Story of the Year: It's Global Warming, Stupid

Dec 31, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Common Dreams

My favorite headline of 2012 was " It's Global Warming, Stupid ," which appeared on the cover of Bloomberg Businessweek on Nov.

Comments (Page 5)

Showing posts 81 - 100 of324
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94
Jan 5, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

The Bobster wrote:
<quoted text>
AGW is junk science. When the "scientists" at the IPCC were pressed for the raw data, they said they lost it.
1) You're confusing the IPCC with CRU, unsurprising given your obvious ignorance and stupidity.

2) When asked for the raw data, CRU actually said "It's available from the original sources: go and get it." Which was too much trouble, so they invented a conspiracy instead.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#95
Jan 6, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

The Bobster wrote:
<quoted text>
AGW is junk science. When the "scientists" at the IPCC were pressed for the raw data, they said they lost it.
I think what you are referring to is the CRU. When the CRU was asked for raw data they were unable to provide it. It was 'lost' in a computer that had been decommisioned.

Until a new data set is compiled with raw data available to the public and the methodology used to adjust the data is disclosed, it's best not to put much credibility in what the CRU publishes.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#97
Jan 6, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>What are those errors?
Gossip is not enough.
Here's a big one. The Himalayan glaciers will melt by 2035.

It was originally a phone conversation between a New Scientist writer and a researcher in India in the year 2000. The New Scientist writer proceeded to write a magazine article and stated in that article that the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035.

The story was picked up by a WWF writer and published in the WWF publication where the IPCC author found it. He put it into the ARA4 report and gave it a 95% confidence level.

At the time the magazine article was published again in the IPCC report, the original paper had been published. The published paper said nothing about the glaciers melting by 2035. But it was a good story and fit the agenda of the IPCC so instead of even researching the completed paper the IPCC just published it. Put it in the policy makers summary.

When asked why the IPCC would take a magazine article and put it in the IPCC report with a 95% confidence level the author replied, that he had to take infomation from credible sources.

The author evidently thought that an magazine article from the World Wildlife Fund was a credible source. And could be used to influence policy makers throughout the world.

But hey, even greenpeace articles are included in the IPCC report as science.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#98
Jan 6, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Which demonstrates it's not the solar forcing but AGW!
Thanks.
What it demonstrates is you don't know what you are looking at.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#99
Jan 6, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Fun Facts wrote:
But hey, even greenpeace articles are included in the IPCC report as science.
Another lie.

The science section of the IPCC report contains only peer reviewed artlicles.
Himalayan glaciers: In a regional chapter on Asia in Volume 2, written by authors from the region, it was erroneously stated that 80% of Himalayan glacier area would very likely be gone by 2035. This is of course not the proper IPCC projection of future glacier decline, which is found in Volume 1 of the report. There we find a 45-page, perfectly valid chapter on glaciers, snow and ice (Chapter 4), with the authors including leading glacier experts (such as our colleague Georg Kaser from Austria, who first discovered the Himalaya error in the WG2 report). There are also several pages on future glacier decline in Chapter 10 (“Global Climate Projections”), where the proper projections are used e.g. to estimate future sea level rise. So the problem here is not that the IPCC’s glacier experts made an incorrect prediction. The problem is that a WG2 chapter, instead of relying on the proper IPCC projections from their WG1 colleagues, cited an unreliable outside source in one place. Fixing this error involves deleting two sentences on page 493 of the WG2 report.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives...
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#100
Jan 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Another lie.
The science section of the IPCC report contains only peer reviewed artlicles.
<quoted text>
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives...
It's that reading thing again isn't it.

from you reference "their WG1 colleagues, cited an unreliable outside source"

That's what I said.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#101
Jan 6, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
It's that reading thing again isn't it.
from you reference "their WG1 colleagues, cited an unreliable outside source"
That's what I said.
It's you who have a problem with reading.
The problem is that a WG2 chapter, instead of relying on the proper IPCC projections from their WG1 colleagues, cited an unreliable outside source in one place.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#102
Jan 6, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's a big one. The Himalayan glaciers will melt by 2035.
It was originally a phone conversation between a New Scientist writer and a researcher in India in the year 2000. The New Scientist writer proceeded to write a magazine article and stated in that article that the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035.
The story was picked up by a WWF writer and published in the WWF publication where the IPCC author found it. He put it into the ARA4 report and gave it a 95% confidence level.
At the time the magazine article was published again in the IPCC report, the original paper had been published. The published paper said nothing about the glaciers melting by 2035. But it was a good story and fit the agenda of the IPCC so instead of even researching the completed paper the IPCC just published it. Put it in the policy makers summary.
When asked why the IPCC would take a magazine article and put it in the IPCC report with a 95% confidence level the author replied, that he had to take infomation from credible sources.
The author evidently thought that an magazine article from the World Wildlife Fund was a credible source. And could be used to influence policy makers throughout the world.
But hey, even greenpeace articles are included in the IPCC report as science.
A big lie for a small mind.

Why don't you let tina answer? Because you know she's also full of it. Big time.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103
Jan 6, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
bla blah
it's best not to put much credibility in what the CRU publishes.
Oh NO. The small mind said credibility.

The aim of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) is to improve scientific understanding in
• past climate history and its impact on humanity
• the course and causes of climate change during the present century
• prospects for the future

[Small minds don't like CRU.]
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104
Jan 6, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Another lie.
The science section of the IPCC report contains only peer reviewed artlicles.
<quoted text>
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives...
Deleting a sentence?

To a small mind, that is like deleting a whole report. Then other small minds would say "report full of errors."

Of course, if they don't understand the science, they lie about the report.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105
Jan 6, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
1)[He's] confusing the IPCC with CRU, unsurprising given [his] obvious ignorance and stupidity.
2) When asked for the raw data, CRU actually said "It's available from the original sources: go and get it." Which was too much trouble, so they invented a conspiracy instead.
The aim of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) is to improve scientific understanding in
• past climate history and its impact on humanity
• the course and causes of climate change during the present century
• prospects for the future

[That's what they hate.]
PHD

Bertram, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#106
Jan 6, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>
The aim of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) is to improve scientific understanding in
• past climate history and its impact on humanity
• the course and causes of climate change during the present century
• prospects for the future
[That's what they hate.]
Well well sopacedoutblues by your own admission they really really don't know. Thanks for clearing that up.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107
Jan 6, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>
The aim of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) is to improve scientific understanding in
• past climate history and its impact on humanity
• the course and causes of climate change during the present century
• prospects for the future
[That's what they hate.]
correction:

they = climate science deniers

I.E. those deniers hate the aim of CRU.
brrrrrrrrr

Riverhead, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#108
Jan 6, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>correction:
they = climate science deniers
I.E. those deniers hate the aim of CRU.
So, "VacuumCranium", can you explain why the last ice started and why it ended?

And, what precisely would it cost to lower the earth temp back to what you consider to be the correct setting on the global thermostat? How long would it take? What makes you think it's even possible?

Be specific. The future of the earth depends on your answers.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109
Jan 6, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

brrrrrrrrr wrote:
<quoted text>
So, "VacuumCranium", can you explain why the last ice started and why it ended?
And, what precisely would it cost to lower the earth temp back to what you consider to be the correct setting on the global thermostat? How long would it take? What makes you think it's even possible?
Be specific. The future of the earth depends on your answers.
FYI, there is no vacuum in this universe.

Ask those who care about the earth. Besides you are too sloppy in formulating ideas.
PHD

Bertram, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#110
Jan 7, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>correction:
they = climate science deniers
I.E. those deniers hate the aim of CRU.
Now that’s precious the spacedoutblues now is following in the “pinheadlitesout” steps. When in doubt make corrections. Spacedoutblues really really doesn’t know.
yawwwwn

Riverhead, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#111
Jan 7, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>FYI, there is no vacuum in this universe.
Ask those who care about the earth. Besides you are too sloppy in formulating ideas.
A "duck and hide" retreat.

Why don't you wish to enlighten the thousands of other posters on the edge of their seats waiting for your enlightening reply?
PHD

Bertram, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#112
Jan 7, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

To spacedoutblues to give a real answer.
PHD

Bertram, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#114
Jan 8, 2013
 
Well the spacedoutblues really really dosen't know.

“dening those who deny nature. ”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#115
Jan 8, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>What are those errors?
Gossip is not enough.
How about the BBC for those calling for Pachuria's resignation. As far as the IPCC AR4 errors. There were many and there were many reports from various sources. In fact at one point many of the scientist who were cited had publically requested their names be removed from the report. Here is something to refreash your memory. Remember the bit about the Himalayas glaciers melting. They supposed to have quoted an expert and it turns out that what they quoted was the WWF magazine article that badly misphrased what the man had said in order to spin the subject.
Funny how the idea of man made climate change is nothing more than gossip and yet you believe it while scientific evidence to the contrary is ignored. You believe gossip when it is something you want and refuse it when it is something you do not want.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment...
http://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/Includes/...
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2...
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/22/texas-s...
http://objectivistindividualist.blogspot.com/...

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 81 - 100 of324
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••
•••
•••