Prosecute Climate Change Advocates

basilio · 18 February 2010

So how did the IPCC get it so wrong? All these huge mistakes and questionable research ? If one accepted some of the stories coming from certain lobby groups you would just about throw the IPCC out and start all over again...

In that context I came across an analysis which explains just how the IPPC works and discusses just what this "stream" of errors really are. And in the process it highlights the deceptive way these issues have been presented to us. And perhaps that should make us think who is actually looking for the truth versus discovering typos or errata that is the inevitable result of very large publications. If you are serious about understanding how this works take 10 minutes to read the full story rather than accepting the pithy beat ups we are fed as sound bites.

The takeaway message is that climate change largely caused by human actions is real and, unless we address the causes, will create a new world that won't be human friendly.

IPCC errors Fact and Fiction,
Real Climate
Currently, a few errors –and supposed errors– in the last IPCC report (“AR4″) are making the media rounds – together with a lot of distortion and professional spin by parties interested in discrediting climate science. Time for us to sort the wheat from the chaff: which of these putative errors are real, and which not? And what does it all mean, for the IPCC in particular, and for climate science more broadly?

Let’s start with a few basic facts about the IPCC. The IPCC is not, as many people seem to think, a large organization. In fact, it has only 10 full-time staff in its secretariat at the World Meteorological Organization in Geneva, plus a few staff in four technical support units that help the chairs of the three IPCC working groups and the national greenhouse gas inventories group. The actual work of the IPCC is done by unpaid volunteers – thousands of scientists at universities and research institutes around the world who contribute as authors or reviewers to the completion of the IPCC reports. A large fraction of the relevant scientific community is thus involved in the effort. The three working groups are:

Working Group 1 (WG1), which deals with the physical climate science basis, as assessed by the climatologists, including several of the Realclimate authors.

Working Group 2 (WG2), which deals with impacts of climate change on society and ecosystems, as assessed by social scientists, ecologists, etc.

Working Group 3 (WG3) , which deals with mitigation options for limiting global warming, as assessed by energy experts, economists, etc.

Assessment reports are published every six or seven years and writing them takes about three years. Each working group publishes one of the three volumes of each assessment. The focus of the recent allegations is the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), which was published in 2007. Its three volumes are almost a thousand pages each, in small print. They were written by over 450 lead authors and 800 contributing authors; most were not previous IPCC authors. There are three stages of review involving more than 2,500 expert reviewers who collectively submitted 90,000 review comments on the drafts. These, together with the authors’ responses to them, are all in the public record.

[/QUOTE]

http://www.energybulletin.net/node/51586

PS. And please, don't even think about pointing to record snowfalls and cold snaps as "evidence" that GW is a beat up. Fact is that these events are well predicted in the climate models around GW. The short story is with GW there is more moisture in the atmosphere (higher temperatures causing extra evaporation) and that when other climatic factors come to bear this extra moisture will come down as rain ( ie floods...) or super snow storms.

Garpal Gumnut · 18 February 2012

It would appear that even The Age, that left wing publication from Melbourne has now abandoned Tim Flannery and the Climate Change Hoax.

Is this the flood before the deluge.

What will the Greens and the Left worry us about next, Carbon?

gg

OzWaveGuy · 18 February 2012

basilio said:
So how did the IPCC get it so wrong?

LOL - looking back at your assertions.....They didn't get anything wrong - the policy makers simply published whatever fantasy they wished and hoped with enough PR the more gullible would climb aboard. Even with the vastly different historic temperatures published between AR1 and AR3 that suddenly shows no medieval warming due to Mann's hockey stick - the gullible (and there's several in this forum, right Basilio?) unquestioningly lapped up the gravy as fact.

The alarmist gravy train is unwinding as realisation of the fraud sets in. Hang in there Basilio - there might be a few more squirts of gravy left before the funding is cut.

orr · 18 February 2012

Garpal Gumnut said:
It would appear that ....... The Age

Has a big fat new major shareholder.
Or, of course, an extremely prescient and cutting cartoonist. Who wouldn't mind a few invites to hither and tither, if of course they were to come up. Even one like say, being allowed to come to work and be payed for it.

Ruby · 19 February 2012

Wonderful cartoon GG - says it all!!

rederob · 29 March 2019

Some people have long track records in prosecuting their case on this topic, but never were able to understand the topic.
On returning to the ASF site after 10 years absence I wondered how much had changed.
Well, a lightning bolt soon struck.
People don't change much.
And in this topic neither has the scientific evidence.
Yet despite it, people act like Canute.
Australia is an interesting country in that poor leadership and an ill informed element within the media have managed to largely spit the population on climate change.
It reminded me of the dinner conversations I had while in America and we discussed gun control. Those for it admired what Australia did and knew the facts - populations with restricted access to weapons have fewer deaths by guns - kind of a no brainer. But facts are not relevant in the USA because influence rules.
Facts are a real problem.
More so when they override baseless notions and do irreparable harm.

kahuna1 · 29 March 2019

Top 10 climate change myths

DON'T WATCH ... you may learn something !!

It may also upset you ...

Did you know the Great Barrier Reef is 25% the size it was 30 years ago ?

The chances of it being 10% the size it was in 1985 in 2050 are less than 10% ... less than 10% and nothing will change this outcome !!

There are a few bigger issues as time goes on even by 2050.

rederob · 19 May 2019

This morning I wondered why a party with actual policies could be be defeated by a party that had none of merit.
So I came here for inspiration:

Garpal Gumnut said:
It is becoming increasingly apparent that it is a load of codswallop.

wayneL said:
Beyond a few vested interests and those zealots who have embraced it as a religion, co2 based AGW is a dead issue, the science largely discredited, the proponents caught out BSing and humiliated.

beaul said:
Not one in thousands I have met have agreed with Global warming, they have seen it all before, that is, severe weather patterns etc.

Julia said:
The only factor you have omitted is that there is no proof that any change in climate is anthropogenic in nature.

wayneL said:
Ad hominem is the prime tactic of the warmists against skeptics and you have immediately reverted to type, despite dissing the tactic... hmmmmm.

brty said:
What the real science shows is that changes occur very quickly, the climate tends to change abruptly and plant and animal systems evolve into something new to accommodate the changes in climate.

Garpal Gumnut said:
Christopher Monckton has quite a good mind and I would heed carefully what he says.

GumbyLearner said:
You think that there is this mystical moral duty to science that exists whereby people around the world regardless of their economic station in which they live require a huge tax in order to save the planet.

OzWaveGuy said:
The further the IPCC and cohorts are investigated the deeper the scam becomes....

prozac said:
Do a search for Lord Christopher Monckton. This knowledgeable gentleman speaks most eloquently on the subject.

Julia said:
What I do find interesting is post Copenhagen the gradual and quite subtle backdown by the warmist scientists and followers that the science is absolute, definite and unequivocal.

OzWaveGuy said:
The alarmist gravy train is unwinding as realisation of the fraud sets in. Hang in there Basilio - there might be a few more squirts of gravy left before the funding is cut.

People who could know better chose to instead wallow in blind faith and ignorance.
Their justifications were creative when they weren't plain evasive.
What the average punter doesn't "get," because of the polarisation stirred by vested interests against the science, is best summed up below:

ghotib said:
One thing I've realised is that nobody started out with a hypothesis that humans were warming the planet. Scientists from many different disciplines were trying to understand climate, and the role of human activities only became apparent as the understanding grew.

SirRumpole · 19 May 2019

rederob said:
This morning I wondered why a party with actual policies could be be defeated by a party that had none of merit.

Simple people fall for scare campaigns.

(Note the absence of a comma after the first word )

moXJO · 19 May 2019

What are the stages of grief again?

rederob · 19 May 2019

moXJO said:
What are the stages of grief again?

For me it's seeing a thread title that is nonsensical.
Climate change is a thing.
It exists because it has been measured. Nobody was advocating for it to magically appear.
The people who have determined it exists actually prefer that it did not. What they advocate is that we should be aware of what happens as a result.
We probably don't want our children and grandchildren to suffer grief over climate change. But maybe if we, like many posting here, pretend it's not happening then everything will be fine.
Not me.
I got firm aim on some flying pigs.

moXJO · 19 May 2019

rederob said:
For me it's seeing a thread title that is nonsensical.
Climate change is a thing.
It exists because it has been measured. Nobody was advocating for it to magically appear.
The people who have determined it exists actually prefer that it did not. What they advocate is that we should be aware of what happens as a result.
We probably don't want our children and grandchildren to suffer grief over climate change. But maybe if we, like many posting here, pretend it's not happening then everything will be fine.
Not me.
I got firm aim on some flying pigs.

Action does need to be taken.
I think the environmentalists need a better tact then the divisiveness that has gone on. The lefts tactics are starting to fall flat worldwide.

rederob · 19 May 2019

moXJO said:
Action does need to be taken.
I think the environmentalists need a better tact then the divisiveness that has gone on. The lefts tactics are starting to fall flat worldwide.

This is not about "environmentalism."
The science in unequivocal, yet you suggest there is "divisiveness."
That being the case, it has only to do with the divide between knowledge and ignorance.

moXJO · 19 May 2019

rederob said:
This is not about "environmentalism."
The science in unequivocal, yet you suggest there is "divisiveness."
That being the case, it has only to do with the divide between knowledge and ignorance.

Yeah but being a dick about it doesn't sell. What do you think is going to happen.
"The world ends in 12 years" type of comments from idiots in high places doesn’t help.

You have to sell it to the masses. Not tell them they are the greatest evil on the planet.

brty · 19 May 2019

Unlike some people, when the circumstances and evidence change, I change my opinion. Quoting me from 9 years ago is not appropriate in this case.

wayneL · 19 May 2019

SirRumpole said:
Simple people fall for scare campaigns.

(Note the absence of a comma after the first word )

Indeed. The simple may not realize who is simple and who isn't, however.

Duelling Simpletons?

Junior · 19 May 2019

rederob said:
This morning I wondered why a party with actual policies could be be defeated by a party that had none of merit.
So I came here for inspiration:

People who could know better chose to instead wallow in blind faith and ignorance.
Their justifications were creative when they weren't plain evasive.
What the average punter doesn't "get," because of the polarisation stirred by vested interests against the science, is best summed up below:

ALP policy regarding CC and the environment wasn't great. And supporting a vast new coal mine didn't really fit in well with their message. Just because their CC policy is 'better' than the Coalition, that doesn't mean everyone will vote for them.

Many of their other policies didn't sit well with punters, plus the simple fact that Bill isn't very likeable.

rederob · 19 May 2019

brty said:
Unlike some people, when the circumstances and evidence change, I change my opinion. Quoting me from 9 years ago is not appropriate in this case.

Circumstances never changed, and nor did the evidence - we just have more now.
I carefully read your posts.
You selectively chose information to make a case, and that's pretty standard practice for those in denial of climate science.

IFocus · 19 May 2019

Interesting take Red I know people who are highly intelligent and their whole careers rely on the same physics / science as as CC.

Yet they will tell you its a con because they don't like some one who is is a advocate etc.

When I point out the relationship of CO and other gases they completely agree....go figure.

brty · 19 May 2019

rederob said:
Circumstances never changed, and nor did the evidence - we just have more now.
I carefully read your posts.
You selectively chose information to make a case, and that's pretty standard practice for those in denial of climate science.

There you have it, I was for quite a few years a climate sceptic, I never denied it, I always looked for more evidence.
These days I find there is more than enough conclusive evidence for man's impact on the climate, but remain very sceptical about whether we can do anything about it.

Turning to renewables only over the next few decades might make a difference, but it also might not. However turning to renewables means a huge build that requires massive amounts of energy to happen.

Have you ever worked out how much energy would be required to build a renewables only future, by 2050??

Prosecute Climate Change Advocates

basilio

Garpal Gumnut

Ross Island Hotel

OzWaveGuy

orr

Ruby

rederob

kahuna1

rederob

SirRumpole

moXJO

menace to society

rederob

moXJO

menace to society

rederob

moXJO

menace to society

brty

wayneL

VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!

Junior

rederob

IFocus

You are arguing with a Galah

brty

Prosecute Climate Change Advocates

Ross Island Hotel

menace to society

menace to society

menace to society

VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!

You are arguing with a Galah

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency