A second opinion on global warming

Sep 19, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: World Magazine

The United Nations science panel responsible for writing influential reports on climate change has exaggerated the likely amount of future global warming, and overstated its potential harm, scientists said in an alternative report released this week.

Comments

Showing posts 1 - 18 of18

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Sep 19, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

I doubt that this comes as a surprise to anyone, and I'm sure it will be swept under the same bulging rug with all the other lies.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Sep 19, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Top climate scientists admit global warming forecasts were wrong
Top climate scientists have admitted that their global warming forecasts are wrong and world is not heating at the rate they claimed it was in a key report.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/...

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Sep 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Earthling-1 wrote:
Top climate scientists admit global warming forecasts were wrong
This report doesn't actually name any of these scientists.

What is required here is a bit of scepticism.

Is this an actual statement by scientists, if so who, or just the author's interpretation of the report put into the mouth of "top climate scientist" credibility it doesn't deserve?

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Sep 19, 2013
 
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
This report doesn't actually name any of these scientists.
What is required here is a bit of scepticism.
Is this an actual statement by scientists, if so who, or just the author's interpretation of the report put into the mouth of "top climate scientist" credibility it doesn't deserve?
Correction: mouths... to give it credibility...

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Sep 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

A second opinion on global warming?

LOL it's Fred Singer wheeled out again.

Despite the fact he's 90.

Denial is getting old.

Literally.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Sep 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
This report doesn't actually name any of these scientists.
What scientists? The members of this group are the same fosisl fuel funded denial 'doubt manufacturers' that have their own blogs. This is just a cover to hide their nature.

Heartland Institute.
Cato Institute
SEPP (Fred Singer)
Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (a front for ExxonMobil)
The Cato Institute (a front for the Koch Brothers)
Watts Up With That (a denialist blogger)

Closest thing to scientists in this pile of doggy doodoo is Pat Michaels (propaganda site: Center for the Study of Science) a long term 'paid skeptic' aka denialist enabler, Michaels holds A.B. and S.M. degrees in biological sciences and plant ecology from the University of Chicago, and he received a Ph.D. in ecological climatology from the University of Wisconsin at Madison in 1979

Robert Carter (retired marine geologist): Carter was born in England and emigrated to New Zealand in 1956. He obtained a B.Sc.(Hons) in geology from the University of Otago in 1963 and returned to England to complete a Ph.D. in paleontology from the University of Cambridge in 1968.

James Taylor (Heartland Institute) Taylor received his bachelor's degree from Dartmouth College where he studied atmospheric science and majored in government. He received his Juris Doctorate from Syracuse University"

The same grab bag of fringe scientists (the 3%) that have a vested interest in grabbing headlines and funding by being 'contrarians', not skeptics.
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
What is required here is a bit of scepticism.
"The new report, Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science, is approximately 1,200 pages long and produced by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, established in 2003 (by the Heartland Institute, a fossil fuel lobby group) to counter the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). " The same idiots that brought you Ted Kazinsky (the UnaBomber) as a 'scientist'.

http://tinyurl.com/p5pbo7n
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Is this an actual statement by scientists, if so who, or just the author's interpretation of the report put into the mouth of "top climate scientist" credibility it doesn't deserve?
Cindy Baxter, a longtime climate campaigner, said she thinks climate skeptics "are getting more shrill, but getting less notice"

But Michaels of the Cato Institute said he isn't convinced his messages are falling on deaf ears, especially among IPCC scientists.

"Do I think the IPCC is very sensitive to these critiques?" he said. "Do I think they keep an eye on what me and my apparently few friends are saying? You bet I do."

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Sep 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
What scientists? The members of this group are the same fosisl fuel funded denial 'doubt manufacturers' that have their own blogs. This is just a cover to hide their nature.
Heartland Institute.
Cato Institute
SEPP (Fred Singer)
Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (a front for ExxonMobil)
The Cato Institute (a front for the Koch Brothers)
Watts Up With That (a denialist blogger)
Closest thing to scientists in this pile of doggy doodoo is Pat Michaels (propaganda site: Center for the Study of Science) a long term 'paid skeptic' aka denialist enabler, Michaels holds A.B. and S.M. degrees in biological sciences and plant ecology from the University of Chicago, and he received a Ph.D. in ecological climatology from the University of Wisconsin at Madison in 1979
Robert Carter (retired marine geologist): Carter was born in England and emigrated to New Zealand in 1956. He obtained a B.Sc.(Hons) in geology from the University of Otago in 1963 and returned to England to complete a Ph.D. in paleontology from the University of Cambridge in 1968.
James Taylor (Heartland Institute) Taylor received his bachelor's degree from Dartmouth College where he studied atmospheric science and majored in government. He received his Juris Doctorate from Syracuse University"
The same grab bag of fringe scientists (the 3%) that have a vested interest in grabbing headlines and funding by being 'contrarians', not skeptics.
<quoted text>
"The new report, Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science, is approximately 1,200 pages long and produced by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, established in 2003 (by the Heartland Institute, a fossil fuel lobby group) to counter the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). " The same idiots that brought you Ted Kazinsky (the UnaBomber) as a 'scientist'.
http://tinyurl.com/p5pbo7n
<quoted text>
Cindy Baxter, a longtime climate campaigner, said she thinks climate skeptics "are getting more shrill, but getting less notice"
But Michaels of the Cato Institute said he isn't convinced his messages are falling on deaf ears, especially among IPCC scientists.
"Do I think the IPCC is very sensitive to these critiques?" he said. "Do I think they keep an eye on what me and my apparently few friends are saying? You bet I do."
earthling linked to another article. Your comments apply to the article at the top. My second post applies to that story. Sorry for the confusion resulting from earthling's spam.
dont drink the koolaid

Minneapolis, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Sep 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
This report doesn't actually name any of these scientists.
What is required here is a bit of scepticism.
...and to what end would employing "scepticism" serve?

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Sep 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

dont drink the koolaid wrote:
<quoted text>
...and to what end would employing "scepticism" serve?
If you were a little sceptical, you would realise that the headline is not justified by any evidence or supporting statements presented in the article.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Sep 20, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

IPCC authors confident their global warming predictions were wrong
By RON ARNOLD | SEPTEMBER 20, 2013 AT 8:22 AM
The 31-page “Summary for Policymakers” of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change announced the authors' stunning concession that computer-modeled forecasts of imminent planetary catastrophe were catastrophically wrong – global surface temperatures haven’t risen significantly in the last 15 years – but, even with many other doubts, also insisted that the IPCC is more confident than ever that global warming is mainly humans’ fault.

Then European Union Climate Change Commissioner Connie Hedegaard told the London Telegraph that EU policy on global warming is right even if the science is wrong. That’s nuts, but that’s Big Green: Facts don’t matter.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/ipcc-authors-co...

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Sep 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Earthling-1 wrote:
IPCC authors confident their global warming predictions were wrong
By RON ARNOLD | SEPTEMBER 20, 2013 AT 8:22 AM
The 31-page “Summary for Policymakers” of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change announced the authors' stunning concession that computer-modeled forecasts of imminent planetary catastrophe were catastrophically wrong...
Er, no it didn't.

Let's be charitable and call this an invention.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Sep 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Global Warming Predictions Proven Wrong 97.4% Of The Time
“It’s a real problem [the misinformation]… it shows that there really is something that needs to be fixed in the climate models.”– Climate scientist John Christy.

“I looked at 73 climate models going back to 1979 and every single one predicted more warming than happened in the real world.”– John Christy, professor at the University of Alabama Huntsville.
http://www.westernjournalism.com/global-warmi...

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Sep 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Climate Computer Models Are Proven Wrong
Global warming hysteria is based on climate computer models that don't work. If outgoing radiation from the atmosphere is reduced to less than the incoming radiation from the Sun, heat energy will accumulate in the climate system causing rising temperatures. The models assume CO2 emissions will cause water vapour, the strongest greenhouse gas, to increase in the upper atmosphere, trapping the radiation. They also assume clouds will trap more radiation. But satellite and weather balloon data shows just the opposite of the climate model predictions.- See more at: http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php...
http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php...

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Sep 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Climate Scientists: We Might Have Been Wrong, But Pay Up Anyway!
Top climate scientists admit global warming forecasts were wrong ... Change is understood to concede that the computer predictions for global warming and the effects of carbon emissions have been proved to be inaccurate.
http://redicecreations.com/article.php...

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Sep 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Earthling-1 wrote:
Climate Scientists: We Might Have Been Wrong, But Pay Up Anyway!
Top climate scientists admit global warming forecasts were wrong ... Change is understood to concede that the computer predictions for global warming and the effects of carbon emissions have been proved to be inaccurate.
http://redicecreations.com/article.php...
Can you name one of these scientists?

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Sep 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Earthling-1 wrote:
Climate Computer Models Are Proven Wrong
Global warming hysteria is based on climate computer models that don't work. If outgoing radiation from the atmosphere is reduced to less than the incoming radiation from the Sun, heat energy will accumulate in the climate system causing rising temperatures. The models assume CO2 emissions will cause water vapour, the strongest greenhouse gas, to increase in the upper atmosphere, trapping the radiation. They also assume clouds will trap more radiation. But satellite and weather balloon data shows just the opposite of the climate model predictions.- See more at: http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php...
http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php...
Friends of Science?

More like friends of the Canadian oil industry.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...

Lindzen and Choi 2009 has not faired well in the scientific community.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Lindzen-Choi-...

Still, no turd too stinking for earthling to pick up and throw.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Sep 21, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Earthling-1 wrote:
Global Warming Predictions Proven Wrong 97.4% Of The Time
“It’s a real problem [the misinformation]… it shows that there really is something that needs to be fixed in the climate models.”– Climate scientist John Christy.
“I looked at 73 climate models going back to 1979 and every single one predicted more warming than happened in the real world.”– John Christy, professor at the University of Alabama Huntsville.
http://www.westernjournalism.com/global-warmi...
Christy and Spencer made their case by comparing the outputs of 73 climate models to satellite temperature measurements, and showing that the models seemed to predict more warming than has been observed. But the comparison was not of surface temperatures, or of the lowermost layer of the atmosphere, or even any measurement global average temperatures. They specifically looked at measurements of the temperature of the middle troposphere (TMT) in the tropics.

There's certainly nothing wrong with examining this particular subset of temperature data, but it's a bit of an odd choice on the face of it. The real problem lies in the fact that satellite measurements of TMT are highly uncertain. In fact, estimates of the TMT trend by different scientific groups vary wildly, despite using the same raw satellite data.

Another problem is that the stratosphere (the layer of the atmosphere above the troposphere) is cooling – an expected consequence of the increased greenhouse effect. But some of the cooling stratosphere bleeds into the TMT data, leading to another cool bias. While there is a discrepancy between model simulations and measurements of tropical troposphere temperatures, it's not clear how much (if any) is due to the models being wrong, and how much is due to errors in the measurements. As a U.S. Climate Change Science Program report co-authored by John Christy concluded,

"This difference between models and observations may arise from errors that are common to all models, from errors in the observational data sets, or from a combination of these factors. The second explanation is favored, but the issue is still open."

However, in mainstream media interviews and editorials, Christy and Spencer always fail to mention the possibility that the problem could lie more in the measurements than the models, which frankly is intellectually dishonest. Additionally, climate models have done very well in projecting long-term global surface temperature changes.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climat...

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Sep 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

FuGyou wrote:
Still, no turd too stinking for earthling to pick up and throw.
As long as you're prepared to pick them up, I'll keep on throwing them, with my double sealed plastic gloves lined with latex on, of course.Ö¿Ö

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 1 - 18 of18
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.

•••
•••
•••
•••