APP - IPCC LIED!!!

[Cypress]

Alternate thread title: “The Latest Debunking of the Flat Earth Society”

Climate Gate Clown Assertion #1 : ”IPCC LIED!!! It’s all CRAP!!!”


Facts: The IPCC report and findings have recently been independently reviewed and corroborated by prestigious international scientific institutions. Including the Dutch Government, and by some of the most reputable scientific institutions in the United States

Dutch Government Reviews the IPCC Report and Findings, and Concludes the IPCC findings are Well Founded

Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency has found no errors that would undermine the main conclusions in the 2007 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on possible future regional impacts of climate change. However, in some instances the foundations for the summary statements should have been made more transparent. The PBL believes that the IPCC should invest more in quality control in order to prevent mistakes and shortcomings, to the extent possible.

Key findings of IPCC on regional climate-change impacts overall considered well founded

--Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, 2010

http://www.pbl.nl/en/publications/2...cted-regional-impacts-in-the-2007-report.html

also...

Numerous prestigious American scientific entities (including NASA, National Academy of Sciences, NOAA, Smithsonian Institute, National Science Foundation, and US Environmental Protection Agency) whom have independently corroborated IPCC’s findings:

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=677884&postcount=19

Climate Gate Clown Assertion #2 : ”Nothings happening!!! Global warming has stopped!!!”

U.S. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration:

NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) released its final report on 2009 surface temperatures Thursday, concluding:

2009 was tied for the second warmest year in the modern record, a new NASA analysis of global surface temperature shows. The analysis, conducted by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City, also shows that in the Southern Hemisphere, 2009 was the warmest year since modern records began in 1880….

January 2000 to December 2009 was the warmest decade on record. Throughout the last three decades, the GISS surface temperature record shows an upward trend of about 0.2°C (0.36°F) per decade.

NASA, May 2010: 2010 on track to be hottest year on record, unless a signiticant el nina develops.

Climate Gate Clown Assertion #2 : ”Climate Scientists LIED!!! It’s all been PROVEN to be fraudulent science!!!”

For climate gate comedy, refer to:

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=676083&postcount=1



Take away lesson: Climate Gate Clowns, the Flat Earth Society, and Christian Creationists are emotionally invested in science denial. There are forces at work here that have nothing to do with science, reason, or logic. As the Russell Meirs Report stated, scientists better get hip to the fact that reactionary forces, and their easily duped and trained internet chimpanzees and rubes are going to go on the attack, lie, and slander whenever there is a perception that Christian theocracy is under attack, or whenever there’s a perception that some rich white dude is going to lose some money because of some dirty tree hugging hippies.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

I see evidence of science denial...

 

[Lao Tse]

Authority figures never lie. everyone knows that.

 

[Cypress]

Since you "forgot" to provide a link, I'll do it for you. Your chart is based on a National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Website for paleoclimatic data.


EDIT, for inclusion of proper referencing to data:

I see evidence of science denial...

NOAA Chart:

The NOAA Conclusions found on their website:

"Few people contest the idea that some of the recent climate changes are likely due to natural processes....Nevertheless, with each year, more and more climate scientists are coming to the conclusion that human activity is also causing the climate to change. First on the list of likely human influences is warming due to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Other human activities are thought to drive climate as well. As the ice-core data show, the increase in carbon dioxide is unprecedented and well outside the range of natural variations. The recent increase matches the increase calculated from the fossil fuel emissions. There is little doubt that these gases will contribute to global warming, and here too the paleo record provides invaluable evidence regarding how much temperature change accompanied changes in carbon dioxide over the past several hundred thousand years."

-NOAA, 2008

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleodata.html

Even this NOAA paleoclimatic data is somewhat out of data, having been webposted in 2008.


The confidence in the state of modern climate science has only gotten stronger since 2007-2008. Paleoclimate is useful for evaluating cause and effect of climatic factors. But, no scientist and no seriously informed person is saying that we want it to be as warm as the Paleocene high 400,000 years ago. Modern life and modern civilization developed, and is dependent, on the relatively stable - and slow changing - climate during the last ten thousand years. If you Cons are cheerleading on a an abrupt, disruptive, and possibly catastrophic climate change because of human activities, you are going to be very harshly judged by history. Personally, I would check your hyperpartisanship at the door when it comes to science and the welfare of humankind.


More recent reports (2009, 2010) from NOAA, the National Academy of Sciences, NASA, and other preeminent american scientific institutions are now concluding that the core observation that the earth is warming and that it is very likely that humans are primarily responsible, is unequivocal. While there is always more to learn in any scientific endeavor, in the words of the National Academy of Sciences (2010), it is a "settled scientific fact."

See post number 1 for data and reputable preeminent scientific sources and references. .

 

[PostmodernProphet]

/shrugs....the link was irrelevant to the point made, the graph speaks for itself.......the global warming alarmists ignore the scientific fact that the climate is doing nothing that it hasn't repeatedly done before.....

But, no scientist and no seriously informed person is saying that we want it to be as warm as the Paleocene high 400,000 years ago.

tell me a scientist or seriously informed person who honestly thinks that "what we want" matters.......obviously the Paleocene high was not the result of human activity, and the temperature the globe reaches this time around through the cycle will not be dependent on human activity.....

that it is very likely that humans are primarily responsible, is unequivocal.

it is statements like this which make it obvious that one must ignore science to become a global warming alarmist......it is obvious that global warming is not only cyclical, but inevitable.....how then is human responsibility unequivocal?........

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

As for your independent reviews Cypress...

1) who ran those 'independent reviews? (ie... was it Penn State, East Anglia etc...)

2) who made up the panels doing the reviews? (ie... did it include skeptics as well as proponents of global warming? Or did they just include those who already agreed with global warming?)

3) Do you contend that all of the questions/complaints were answered by the 'independent' reviews?

As for your chart showing the temperatures Cypress:

1) No one is arguing with the fact that the earth warmed during the 1970-1995 time frame. Nor is anyone arguing that it has stayed warm since. But do tell us... if MAN is causing global warming... then why has there been no significant warming over the past 15 years? A FACT stated directly by your unimpeachable Jones.

2) Does your chart demonstrate how the changes in temperature are a result of man?

3) Do you think it is scientifically valid that Jones states the reason he thinks man is responsible is due to: "The fact that we can't explain the warming from the 1950s by solar and volcanic forcing"? Because it would seem that he is saying it has to be man because he can't figure out another reason. That hardly seems sound scientifically.

As for the question you never answer Cypress....

WHY is it that the global warming fear mongers have now switched to calling it 'climate change'? If MAN is causing WARMING... and it is 'unequivocal scientific fact'... WHY the change?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Another question for Cypress....

Do you think Penn State would have federal funding for climate research cut if their 'independent' investigation into Mann had resulted in Mann being found guilty of scientific fraud or data manipulation?

Same question for the 'independent' review conducted by East Anglia

Bottom line... since you are such an intellect on the topic.... do list for us the members of each of the panels that conducted the 'independent' reviews.

 

[Cypress]

You cons accepted the findings of an academic review panel that got Ward churchill fired for research fraud, without the slightest question, hesitation, or doubts about the credibility of the review panel. So, I'm going to dismiss questions about the climate gate and Dr. Mann review panels as being based on nothing by hyperpartisanship, science denial, and deep seated embarrassment about being wrong about climate science for the past 20 years.

If you want to think two independent review panels, the British Parliament, and two Penn State review panels are in collusion with climate scientists worldwide to cover up a fraud, go for it. Normal people consider that to be on the extreme fringes of rightwing conspiracy theory nuttery. If you want to find out who was on the panels, I gave the links.

As for yelling out questions, and demanding answers, I learned long ago that these lists of "questions" are not independently derived by you, tinfoil, dixie, or bravo. Their paraphrased, or copied and pasted from various nutjob rightwing blogs that have no expertise in climate science, and no connection to actual peer reviewed climate science research. Some of your questions have been addressed before and I'm not going to repeat answers for you. If you can come up with a list of questions and valid scientific concerns from reputable, internationally recognized scientific organizations, or from reputable climate scientists who actually have published bodies of peer reviewed research into climate change, feel free to post them.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

You cons accepted the findings of an academic review panel that got Ward churchill fired for research fraud, without the slightest question, hesitation, or doubts about the credibility of the review panel.

Translation: "holy crap... I am going to go into full spin mode right now... no way in hell I can answer those questions"

So, I'm going to dismiss questions about the climate gate and Dr. Mann review panels as being based on nothing by hyperpartisanship, science denial, and deep seated embarrassment about being wrong about climate science for the past 20 years.

Translation: "shit... even I don't believe the shit I just tossed out there about Churchill.... so I will just 'dismiss' their questions and hope they don't mock me too much. I never guessed they would actually ask me for that information on WHO it was doing the reviewing. Why didn't my masters better prepare me for this???"

If you want to think two independent review panels, the British Parliament, and two Penn State review panels are in collusion with climate scientists worldwide to cover up a fraud, go for it. Normal people consider that to be on the extreme fringes of rightwing conspiracy theory nuttery. If you want to find out who was on the panels, I gave the links.

Translation: "God, I hope they are buying this, I am tossing everything I can in a desperate attempt to avoid answering the questions"

As for yelling out questions, and demanding answers, I learned long ago that these lists of "questions" are not independently derived by you, tinfoil, dixie, or bravo. Their paraphrased, or copied and pasted from various nutjob rightwing blogs that have no expertise in climate science, and no connection to actual peer reviewed climate science research.

LMAO.... the above is priceless Cypress.... really.. you have outdone yourself.

All of those questions are derived by myself. This is just another of your feeble attempts to try to avoid answering them. Because you KNOW the answers will make you look fucking retarded.

Some of your questions have been addressed before and I'm not going to repeat answers for you.

You are full of shit Cypress. You have NEVER answered those questions. You always DUCK away from answering them by proclaiming that you 'already answered them'.

If you don't wish to actually discuss the topic Cypress then perhaps you should stop posting threads on the topic you fucking moron.

If you can come up with a list of questions and valid scientific concerns from reputable, internationally recognized scientific organizations, or from reputable climate scientists who actually have published bodies of peer reviewed research into climate change, feel free to post them.

ROFLMAO.... so now no one can ask you questions unless they are directly from a source approved by you? How pathetic of you.... especially given the FACT that you ignore any reputable climate scientist that disagrees with your beloved flat earth fear mongering bullshit.

 

[DamnYankee]

Cypress used the words "Ward Churchill" and "credibility" in the same post.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

ONCE AGAIN.... THE QUESTIONS CYPRESS IS SCARED TO ANSWER.....

As for your independent reviews Cypress...

1) who ran those 'independent reviews? (ie... was it Penn State, East Anglia etc...)

2) who made up the panels doing the reviews? (ie... did it include skeptics as well as proponents of global warming? Or did they just include those who already agreed with global warming?)

3) Do you contend that all of the questions/complaints were answered by the 'independent' reviews?

As for your chart showing the temperatures Cypress:

1) No one is arguing with the fact that the earth warmed during the 1970-1995 time frame. Nor is anyone arguing that it has stayed warm since. But do tell us... if MAN is causing global warming... then why has there been no significant warming over the past 15 years? A FACT stated directly by your unimpeachable Jones.

2) Does your chart demonstrate how the changes in temperature are a result of man?

3) Do you think it is scientifically valid that Jones states the reason he thinks man is responsible is due to: "The fact that we can't explain the warming from the 1950s by solar and volcanic forcing"? Because it would seem that he is saying it has to be man because he can't figure out another reason. That hardly seems sound scientifically.

As for the question you never answer Cypress....

WHY is it that the global warming fear mongers have now switched to calling it 'climate change'? If MAN is causing WARMING... and it is 'unequivocal scientific fact'... WHY the change?

 

[Cypress]

Typing in 80 point font doesn't make your yelps any more legitimate.


Read the reports on climate change I provided. All I do is provide the most reputable, and prestigious science available on climate science. They have universally concluded that recent warming is very likely due to man.

I don't provide my own opinion. I'm not an expert in climate science. I defer to the virtually universal and worldwide judgement of reputable experts and scientific agencies.

I've gone over the temperature record ad naseum. I've tried to explain trend analysis to you, and I've provided you links to the most reputable climate scientists and scientific organizations on the planet. That's all I can do man, I'm not paid do do my own science on climate, or to teach message boarders basic tenets of science.

Yo man, you didn't provide any links. You can yell all the questions you want, but you don't have any credibility left on this topic. You, Dixie, Tinfoil, and Bravo fell for Climate Gate, Amazongate, and the buffoonery about the IPCC. Everything you think you know about climate science is from rightwing blogs, OP-Ed pieces, and rightwing think tanks that don't do any peer reviewed scientific research. You didn't independently come up with most of your questions, and I reject any questions, conjectures, or speculations that you paraphrase from something you read on a rightwing blog. You're going to have to come up with legitimate criticisms backed by legitimate scientific sources. Your rightwing blogs misled you about climate gate, it would be prudent of you to start believing that they're misleading you about everything else - including all the questions and speculations you keep throwing out.

All the answers are in the links I gave. And I provided excellent and concise summaries of their conclusions. If you want to believe all the world's most prestigious scientific organizations are wrong, that half a dozen independent review panels, and the British parliament colluded with climate scientists worldwide to cover up a fraud, that's fine. I'm just here to post the best, and most prestigious science. You can rely on rightwing blogs if you want.

I'll address any criticisms you have on climate science, when you can provide links to legitimate scientific sources.

 

[tinfoil]

LOL

the most prestigious science

like the Amazon claim
or the Netherlands claim


Prestigious science
FTW!!!

LOL fucking warmers: how do they work?

 

[Cypress]

LOL

the most prestigious science

like the Amazon claim
or the Netherlands claim


Prestigious science
FTW!!!

LOL fucking warmers: how do they work?

I'm in awe to be on a message board, where anonymous rightwing posters have expertise and Knowledge of climate science that mere mortals can only dream of having. Expertise so vast, that they can routinely pontificate, hypothesize, and speculate without the merest hint of a legitimate and reputable scientific link anywhere in their posts.

Me? I pretty much just post the conclusions and findings of the world's most preeminent scientists and scientific organizations; and provide context where I feel capable.


This was an excellent article by four pre-emminent climate researchers, whom have demonstrated, prestigious, and prolific track records of peer-reviewed climate research.

The science behind climate science

How we as a society use what we have learned from climate science could define our generation.

Right now, our nation — and the world — are at a crossroads. Yet we seem stalled — despite an increasingly clear picture of what human-induced global warming is doing to our planet.

The scientific community — often working closely with governments — has produced numerous, carefully reviewed, international and national assessments of the scientific understanding behind climate change. The latest, “America’s Climate Choices,” recently released by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, states that “scientific evidence that the Earth is warming is now overwhelming.”

So it is imperative that the public and policymakers question and debate the range of options for addressing climate change — including the level of certainty about that evidence. But a fair debate requires understanding of the scientific process.

The essence of the scientific method is the cyclical process of observing nature, developing theories consistent with the observations and challenging the theories with new observations to build a robust body of understanding.

The path from theory to understanding is often far from simple. Sometimes, new insights lead to dramatic shifts in prevailing scientific views.

Consider the identification of the ozone hole in the 1980s. A consensus emerged among experts within a few years of finding key evidence — though a small number of experts remained unconvinced.

Such is the case with climate science.

Theories and observations have been tested, retested and reviewed. Today, a large body of evidence has been collected to support the broad scientific understanding that global climate warming, as evident these last few decades, is unprecedented for the past 1000 years — and this change is due to human activities.

This conclusion is based on decades of rigorous research by thousands of scientists and endorsed by all of the world’s major national science academies.

The urgent need to act cannot be overstated. Climate change caused by humans is already affecting our lives and livelihoods — with extreme storms, unusual floods and droughts, intense heat waves, rising seas and many changes in biological systems — as climate scientists have projected.

Although uncertainties remain, they concern issues like the rate of melting of major ice sheets rather than the broader topic of whether the climate is changing.

The biggest question is what choices we and our children should make about energy use. The more dependent we are on carbon-emitting energy sources, the more our climate will change.

If policymakers, businesses and the public are to make smart decisions about climate change, there must be a clear picture of the elements of science that represent robust understanding, elements that remain uncertain and those that depend on future decisions about energy use.

This is the reason for a thorough discussion of scientific findings.

But regardless of how the debate proceeds, it should be clear that opinions or misinformation cannot change the extensive scientific evidence. The atmosphere, the oceans and the land are warming. Humans are contributing significantly to this, and as it continues, it will have a major impact on our society, economy, environment, energy, national security and health throughout, and well beyond, this century.

As climate scientists, we have a responsibility to share our understanding with the public and with policymakers.

But, the future depends not on what scientists have learned and conveyed. Rather, it depends on what society chooses to do with that knowledge.

Dr. James McCarthy is a professor of biological oceanography at Harvard University. Dr. Lisa Graumlich is the dean of the College of the Environment at the University of Washington. Dr. Chris Field is the director of the Department of Global Ecology at the Carnegie Institution for Science. Dr. James Hurrell is a senior scientist with the National Center for Atmospheric Research. All four testified at a recent House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming hearing, “The Foundation of Climate Science.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/39664.html#ixzz0tanAazn0

 

[Cypress]

Flat Earth Society Update:


I'm currently getting my mind blown by string theory.

In the next few days, hopefully I'll have some credible science from reputable physicists to post a new thread on.

I'm hoping the JPP.com Flat Earth Society can retort with some blogs by stock market analysts, "mushroom researchers", or other highly unqualified individuals whom have allegedly been able to debunk or disprove String Theory.

Don't disappoint me, man! I'm really digging this schtick of debating dudes who rely on rightwing blogs to allegedly debunk widely or universally accepted scientific tenets.

Should be good times!

 

[tinfoil]

LOL IPCC uses NGO claims and passes them off as science.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...2/Amazongate-At-last-we-reach-the-source.html

fucking warmers have to be the biggest bunch of hypocrites ever. You talk about science, but everywhere you look in the climate field, you find errors and misrepresentation


Even the Muir Russelll report said they misused statistics and should have disclosed that the graph was representing real temps. Do you really believ it was a mistake?

I bet you do!!!

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Typing in 80 point font doesn't make your yelps any more legitimate.

No, it does not make the questions any more legitimate. It simply is a way of emphasizing how many times you are going to duck the questions.

Read the reports on climate change I provided. All I do is provide the most reputable, and prestigious science available on climate science. They have universally concluded that recent warming is very likely due to man.

NO... all you do is parrot the same bullshit over and over and over again. Bottom line, you are SCARED to answer the questions.

I don't provide my own opinion. I'm not an expert in climate science. I defer to the virtually universal and worldwide judgement of reputable experts and scientific agencies.

This has nothing to do with the questions. AT ALL.

I've gone over the temperature record ad naseum.

and for the 1,000,000th time... NO ONE IS QUESTIONING THE FACT THAT IT GOT WARMER IN THE SECOND HALF OF THE CENTURY. NO ONE.

We are questioning the assertion that it is PRIMARLY MANS FAULT. That is the point that you either refuse to acknowledge or are too fucking stupid to comprehend.

I've tried to explain trend analysis to you, and I've provided you links to the most reputable climate scientists and scientific organizations on the planet. That's all I can do man, I'm not paid do do my own science on climate, or to teach message boarders basic tenets of science.

BLAH BLAH BLAH.... Again, all you do is parrot the same thing over and over again. You refuse to actually answer any questions, because either your masters haven't told you how to respond or once again we come back to you being too retarded to comprehend that you are being asked questions.

Yo man, you didn't provide any links.

LMAO.... a complete fabrication on your part. I provide links which you immediately 'dismiss' with such vaunted lines like 'they must be right wing' or 'no one has heard of them' or 'that University is laughable'.

You can yell all the questions you want, but you don't have any credibility left on this topic.

The only person who lacks credibility in a debate is the one who refuses to address the questions posed to him. You have again spent a lot of time typing up this piece of crap in a vain attempt to avoid answering the questions.

All the answers are in the links I gave.

NO.... NONE of the questions asked have been answered by your links.

1) Post the make up of the review boards and who initiated them

2) ANSWER the questions directed AT YOU... not LINKS... YOU... they pertain to YOUR assertions. Why are YOU afraid to answer them directly Cypress? Why?



Bottom line.... you are full of shit... you know it... and everyone who reads this thread knows it by your continued refusal to directly address the questions.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

ONCE AGAIN.... THE QUESTIONS CYPRESS IS SCARED TO ANSWER.....

As for your independent reviews Cypress...

1) who ran those 'independent reviews? (ie... was it Penn State, East Anglia etc...)

2) who made up the panels doing the reviews? (ie... did it include skeptics as well as proponents of global warming? Or did they just include those who already agreed with global warming?)

3) Do you contend that all of the questions/complaints were answered by the 'independent' reviews?

As for your chart showing the temperatures Cypress:

1) No one is arguing with the fact that the earth warmed during the 1970-1995 time frame. Nor is anyone arguing that it has stayed warm since. But do tell us... if MAN is causing global warming... then why has there been no significant warming over the past 15 years? A FACT stated directly by your unimpeachable Jones.

2) Does your chart demonstrate how the changes in temperature are a result of man?

3) Do you think it is scientifically valid that Jones states the reason he thinks man is responsible is due to: "The fact that we can't explain the warming from the 1950s by solar and volcanic forcing"? Because it would seem that he is saying it has to be man because he can't figure out another reason. That hardly seems sound scientifically.

As for the question you never answer Cypress....

WHY is it that the global warming fear mongers have now switched to calling it 'climate change'? If MAN is causing WARMING... and it is 'unequivocal scientific fact'... WHY the change?