The IPCC exposed

[MonkeyLove]

I get rather tired of the endless propaganda that very heavily suggests that any dissenting voice to AGW is that of a knuckle headed fascist, is that clear to you? I am also tired of the smug self righteous attitudes shown not just here, but in the wider world by people who think they know all the answers and wave bits of data about like a bible. I guess you will all be very smug indeed when the first country makes this "denial" a crimminal offence, and it will happen sooner or later. Whether AGW exists or not, or to what degree it exists is actually irelevant to my point, which is about the demonisation and probable future criminalisation of people because of the view they hold.

"Climate skeptics perform independent analysis, finally convinced Earth is getting warmer"

http://arstechnica.com/science/2011/10/climate-skeptics-perform-independent-analysis-finally-convinced-earth-is-getting-warmer/

[Kaa-Tzik]

"Climate skeptics perform independent analysis, finally convinced Earth is getting warmer"

http://arstechnica.c...getting-warmer/

All your posts seem to be vacuous boring robotic propaganda with the usual copy and paste and a link.

[Doug1029]

So answer me how others scientists have different conclusions then you?

How come that we have different results of studies?

Which scientists are you talking about? And which conclusions? And which studies have reached conflicting conclusions? Be specific. Name studies and name names.

Ecologists, biologists and climatologists are in pretty much uniform agreement that warming is happening, CO2 is involved and humans are the reason. As you move away from those specialties, there is less agreement. I don't think there's really any disagreement about the earth getting warmer. Just check out the list of temperature anomalies at: http://data.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt (You'll probably have to wait until after the shutdown; this is a govt site.). A blind monkey can see that the temps from the 1900s are a lot lower than those from the 2000s. I explained the carbon fingerprint above. The evidence for that requires some close comparisons of temps from different parts of the globe, something that is harder to do, so fewer people have done it. And the evidence that humans are the problem comes from carbon isotope studies, which requires a degree of expertise in isotopic analysis, so again, fewer people, including fewer scientists, have done the work. But ideas backed up by research are remarkably uniform. And that's why I harp on going back to the original studies that support your conclusions and seeing what the authors actually wrote.

Most studies just produce slightly different nuances and don't really conflict with each other. One finds that solar output contributes 1.1% of the variation in temperature data and another finds that the figure should be 1.5%. The numbers are different, but not in a way that changes the overall conclusions.

Another example: my ice storm studies show that the Ouachita National Forest got hit by a major ice storm in the winter of 1992/1993. But the chronology from Henryetta, Oklahoma does not show that storm; instead, it shows one in 1991/1992. Did somebody read the cores wrong? Is there a mistake? Neither. There were two different storms in consecutive years. They did not affect the same areas, so they left different signatures in the tree rings. So there were different conclusions regarding the specific storm history of the forest, but the conflict was apparent, not real. Most studies are not exact replications of other studies, so slightly different findings are the norm.

Doug

[Big Bad Voodoo]

Lets start with NIPCC.

[Doug1029]

Lets start with NIPCC.

What about it? Which of their conclusions are different from mine? Which of theirs are in disagreement with others? And which others?

Again, just posting unsupported rumors is not an answer. You need to be very specific. Go back to the original studies. What did they say? Did the IPCC misinterpret them? How do you know?

No speculation this time. Do your homework and post some answers.

Doug

[Big Bad Voodoo]

Errr... maybe fact that they concluded that humanity have nothing with GW.

[Doug1029]

Errr... maybe fact that they concluded that humanity have nothing with GW.

Did you check the NIPCC website? Second paragraph. Does the name Fred Singer mean anything to you?

Among his challenges to scientific orthodoxy are:

1. A paper questioning whether there is a link between melanoma and UV-B.

2. A paper questioning the link between CFCs and the ozone hole.

3. A paper questioning the risks of passive smoking.

He is an atmospheric scientist, but with his track record, I hope he doesn't start supporting global warming.

Fourth Paragraph: Singer's paper "Nature, not human activity, rules the climate" was published by the Heartland Institute. Does that not ring any bells? The Heartland Institute is a propaganda outlet for the coal and oil industries - people fearful that climate regulations will cut into their profits. There was no peer review and Heartland doesn't publish rebuttals. The paper is an editorial, not backed up by any research. My point: if there was a scientific issue involved, there are lots of journals that would publish it.

Fourth Paragraph: Dr. Frederick Seitz. American physicist and pioneer in solid-state physics. Hired by R.J.Reynolds to head their "medical research" committee. He directed a $6.3-million dollar "medical research" program that consistently found no link between smoking and serious medical problems. He was president of the National Academy of Science from 1962 to 1969. In 1998, the NAS publicly dissociated itself from him (In effect, threw him out.) when Seitz wrote an article designed to look like an NAS publication stating that carbon dioxide was not linked to climate change. He was also founder of the Geroge C. Marshall Institute (funded by the fossil-fuels industry) and a tobacco-industry consultant. In the book "Merchants of Doubt" authors Naomi Oreskes and Eric M. Conway state that Seitz "justified his increasing social and intellectual isolation by blaming others." He stood against both global warming and the consensus that smoking is bad for your health.

Fifth Paragraph: Dr. Craig Idso. Idso is a legitimate climate researcher with doubts about the IPCC. He wrote an 880page report, Climate Change Reconsidered: The 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), which is perhaps the best available document taking the IPCC to task. He has been unable to substantiate his claim that the report was endorsed by 31,478 American scientists. He is a paid "consultant" ($11,600 per month) to the Heartland Institute. If you want to claim that scientists are only interested in the money, here are your examples: Seitz and Idso.

If you want to read some reports that present legitimate criticisms of the IPCC, Idso's report is probably the best one out there; although, it's endorsement by the Heartland Institute make it suspect. Recommended reading, but with caution.

Doug

[Kaa-Tzik]

Well let me be lazy and simply post a link. This is to the blog of UK Daily Telegraph journalist James Delingpole, I believe reviled by warmists almost as much as Christopher Booker. This from yesterday and is about the IPCC report. It's not long and raises some interesting questions.

http://blogs.telegra...sonous-fantasy/

Edited October 8, 2013 by Kaa-Tzik

[Doug1029]

Well let me be lazy and simply post a link. This is to the blog of UK Daily Telegraph journalist James Delingpole, I believe reviled by warmists almost as much as Christopher Booker. This from yesterday and is about the IPCC report. It's not long and raises some interesting questions.

http://blogs.telegra...sonous-fantasy/

First, a list of names of people does not in any way constitute a critique of the science. The list is impressive unless you know who they are. The one that caught my eye was Steve McIntyre, whose comments on dendrochronology clearly demonstrate that he's not afraid to sound off on subjects he knows nothing about. I am referring to a post on his website where he placed a partial COFECHA output as evidence that Michael Mann had not presented all his data. I work with COFECHA, so I know what a partial printout looks like. I had to look real hard to find exactly what data Mann had left out: it was an elevation for the Laborador white-cedar chronology, a number that is not used by COFECHA. McIntyre tried to claim that COFECHA invalidated Mann's research, but all COFECHA does is tell you whether you have cross-dated your chronology properly and if not, what the problem might be. It can't tell you anything about global warming. If Delingpole's other cited authors are as reputable as McIntyre, I would wonder if anything he says can be trusted.

But in all fairness to Delingpole, I doubt he even checked. He is under pressure of a deadline. That doesn't leave much time to check out the truth of what your sources are saying. You have to go with whatever you find.

Before I reject eveyrthing Delingpoole's sources are saying, I have to note that the IPCC stands between their readers and the scientific studies they reference. I suggest you don't trust the IPCC, either; but look up the original research articles and see what THEY say. I suspect that one or two of the criticisms may actually have something behind them.

At any rate, I don't have time to check out the others, but I'll bet you can find most of them on Google.

Doug

[MonkeyLove]

All your posts seem to be vacuous boring robotic propaganda with the usual copy and paste and a link.

Completely the opposite: they are evidence I use to prove my points. And the fact that you cannot even disprove them reveals the irrelevance of your posts.

So what happens when the skeptics that insisted on an independent study of the matter arrive at the same results?

[Kaa-Tzik]

Completely the opposite: they are evidence I use to prove my points. And the fact that you cannot even disprove them reveals the irrelevance of your posts.

So what happens when the skeptics that insisted on an independent study of the matter arrive at the same results?

It is not "irrelevant" to have an apposing view, it is not "irrelevant" to show the creepy and sinister anti-skeptic propaganda for what it is. Clearly you do not want to read any view not your own, well, tough, you're going to get them. I suggest you read some history about propaganda and how it is used to silence people and to demonise them, and what follows on from demonisation. Perhaps you want to see camps opened and filled with "deniers" to be re-educated.

Edited October 9, 2013 by Kaa-Tzik

[MonkeyLove]

It is not "irrelevant" to have an apposing view, it is not "irrelevant" to show the creepy and sinister anti-skeptic propaganda for what it is. Clearly you do not want to read any view not your own, well, tough, you're going to get them. I suggest you read some history about propaganda and how it is used to silence people and to demonise them, and what follows on from demonisation. Perhaps you want to see camps opened and filled with "deniers" to be re-educated.

It is irrelevant to have an opposing view if your argument is not backed by evidence. That and nothing else is what is "creepy and sinister." In fact, not only is mainstream skepticism based on cherry-picking and other flaws but involves wildly swinging in all directions. Thus, there's no global warming because there will be an ice age. Or there's global warming but it's "natural." Or that there's global warming but we can't avoid it because we need to burn more oil, which in turn requires peak oil denialism.

Do you see a pattern emerging? All of these arguments lead to the conclusion that people should do nothing or delay taking action. And why is that important? Because people are led by governments that work for Big Business, and the latter needs more oil to be burned to produce more goods and services, which in turn leads to more sales and profits, which in turn keeps much of their wealth, which consists essentially of credit, to remain propped up.

That's why global warming denalism is backed by Big Oil and Big Coal. That's why the same groups argue that there's no peak oil. That's why governments are not agreeing on what to do abut global warming or even environmental damage, as their own tax revenues, dependent on profits from BIg Business, are at stake. That's why governments aren't preparing for peak oil, either.

There's your propaganda: anyone who warns others of global warming, peak oil, and environmental damage are labeled "leftists," "commies," "scaremongers," "doomers," "scammers," and so on, when the real propagandists are those who toe the GovCo line: there's no global warming, there's no peak oil, there's no problem, so enjoy by borrowing and spending happily. And in case something goes wrong, don't worry: Big Business and its junior government partners will take care of matters.

So, don't worry about camps being filled with deniers. With GovCo backing them, it will likely be the other way round.

[Kaa-Tzik]

It is irrelevant to have an opposing view if your argument is not backed by evidence. That and nothing else is what is "creepy and sinister." In fact, not only is mainstream skepticism based on cherry-picking and other flaws but involves wildly swinging in all directions. Thus, there's no global warming because there will be an ice age. Or there's global warming but it's "natural." Or that there's global warming but we can't avoid it because we need to burn more oil, which in turn requires peak oil denialism.

Do you see a pattern emerging? All of these arguments lead to the conclusion that people should do nothing or delay taking action. And why is that important? Because people are led by governments that work for Big Business, and the latter needs more oil to be burned to produce more goods and services, which in turn leads to more sales and profits, which in turn keeps much of their wealth, which consists essentially of credit, to remain propped up.

That's why global warming denalism is backed by Big Oil and Big Coal. That's why the same groups argue that there's no peak oil. That's why governments are not agreeing on what to do abut global warming or even environmental damage, as their own tax revenues, dependent on profits from BIg Business, are at stake. That's why governments aren't preparing for peak oil, either.

There's your propaganda: anyone who warns others of global warming, peak oil, and environmental damage are labeled "leftists," "commies," "scaremongers," "doomers," "scammers," and so on, when the real propagandists are those who toe the GovCo line: there's no global warming, there's no peak oil, there's no problem, so enjoy by borrowing and spending happily. And in case something goes wrong, don't worry: Big Business and its junior government partners will take care of matters.

So, don't worry about camps being filled with deniers. With GovCo backing them, it will likely be the other way round.

I don't think you have properly read, let alone understood a single post I have made in this thread. Perhaps you would also like to point out my "propaganda", point out were I have said, or even alluded to anybody being a "leftist" etc. Resorting to putting words in my mouth and aportioning views to me that I have not given shows how desperate you are. And like some other posters on this forum, and in threads on other affairs, you seem to want to hold me responsible for the words or actions of others. I have not even tried to present a single fact about this affair from either perspective, I have only pointed out the propaganda aspects. As with the other posters who like to attack me to "big themselves up", you conflate things to make it seem you are winning, or even have won, some argument that I am not even engaged in. Read my posts again.

Edited October 9, 2013 by Kaa-Tzik

[Doug1029]

I don't think you have properly read, let alone understood a single post I have made in this thread.

If people aren't understanding what you wrote, then maybe you need to take a writing course or otherwise learn how to express yourself so you can be understood.

Putting words in people's mouths and assuming they fit your stereotypes is a common practice on UM. I have especially noticed it from deniers in reference to my own posts. It results from not reading the other person's post before one tries to answer it.

Doug

[Kaa-Tzik]

If people aren't understanding what you wrote, then maybe you need to take a writing course or otherwise learn how to express yourself so you can be understood.

Putting words in people's mouths and assuming they fit your stereotypes is a common practice on UM. I have especially noticed it from deniers in reference to my own posts. It results from not reading the other person's post before one tries to answer it.

Doug

My original post, and subsequent ones, are clearly about propaganda. It seems to me that posters involved in the climate debate cannot see beyond the dry scientific arguments. My writing is perfectly good, and to say otherwise is a cheap trick, and also ridiculously pompous. These snipy attacks against me simply, and bit by bit, prove me right about propaganda and the unpleasant thinking behind it. I will think and say what I like about this matter and will not be stopped by pompous attempts at putting me down as if I were a dimwitted child. Understood.....

Edited October 9, 2013 by Kaa-Tzik

[Doug1029]

My original post, and subsequent ones, are clearly about propaganda. It seems to me that posters involved in the climate debate cannot see beyond the dry scientific arguments. My writing is perfectly good, and to say otherwise is a cheap trick, and also ridiculously pompous. These snipy attacks against me simply, and bit by bit, prove me right about propaganda and the unpleasant thinking behind it. I will think and say what I like about this matter and will not be stopped by pompous attempts at putting me down as if I were a dimwitted child. Understood.....

That was not an attack, but rather a practical suggestion. Do with it what you will.

And as I said above, people don't bother reading what was posted before they respond and now I see that applies to you as well. But don't feel bad - we all do it occasionally.

Doug

[Kaa-Tzik]

[Frank Merton]

The political left is worried about global warming, the political right for the most part (I know some exceptions) isn't. I think all that is beside the point. Where I come from is that every reputable scientific journal and almost all scientists in the field are worried. The authorities in my country have pretty much assumed it is going to happen and adopted appropriate land use rules assuming a rise in sea level. There is not much more a third-world country can do, except of course refrain from building coal-fired power plants. There are some no-so-third-world countries who could do as much.

[MonkeyLove]

I don't think you have properly read, let alone understood a single post I have made in this thread. Perhaps you would also like to point out my "propaganda", point out were I have said, or even alluded to anybody being a "leftist" etc. Resorting to putting words in my mouth and aportioning views to me that I have not given shows how desperate you are. And like some other posters on this forum, and in threads on other affairs, you seem to want to hold me responsible for the words or actions of others. I have not even tried to present a single fact about this affair from either perspective, I have only pointed out the propaganda aspects. As with the other posters who like to attack me to "big themselves up", you conflate things to make it seem you are winning, or even have won, some argument that I am not even engaged in. Read my posts again.

I am referring to global warming denialism propaganda as shown in mainstream media and documented in features such as "The Denial Machine," the article "As the World Burns," and more. For more details, try

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2013/09/12/new-greenpeace-report-on-climate-denial-machine/

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/as-the-world-burns-20100106

"Leftist" refers one of several terms (including "liberal" and "commie") that I have been called for arguing AGW. Not surprisingly, environmentalists and even those who acknowledge peak oil are labeled the same.

The propaganda is necessary because the global economy is capitalist and controlled by a financial elite:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228354.500-revealed--the-capitalist-network-that-runs-the-world.html

which needs fossil fuel consumption for much of manufacturing and mechanized agriculture, with increasing production and consumption of goods needed to prop up much of their wealth, which consists of credit:

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/05/top-derivatives-expert-finally-gives-a-credible-estimate-of-the-size-of-the-global-derivatives-market.html

It is for the same reason that peak oil is also seen as a hoax, as it becomes impossible to continue increasing fossil fuel consumption given this predicament.

Unfortunately, such propaganda cannot continue as various realities cannot be hidden for long. That is why we now have an IEA report that acknowledges both global warming and peak oil:

http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/name,27324,en.html

That is, we now have lower energy returns from unconventional oil, which in turn creates more pollution, thus leading to two predicaments coupled with more environmental damage.

And yet FWIW reports from the IEA, NAS, BEST, and others will not be considered for reasons explained earlier: the financial elite, governments, military forces, and a growing global middle class need to burn more oil in order to receive more profits, returns on investment, tax revenues, and disposable income to borrow and spend more, with more goods and services that need to be produced.

The catch is peak oil, which is why I have to conflate these two predicaments.

[MonkeyLove]

My original post, and subsequent ones, are clearly about propaganda. It seems to me that posters involved in the climate debate cannot see beyond the dry scientific arguments. My writing is perfectly good, and to say otherwise is a cheap trick, and also ridiculously pompous. These snipy attacks against me simply, and bit by bit, prove me right about propaganda and the unpleasant thinking behind it. I will think and say what I like about this matter and will not be stopped by pompous attempts at putting me down as if I were a dimwitted child. Understood.....

There reports given by the NAS and BEST are "dry scientific arguments." Propaganda comes in when the estimates are watered down:

http://www.alternet.org/environment/climate-risks-have-been-underestimated-last-20-years

Again, the reason is simple: climate impacts need to be underplayed because doing otherwise will alarm the public, and that's something that governments and businesses keen on "business as usual" want to avoid.

That's also why if you look at mainstream reports on peak oil, you will see that similar phenomena take place. For example, news articles will refer to reserves and not production rates, and not even energy returns.

[Frank Merton]

I don't think you do the global warming debate any favors by conflating it with peak oil alarms. The two are only loosely related and a lot of people might well see through your second view and end up doubting the first. Oil supplies do not seem to be running out, and consumption is steady, and even if they are price mechanisms will quickly put substitutes in place.

I also think your reasons for there being a denialist movement are mistaken. Governments are generally persuaded of the truth of the problem, but either don't see it as that drastic a business or are not able to get the political will behind them to do things. Things have been done, but governments have to balance a lot of balls in the air.

[Little Fish]

There reports given by the NAS and BEST are "dry scientific arguments." Propaganda comes in when the estimates are watered down:

http://www.alternet....d-last-20-years

Again, the reason is simple: climate impacts need to be underplayed because doing otherwise will alarm the public, and that's something that governments and businesses keen on "business as usual" want to avoid.

That's also why if you look at mainstream reports on peak oil, you will see that similar phenomena take place. For example, news articles will refer to reserves and not production rates, and not even energy returns.

from your link "understated the rate and intensity of climate change"

you hold your belief because you think the climate has been relatively stable prior to the 20th century, read the article below and understand why you believe that, you'll also understand what you're not being told. if you want to continue with this nonsense then don't read it. up to you.

http://wattsupwithth...-natural-cycle/

Edited October 10, 2013 by Little Fish

[Doug1029]

you hold your belief because you think the climate has been relatively stable prior to the 20th century, read the article below and understand why you believe that, you'll also understand what you're not being told. if you want to continue with this nonsense then don't read it. up to you.

Your whole statement hinges on the word "relatively." What, exactly, do you mean by it?

There have been about 30 climatic shifts during the Holocene. All "relatively" small compared to the temperature rise at the end of the Younger Dryas. So far, this temperature excursion would qualify as "relatively" small, too. During the Holocene, global temps have been between two and four degrees warmer (Altithermal) and one to five degrees colder (8200 BP Cold Period) than "at present (1951-1980 baseline)." That's "relatively" small compared to the 15 degrees colder climate of the Younger Dryas and the 20-degree colder climate of the Wisconsin Ice Age.

Temps before the end of this century will probably rival those of the Altithermal and exceed them during the first half of the 22nd century. That doesn't sound like much, but it will be enough to cause major disruptions of ecosystems. The Great Lakes already teeter on the edge of a precipitation deficit. A slight drop in precip and Niagara Falls goes dry, along with its huge power-generating capacity. That's not just your electric lights - the Sudbury mines depend on power from Niagara Falls to extract metals from their ores - lose Niagara and we lose a lot of copper, lead and silver production - with attendant loss of jobs and family incomes.

What deniers are forgetting is that there will be costs to not converting to renewables (which we'll have to do eventually, anyway). The Aral Sea is nearly dead right now (and so is its fishing industry). The Salton Sea could join it (with the loss of its tourist industry) in as few as two or three years if it isn't kept alive by water diverted from the Los Angeles Aqueduct, water which Los Angeles ever-more-desperately needs. In Mexico, the Colorado River Delta has lost its water due to upstream diversions, putting the local farmers out of business. These have already happened with more to come.

While the politicians bicker, people are already being deprived of jobs and livelihoods. Sea levels are already rising. At the current rate, we will see a 1-meter rise by 2100 with the displacement and loss of income to six million people in Egypt, 13 million in Bangladesh and 72 million in China (Nichols and Leatherman 1995). And this doesn't count moving the Manhattan financial district to high ground, the loss of New Orleans swamps that protect it from hurricanes (sort of), flooding in the Congo and Niger deltas and the loss of a great deal of land in the Amazon.

Little Fish is concerned about the cost to a few "relatively" rich people in affluent countries and wants to shove the costs onto the poorest people in the world. That strategy won't work: a starving man will cut the last redwood or roast the last spotted owl to feed his family. Any solution to global environmental problems (not just global warming will have to consider the needs of the world's poor, if for no other reason than enlightened self-interest.

Doug

Nichols, R. J. and S. P. Leatherman. 1995. Global sea-level rise. In: Strzepek, K.M., and J.B. Smith (Eds), 1995. "As climate changes: international impacts and implications". Cambridge Univ. Press. 213.

[Little Fish]

from your link "understated the rate and intensity of climate change"

you hold your belief because you think the climate has been relatively stable prior to the 20th century, read the article below and understand why you believe that, you'll also understand what you're not being told. if you want to continue with this nonsense then don't read it. up to you.

http://wattsupwithth...-natural-cycle/

@monkeylove,

so, are you going to read the linked article,

http://wattsupwithth...-natural-cycle/

it appears that doug doesn't want you to read it either otherwise he would not have cut it out when quoting me and replying with irrelevance.

there is nothing unusual about the 20th century temperature, not in its absolute terms nor in its rate of rise. its just part of the 1000 year solar cycle.

[Doug1029]

it appears that doug doesn't want you to read it either otherwise he would not have cut it out when quoting me and replying with irrelevance.

there is nothing unusual about the 20th century temperature, not in its absolute terms nor in its rate of rise. its just part of the 1000 year solar cycle.

I'm trying to save UM some space.

The very first sunspot count was taken by Galileo in December 1610. There are no direct observations from before that date. The only way to go back farther is to rely on proxies, such as tree rings - something you have challenged in the past. If you claim that proxy evidence is not reliable, then you have no basis for your 1000-year statement. So which is it - are proxies reliable or not?

Doug

P.S.: what is unique about 20th century warming is that CO2 levels are higher than they've been since the ice age.

Doug

Edited October 10, 2013 by Doug1029