|
Post by nickrr on Oct 26, 2011 18:37:49 GMT 1
If you want to know whether AGW is true or not the IPCC is irrelevant. It's the underlying science that shows AGW is almost certainly true, not the IPCC. If they disappeared tomorrow it wouldn't make the slightest difference to this conclusion.
To summarize, my faith is in the underlying science, not the IPCC.
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Oct 26, 2011 18:55:33 GMT 1
No-one's saying AGW isn't "true". I've just lit a fag which, scientifically, will cause an increase in the global temperature. It's the extent and the consequences that are in question. Well, they were until the warmists prove themselves and their data to be corrupt.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Oct 28, 2011 18:14:34 GMT 1
Nickrr says the IPCC is irrelevant! Hurrah. Light dawns. Since this is the organisation set up specifically to find the evidence for Anthropogenic Global Warming (the foregone conclusion) and advise the world's governments what to do about it, nick's is a great example for other alarmists also to abandon their over-hyped anxieties.
Advocacy and science don't mix. Sadly we have to go through yet another charade of IPCC warmism in the form of the upcoming AR5 before the whole bandwagon finally bites the dust.
Still, if nickrr has abandoned the IPCC, that's great because without the IPCC there would not be the world-wide alarmist movement hoovering up states' funds trying desperately to "prove" their wild ideas!
|
|
|
Post by nickrr on Oct 29, 2011 10:12:23 GMT 1
Why do even simple concepts have to be explained to you so many times?
The IPCC does not find evidence for AGW - scientists do that. The IPCC reports and advises on that evidence. What this means is that even if the IPCC did not exist, the evidence would remain. It is this evidence, amassed by scientists, not the IPCC, that shows AGW is almost certainly true. This means that the IPCC are not needed to show AGW.
Please try to understand - it's not that difficult.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Oct 29, 2011 12:18:10 GMT 1
I understand just fine, nickrr. Here is Lindzen’s summary of the IPCC process. He is an eminent climate scientist in case you were unaware of the fact. Like abacus, you seem totally unaware of the extent of disagreement amongst the people working in this field. This is because the IPCC has muddied the waters and given rise to the false belief, lapped up by yourself, that the science is settled.
“It uses summaries to misrepresent what scientists say; uses language that means different things to scientists and laymen; exploits public ignorance over quantitative matters; exploits what scientists can agree on while ignoring disagreements to support the global warming agenda; and exaggerates scientific accuracy and certainty and the authority of undistinguished scientists.”
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Oct 29, 2011 12:23:00 GMT 1
Gail Coombs, on WUWT says, and I agree
"I think all that can be said is the climate changes in a cyclical pattern (based on history) and we have a bunch of pieces of the puzzle but not enough real understanding to stand firm behind any one “Theory” At this point, with climate science in its infancy, we should be GATHERING DATA and not making idiotic statements to the Media “That the science is settled” or that “CO2 is the control knob”
|
|
|
Post by nickrr on Oct 30, 2011 9:55:42 GMT 1
It's quite amusing how you claim to understand the argument and then immediately say something which demonstrates that you don't.
I've made my points as clearly as I can. I'll leave you to your rants about the IPCC - about which I don't give a damn.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Oct 30, 2011 10:54:43 GMT 1
Temper, temper!
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Apr 18, 2012 12:01:22 GMT 1
beesaman on WUWT says: April 17, 2012 at 2:39 pm Before starting my present academic career I spent more than twenty years as an Industrial Instrumentation, Measurement and Control Engineer and it just plain amuses me when I read the nonsense about measuring global temperatures. Bottom line is garbage in garbage out and no amount of data massaging can alter that fact. Until we get reliable and accurate temperatue measurements covering the whole globe then proxy this and proxy that spliced to here today gone tomorrow temperature measurements and constantly recalibrated satelllite radiance data will tell us only what the modeller wants us to see. It is not only disengenuous but downright dishonest for climate scientists to state that we can measure to such an accuracy let alone produce trends which are then used to squander billions in tax payers monies worlwide on such nonsense as AGW. But then everyone seems to be awed by the Emperors new clothes and chasing green research grants to state the obvious. Sorry if that offends anyone but it seems that so much of this modelling is really just to obscure the fact that the initial data is so poor. wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/17/results-from-the-surface-temperature-outlier-races-just-in-time-for-ar5/#comment-959163
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on May 14, 2012 1:28:15 GMT 1
Which looks scarier? This or this? The former shows the purported deviation or "anomalies" from a long term global average mean temperature while the latter shows the purported absolute global mean temperature. If the latter graph had been plotted in degrees Kelvin it would have appeared even less scary. In fact, it would have hardly differed from a level straight line! A temperature rise from 287K to 287.8K is not very scary at all.
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on May 14, 2012 8:46:46 GMT 1
...yes, but I need it to be scary because 'I am concerned'. I need an excuse like this to interfere in other people's lives in order to justify my need to control. If I can't make their lives more miserable how else can I improve my self aggrandisement. Do get real.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on May 14, 2012 13:34:28 GMT 1
Sorry!
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 24, 2012 16:46:49 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Jun 24, 2012 20:42:36 GMT 1
A new low for the South Pole, not a new world record low (which stands at -88C I think).
More remarkable is the fact that the world record high of 58C, recorded in Libya in 1922, has still not been equalled.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 25, 2012 12:41:07 GMT 1
Wow!
|
|