, one who has had his/her a$$ handed to him/her so many times under so many names...
I've called you out for being an arrogant azshole a few times. Get over it, it's the truth, it's who you are. You've obviously embraced that in your life. However, you've never "handed my a$$ to me".

You're just a psychopathic thread stalker at this point. And an arrogant and azsholish one at that.
Oh my

Blairsville, GA

#8430 May 1, 2013
Bored wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/blairsville-g...
Work group 2 (the SOD group) is portrayed by your sorry website as assessed by social scientists, ecologists, etc. WRONG.

"Working Group II assesses the scientific, technical, environmental, economic and social aspects of the vulnerability (sensitivity and adaptability) to climate change of, and the negative and positive consequences for, ecological systems, socio-economic sectors and human health, with an emphasis on regional sectoral and cross-sectoral issues.
Let's examine this statement...
"Working Group II assesses the scientific, technical, environmental, economic and social aspects"

this sure sounds like this summary...
Working Group 2 (WG2), which deals with impacts of climate change on society and ecosystems, as assessed by social scientists, ecologists, etc.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives...

Thank you for the opportunity to repost this link.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#8432 May 1, 2013
ChicknButt wrote:
<quoted text>
I've called you out for being an arrogant azshole a few times. Get over it, it's the truth, it's who you are. You've obviously embraced that in your life. However, you've never "handed my a$$ to me".
You're just a psychopathic thread stalker at this point. And an arrogant and azsholish one at that.
ROFLMAO.

Ur butt has been figuratively kicked in here so many times it must be painful for u to sit on it. Different names, different ISP, same results. Maybe ur too dumb to realize it.

Jes' sayin'
formerresident

Decatur, GA

#8433 May 1, 2013
The volumes of books of which we get three minutes to explain!
ChicknButt

Decatur, GA

#8434 May 1, 2013
bored monitor wrote:
<quoted text>
ROFLMAO.
Ur butt has been figuratively kicked in here so many times it must be painful for u to sit on it. Different names, different ISP, same results. Maybe ur too dumb to realize it.
Jes' sayin'
Well, since this opinion is coming from a known name-jacker and simpleton, I guess I'll have to give it all the consideration it deserves.

Anybody seen a trash can around here?
columbus native

Edmond, OK

#8435 May 1, 2013
Aggie23 wrote:
And just to show how the knee jerk reaction now is that EVERYTHING must be connected to global warming, let's turn to CNN's Deb Feyerick's interview with Bill Nye about the close pass of a large asteroid in February.
Feyerick: "Talk about something else that's falling from the sky and that is an asteroid....Is this an effect of, perhaps, of global warming or is this just some meteoric occasion?"
http://theothermccain.com/2013/02/10/cnn-anch...
What is your explanation for obvious global warming? Could it be plants in China and the far east putting tons of toxic waste in our air with little or no pollution controls? Now if you are invested in the stock market your favorite picks may be the ones who need to pay more for pollution control which of cource would slightly effect your companies bottom line. There is a definate warming going on and why are republicans so defensive and in denial? What is causing it?
columbus native

Edmond, OK

#8436 May 1, 2013
Once again we independents need to thank the president for not involving this country into another war in Syria. There are those among us who want us to drop everything and go after some leader in a country half way around the world and attempt to bring it to our standard(whatever in hell that is). Now 11 years ago we did the same thing and the country is in worst shape now than before we got deceived into it. How about that fool of a john mccain? Got his azz in a sling for several years over in Vietnam dropping flesh burning napalm on the elderly and pregnant mothers and this fool can't wait to get my country involved into another costly insne war. This guy has got some kind of a chip on his shoulder folks!
Informed Opinion

United States

#8437 May 1, 2013
ChicknButt wrote:
Oh My-

I think at this stage we've pretty much put the nail in the coffin of the dissenters with absolute facts.

The problem is, they just don't care. They LIKE the way the lies sound, so they'll knowingly keep clinging to them and repeating them.

Weird, isn't it? Just more proof that we're not dealing with intelligent rational people.
Great post.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Richmond Hill Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Pediatrician in hinesville tried to steal my fa... May 29 Erick the Dick 2
Poll Is it bad my gf has slept with 80-90 men before... (Sep '13) May 28 Ernest 38
News Savannah council opposes offshore drilling May 27 waste of time 1
News Navy divers to help raise confederate warship a... May 26 Sterkfontein Swar... 4
News Pipeline decision expected May 26 lol 16
News Court date set for Rincon chief's traffic charges May 23 pepper23 1
Best Chinese in Pooler May 23 JMHS 1
More from around the web

Richmond Hill People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]