Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
ExpandMyMind

Proved: There is No Climate Crisis

74 posts in this topic

The IPCC has a history of questionable actions.

So by your logic we should discount all IPCC released reports because they have been shown to be misleading to the point of diliberately allowing false "peer reviewed facts" which are not peer reviewed or indeed facts. The layperson might even call these lies.

Shall we just start with the science. Mockton claims:

# the IPCC’s 2007 climate summary overstated CO2’s impact on temperature by 500-2000%;

# CO2 enrichment will add little more than 1 °F (0.6 °C) to global mean surface temperature by 2100;

Any countering information? Then we can move all the way down the list of claims and if you are correct it should not be hard to refute these claims.

Well according to Gavin Schmidt (NASA GISS), Monckton lied about IPCC data and he has outright made up temperature trends that simply do not exist

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/05/moncktons-deliberate-manipulation/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do find that mattshark attacks the person instead of the ideas (i.e with this Lord Mockton), which is alot easier. I mean the IPCC has lied outright to all of the UN's members, and we would get nowhere if everytime an IPCC report came out i said "they are all liars and frauds, so their science is not worthy of discussing"

I did put a link specifically pointing out all the errors in there. There is no denying he lied about it being peer-reviewed though and that is suspicious from start.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm on the disagreeing end from Mattshark all the time, and I feel he does not often fall to personal attacks, usually he has evidence instead.

I do think that the whole Clmate Change thing is overblown, but that is my Opinion. The fact that the paper is not Peer-Reviewed, but put forward as a Scientific paper is pretty telling.

His claims seem like they are extraordinary, which would require Extraordinary evidence, which I don't think we are seeing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm getting nervous, Mattshark.

One (or two) more threads consisting of the opinions (masquerading as scientific evidence) of some bureaucrat or politician (masquerading as a scientist) `disproving' anthropogenic global warming and the weight of unsubstantiated hearsay might just convince me!

Just like how evolution was `disproved'.

you compare evolution and AGW? may aswell lump us deniers in with the flat earther's..

in reference to the bolded part. you just described the IPCC. http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=174216

opinion passed off as science and bureaucrats masquerading as scientists. yup. that's a fair description of the exact organisation you AGWers follow like dogs...

notice the distinct lack of anyone like mattshark in either that thread or the himalayan glacier one... ask yourself why that is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i see people are attacking monkton for not being a scientist. eh, the leader of the IPCC, often referred to as the world's top climate scientist, is a railway engineer...

in fact, the IPCC is filled with beurocrats passing themselves off as scientists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you compare evolution and AGW? may aswell lump us deniers in with the flat earther's..

in reference to the bolded part. you just described the IPCC. http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=174216

opinion passed off as science and bureaucrats masquerading as scientists. yup. that's a fair description of the exact organisation you AGWers follow like dogs...

notice the distinct lack of anyone like mattshark in either that thread or the himalayan glacier one... ask yourself why that is.

You know I have to say I am not buying the story so much as man made so ya I agree with the claim man is not the cause. To me it just doesn't add up and to invest in this idea as a whole is somewhat silly. However we are not helping so recycle and don't buy gas pigs, or fart as much.

I still say when someone makes a claim against another member they better back it up or retract it as was done to Matt. Thats only fair as if any of us get called out on something I want to know for what.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lord Moncktons work was not peer-reviewed, he is not a scientist, the SPPI is a not a valid source. :sleepy:

From the top of that article

Monckton is a liar and a fraud.

And you never prove in science, you evidence.

the IPCC have been proven to be liars and frauds. does this mean you will disregard anything they say?

if not, could you address the issues that monkton brings up please. otherwise you come across as a slight hypocrite matt.

and i should have picked up on the fact that his paper was non-peer reviewed. sorry about that to all who entered the thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Um, i wonder if anyone has had the time to consider any of the questions I was asking earlier?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the IPCC have been proven to be liars and frauds. does this mean you will disregard anything they say?

if not, could you address the issues that monkton brings up please. otherwise you come across as a slight hypocrite matt.

and i should have picked up on the fact that his paper was non-peer reviewed. sorry about that to all who entered the thread.

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you compare evolution and AGW? may aswell lump us deniers in with the flat earther's..

in reference to the bolded part. you just described the IPCC. http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=174216

opinion passed off as science and bureaucrats masquerading as scientists. yup. that's a fair description of the exact organisation you AGWers follow like dogs...

notice the distinct lack of anyone like mattshark in either that thread or the himalayan glacier one... ask yourself why that is.

Actually the techniques used by some individuals are the same, cherry picking, quote mining and out and out lying. Especially those associated with political groups like SPPI, Heartland, Friends of Science etc.

And I will think you find that I do not use the IPCC as a source, all the data I have previously presented has been from papers in journals.

Edited by Mattshark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The question is, i think, (and I don't want to sound heretical :unsure2: ), is, if we can take it that it's been proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the climate is changing in the long term, can the experts be really sure (beyond all reasonable doubt) that it's happening more quickly and more dramatically than it's ever done before, and that it isn't in fact a natural fluctuation over time?; how do the experts explain the climate fluctuations in the past, such as how the Vikings were able to colonise Greenland, and the mini Ice ages back in medieval times, when they skated on the Thames and things?; for how long has it been possible to gather data sufficiently reliable to be able to say what they do with any accuracy? Haven't records only been kept in anything approaching scientfiic detail since about the mid 19th century, and it's only been possible to measure the Arctic ice caps with any detail since the advent of satellites, hasn't it? And if it has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt that this is a wholly exceptional phenomenon, has it been proved (beyond all reasonable doubt) that it's mankind's activities on planet earth that's causing it?

There are many different factors that can alter climate worldwide. The MWP and MIA are both localised to the north Atlantic and are believed to be associated with the north Atlantic oscillation. Other factors like super volcanoes, meteor strikes, continental position and currents and wobbling of the Earth's axis have all caused climatological changes in the past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well according to Gavin Schmidt (NASA GISS), Monckton lied about IPCC data and he has outright made up temperature trends that simply do not exist

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/05/moncktons-deliberate-manipulation/

I find it hard to swallow the IPCC's claims any way. It's been shown how sloppy they are with their own data, and how they manipulate it at their leisure or to suit their needs, with little regard for the hard math behind statistical data.

Was Gavin on the "team" with the rest of the global warming proponents? Or is he one of the few not labeled internally by the IPCC as for or against?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually the techniques used by some individuals are the same, cherry picking, quote mining and out and out lying. Especially those associated with political groups like SPPI, Heartland, Friends of Science etc.

And I will think you find that I do not use the IPCC as a source, all the data I have previously presented has been from papers in journals.

Can you show me one that was NOT "peer-reviewed" by someone in the IPCC's inner circle? Can you present a paper that argues the other side of this coin, that WAS peer reviewed by an IPCC inner-circle member.

Point is, there are sides drawn up, and in science, there shouldn't be sides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it hard to swallow the IPCC's claims any way. It's been shown how sloppy they are with their own data, and how they manipulate it at their leisure or to suit their needs, with little regard for the hard math behind statistical data.

I'm not sure that is really true. IPCC may make errors, but accusing them of something like this is totally different and needs backing up.

Was Gavin on the "team" with the rest of the global warming proponents? Or is he one of the few not labeled internally by the IPCC as for or against?

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/staff/gschmidt/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes i can but i don't want to go through 48 pages to find it.

Then please do not make such accusations again. You are quick to make claims and slow(or never) to retract them or back them up. You have to be willing to do one or the other. It isn't nice or fair. We have rules against doing such things, so please do not do it again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you show me one that was NOT "peer-reviewed" by someone in the IPCC's inner circle? Can you present a paper that argues the other side of this coin, that WAS peer reviewed by an IPCC inner-circle member.

I have no idea what the IPCC inner-circle is. But you recommending peers is normal in science, but they are not the only ones who look at the paper. If you think there is something wrong with what I have posted all you need to is look through them and point out errors, that is the point of such things.

Point is, there are sides drawn up, and in science, there shouldn't be sides.

There are always sides in science! However, there is still majority/minority and the effects of humans on climate is very much accepted generally through out science. There are those who have doubts, which is fine. But the people usually cited on here are denialists who are totally different all together and they are willing to lie and fabricate to produce results and quote mine and mislead to attack others.

If you look at the comments I have made regarding Svensmark, I addressed merely the papers he has posted and never accused him of fraud or lying merely that others got different results than he produced over long term effects. I, in know way classify this in the same league as Monckton, Soon and Baliunas, or the SPPI or the Heartland Institute and the companies surrounding them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure that is really true. IPCC may make errors, but accusing them of something like this is totally different and needs backing up.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/staff/gschmidt/

Well, let me back-track on my previous statement.

I get the impression from what I have read, and the infamous leaked e-mails, that the IPCC relied alot on information, data, research papers, and the like, that were directly controlled by people that had more agenda than science in mind.

The IPCC's policy and statements were a direct result of science that was "approved" by people that had a stake in global warming as fact.

I think it's clear that the science is flawed, primarily because of how it was vetted, and how the leading scientists involved handled data, handled opposing views and data, and how they handled their own peer reviewing process (which ironically they used to discredit other scientists whose conclusions did not fall in line with their own). Certain people (scientists) created a clique, and if you were not in the clique, you were suspected of not being pro-global warming (a skeptic), and scrutinized if your science or statements did not fall in line with what was being fed to the IPCC. That led to being black-balled in many cases, personally and professionally, as well as campaigns to discredit people if their views were not in line with what was being fed to the IPCC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no idea what the IPCC inner-circle is. But you recommending peers is normal in science, but they are not the only ones who look at the paper. If you think there is something wrong with what I have posted all you need to is look through them and point out errors, that is the point of such things.

I wish I had the science background to do that Matt.

I DO have a background that allows me to analyze how some of the conclusions were reached. And I can tell you with certainty, that if these were engineering issues, and data was treated this way, decisions and policy decided based on what I have seen, someones ass would be fired, funding would be pulled (millions of dollars), and careers would end.

There are always sides in science! However, there is still majority/minority and the effects of humans on climate is very much accepted generally through out science. There are those who have doubts, which is fine. But the people usually cited on here are denialists who are totally different all together and they are willing to lie and fabricate to produce results and quote mine and mislead to attack others.

If you look at the comments I have made regarding Svensmark, I addressed merely the papers he has posted and never accused him of fraud or lying merely that others got different results than he produced over long term effects. I, in know way classify this in the same league as Monckton, Soon and Baliunas, or the SPPI or the Heartland Institute and the companies surrounding them.

Sides are one thing, there are always schools-of-thought, but in this instance, political sides were created, and science was put on the back burner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, let me back-track on my previous statement.

I get the impression from what I have read, and the infamous leaked e-mails, that the IPCC relied alot on information, data, research papers, and the like, that were directly controlled by people that had more agenda than science in mind.

The IPCC's policy and statements were a direct result of science that was "approved" by people that had a stake in global warming as fact.

I think it's clear that the science is flawed, primarily because of how it was vetted, and how the leading scientists involved handled data, handled opposing views and data, and how they handled their own peer reviewing process (which ironically they used to discredit other scientists whose conclusions did not fall in line with their own). Certain people (scientists) created a clique, and if you were not in the clique, you were suspected of not being pro-global warming (a skeptic), and scrutinized if your science or statements did not fall in line with what was being fed to the IPCC. That led to being black-balled in many cases, personally and professionally, as well as campaigns to discredit people if their views were not in line with what was being fed to the IPCC.

I cannot agree with that, the climate e-mails were used by certain sources as an exercise in quote mining. The peer-review stuff over blatant attempts at fraud by Soon and Baliunas was referred to in the e-mails, but never acknowledge by those trying to argue that this was Mann and Jones trying to pervert the peer-review process. That was something done by De Freitas at the journal Climate Research who accepted Soon and Baliunas' paper despite the obvious errors within the piece and their lies about funding claims regarding NOAA and NASA. The editorial staff were greatly aggrieved about this being passed when it was highly inaccurate. The then chief editor, Otto Kinne, decided to alter the review process in the journal meaning all editors had to agree on something for it to be published. Mann attempted to write a rebuttal to the journal, but de Freitas blocked it being published and half the staff quit.

You want misconduct and black-balling, I suggest you look further into those mined quotes and the circumstance surrounding them.

Again, I see nothing about false data unless of course you mean adding recorded temps "trick" which is so well hidden that they mention it in papers when doing it or Briffa's so called hidden decline, which is also mentioned in the paper and refers to proxies failing to match recorded temperature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish I had the science background to do that Matt.

I DO have a background that allows me to analyze how some of the conclusions were reached. And I can tell you with certainty, that if these were engineering issues, and data was treated this way, decisions and policy decided based on what I have seen, someones ass would be fired, funding would be pulled (millions of dollars), and careers would end.

Well there is over 40 years of data backing this up as well as satellite and ground recordings from numerous different sources (unassociated) that corroborate the results. Seem my previous post regarding quote mining and contextualising.

Sides are one thing, there are always schools-of-thought, but in this instance, political sides were created, and science was put on the back burner.

There is only one side which is firmly in the political camp and that is the denialists, not the sceptics, not those who's evidence points to anthropogenic effects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I cannot agree with that, the climate e-mails were used by certain sources as an exercise in quote mining. The peer-review stuff over blatant attempts at fraud by Soon and Baliunas was referred to in the e-mails, but never acknowledge by those trying to argue that this was Mann and Jones trying to pervert the peer-review process. That was something done by De Freitas at the journal Climate Research who accepted Soon and Baliunas' paper despite the obvious errors within the piece and their lies about funding claims regarding NOAA and NASA. The editorial staff were greatly aggrieved about this being passed when it was highly inaccurate. The then chief editor, Otto Kinne, decided to alter the review process in the journal meaning all editors had to agree on something for it to be published. Mann attempted to write a rebuttal to the journal, but de Freitas blocked it being published and half the staff quit.

You want misconduct and black-balling, I suggest you look further into those mined quotes and the circumstance surrounding them.

Again, I see nothing about false data unless of course you mean adding recorded temps "trick" which is so well hidden that they mention it in papers when doing it or Briffa's so called hidden decline, which is also mentioned in the paper and refers to proxies failing to match recorded temperature.

And as we discuss further and further, we delve into science I can barely grasp.

Let me try to run an analogy by you.

I'm not a lawyer or a politician. I'm a citizen, and I pay enough attention to the law and policies to get an opinion on them. When a lawyer or politician tells me "shut up and mind your business, your not a lawyer or a politician so your opinion doesn't count", I WILL have a fit.

I feel the same way about this science and the politics surrounding it. I don't believe the IPCC or the scientists that control the data fed to the IPCC, because they get to the point where they are saying, "shut up, your not a climatologist, mind your business and we'll establish global policy and we'll tell you what your opinion should be and tell you what you need to believe".

In both cases, I don't believe they are being altruistic or unbiased. And I don't mean they are biased scientifically, I think the scientists are biased POLITICALLY. And the politicians bias is based on power and influence.

I look forward to an un-biased scientific conclusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well there is over 40 years of data backing this up as well as satellite and ground recordings from numerous different sources (unassociated) that corroborate the results. Seem my previous post regarding quote mining and contextualising.

There is only one side which is firmly in the political camp and that is the denialists, not the sceptics, not those who's evidence points to anthropogenic effects.

Even the use of the word "denialist" is designed to cast a cloud over any one that does not agree with the science that the pro-global warming believe is correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And as we discuss further and further, we delve into science I can barely grasp.

Let me try to run an analogy by you.

I'm not a lawyer or a politician. I'm a citizen, and I pay enough attention to the law and policies to get an opinion on them. When a lawyer or politician tells me "shut up and mind your business, your not a lawyer or a politician so your opinion doesn't count", I WILL have a fit.

I feel the same way about this science and the politics surrounding it. I don't believe the IPCC or the scientists that control the data fed to the IPCC, because they get to the point where they are saying, "shut up, your not a climatologist, mind your business and we'll establish global policy and we'll tell you what your opinion should be and tell you what you need to believe".

In both cases, I don't believe they are being altruistic or unbiased. And I don't mean they are biased scientifically, I think the scientists are biased POLITICALLY. And the politicians bias is based on power and influence.

I look forward to an un-biased scientific conclusion.

But that is not what happened in the slightest, despite the portrayal by certain outlets.

The scientists do produce policy at all. In fact the IPCC cannot set any policy or law for a nation, they actually just supply data that is used in reports. There is no control of data going to the IPCC, otherwise people like McIntyre would never have been invited to partake in discussion. I believe you have been seriously misinformed about the scenario here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But that is not what happened in the slightest, despite the portrayal by certain outlets.

The scientists do produce policy at all. In fact the IPCC cannot set any policy or law for a nation, they actually just supply data that is used in reports. There is no control of data going to the IPCC, otherwise people like McIntyre would never have been invited to partake in discussion. I believe you have been seriously misinformed about the scenario here.

This all falls back to the same old story.

Global warming is real, and if you don't agree, you are a "denialist", you have been lied to, or you are stupid. There has never been any wrong doing and all the science says it's real, and all the science that points in any other direction is fabricated or manipulate, or comes from the pocket of big-oil.

I don't buy it, in large part because how even the mere appearance of questioning the conclusions drawn by those who support global warming is met with hostility and elitist bullying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.