PDA

View Full Version : Hows that IPCC Working for you?


Whatfur
02-07-2010, 08:13 PM
Just wondering.

Whatfur
02-15-2010, 08:36 AM
Me and Mr. Jones. (http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/158214)

Whatfur
02-15-2010, 08:38 AM
I got yo concensus right here! (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7026317.ece)


Shorter whatfur:

Doh!

Whatfur
02-15-2010, 09:32 PM
As I mull the sound of crickets. A bit of conciseness (http://www.ocregister.com/articles/-234092--.html). Let me know if you would like more detailed articles on any.

Starwatcher162536
02-15-2010, 10:04 PM
At least two of the "gates" he lists are bunk, but just for the sake of argument, lets say every one he lists is a substantial accusation. So after years and years of accusing the IPCC of being a socialist political driven scientific fraud, denilists have managed to find 20 or so incorrect/inappropriate
citations.

To put that in perspective, the IPCC's latest report has around 18,000 citations.

Whatfur
02-15-2010, 11:12 PM
At least two of the "gates" he lists are bunk, but just for the sake of argument, lets say every one he lists is a substantial accusation. So after years and years of accusing the IPCC of being a socialist political driven scientific fraud, denilists have managed to find 20 or so incorrect/inappropriate
citations.

To put that in perspective, the IPCC's latest report has around 18,000 citations.

Sorry Star but, your numerical comparision is ridiculous fodder, your accusation of bunk comes without backup, and your attempt at injecting the political into admitted-to fraud is a weak one.

[added] Yes a "weak one", but strong enough to sway the savvy TS. Too funny.

Whatfur
02-16-2010, 04:12 PM
...and counting. (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/02/15/hatton_on_hurricanes/)

Starwatcher162536
02-16-2010, 04:20 PM
Sorry Star but, your numerical comparision is ridiculous fodder, your accusation of bunk comes without backup, and your attempt at injecting the political into admitted-to fraud is a weak one.

[added] Yes a "weak one", but strong enough to sway the savvy TS. Too funny.

About the # of citations;

I googled "Number of citations in IPCC AR4", I found two sources;

A) This from Real Climate (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/02/ipcc-errors-facts-and-spin/)


Gray literature: The IPCC cites 18,000 references in the AR4; the vast majority of these are peer-reviewed scientific journal papers. The IPCC maintains a clear guideline on the responsible use of so-called “gray” literature, which are typically reports by other organizations or governments. Especially for Working Groups 2 and 3 (but in some cases also for 1) it is indispensable to use gray sources, since many valuable data are published in them: reports by government statistics offices, the International Energy Agency, World Bank, UNEP and so on. This is particularly true when it comes to regional impacts in the least developed countries, where knowledgeable local experts exist who have little chance, or impetus, to publish in international science journals.

B) My second was from some random forum (http://manpollo.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3233&postcount=3). I double checked a couple of his counts, and found they were reasonably accurate.

To avoid the appearances of impropriety, I picked the lower of the two estimates.


The short answer for the IPCC AR4 2007 report is that it contains approximately 21,000 citations. Saying "over 20,000" would be safe.

(Sorry, formatting of the rest is jumbled. Basically all I did was count the number of pages of citations for each chapter and add up or multiply by 50 where that was determined to be the average number of citations per page.)

The detail is:

IPCC AR4 2007 Citations

Working Group I

Chapter 1 53 + 52 + 47 + 47 + 49 + 16 = 264 with average 50 per page
Chapter 2 17.4 * 50 = 870
Chapter 3 16.5 * 50 = 825
Chapter 4 5.75 * 50 = 287
Chapter 5 6.3 * 50 = 315
Chapter 6 13.4 * 50 = 670
Chapter 7 19.4 * 50 = 970
Chapter 8 14.8 * 50 = 740
Chapter 9 11.0 * 50 = 550
Chapter 10 11.8 * 50 = 590
Chapter 11 14.2 * 50 = 710
Annexes 13

sub-total for WGI 6,804

Working Group II

Chapter 1 7 + 13 + 11 = 668
Chapter 2 18 + 8 + 12 = 430
Chapter 3 0.5 + 7 + 0.5 = 400
Chapter 4 20.5 = 1025
Chapter 5 0.4 + 9 + 0.6 = 500
Chapter 6 0.7 + 8 + 0.7 = 470
Chapter 7 0.2 + 4 + 0.8 = 250
Chapter 8 0.1 + 11 + 0.6 = 585
Chapter 9 0.8 + 6 + 0.8 = 380
Chapter 10 3 + 8 + 0.25 = 795
Chapter 11 0.55 + 8 + 0.3 = 442
Chapter 12 0.5 + 13 + 0.1 = 680
Chapter 13 0.1 + 7 + 0.6 = 385
Chapter 14 0.7 + 11 + 0.75 = 622
Chapter 15 0.4 + 7 + 0.4 = 390
Chapter 16 0.3 + 3 + 0.8 = 205
Chapter 17 0.1 + 5 + 0.8 = 295
Chapter 18 0.25 + 5 + 0.3 = 277
Chapter 19 6 = 300
Chapter 20 0.5 + 4 = 225
Appendices 2

sub-total for WGII 9,326


Working Group III

Chapter 1 17 + 33 = 50
Chapter 2 0.75 + 5 + 0.8 = 327
Chapter 3 9 + 9 + 14 = 473
Chapter 4 8 = 400
Chapter 5 6 + 5.5 = 281
Chapter 6 18 + 8 + 0.5 = 443
Chapter 7 0.9 + 7 + 0.75 = 432
Chapter 8 12 + 8 = 412
Chapter 9 0.4 + 6 = 320
Chapter 10 0.4 + 4 + 0.25 = 232
Chapter 11 0.8 + 6 + 0.8 = 380
Chapter 12 0.4 + 8 + 0.6 = 450
Chapter 13 0.6 + 10 + 0.75 = 567
Annexes 0

sub-total for WGIII 4,767

Total for AR4 20,897


About my accusations of bunk;

I was referring to the "Russiagate" one. The claim is that over time the amount of weatherstations in Russia being used to calculate trends in temperature has dropped, and that stations that show warmer temperatures are the ones being kept.

The claim is true, the problem is that this does not affect the trend, at not least the way denilists claim it does. For each station, the temperature anomaly is what is tracked. If anything, I would suspect for a slight cooling bias to be introduced from this, since cold dry places will warm more from CO2 then warm wet places.

Deltiod had a post about Russiagate if anyone cares to drudge through all his posts.

Whatfur
02-16-2010, 10:39 PM
Star,

First, you said, "At least two of the "gates" he lists are bunk". When I ask you to provide them you come up with only one and provide hearsay from a source even you yourself did not want to return to. Over and above that...you don't know what the hell you are talking about. Your explanation is what is bunk. Russiangate was brought to the worlds attention, not by denialists, but by the Russians (http://en.rian.ru/papers/20091216/157260660.html).

How many of your citations are based on the actual existance of warming much less, the anthropologic variety. If we are to believe Jones...now...there has not been any "statistically significant" warming in 15 years. We also continue in the cooling trend. You and yours swung the hockey stick around like you were playing "old time hockey". Unfortunately, for you and yours...there is no hockey stick. A blip.

Given the above how many of those citations still hold water? Without detail, especially from a source with no credibility, your totals mean very little. With detail they still represent speculation highly based on a beast whose head has been severed. If there has been no "statistically significant" warming, how much then did man cause?

Is Deltiod run by a climate scientist?

Starwatcher162536
02-17-2010, 12:07 PM
Star,
First, you said, "At least two of the "gates" he lists are bunk". When I ask you to provide them you come up with only one and provide hearsay from a source even you yourself did not want to return to. Over and above that...you don't know what the hell you are talking about.

This is the post (http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/russian_analysis_confirms_20th.php) from Deltoid covering Russiagate. Deltoid is run by a Computer Scientist. Here is anotherpost (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/02/ipcc-errors-facts-and-spin/) from Realclimate. Realclimate is run by people actively working in the field.

For whatever it is worth, my explanation of Russiagate was wrong. I mistakenly remembered them complaining about what was in my previous post, they are actually regurgitating the Urban heat Island effect distorting temperature trends. I don't put much effort into looking into denilist claims anymore, it's a waste of time, so few claims have substance.




Your explanation is what is bunk. Russiangate was brought to the worlds attention, not by denialists, but by the Russians (http://en.rian.ru/papers/20091216/157260660.html).

Russiagate was brought forth by the Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA), a Libertarian think tank. I am not sure why them being Russian gives them more credibility, you will have to explain that one.


How many of your citations are based on the actual existance of warming much less, the anthropologic variety.

The various "gates" are about a wide variety of topics related to AGW, the citations I listed over over a wide range of topics related to AGW, I see no reason to only list citations directly related to the substantiating of calculated warming trends.

Lets look at the timeline to this conversation:

Whatfur: Look at all these errors, the IPCC is no good.
Starwatcher: I doubt most of those accusations are honest, but even if they are so, they are only a tiny sliver of the total information. Roughly 20/18000.
Whatfur: You lie!
Starwatcher: Um, here are my sources, feel free to check yourself.
Whatfur:Number of citation in the report doesn't matter

.........


If we are to believe Jones...now...there has not been any "statistically significant" warming in 15 years. We also continue in the cooling trend. You and yours swung the hockey stick around like you were playing "old time hockey". Unfortunately, for you and yours...there is no hockey stick. A blip.

I seem to have had a conversation about the time-frames needed to get a statistically significant trend with you before. As I recall, I mentioned then that 15 years may not be enough to get a meaningful trend. I am not so sure why Jones saying 15 years isn't quite long enough to get a trend is so shocking to you. Tamino has a good post (http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/12/15/how-long/) about this.



Is Deltiod run by a climate scientist?

No, a computer scientist.

Starwatcher162536
02-17-2010, 12:10 PM
Is why I am still having these conversations with Whatfur, an admitted troll (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showpost.php?p=145592&postcount=28).

I really need to get around to finding a job :/

bjkeefe
02-17-2010, 12:15 PM
Is why I am still having these conversations with Whatfur, an admitted troll (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showpost.php?p=145592&postcount=28).

Since you appear to have the answer, I'll not bother spelling it out.

Your posts were useful for others, though, so thanks for making the effort.

Whatfur
02-17-2010, 02:26 PM
Is why I am still having these conversations with Whatfur, an admitted troll (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showpost.php?p=145592&postcount=28).


Probably in hopes that just once you might come out looking like something other than a scatterbrain.

Your last response was disingenuous hog wash. Funny, although I didn't call you a liar...I said that you didn't know what you were talking about. Thanks for providing the links that proved... you didn't know what you were talking about. And then admitting it too...in the middle there somewhere between disparaging remarks and filler.

As far as the rest, well I think you actually see my points, and much like the guy who showed up to pat your back here, you turn to name calling... well because its easier that formulating actual arguments.


I really need to get around to finding a job :/

I hear the U.N is looking for a few unfunded, unemployed scientists to chase down a number of new studies concerning global cooling.

Whatfur
02-17-2010, 10:16 PM
But there is always the CO2 thingy right? (http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/the_agw_smoking_gun.html)

Whatfur
02-22-2010, 02:03 PM
has them all scattering for cover and/or admitting misrepresentations before others find them out.


"One mistake was a miscalculation; the other was not to allow fully for temperature change over the past 2,000 years. Because of these issues we have retracted the paper and will now invest in the further work needed to correct these mistakes." (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/21/sea-level-geoscience-retract-siddall)

Starbaby, the boldness is for you...this is what happens to citations that are based on bogus data.

bjkeefe
02-22-2010, 02:19 PM
has them all scattering for cover and/or admitting misrepresentations before others find them out.

"One mistake was a miscalculation; the other was not to allow fully for temperature change over the past 2,000 years. Because of these issues we have retracted the paper and will now invest in the further work needed to correct these mistakes." (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/21/sea-level-geoscience-retract-siddall)

No, 'fur. This is how scientific research works. Mistakes get made, and they get corrected. As one of the authors of the paper, Mark Siddall, says in your own source:

"Retraction is a regular part of the publication process," he said. "Science is a complicated game and there are set procedures in place that act as checks and balances."

For sane people, a story like this only confirms what many of us have been saying here all along: there cannot possibly be a conspiracy afoot to sustain a hoax, because there is this constant verification of each other's work.

Note also this:

Siddall said that he did not know whether the retracted paper's estimate of sea level rise was an overestimate or an underestimate.

Sorry to cause you to detumesce.

Whatfur
02-22-2010, 03:36 PM
No, 'fur. This is how scientific research works. ...

Funny...that is how saving face works too.

Did you note the bold? Science also works by utilizing assumptions supposedly already quantified and reviewed by other scientists. So when your work is based on the bogus work of others...yours then becomes what? Oh yeah...an example of how scientific research works.

bjkeefe
02-22-2010, 04:29 PM
[...]

I see you continue to have no interest in anything resembling a coherent discussion. Therefore, I'll leave you, once again, to your solitary pleasurings.

Whatfur
02-22-2010, 04:44 PM
I see you continue to have no interest in anything resembling a coherent discussion. Therefore, I'll leave you, once again, to your solitary pleasurings.

Oh sorry. Coherent? What did you not understand? I thought it was written in a way that even an inbecile would be able to understand my point, but yet I seem to have to explain and defend it to you multiple times. Go figure.

bjkeefe
02-22-2010, 04:52 PM
This is how scientific research works. Mistakes get made, and they get corrected.

Or, as a wingnut might say, were a wingnut consistent, all of astronomy has been revealed to be a hoax!!!1! (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/23/science/space/23star.html)

Whatfur
02-22-2010, 04:53 PM
Thank God Fur is here to help shed the light.

Always telling. (http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-the-worlds-biggest-story-everywhere-but-here/?singlepage=true)

Just another computer scientist.

Whatfur
02-22-2010, 05:47 PM
Or, as a wingnut might say, were a wingnut consistent, all of astronomy has been revealed to be a hoax!!!1! (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/23/science/space/23star.html)

Been saving that one?

bjkeefe
02-22-2010, 06:01 PM
Or, as a wingnut might say, were a wingnut consistent, all of astronomy has been revealed to be a hoax!!!1! (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/23/science/space/23star.html)

Been saving that one?

Yeah. Since at least (http://img138.imageshack.us/i/furfail.png/) ...

http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/8617/furfail.png

Ocean
02-22-2010, 08:08 PM
This is how scientific research works. Mistakes get made, and they get corrected.


On the other hand when lies get written, they may get debunked (http://www.newsweek.com/id/233942/output/print).

bjkeefe
02-22-2010, 08:19 PM
On the other hand when lies get written, they may get debunked (http://www.newsweek.com/id/233942/output/print).

Hmmm!

Now, will the correct spelling be Lomborgate or Lomborggate?

Ocean
02-22-2010, 08:24 PM
Lomborg-ate-his-homework. ;)

AemJeff
02-22-2010, 08:29 PM
On the other hand when lies get written, they may get debunked (http://www.newsweek.com/id/233942/output/print).

Nice catch!

Whatfur
02-22-2010, 08:44 PM
Yeah. Since at least (http://img138.imageshack.us/i/furfail.png/) ...

http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/8617/furfail.png

Ummm...you are not very smart are you? I was referring to your astronomy accusation, not the article...or did I miss its appearance there.

bjkeefe
02-22-2010, 08:48 PM
Ummm...you are not very smart are you? I was referring to your astronomy accusation, not the article...or did I miss its appearance there.

Three hours of fuming about getting self-pwned, and that's the best you could come up with?

Whatfur
02-22-2010, 09:10 PM
Lomborg-ate-his-homework. ;)

Lomborg has been getting debunked for a long time now. He does bring up some very true and interesting points at the same time and to dismiss him totally is choosing ignorance.

I also must have missed you jumping in to castigate scientist Jones on his missing data. Linkback? Not saying it a necessity, just saying it would add to your credibility.

In any case...I liked the article. It had a good beat and you could dance to it.

Whatfur
02-22-2010, 09:16 PM
Three hours of fuming about getting self-pwned, and that's the best you could come up with?

...and it goes downhill from here folks....bye keefe...Liked your article too by the way...glad I could accommodate your need to get it posted here somehow, some way.

Ocean
02-22-2010, 09:21 PM
Lomborg has been getting debunked for a long time now. He does bring up some very true and interesting points at the same time and to dismiss him totally is choosing ignorance.

Yes, he has been debunked for a long time. Lomborg brought a different perspective to this topic. After listening to him people were able to decide whether to dismiss his views or not.

I also must have missed you jumping in to castigate scientist Jones on his missing data. Linkback? Not saying it a necessity, just saying it would add to your credibility.

I followed the investigation like many others interested in the topic. You and others jumped in to castigate Jones, long before the investigation was completed. Does that add to your credibility?

In any case...I liked the article. It had a good beat and you could dance to it.

I'm glad you liked it.

bjkeefe
02-22-2010, 09:26 PM
...and it goes downhill from here folks....bye keefe...

We'll see how long that lasts.

Liked your article too by the way...

Yeah, sure.

glad I could accommodate your need to get it posted here somehow, some way.

You didn't do anything except shoot your mouth off before thinking, as you always do. Or, to use the idiom you love so much, you stepped in it all by yourself AND NOW YOU HAVE SHIT ON YOUR SHOOZ!!!1!

Run away, little 'furry, run away.

AemJeff
02-22-2010, 09:32 PM
http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=151290#poststop

bjkeefe
02-22-2010, 09:35 PM
http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=151290#poststop

Yeah, yeah. I know. But sometimes it's hard to resist when he's just setting them up.

Whatfur
02-22-2010, 11:03 PM
http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=151290#poststop

http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=151320#poststop

Whatfur
02-22-2010, 11:18 PM
Yes, he has been debunked for a long time. Lomborg brought a different perspective to this topic. After listening to him people were able to decide whether to dismiss his views or not.

You seem to think everything has to be taken in total.

I followed the investigation like many others interested in the topic. You and others jumped in to castigate Jones, long before the investigation was completed. Does that add to your credibility?

Thats a bit of mincing. What investigation? This house of cards fell in on itself. Are you talking the media investigation? Can you tell me anything I provided about Jones that was not true? I would say it should add to my credibility of at least being able to smell a rat. That ability gets honed here. Actually Jeff or Keefe are scurrying around somewhere close as I type. <sniffs>


I'm glad you liked it.

Whatfur
02-23-2010, 08:47 AM
"Environmentalists are still trying to avoid pulling the plug, but the corpse is already cool to the touch and soon it will begin to smell. As the global greens move from the denial stage of the grief process, brace yourself for some eloquent, petulant and arrogant rage. Tears will be shed and hands will be wrung. The world is stupid, uncaring, unworthy to be saved. Horrible Republicans, evil Chinese, demented know-nothing climate skeptics have ruined the world and condemned our grandchildren to lives of sorrow and pain." (http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2010/02/19/how-al-gore-wrecked-planet-earth/)

Whatfur
02-23-2010, 08:57 AM
"The IPCC has insisted that their report consisted of solid, peer-reviewed science that was unassailable. Over the last three months, we have seen repeated exposures of advocacy and unsupported student theses masquerading as science, as well as evidence of conspiracies to silence skeptics and ruin their careers. This paper was the first ever retracted from Nature Geoscience in three years of publication. (http://hotair.com/archives/2010/02/23/exclusive-hot-air-interview-inhofe-to-release-report-blasting-ipcc-on-climategate/)

So that is how science works eh? I guess Nature Geoscience was not quite working in the past.

Whatfur
02-23-2010, 12:21 PM
Ohhhh...maybe this investigation. (http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-and-the-law-senator-inhofe-to-ask-for-congressional-criminal-investigation-pajamas-mediapjtv-exclusive/)

bjkeefe
02-24-2010, 01:03 AM
But there is always the CO2 thingy right? (http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/the_agw_smoking_gun.html)

"Has American Thinker Saved the World from the AGW Hoax? (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/35840_Has_American_Thinker_Saved_the_World_from_th e_AGW_Hoax)"

The Dunning-Kruger effect, indeed.

bjkeefe
02-26-2010, 10:26 PM
SINGAPORE (Reuters) – The pace of global warming continues unabated, scientists said on Thursday, despite images of Europe crippled by a deep freeze and parts of the United States blasted by blizzards.

The bitter cold, with more intense winter weather forecast for March in parts of the United States, have led some to question if global warming has stalled.

Understanding the overall trend is crucial for estimating consumption of energy supplies, such as demand for winter heating oil in the U.S. northeast, and impacts on agricultural production.

"It's not warming the same everywhere but it is really quite challenging to find places that haven't warmed in the past 50 years," veteran Australian climate scientist Neville Nicholls told an online climate science media briefing.

"January, according to satellite (data), was the hottest January we've ever seen," said Nicholls of Monash University's School of Geography and Environmental Science in Melbourne.

"Last November was the hottest November we've ever seen, November-January as a whole is the hottest November-January the world has seen," he said of the satellite data record since 1979.

The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) said in December that 2000-2009 was the hottest decade since records began in 1850, and that 2009 would likely be the fifth warmest year on record. WMO data show that eight out of the 10 hottest years on record have all been since 2000.

Further down in the article are some comments on the Himalayan glacier mistake and related kerfuffles.

(source (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100225/ts_nm/us_climate_warming) | alt. source (http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=9934950), in case Yahoo News still sux | h/t: Eric Alterman (http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/02/ta022510.html))

Whatfur
02-27-2010, 10:17 PM
Wonder what the Institute of Physics has to say... (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc3902.htm)

bjkeefe
02-27-2010, 10:29 PM
[...]

The fact that Hawaii still exists proves global warming is a hoax. (http://lefarkins.blogspot.com/2010/02/fact-that-hawaii-still-exists-proves.html)

Whatfur
02-28-2010, 07:18 AM
Good Night Al Gore...wherever you are. (http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=522005)

bjkeefe
02-28-2010, 12:08 PM
Glad to see you're still speaking out! You're right: "We Can’t Wish Away Climate Change (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/opinion/28gore.html?pagewanted=all)." Thanks for saying so, and thanks for standing firm, despite all of the mindless fury you draw from the wingnuts.

A lesser man would have said, "Ah, fuck it. The real bad stuff isn't gonna happen till after I'm dead ... who needs this hassle?" I salute your courage and your dignity.

P.S. And yeah, you're right: it is pretty comical to see that guy (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=124913&highlight=Whatfur+dumbest+investor%27s+business+da ily#post124913) still relying on that source (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=124665&highlight=investor%27s+business+daily#post124665).

Whatfur
02-28-2010, 08:55 PM
It just won't go away. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/7332803/A-perfect-storm-is-brewing-for-the-IPCC.html)

bjkeefe
02-28-2010, 09:47 PM
[...]

What, your genius at American "Thinker" has gone to ground (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=152074#post152074) and so you've turned to a new authoriteh?

But wait a minute. I thought Christopher Brooker declared global warming disproved two years ago (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Booker#Views_on_science).

And (http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/07/christopher_bookers_misinforma.php) he (http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/11/more_on_booker.php) is (http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/11/mountains_out_of_molehills.php) usually (http://ecolocalizer.com/2008/11/17/the-bias-and-logical-fallacies-of-christopher-bookers-freezing-heat/) such (http://conservationreport.com/2008/12/31/global-warming-why-christopher-booker-is-wrong/) a (http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2008/09/23/the-patron-saint-of-charlatans/) reliable (http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/nov/15/real-global-warming-christopher-booker) source (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/feb/25/climate-change-denial-christopher-booker), too (http://richardwilsonauthor.wordpress.com/2009/01/13/christopher-bookers-co-author-caught-white-washing-his-track-record-on-wikipedia/).

Whatfur
03-01-2010, 07:13 AM
Ha ha back to quoting Timmy Lambert? Yeah, pin your star to that "expert". He was shown to be an idiot when he tried to explain the problems in the EA programs and has been doubling down since. But I guess it is ok, it used to be that you and yours would point fingers at sceptical sources as not being REAL scientists...funny how things have flip flopped.

You enjoying the snow?

bjkeefe
03-01-2010, 11:14 AM
Ha ha back to quoting Timmy Lambert?

Sure. When his criticisms are that spot-on, why not? And given that you are down to linking to Christopher Brooker and American "Thinker," I hardly think you have any ground to stand on here.

Also, note the half-dozen other sources I offered (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=152673#post152673). (Smart surfing tip: you can let your mouse hover over links to see the web addresses to which they correspond. You don't actually have to click them to see where they point, in other words.)

You enjoying the snow?

Only a wingnut thinks the weather in his own trailer park = global climate. Therefore, I am not surprised you think yours is some sort of clever remark.

You must've missed this post (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=152433&highlight=hottest+warmest#post152433) in this very thread.

bjkeefe
03-01-2010, 11:54 AM
[...]

Just went outside and ... ZOMG!!!1! It's all melting!!!1! AL GORE IS RIGHT!!!1!

bjkeefe
03-01-2010, 04:04 PM
Bill McKibben (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-mckibben/the-attack-on-climate-cha_b_476755.html) via Michael Tobis (http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2010/02/journalism.html) ...

All 15 of the warmest years on record have come in the two decades that have passed since 1989. In the meantime, the Earth’s major natural systems have all shown undeniable signs of rapid flux: melting Arctic and glacial ice, rapidly acidifying seawater, and so on.

Somehow, though, the onslaught against the science of climate change has never been stronger, and its effects, at least in the U.S., never more obvious: fewer Americans believe humans are warming the planet. ...

... the immense pile of evidence now proving the science of global warming beyond any reasonable doubt is in some ways a great boon for those who would like, for a variety of reasons, to deny that the biggest problem we’ve ever faced is actually a problem at all. Three thousand pages (the length of the latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change)? That pretty much guarantees you’ll get something wrong.

... via Thers (http://whiskeyfire.typepad.com/whiskey_fire/2010/03/and-see-the-truth-yeah.html), commenting on someone who gets an inordinate amount of time on this site:

... a good Case Study for what Climate Change Denialism is all about, which is, in a nutshell, being pleased with acting like a moron as long as other people are cheering you on for talking pig-ignorant crap.

As for "cheering on," skim the comments section by following Thers's link. It's 'fur * 194, as of this moment.

bjkeefe
03-06-2010, 09:45 PM
Wonder what the Institute of Physics has to say... (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc3902.htm)

It appears they're not sure. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/mar/02/institute-of-physics-emails-inquiry-submission)

Without checking with their Big Oil paymaster first, I mean. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/mar/05/climate-emails-institute-of-physics-submission)

(h/t: LGF (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/35918_Anti-AGW_Expert_in_UK_Parliament_Inquiry-_Another_Energy_Industry_Shill))