Global Warming - running out of time to prevent ECONOMIC disaster

B

BCO

Honorary Master
Joined
Dec 17, 2004
Messages
13,229
So what's the issue here? There were mistakes in the literature. These mistakes have been identified and have been (or will be) corrected. That's how science works all the time. I agree that non-peer reviewed articles have no place in the IPCC reports, but these all seem to be in the Working Group 2 documents that discuss IMPACTS, not in the more hard-science based WG1 assessment. Hopefully, the next WG2 report will be more rigorous.

There's still no better explanation of current warming than AGW - you both know it.
 
P

Phronesis

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
3,675
Of course, because the IPCC said so, and this warming is likely going to be catastrophic... because the IPCC said so... Ring the alarm bells, tax all those evil rich countries for killing the planet...
 
B

BCO

Honorary Master
Joined
Dec 17, 2004
Messages
13,229
Exactly. Rather put a smartass answer, coz you don't have a better alternate explanation.
 
P

Phronesis

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
3,675
Another IPCC.... lie...
UN wrongly linked global warming to natural disasters

And the IPCC cited experts for the alarmism regarding the Amazonian forests?
A policy analyst and a freelance journalist... So far all science there :whistling:

After Climategate, Pachaurigate and Glaciergate: Amazongate
And now for Amazongate

Climategate
Glaciergate
Amazongate...what next?

Even granting that the past 150 year warming is because of anthropgenic influences... how does it differ from past natural warming cycles? Worse? Average? Below average?
 
B

BCO

Honorary Master
Joined
Dec 17, 2004
Messages
13,229
Well if it's got "gate" at the end of its name, it must be bad...

Anyway, are you now conceding that current warming is primarily anthropogenic?
 
P

Phronesis

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
3,675
How can anyone logically concede to such an opinion if the climate can not be accurately modelled, nevermind making any predictions...
Remember cloud cover, the magnitude of positive and negative feedback influences, ENSO, PDO, the sun etc., all of which need an increased understanding.
 
Z

zippy

Honorary Master
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
10,321
never fear, when the s***t hits the fan we'll make a plan :D Nothing like impending poop to inspire innovation :D
 
B

BandwidthAddict

Expert Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
2,380
If this article is true, then AGW is dead in the water. What you gonna do BCO? How are you going to cope? Will we need to put him on suicide watch? Stay tuned.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...email-row-admits-data-organised.html?ITO=1490

Update:

Here is the BBC story:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511701.stm

He said he stood by the view that recent climate warming was most likely predominantly man-made.

But he agreed that two periods in recent times had experienced similar warming. And he agreed that the debate had not been settled over whether the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than the current period.
Click to expand...

Highlighted portion is a huge reversal of policy which was, up to current, that the current climate was the warmest in history. The BBC article leaves out the following details referenced by the Daily Mail article which says:

Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.

And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.
Click to expand...

Considering that the BBC has bought into and shilling for AGW hook line and sinker, I am thinking that the Daily Mail may be telling the truth but I would like to see the actual interview for myself before I take the plunge.

Someone should hook up a generator to BCO, his spinning will be generating gigawatts of free green power :)
 
Last edited:
Fazda

Fazda

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 24, 2009
Messages
11,414
B

BandwidthAddict

Expert Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
2,380
Fazda said:
Quoting from the Daily Mail is like telling us that You Magazine produces sound Scientific articles. Don't get too excited about any suicide watches..:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

So are you saying that the BBC is full of carp as well? I personally believe them to be a bunch of lying useless pieces of bovine leftovers but you crowd worship them as the harbingers of truth.

From the BBC:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm

B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.
Click to expand...

Isn't that what the Daily Mail said? Not so much You is it?

I love this one as well, this one for BCO:

N - When scientists say "the debate on climate change is over", what exactly do they mean - and what don't they mean?

It would be supposition on my behalf to know whether all scientists who say the debate is over are saying that for the same reason. I don't believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this. This is not my view. There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties, not just for the future, but for the instrumental (and especially the palaeoclimatic) past as well.
Click to expand...

Spin, spin, spin. Just recently the offical word was that the science was settled. Oh noes, now he has to back-pedal.

BCO, spin that wheel.
 
B

BCO

Honorary Master
Joined
Dec 17, 2004
Messages
13,229
Wow, it would appear that a certain forumite's a little obsessed with me. How flattering.

Said forumite's a great cherry picker too.
 
Last edited:
B

BandwidthAddict

Expert Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
2,380
BCO said:
Wow, it would appear that a certain forumite's a little obsessed with me. How flattering.

Said forumite's a great cherry picker too.
Click to expand...

What? No pseudo-science response from RealClimate.org?

I love the smell of napalm in the morning ;)
 
B

BCO

Honorary Master
Joined
Dec 17, 2004
Messages
13,229
Gotta love how fluent some people are at Doublespeak. Tell you what, BWA, how about you define what pseudoscience is, and then provide me with some "real" science from the contrarian camp. I'm dying to see it.
 
B

BandwidthAddict

Expert Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
2,380
BCO, nice trap, tip-toes gracefully around it. Is that all ye got?

Gotta love how fluent some people are at Doublespeak.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know you do. Unnatural sea level rising, coral islands sinking due to global warming alone, acidic seas, more and bigger hurricanes, arctic sea ice disappearing and allowing ships to travel through the north pole, antarctic ice disappearing, and so on. (BTW, did that kayaker you were so hot about ever manage to canoe to the north pole?) RealClimate has been doing the equivalent of shouting "FIRE" in a theater for the last decade and "hiding the decline" so policy makers will have an easy time of passing those lucrative cap-and-trade laws. Well, lucrative for the RealClimate and IPCC crowd that is; economic disaster for the rest of us.

Anyway, I, being the lazy slob that I am, have left it to others to work through the Q&A and WUWT did not disappoint.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/...th-bbc-reopens-the-science-is-settled-issues/

But to "cheery pick" (SIC):

Specifically, the Q-and-As confirm what many skeptics have long suspected:
  • Neither the rate nor magnitude of recent warming is exceptional.
  • There was no significant warming from 1998-2009. According to the IPCC we should have seen a global temperature increase of at least 0.2°C per decade.
  • The IPCC models may have overestimated the climate sensitivity for greenhouse gases, underestimated natural variability, or both.
  • This also suggests that there is a systematic upward bias in the impacts estimates based on these models just from this factor alone.
  • The logic behind attribution of current warming to well-mixed man-made greenhouse gases is faulty.
  • The science is not settled, however unsettling that might be.
  • There is a tendency in the IPCC reports to leave out inconvenient findings, especially in the part(s) most likely to be read by policy makers.
Click to expand...

Oh what a beautiful morning, oh what a beautiful day, ...
 
B

BCO

Honorary Master
Joined
Dec 17, 2004
Messages
13,229
BandwidthAddict said:
BCO, nice trap, tip-toes gracefully around it. Is that all ye got?



Yes, I know you do. Unnatural sea level rising, coral islands sinking due to global warming alone, acidic seas, more and bigger hurricanes, arctic sea ice disappearing and allowing ships to travel through the north pole, antarctic ice disappearing, and so on. (BTW, did that kayaker you were so hot about ever manage to canoe to the north pole?) RealClimate has been doing the equivalent of shouting "FIRE" in a theater for the last decade and "hiding the decline" so policy makers will have an easy time of passing those lucrative cap-and-trade laws. Well, lucrative for the RealClimate and IPCC crowd that is; economic disaster for the rest of us.

Anyway, I, being the lazy slob that I am, have left it to others to work through the Q&A and WUWT did not disappoint.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/...th-bbc-reopens-the-science-is-settled-issues/

But to "cheery pick" (SIC):



Oh what a beautiful morning, oh what a beautiful day, ...
Click to expand...

Ok, so the contrarians don't have any real science of their own then? Coz I don't see any in your post. How bout you shut the **** up until you can bring some actual science to this discussion?


You also evidently don't know what pseudoscience is.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top