Global warming.

[smokingman]

In 2010, after many references were shown to be from Greenpeace and other advocacy groups: “[FONT=&quot]the IPCC's chairman said there was a need to use information which was not from peer-reviewed scientific journals, because in some places that was the only research that had been done. Dr Pachauri said academic work being done by bodies including charities [/FONT][FONT=&quot]cannot be ignored.

Global Warming Political Consensus

[/FONT]"I believe the anthropogenic (man-made) effect for climate change is still only one of the hypotheses to explain the variability of climate," Kanya Kusano told The Weekend Australian.


It could take 10 to 20 years more research to prove or disprove the theory of anthropogenic climate change, said Dr Kusano, a research group leader with the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science's Earth Simulator project.
"Before anyone noticed, this hypothesis has been substituted for truth," writes Shunichi Akasofu, founding director of the University of Alaska's International Arctic Research Centre.
Dr Maruyama said yesterday there was widespread scepticism among his colleagues about the IPCC's fourth and latest assessment report that most of the observed global temperature increase since the mid-20th century "is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations".
When this question was raised at a Japan Geoscience Union symposium last year, he said, "the result showed 90 per cent of the participants do not believe the IPCC report".


The American Physical Society (APS)

"[FONT=&quot]There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC [/FONT][FONT=&quot]conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred."[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Now that the IPCC has published its estimates of the forcing effects of individual feedbacks for the first time, numerous papers challenging its chosen values have appeared in the peer-reviewed literature.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]the IPCC has failed to allow for[/FONT][FONT=&quot] two-thirds of the cooling effect of evaporation in its evaluation of the water vapor-feedback .The cloud-albedo feedback, regarded by the IPCC as second in magnitude only to the water-vapor feedback, should in fact be negative rather than strongly positive[/FONT]." In 2009, the APS Council decided to review its current climate statement via a high-level subcommittee of respected senior scientists. The decision was prompted after a group of 54 prominent physicists petitioned the APS revise its global warming position. The physicists wrote: “[FONT=&quot]Measured or reconstructed temperature records indicate that 20th - 21st century changes are neither exceptional nor persistent, and the historical and geological records show many periods warmer than today.[/FONT]”

[FONT=&quot][/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
Try looking past what you think you know.More scientist question the IPCC than support it.


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/japanese-scientists-cool-on-theories/story-e6frg6t6-1111119126656

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

Ok, so we will do this in the manner in which science generally progresses....

The IPCC has provided their work and supporting evidence.

Please provide all this empirical evidence that the questioners have collected supporting their claims.

This is where we get into the why most climatologists are in agreement - because of the only current data that has not been completely eviscerated by peer review.

 

[rhino]

I'm just a little upset now.

I didn't know I was allowed to sleep during science class.

No one told me, and I am clearly handicapped by intellectual and educational deficiencies that would lead me to the conclusion that sleeping during science class is (or was) acceptable.

 

[smokingman]

Ok, so we will do this in the manner in which science generally progresses....

The IPCC has provided their work and supporting evidence.

Please provide all this empirical evidence that the questioners have collected supporting their claims.

This is where we get into the why most climatologists are in agreement - because of the only current data that has not been completely eviscerated by peer review.

Obviously you did not read the thread above yours where I posted the APS questions about the IPCC models and methods.

Also if you just google ICPP not peer reviewed,or Scientist question IPCC data you will find many do not agree with the IPCC or how it matches data to the political summary of the reports(as stated in the IPCC charter).

The IPCC is a political organization,not a scientific body.It says so in its UN charter.The fact that it has never released the name of scientists who put together the "studies" or who peer reviewed them should speak volumes about the quality of work.No other scientific paper would ever be seen as credible using those standards.All peer reviewed scientific papers have a list of WHO wrote the paper,who reviewed the paper and the conclusion.Not so with IPCC studies.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

Obviously you did not read the thread above yours where I posted the APS questions about the IPCC models and methods.

Also if you just google ICPP not peer reviewed,or Scientist question IPCC data you will find many do not agree with the IPCC or how it matches data to the political summary of the reports(as stated in the IPCC charter).

The IPCC is a political organization,not a scientific body.It says so in its UN charter.The fact that it has never released the name of scientists who put together the "studies" or who peer reviewed them should speak volumes about the quality of work.No other scientific paper would ever be seen as credible using those standards.All peer reviewed scientific papers have a list of WHO wrote the paper,who reviewed the paper and the conclusion.Not so with IPCC studies.

Obviously you did not note the part of science where to be believed, supporting evidence has to be supplied.

Questions are great - and questioning a specific study is part of the process... but to be believed by experts in the scientific community, actual empirical evidence supporting a claim must be held up.

 

[smokingman]

Obviously you did not note the part of science where to be believed, supporting evidence has to be supplied.

Questions are great - and questioning a specific study is part of the process... but to be believed by experts in the scientific community, actual empirical evidence supporting a claim must be held up.

But using data that has not been peer reviewed(such as the Greenpeace data in IPCC 4) is ok?

 

[Bunnykid68]

It's cold outside, glad I have a heater

 

[rhino]

It's cold outside, glad I have a heater

Wait a while. You won't need it when my SUV gets through with all of this.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

But using data that has not been peer reviewed(such as the Greenpeace data in IPCC 4) is ok?

All released data is available to be reviewed by peers.

That is where the scientific advancement comes in....

When something is wrong, people making claims show that it is wrong, and often times in the process demonstrate a closer truth.

This is where the why most climatologists agree comes in - because they notice which theory seems closest until it is demonstrated to be incorrect. That part where they demonstrate it to be incorrect without simply providing adjustments has not come into play.

I can scream that Ohm's law is incorrect all day and night, but if I cannot demonstrate that it is incorrect - everyone will point and laugh.

 

[smokingman]

All released data is available to be reviewed by peers.

That is where the scientific advancement comes in....

When something is wrong, people making claims show that it is wrong, and often times in the process demonstrate a closer truth.

This is where the why most climatologists agree comes in - because they notice which theory seems closest until it is demonstrated to be incorrect. That part where they demonstrate it to be incorrect without simply providing adjustments has not come into play.

I can scream that Ohm's law is incorrect all day and night, but if I cannot demonstrate that it is incorrect - everyone will point and laugh.

Read the IPCC review and changes of procedures after data sets in IPCC 3,and 4 where proven false or misleading.
InterAcademy Council | Review of the IPCC | An Evaluation of the Procedures and Processes of the InterGovernmental Panel on Climate Change
"
Given that the IAC report was prompted in part by the revelation of errors in the last assessment, the committee examined IPCC’s review process as well. It concluded that the process is thorough, but stronger enforcement of existing IPCC review procedures could minimize the number of errors. To that end, IPCC should encourage review editors to fully exercise their authority to ensure that all review comments are adequately considered. Review editors should also ensure that genuine controversies are reflected in the report and be satisfied that due consideration was given to properly documented alternative views. Lead authors should explicitly document that the full range of thoughtful scientific views has been considered.
The use of so-called gray literature from unpublished or non-peer-reviewed sources has been controversial, although often such sources of information and data are relevant and appropriate for inclusion in the assessment reports. Problems occur because authors do not follow IPCC’s guidelines for evaluating such sources and because the guidelines themselves are too vague, the committee said. It recommended that these guidelines be made more specific — including adding guidelines on what types of literature are unacceptable — and strictly enforced to ensure that unpublished and non-peer-reviewed literature is appropriately flagged.
The committee also called for more consistency in how the Working Groups characterize uncertainty. In the last assessment, each Working Group used a different variation of IPCC’s uncertainty guidelines, and the committee found that the guidance is not always followed. The Working Group II report, for example, contains some statements that were assigned high confidence but for which there is little evidence. In future assessments, all Working Groups should qualify their understanding of a topic by describing the amount of evidence available and the degree of agreement among experts; this is known as the level of understanding scale. And all Working Groups should use a probability scale to quantify the likelihood of a particular event occurring, but only when there is sufficient evidence to do so.
IPCC’s slow and inadequate response to revelations of errors in the last assessment, as well as complaints that its leaders have gone beyond IPCC’s mandate to be “policy relevant, not policy prescriptive” in their public comments, have made communications a critical issue.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

Read the IPCC review and changes of procedures after data sets in IPCC 3,and 4 where proven false or misleading.
InterAcademy Council | Review of the IPCC | An Evaluation of the Procedures and Processes of the InterGovernmental Panel on Climate Change
"
Given that the IAC report was prompted in part by the revelation of errors in the last assessment, the committee examined IPCC’s review process as well. It concluded that the process is thorough, but stronger enforcement of existing IPCC review procedures could minimize the number of errors. To that end, IPCC should encourage review editors to fully exercise their authority to ensure that all review comments are adequately considered. Review editors should also ensure that genuine controversies are reflected in the report and be satisfied that due consideration was given to properly documented alternative views. Lead authors should explicitly document that the full range of thoughtful scientific views has been considered.
The use of so-called gray literature from unpublished or non-peer-reviewed sources has been controversial, although often such sources of information and data are relevant and appropriate for inclusion in the assessment reports. Problems occur because authors do not follow IPCC’s guidelines for evaluating such sources and because the guidelines themselves are too vague, the committee said. It recommended that these guidelines be made more specific — including adding guidelines on what types of literature are unacceptable — and strictly enforced to ensure that unpublished and non-peer-reviewed literature is appropriately flagged.
The committee also called for more consistency in how the Working Groups characterize uncertainty. In the last assessment, each Working Group used a different variation of IPCC’s uncertainty guidelines, and the committee found that the guidance is not always followed. The Working Group II report, for example, contains some statements that were assigned high confidence but for which there is little evidence. In future assessments, all Working Groups should qualify their understanding of a topic by describing the amount of evidence available and the degree of agreement among experts; this is known as the level of understanding scale. And all Working Groups should use a probability scale to quantify the likelihood of a particular event occurring, but only when there is sufficient evidence to do so.
IPCC’s slow and inadequate response to revelations of errors in the last assessment, as well as complaints that its leaders have gone beyond IPCC’s mandate to be “policy relevant, not policy prescriptive” in their public comments, have made communications a critical issue.

Wait, so you are saying scientists actually review one another's work, and later updates are adjusted to account for inaccuracies? They even concluded that although errors existed that they would like to see corrected, their process was - "thorough".

I think you still miss the point - picking out errors to correct and disproving the basis of a theory are very drastically different things.

Both are important, but the latter has still not come into play....

Which gets back to the why most climatologists are still in agreement - a closer theory has not been demonstrated.

If the current climate change theories are incorrect, sooner or later someone will be able to demonstrate why. Everyone is waiting, but other than modifications based on collected data - it has not yet happened.

 

[EvilBlackGun]

Also see :

"World Almanac 1975, ~76. & ~77."

Well, thee quarters of his statement is irrefutable.

 

[newguy]

who let this cock fag in here?

 

[Bummer]

If you want to discuss math or physics I am positive I could help you understand at least the basics.

So how are you doing with those physics lectures? I could certainly use the help.

A nice one on event horizons. And something on the red shift. Just as warm-up, of course. Then maybe one on thermodynamics, which will give you a chance to explain why atmospheric CO2 can't possibly reflect radiant heat back to the planet causing heat buildup. From there we can move on to M Theory mathematics. Along the way perhaps something about 123.5 GeV and the nature of the field effect of the particle(s) they think they found there.

I can't speak for level.eleven, but I can hardly wait.

 

[smokingman]

Wait, so you are saying scientists actually review one another's work, and later updates are adjusted to account for inaccuracies? They even concluded that although errors existed that they would like to see corrected, their process was - "thorough".

I think you still miss the point - picking out errors to correct and disproving the basis of a theory are very drastically different things.

Both are important, but the latter has still not come into play....

Which gets back to the why most climatologists are still in agreement - a closer theory has not been demonstrated.


If the current climate change theories are incorrect, sooner or later someone will be able to demonstrate why. Everyone is waiting, but other than modifications based on collected data - it has not yet happened.

How about this.I will keep an open mind.You post me a peer reviewed study(not from the IPCC)showing anamorphic global warming is the reason for our rise in temperature.
I will read it with an open mind.Now is your chance.Convert me to a believer.

 

[newguy]

maybe H.A,R.P. has more to do with climate change than my v8 15 mpg truck does?

 

[Bunnykid68]

who let this cock fag in here?

What?

 

[Lakeman62]

Just another way they have invented to chisel a dollar from your pocket, the earth goes thru climate changes and heating and cooling cycles, some have found a way to profit from this.

 

[level.eleven]

who let this cock fag in here?

I think you are posting on the wrong forum.

 

[printcraft]

Originally Posted by newguy
who let this cock fag in here?

I think you are posting on the wrong forum.

This. /\

I think you are looking for the westboro baptist website there newguy.