70 replies to this topic

[ExpandMyMind]

Mattshark, on 28 January 2010 - 11:58 AM, said:

No they have been shown to be inaccurate. The IPCC's error regarding the Himalaya's was a silly and badly thought out mistake and should have been checked further. Monckton out and out lied though, please don't pretend the 2 things are the same.

are you serious? do you actually believe what you have written here? they were not shown to be 'inaccurate'. they were known to be based on nothing but opinion and guesswork, the IPCC was warned not to use the information as it was baseless. this is technically fraud. or lying. they lied, after being advised not to (and also used data from research that wasn't even finished!) with regards to the hymalayan glaciers, the amazon rainforest, the theory that we would cause hurricaines and other (natural) disasters. all lies by the way they were presented.

and the can of worms has only just been opened! god knows what slimey wrigglers are still sweating around in there...

edit to add. all of the mentioned above were non-peer reviewed science passed off as such.

Mattshark, on 28 January 2010 - 11:58 AM, said:

Secondly, I also put up a link to all Moncktons error's in that piece. Seems that was too much for anyone for acknowledge, as it seems is papers I have put up, lots of papers, not one person has actually attempted to address them, so don't you dare call me a hypocrite when I have done everything I can to present a real scientific case only to have it completely ignored in it's entirity.

i believe that as you are a man of science, after you read my above post you will come to realise that your view on monkton, with regards to this subject, is hypocritical. only by definition though...

Edited by expandmymind, 28 January 2010 - 06:24 PM.

[ExpandMyMind]

Higgs Boson, on 28 January 2010 - 05:59 AM, said:

In summary...

"Uh, this dude is known for lying."

"YEAH BUT OTHER PEOPLE LIE TOO SO WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THAT"

Beautiful.

well see, you do have a justified point. definately. but the point i was making was that it turns out that the 'science' that matt and others have referenced for quite some time (the IPCC's <former> holy grail. the one that won the nobel prize) has now turned out to be laced with lies. how can someone take on board what one liar says? then disregard something another says, using the sad excuse, 'he's a liar'?

Edited by expandmymind, 28 January 2010 - 06:35 PM.

[eqgumby]

Mattshark, on 28 January 2010 - 06:07 PM, said:

Then please tell me who you were referring too? I certainly never attacked you, I have said McIntyre is a quote mine and, I offered context and explanation for what has been written and reason to why the "climategate" e-mails have been taken out of context.
Please tell me why I have been arrogant?
This science is accepted very much in the scientific community
Who have I attacked exactly? I have made a clear and distinct division between those who are merely sceptical and those who outright deny in the face of evidence. I am failing to see why you are attacking me here.


Please re-read what I have wrote because I have not once called you a liar.

You:

Quote

...do not make such claims when they are not true,...

The clear assertion here is that I am telling a lie. That would make me a liar.
This is a common tactic seen in this debate.
Your arrogance is in condemning me for having the opinion that there are politics driving both sides of this scientific debate.
I'll take the Bunny's advice and request, and step back. But I am warning you, do NOT call me a liar, no matter how you want to turn the phrase. You have no right or place to do so. If you want to counter my opinion with one of your own, do so. I clearly stated mine, and the reasoning behind it, including my own lack of scientific knowledge in the climate world. I would imagine a professional such as yourself would respect an opinion of a person willing to admit their own weakness.

[Mattshark]

expandmymind, on 28 January 2010 - 06:20 PM, said:

are you serious? do you actually believe what you have written here? they were not shown to be 'inaccurate'. they were known to be based on nothing but opinion and guesswork, the IPCC was warned not to use the information as it was baseless. this is technically fraud. or lying. they lied, after being advised not to (and also used data from research that wasn't even finished!) with regards to the hymalayan glaciers, the amazon rainforest, the theory that we would cause hurricaines and other (natural) disasters. all lies by the way they were presented.

and the can of worms has only just been opened! god knows what slimey wrigglers are still sweating around in there...

edit to add. all of the mentioned above were non-peer reviewed science passed off as such.



i believe that as you are a man of science, after you read my above post you will come to realise that your view on monkton, with regards to this subject, is hypocritical. only by definition though...

Then the people at the IPCC are idiots too, this is why I try to present papers etc as source material on this, I don't use IPCC as a source.

[Mattshark]

eqgumby, on 28 January 2010 - 06:34 PM, said:

You:

The clear assertion here is that I am telling a lie. That would make me a liar.
This is a common tactic seen in this debate.
Your arrogance is in condemning me for having the opinion that there are politics driving both sides of this scientific debate.
I'll take the Bunny's advice and request, and step back. But I am warning you, do NOT call me a liar, no matter how you want to turn the phrase. You have no right or place to do so. If you want to counter my opinion with one of your own, do so. I clearly stated mine, and the reasoning behind it, including my own lack of scientific knowledge in the climate world. I would imagine a professional such as yourself would respect an opinion of a person willing to admit their own weakness.

Then I apologise as that was not my intention there and I accept responsibility.
I was merely trying to point out that I make a differentiation between people who are genuinely sceptical and those that are in have deliberately tried to create a false argument for certain companies (there are individuals that do fall into that category) and I had felt like you had no acknowledge that differentiation.
I apologise again for any confusion or offence.

[ExpandMyMind]

Mattshark, on 28 January 2010 - 06:34 PM, said:

Then the people at the IPCC are idiots too, this is why I try to present papers etc as source material on this, I don't use IPCC as a source.

thank you.

this is what i'm saying though matt. so much of the field (if you could call it that, more like a group of fields, is it not?) is laced with people searching for the results they need, either to please the agenda of a boss or to get further grants. you say you trust these other papers when you have no idea whether or not they have there own agenda.

take for example the fudging of data (temperature readings) in weather stations in new zealand. http://network.natio...limategate.aspx first link i came to on google.

this 'field' has become largely like this. and the further down the line we go, the more you are going to come to realise that, i think.

another example regarding weather stations is that over the past 30 years or so, they have been using less and less stations (where is the sense in this?), favouring those located in urban areas (warmer) over those in more isolated locations (generally cooler)! and also favouring lower quality stations (again, where is the sense).

and it goes on and on matt. if i didn't indulge so much in the famous green weed mate, then i would be able to recite every fact i've ever read about it.. maybe after my time serving her majesty?  

Edited by expandmymind, 28 January 2010 - 06:54 PM.

[Goblin-5]

I agree with Matt where Monckton is cncerned and I will even go so far as to agree that yes the climate is warming and the CO2 levels are also rising. Where I am not convinced is that there is an undeniable cause and effect between the two.

The IPCC may not be able to dictate policy to an government, but they dammed well know that their papers will be used to craft governmental policy and the tone of the paper will influence the mindset of the political leaders (and pressure groups) that read the synopsis. Facts ca certainly be spun according to the authors point of view. Recall the famous story that a Catholic newspaper headline would read "Jesus walks on water!" while the Atheists paper led with "Jesus cant swim!"

Matt, NO politician (and I suspect their staffs either) will ever read the report in its entirety, and even if they did would they understand it?. Politicians are in the main lawyers and they think differently from scientists.  They will read the executive summary wherein the high points of the repercussions of unchecked CO2 pollution will be given. That is why the issue of the Himalayan glaciers disappearing in 30 years provoked such furor and agnst globally. Everyone could relate to that scenario,  much like they could relate to a non snow capped Kilimanjaroo or Fuji, and demand that action, any action, be taken immediately.
However, when the world hears that this claimn was based on a single off the cuff remark, was never even checked, and glacierologists claims that it was erroneous were dismissed, people will question evething else that is contained in the report.  Shoddy work by some of the worlds most eminent climatologists undermines the populations (already sparse) trust in science, and the failure of the GW scientists cliques to tolerate dissent or even share their data to be examined by skeptics is simply unjustifiable.
Scientific facts, and the conclusions that are drawn from same, need to be put out for everyone to debate and conclude whether or not the conclusion is supported by all the evidence... both for and against and whether alternative conclusions can persuasively be drawn. I dont think the available data (not just the IPCC dataset) justifies the conclusion that mankind is the main forcing behind gobal warming (although man most probably does have a role in it) My own opinion is that the faith reposed in the IPCC climatoligists models is unjustified since the room for error is far too high and the models need a lot of refinement.

Having said that there is no doubt that we are indeed changing the face of the earth. Land use changes, overpopulation, resource depletion... all are major contributors to environmental change not just CO2 production. Even if we curbed CO2 production we would still have to deal with soaring populations and diminishing resources which are as much of a threat to humanity as global warming. Like it or not, increasing human population required increased energy usage and that is a fact. How you can reconcile China, India and Russia being allowed to massively increase their CO2 burden while curtailing it in "developed" countries is something I have not seen (but I am not here as often as I would like so apologies if you have dealt with that already)

[Mattshark]

expandmymind, on 28 January 2010 - 06:52 PM, said:

thank you.

this is what i'm saying though matt. so much of the field (if you could call it that, more like a group of fields, is it not?) is laced with people searching for the results they need, either to please the agenda of a boss or to get further grants. you say you trust these other papers when you have no idea whether or not they have there own agenda.

take for example the fudging of data (temperature readings) in weather stations in new zealand. http://network.natio...limategate.aspx first link i came to on google.

this 'field' has become largely like this. and the further down the line we go, the more you are going to come to realise that, i think.

another example regarding weather stations is that over the past 30 years or so, they have been using less and less stations (where is the sense in this?), favouring those located in urban areas (warmer) over those in more isolated locations (generally cooler)! and also favouring lower quality stations (again, where is the sense).

and it goes on and on matt. if i didn't indulge so much in the famous green weed mate, then i would be able to recite every fact i've ever read about it.. maybe after my time serving her majesty?  

This is why satellite readings are important too. They too show a rising trend that fits with the ground temperatures, though for obvious reasons we don't have such a long record of them.

[ExpandMyMind]

Goblin-5, on 28 January 2010 - 06:52 PM, said:

How you can reconcile China, India and Russia being allowed to massively increase their CO2 burden while curtailing it in "developed" countries is something I have not seen (but I am not here as often as I would like so apologies if you have dealt with that already) [/color]

i agree with pretty much everything in your post.

but the reason i quoted the last bit is to reference people towards this thread http://www.unexplain...howtopic=174146

anything to keep the poor where they 'belong'.

[Goblin-5]

Mattshark, on 28 January 2010 - 06:58 PM, said:

This is why satellite readings are important too. They too show a rising trend that fits with the ground temperatures, though for obvious reasons we don't have such a long record of them.

Matt, I read that the RSS MSU data shows no warming since 2002 in the lower troposphere and none in ocean surface since 2003

[Mattshark]

Goblin-5, on 28 January 2010 - 08:01 PM, said:

Matt, I read that the RSS MSU data shows no warming since 2002 in the lower troposphere and none in ocean surface since 2003

I put the data in the one of the warming threads, in graph form show a significant linear rise up till 2007.

Edited by Mattshark, 28 January 2010 - 09:36 PM.

[Br Cornelius]

An interesting analysis of the nature of the disinformation vehicle which is the SPPI;

http://lawprofessors...-continued.html

I think this goes a long way to show that the report shouldn't be taken to seriously.
People who make a profession of been deniers should not be trusted to be impartial.

Br Cornelius

[eqgumby]

Br Cornelius, on 28 January 2010 - 09:49 PM, said:

An interesting analysis of the nature of the disinformation vehicle which is the SPPI;

http://lawprofessors...-continued.html

I think this goes a long way to show that the report shouldn't be taken to seriously.
People who make a profession of been deniers should not be trusted to be impartial.
Br Cornelius

I could say the same for people whose livelihood as well as reputation balance on whether global warming is real or not.
Impartial would be nice, I agree.

[Mattshark]

eqgumby, on 01 February 2010 - 02:48 PM, said:

I could say the same for people whose livelihood as well as reputation balance on whether global warming is real or not.
Impartial would be nice, I agree.

The issue is with all scientists, that your reputation is on the balance of the quality of your work.