Global warming

Aviation Trivia, Jokes & Humour

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
viki
Ooops forgot to turn the fuel back on!
Posts: 494
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 1:52 pm
Closest Airfield: FALA

Re: Global warming

Unread post by viki » Thu Jan 03, 2019 7:45 pm

Skymaster wrote:
Thu Jan 03, 2019 3:56 pm
The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change misled the press and public into believing that thousands of scientists backed its claims on man made global warming


Like a stuck record you keep repeating the oldest debunked dribble over and over again:
Proffesor Mike Hulme HIMSELF dismissed the above hogwash right off the bat:

It seems ironic that one key version of this argument – that the IPCC ‘misleads’ by misrepresenting the science of climate change and its potential consequences - is itself a gross misrepresentation of a statement made by Professor Mike Hulme, a climate change scientist who works at the University of East Anglia. He was also co-ordinating Lead Author for the chapter on ‘Climate scenario development’ for the IPCC’s AR3 report, as well as a contributing author for several other chapters. This is how Hulme dismissed the claim:

"I did not say the ‘IPCC misleads’ anyone – it is claims that are made by other commentators, such as the caricatured claim I offer in the paper, that have the potential to mislead."

The same argument also has a broader scope, demonstrated by the claim that within the IPCC, there is a politically motivated elite who filter and screen all science to ensure it is consistent with some hidden agenda. This position turns the structure of the IPCC into an argument, by claiming that the small number of lead reviewers dictate what goes into the IPCC reports.

Before considering this argument in full, it is prudent to observe that the IPCC does no science or research at all. Its job is purely to collate research findings from thousands of climate scientists (and others working in disciplines that bear on climate science indirectly, such as geology or chemistry). From this, the IPCC produces ‘synthesis reports’ – rather like an executive summary – in which they review and sum up all the available material. It is necessary therefore to have an organisational structure capable of dealing efficiently with so much information, and the hierarchical nature of the IPCC structure is a reflection of this requirement.

How does the process work? The IPCC primarily concerns itself with science that has been published in peer-reviewed journals, although, as it makes clear in the IPCC’s published operational appendices, it does also use so called ‘grey’ material where there is insufficient or non-existent peer-reviewed material available at the time the reports are prepared. See IPCC principles, Annex 2: Procedure for using non-published/non-peer-reviewed sources in IPCC reports. Many people are involved in this complex process:

“More than 450 Lead Authors and more than 800 Contributing Authors (CAs) have contributed to the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4)".

Source: The role of the IPCC and key elements of the IPCC assessment process, February 2010

To suggest the IPCC can misrepresent the science belies the fact that such misrepresentations would be fiercely criticised by those it misrepresented. Considering how many lead authors and contributors are involved, any egregious misrepresentation would hardly remain unremarked for very long.

The Broader Consensus

As with all such disputes, it is helpful to consider if there is any evidence of credible independent support for the reports the IPCC has produced, and the conclusions those reports contain. If the accusations were true, such misrepresentation would also be problematic for official bodies, particularly national science academies and the like.

On that basis, it is reassuring to note that nearly every major national scientific body e.g. the Royal Society (UK) or the National Academy of Sciences (US), unreservedly supports the work and findings of the IPCC. An expanded list can be found here, including this statement:

“With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change”.

In 2010 an independent investigation of the IPCC was launched. Conducted by the InterAcademy Council, which represents the world’s scientific academies, the report highlighted a number of organisational and procedural areas that the council felt could be improved. However, the recommendations did not detract from the council’s appreciation of the IPCC’s work:

“The Committee found that the IPCC assessment process has been successful overall. However, the world has changed considerably since the creation of the IPCC, with major advances in climate science, heated controversy on some climate-related issues, and an increased focus of governments on the impacts and potential responses to changing climate”.

Source: IAC Report Executive Summary

Like all organisations, the IPCC can improve on its performance. Recent defensiveness regarding errors or ambiguities in the AR4 report may be mitigated in light of unpleasant attacks on the organisation and its director, but the criticisms are valid none the less.

However, claims that the IPCC does not accurately represent the views and findings of the scientists, on whose work the IPCC reports are based, are not supported by the facts.
User avatar
viki
Ooops forgot to turn the fuel back on!
Posts: 494
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 1:52 pm
Closest Airfield: FALA

Re: Global warming

Unread post by viki » Thu Jan 03, 2019 8:01 pm

Skymaster wrote:
Thu Jan 03, 2019 3:56 pm
Certainly non of their "science is settled" claims of high temperatures have happened.
And this has forced the IPCC to reduce their original high temperatures claims to the point where they could well fall within any margin of error!
Yet another old myth you keep on repeating like an old record:

There are a number of misconceptions concerning Phil Jones' email. These are easily cleared up when one takes the time to read Jones' words in context.
The "decline" is about northern tree-rings, not global temperature

Phil Jones' email is often cited as evidence of an attempt to "hide the decline in global temperatures". This claim is patently false and shows ignorance of the science discussed. The decline actually refers to a decline in tree growth at certain high-latitude locations since 1960.

Tree-ring growth has been found to match well with temperature. Hence, tree-rings are used to plot temperature going back hundreds of years. However, tree-rings in some high-latitude locations diverge from modern instrumental temperature records after 1960. This is known as the "divergence problem". Consequently, tree-ring data in these high-latitude locations are not considered reliable after 1960 and should not be used to represent temperature in recent decades.
The "decline" has nothing to do with "Mike's trick".

Phil Jones talks about "Mike's Nature trick" and "hide the decline" as two separate techniques. However, people often abbreviate the email, distilling it down to "Mike's trick to hide the decline". Professor Richard Muller from Berkeley commits this error in a public lecture:

"A quote came out of the emails, these leaked emails, that said "let's use Mike's trick to hide the decline". That's the words, "let's use Mike's trick to hide the decline". Mike is Michael Mann, said "hey, trick just means mathematical trick. That's all." My response is I'm not worried about the word trick. I'm worried about the decline."

Muller quotes "Mike's nature trick to hide the decline" as if its Phil Jones's actual words. However, the original text indicates otherwise:

"I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline."

It's clear that "Mike's Nature trick" is quite separate to Keith Briffa's "hide the decline". "Mike's Nature trick" refers to a technique (a "trick of the trade") by Michael Mann to plot recent instrumental data along with reconstructed past temperature. This places recent global warming trends in the context of temperature changes over longer time scales.

There is nothing secret about "Mike's trick". Both the instrumental and reconstructed temperature are clearly labelled. Claiming this is some sort of secret "trick" or confusing it with "hide the decline" displays either ignorance or a willingness to mislead.

Skeptics like to portray "the decline" as a phenomena that climate scientists have tried to keep secret. In reality the divergence problem has been publicly discussed in the peer-reviewed literature since 1995 (Jacoby 1995). The IPCC discuss the decline in tree-ring growth openly both in the 2001 Third Assessment Report and in even more detail in the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report.

The common misconception that scientists tried to hide a decline in global temperatures is false. The decline in tree-ring growth is plainly discussed in the publicly available scientific literature. The divergence in tree-ring growth does not change the fact that we are currently observing many lines of evidence for global warming. The obsessive focus on a misquote taken out of context, doesn't change the scientific case that human-caused climate change is real.
User avatar
viki
Ooops forgot to turn the fuel back on!
Posts: 494
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 1:52 pm
Closest Airfield: FALA

Re: Global warming

Unread post by viki » Thu Jan 03, 2019 8:03 pm

heisan wrote:
Thu Jan 03, 2019 4:35 pm
Skymaster wrote:
Thu Jan 03, 2019 3:56 pm
The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change misled the press and public into believing that thousands of scientists backed its claims on man made global warming, according to Mike Hulme, a prominent climate scientist and IPCC insider.
The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was “only a few dozen” he states in a paper for Progress in Physical Geography, co-authored with student Martin Mahony.
Where do people find this garbage? How about reading the actual paper being so badly msquoted here:
http://www.probeinternational.org/Hulme ... 5B1%5D.pdf

Or reviewing actual consensus studies:
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.10 ... 1/4/048002
(All data sources and methodologies are available, and you can happily review them yourself, rather than misquoting arbitrary 'sources' from the internet.)
=D> #-o
User avatar
MadMacs
Too Tousand
Too Tousand
Posts: 2086
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 3:41 pm
Closest Airfield: GRJ
Location: On my bed

Re: Global warming

Unread post by MadMacs » Fri Jan 04, 2019 8:33 pm

Global warming for dummies:

The Flat Earth Society has members all around the globe.
User avatar
viki
Ooops forgot to turn the fuel back on!
Posts: 494
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 1:52 pm
Closest Airfield: FALA

Re: Global warming

Unread post by viki » Sat Jan 05, 2019 10:26 am

Your denier youtube features Roy Spencer :lol:

Why is it that they never seem to get their basics in science correct: (because their main agenda is to deceive the public)

"Roy Spencer has come up with yet another “silver bullet” to show that climate sensitivity is lower than IPCC estimates. I.e., he fits a simple 1-box climate model to the net flux of heat into the upper 700 m of the ocean, and infers a climate sensitivity of only about 1 °C (2x CO2). There are several flaws in his methods–inconsistent initial conditions, failure to use the appropriate data, and failure to account for ocean heating deeper than 700 m. (He fixed the last one in an update.) All of these flaws pushed his model to produce a lower climate sensitivity estimate. When the flaws are corrected, the model estimates climate sensitivities of at least 3 °C, which is the IPCC’s central estimate. ... while Spencer’s latest effort doesn’t really do any damage to the consensus position, it turns out that it does directly contradict the work he promoted in The Great Global Warming Blunder."

This clown even tries to pretend that Oil is not behind his motives:

While Spencer's claims to receive no "corporate funding" may be technically true, since GMI is a non-profit that is funded by other non-profits set up by oil and gas companies to help launder their profits and advance their policy agenda, he devotes significant time aiding the agenda of such corporations. There is no mention of his connection to the George C. Marshall Institute on the "About" page of his weblog.

No matter how many deniers tries to lie about climate change, they cannot change the science facts.
Triaan
Taxiing
Posts: 79
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2017 12:11 pm
Closest Airfield: FALA

Re: Global warming

Unread post by Triaan » Sat Jan 05, 2019 10:45 am

vanjast
Frequent AvComer
Posts: 586
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2017 6:08 pm
Closest Airfield: 200

Re: Global warming

Unread post by vanjast » Sun Jan 06, 2019 9:52 am

User avatar
cage
8000 Tousand
8000 Tousand
Posts: 8868
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 9:47 am
Closest Airfield: FAGC
Location: ..for the grass 35

Re: Global warming

Unread post by cage » Sun Jan 06, 2019 10:15 am

vanjast wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 9:52 am
The Lord has spoken...
Thanks, will pass on the waffle of the 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, a hereditary peer, public speaker (for profit) and proud member of UKIP.
You'd need to be somewhat intellectually challenged to put any stock in what this inbred yokel has to say about the world. :lol:
User avatar
zander
Flaps set for Take off
Posts: 99
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2015 1:33 pm
Closest Airfield: fala
Location: honeydew

Re: Global warming

Unread post by zander » Sun Jan 06, 2019 10:31 am

cage wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 10:15 am
vanjast wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 9:52 am
The Lord has spoken...
Thanks, will pass on the waffle of the 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, a hereditary peer, public speaker (for profit) and proud member of UKIP.
You'd need to be somewhat intellectually challenged to put any stock in what this inbred yokel has to say about the world. :lol:
:lol:
User avatar
zander
Flaps set for Take off
Posts: 99
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2015 1:33 pm
Closest Airfield: fala
Location: honeydew

Unread post by zander » Sun Jan 06, 2019 10:33 am

The deniers just keep coming back for more #-o :lol:

Triaan
Taxiing
Posts: 79
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2017 12:11 pm
Closest Airfield: FALA

Re: Global warming

Unread post by Triaan » Sun Jan 06, 2019 10:58 am

part2...

It gets better :lol: :lol:

Comedy gold this is !



vanjast
Frequent AvComer
Posts: 586
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2017 6:08 pm
Closest Airfield: 200

Re: Global warming

Unread post by vanjast » Sun Jan 06, 2019 11:03 am

So you have two sides.. :wink:
One side are a bunch of loonies... and the other ? :lol:

It's good to have opposition points of view and discuss them.
This winds up the proponents nicely and then they'll cherry-pick, which is fine.
This does water down the usual zealot attitude of the 'believers' into something more acceptable, and ultimately this whole warming thing will come to little. Give it time... lots of time. a few thousand years maybe. :wink:
Last edited by vanjast on Sun Jan 06, 2019 11:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
zander
Flaps set for Take off
Posts: 99
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2015 1:33 pm
Closest Airfield: fala
Location: honeydew

Re: Global warming

Unread post by zander » Sun Jan 06, 2019 11:14 am

cherry-pick, which is fine.
Cherry pick ? It's clearly pointed out in the above videos or did you miss the comedy :lol:
The videos points out what the unbiased science say very clearly.
On the other hand, show us YOUR evidence on the contrary.

Running out of lying and deceiving mouthed oil funded "scientists" and presenters to "support" your stance ? :lol:

C'mon put up another clown for us to ridicule, hopefully we're just getting started =D>
and ultimately this whole warming thing will come to little. Give it time... lots of time. a few thousand years maybe. :wink:
Says who.. You ? :lol:
Last edited by zander on Sun Jan 06, 2019 12:04 pm, edited 2 times in total.
vanjast
Frequent AvComer
Posts: 586
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2017 6:08 pm
Closest Airfield: 200

Re: Global warming

Unread post by vanjast » Sun Jan 06, 2019 11:21 am

Let's play clown for clown.. your turn :lol:
User avatar
zander
Flaps set for Take off
Posts: 99
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2015 1:33 pm
Closest Airfield: fala
Location: honeydew

Re: Global warming

Unread post by zander » Sun Jan 06, 2019 11:30 am

vanjast wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 11:21 am
Let's play clown for clown.. your turn :lol:
I don't put up clowns thank you, I trust unbiased non cherry picked scientific evidence :wink:

Return to “123.45”