Is there *Anything* in the IPCC report that's not BS?

How not to buy a brick in a box off the back of a truck.
User avatar
manny
Posts: 1830
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 4:41 pm
Location: New York

Is there *Anything* in the IPCC report that's not BS?

Post by manny »

This week's revelation that the so-called "scientists" who want to impoverish mankind were making shit up comes from The Netherlands, who turn out to not be drowning.

User avatar
Geni
Posts: 5883
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 9:02 am
Location: UK

Re: Is there *Anything* in the IPCC report that's not BS?

Post by Geni »

manny wrote:This week's revelation that the so-called "scientists" who want to impoverish mankind were making shit up comes from The Netherlands, who turn out to not be drowning.
With the amount the Netherlands have spent and continue to spend on the Delta Works it not too supprising that they don't drown too often. Sure they are still sinking (land subsidence it happens) but it's not as if the place hasn't historicaly flooded from time to time anyway.

User avatar
Bearguin
Posts: 8093
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 12:26 am
Title: Thankless Bastard!
Location: Get off my fucking lawn

Post by Bearguin »

No evidence could be found to show the claim had been published in a peer-reviewed journal and reports in Britain have said the reference came from green group the WWF, who in turn sourced it to the New Scientist magazine.

Fuck.

Just let McMahon run the goddamn WWF. They have about as much credibility as the WWE.

User avatar
Geni
Posts: 5883
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 9:02 am
Location: UK

Post by Geni »

Bearguin wrote:
No evidence could be found to show the claim had been published in a peer-reviewed journal and reports in Britain have said the reference came from green group the WWF, who in turn sourced it to the New Scientist magazine.

Fuck.

Just let McMahon run the goddamn WWF. They have about as much credibility as the WWE.
? The WWF has made a lot of claims about many things over the years. Pretty small number that have been dissputed. Not a fan of their logo mind.

En folkefiende
Posts: 17511
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:38 am
Location: Waiting for an electrician

Post by En folkefiende »

You guys need to look a bit farther than the denier chorus for your data.

Frankly, it doesn't matter why the climate is changing, because it obviously is changing, and we'd better understand it.

Now, the "humans last" morons, that's another story.
Formerly jj, the enemy of the people, aka the bullies who rant and lie here.

User avatar
djw
Posts: 246
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:05 pm
Location: Boston MA

Post by djw »

jj wrote:You guys need to look a bit farther than the denier chorus for your data.

Frankly, it doesn't matter why the climate is changing, because it obviously is changing, and we'd better understand it.

Now, the "humans last" morons, that's another story.
Read that second sentence again but slowly. Let the words sink in. :shock:

User avatar
Mentat
Posts: 10271
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 11:00 pm
Location: Hangar 18

Post by Mentat »

jj wrote:You guys need to look a bit farther than the denier chorus for your data.

Frankly, it doesn't matter why the climate is changing, because it obviously is changing, and we'd better understand it.

Now, the "humans last" morons, that's another story.
It's important to know to what degree (and thus how to mitigate) human effects on the climate. Thus why.
It's "pea-can", man.

Lapis Sells . . . But Who's Buying?

User avatar
ed
Posts: 38126
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 11:52 pm
Title: G_D

Post by ed »

Geni wrote:
Bearguin wrote:
No evidence could be found to show the claim had been published in a peer-reviewed journal and reports in Britain have said the reference came from green group the WWF, who in turn sourced it to the New Scientist magazine.

Fuck.

Just let McMahon run the goddamn WWF. They have about as much credibility as the WWE.
? The WWF has made a lot of claims about many things over the years. Pretty small number that have been dissputed. Not a fan of their logo mind.
Vince McMahon has never made a claim regarding global warming or the environment that has been disputed. At least that I am aware of.

User avatar
ed
Posts: 38126
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 11:52 pm
Title: G_D

Post by ed »

Mentat wrote:
jj wrote:You guys need to look a bit farther than the denier chorus for your data.

Frankly, it doesn't matter why the climate is changing, because it obviously is changing, and we'd better understand it.

Now, the "humans last" morons, that's another story.
It's important to know to what degree (and thus how to mitigate) human effects on the climate. Thus why.
I think the point to all this is that the neded to demonstrate any effect remains and that has to be there before one can discuss "how much".

User avatar
Mentat
Posts: 10271
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 11:00 pm
Location: Hangar 18

Post by Mentat »

ed wrote:
Mentat wrote:
jj wrote:You guys need to look a bit farther than the denier chorus for your data.

Frankly, it doesn't matter why the climate is changing, because it obviously is changing, and we'd better understand it.

Now, the "humans last" morons, that's another story.
It's important to know to what degree (and thus how to mitigate) human effects on the climate. Thus why.
I think the point to all this is that the neded to demonstrate any effect remains and that has to be there before one can discuss "how much".
If you're ignorant of the matters, then you could say there is no effect. The real argument is to what degree. The "we're not doing anything" point is for the plebes unable to grasp the basics.
It's "pea-can", man.

Lapis Sells . . . But Who's Buying?

En folkefiende
Posts: 17511
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:38 am
Location: Waiting for an electrician

Post by En folkefiende »

ed wrote: I think the point to all this is that the neded to demonstrate any effect remains and that has to be there before one can discuss "how much".
Of course, it's clear that there has to be some effect of some kind, but exactly what is unclear.

And, of course, if we do enter climate runaway and start to die off, that will be proof, but what use will it be?

Demanding proof of harm in this case is a bit like demanding one shoots one's self in the temple.
Formerly jj, the enemy of the people, aka the bullies who rant and lie here.

User avatar
Rob Lister
Posts: 22416
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 7:15 pm
Title: Incipient toppler
Location: Swimming in Lake Ed

Post by Rob Lister »

jj wrote:You guys need to look a bit farther than the denier chorus for your data.
Where should one look for data? Every source seems either utterly corrupt (ipcc, et al), corrupt (mann, et al) or based on corrupt (papers that ref mann, et al in a significant way).

There's got to be a redo. And it's got to be open and audited.

If you believe AGW is real, you should be calling for the heads of those that placed this science in its current state of utter disrepute.

User avatar
Geni
Posts: 5883
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 9:02 am
Location: UK

Post by Geni »

Rob Lister wrote:
jj wrote:You guys need to look a bit farther than the denier chorus for your data.
Where should one look for data? Every source seems either utterly corrupt (ipcc, et al), corrupt (mann, et al) or based on corrupt (papers that ref mann, et al in a significant way).
You are aware that there is more than one IPCC report?
There's got to be a redo. And it's got to be open and audited.
You offering to pay?
If you believe AGW is real, you should be calling for the heads of those that placed this science in its current state of utter disrepute.
PR people? History shows that isn't too effective. To damn many of them.

User avatar
Rob Lister
Posts: 22416
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 7:15 pm
Title: Incipient toppler
Location: Swimming in Lake Ed

Post by Rob Lister »

Geni wrote:
You are aware that there is more than one IPCC report?
Absolutely. Would like to move goal posts and talk about the others?

User avatar
Rob Lister
Posts: 22416
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 7:15 pm
Title: Incipient toppler
Location: Swimming in Lake Ed

Post by Rob Lister »

Geni wrote: PR people? History shows that isn't too effective. To damn many of them.
??? you mean like Dr. Pachauri of the IPCC? Gaven Schmit Real Climate? William Connelly of Wiki? Shall I mention others?

I guess you might be right there. Their lies are starting to catch up with them.

User avatar
Rob Lister
Posts: 22416
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 7:15 pm
Title: Incipient toppler
Location: Swimming in Lake Ed

Post by Rob Lister »

Here's the latest. Seems they have a whole sackful of lies and exaggerations under their desk.
Robert Watson, chief scientist at Defra, the environment ministry, who chaired the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) from 1997 to 2002, was speaking after more potential inaccuracies emerged in the IPCC’s 2007 benchmark report on global warming.

The most important is a claim that global warming could cut rain-fed north African crop production by up to 50% by 2020, a remarkably short time for such a dramatic change. The claim has been quoted in speeches by Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, and by Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary-general.

This weekend Professor Chris Field, the new lead author of the IPCC’s climate impacts team, told The Sunday Times that he could find nothing in the report to support the claim. The revelation follows the IPCC’s retraction of a claim that the Himalayan glaciers might all melt by 2035.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/e ... 017907.ece

I think the IPCC is pretty much done for. It would not be enough to remove Pachauri, they'll have to change the name in order to ever again have any credibility.

And the next one will be watched very closely.

User avatar
Bearguin
Posts: 8093
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 12:26 am
Title: Thankless Bastard!
Location: Get off my fucking lawn

Post by Bearguin »

Geni wrote:
Rob Lister wrote: There's got to be a redo. And it's got to be open and audited.
You offering to pay?
JESSUS FUCKING CHRIST ARE YOU REALLY THIS STUPID?

You want us to accept crap "science" because it would cost too much to do it right and then demand, based on the "crap" science that we need to make wholesale changes to our economy, lifestyle etc that will cost trillions?

Do the fucking science right. Open and audited is right.

Fuck this argument is really pissing me off. The whole "climate change" crew sounds like a fucking religious cult everytime they open their mouths.

What is different between demanding the test be done properly, the data being made available for re-testing and demanding the same from a homeopath?

Don't like the term you are working under? Well, just change Global Warming/Creationism to Climate Change/Intelligent design.

And, of course, you can't expect the general public to understand your results/bible unless they hold the right degrees/have the holy spirit.

And now you have the balls to say we shouldn't re-do the test under proper conditions because it would cost too much.

FUCK.

User avatar
ed
Posts: 38126
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 11:52 pm
Title: G_D

Post by ed »

Geni's has only a nodding acquaintance with science. Don't be harsh.

User avatar
Bearguin
Posts: 8093
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 12:26 am
Title: Thankless Bastard!
Location: Get off my fucking lawn

Post by Bearguin »

ed wrote:Geni's has only a nodding acquaintance with science. Don't be harsh.

But it's not really just Geni making these comments.

User avatar
Mentat
Posts: 10271
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 11:00 pm
Location: Hangar 18

Post by Mentat »

Bearguin wrote:Don't like the term you are working under? Well, just change Global Warming/Creationism to Climate Change/Intelligent design.
How many times do I have to spell this out? Climate change and global warming address two different issues. Not a hard concept.
It's "pea-can", man.

Lapis Sells . . . But Who's Buying?