Climate Change skeptics? [ot]


Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 7541 - 7560 of total 21618 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Jebus H Bomz

Peavine Basecamp
Aug 1, 2013 - 09:40am PT
Experts, Dingus?

No way, man, I prefer the offal we get from our colicky and completely unqualified leisure class.
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
And every fool knows, a dog needs a home, and...
Aug 1, 2013 - 09:44am PT
They are the buffoons we got. All the more reason to employ scientists I would think.

I believe you've written yourself, some might even think you bragged about it... that you worked with, supported, aided and abetted you might even say... climate SCIENTISTS while in the employ of another behemoth and out of control government agency, the Dept. of War.

That's irony for ya!


SF bay area
Aug 1, 2013 - 09:52am PT


SF bay area
Aug 1, 2013 - 09:59am PT
Sure, if you don't mind man setting the climate back millions of years, no problem, Chief.

I'd kinka like to wait a few million years for the next global natural catastrophe, if you don't mind, Chief.
raymond phule

Aug 1, 2013 - 10:01am PT

what I am supposed to substantiate

Your claim that the masses actually give a shet about AGW. They don't.

I have never made that claim or something similar to that. All I did where to disprove your claims about 1% (a number that you can't even calculate).

It is of course nothing new in this discussion but it is impossibly to discuss things with you when the goal posts change all the time and details never matter.

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Aug 1, 2013 - 10:11am PT
Chief can't read graphs, but those who can might squint at the one he posted above and notice it lists Triassic CO2 as 201 ppm, and Cretaceous CO2 as 340 ppm, giving us rough benchmarks for reading the purple line. We know that CO2 today is at 400 ppm, which should be higher than the Cretaceous, but the graph shows it much lower. How can that be? One reason is that 0 million years before present, the right-hand boundary of the time line, does not necessarily round off to "present" -- a problem I wrote about several pages back. It's not clear what smoothing or averaging system was used, either.

The people who fed this graph to Chief probably know that, but they also know there are countless people out there like him who can't read graphs, but are eager to gullibly believe and pass along their political message.

And what about the super high Precambrian CO2 that it shows? Well, that's not what it seems either. One question you might ask is how people estimate what the CO2 levels were back then; others are what the solar conditions and the state of life on Earth were then. I might take that up later, or perhaps BASE will revisit this thread.
raymond phule

Aug 1, 2013 - 10:13am PT

Sorry MONO, WRONG! Again

I guess that we should ignore absolutely everything that man can do to the enviroment because it is never going to be worse for humans than the earth where just after it come into existens. A nuclear war is for example nothing to be afraid of.

SF bay area
Aug 1, 2013 - 11:35am PT
And you don't mind going back to the climate represented by these high CO2 numbers, Chief?

SF bay area
Aug 1, 2013 - 11:37am PT

raymond phule

Aug 1, 2013 - 11:39am PT

So now LARRY is going to dispute the data that states C02 Levels of 7000PPMV's. Of course he is.
Impressive strawman.

Answering your strawman. I am no expert about paleoclimate but one of the lines in your own graph actually disputes the 7000ppm level.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Aug 1, 2013 - 11:46am PT
HomeSupport/NewsLatest NewsUN Global Warming Fraud Exposed by Detailed New Study
Email| Print |

Written by John O'Sullivan

Professor Vincent Gray, in his latest New Zealand Climate Truth Newsletter, showcases an important new study by Canadian professor, Ross McKitrick that details why the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) should be abolished.

Detailing compelling facts exposing how government climatologists engaged in data manipulation, subjective bias, suppression of inconvenient evidence disproving their alarmist claims about man-made global warming, McKitrick's study is shown by Professor Gray to be perhaps the most compelling condemnation of junk science yet seen. Gray's full report is detailed below.


MAY 21st 2013


Ross McKitrick has a recent report entitled “What is Wrong with the IPCC ? Proposals for a Radical Reform."
The Report has a foreword by John Howard, former Australian Prime Minister.

It is published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, whose Chairman is Lord Lawson, former British Foreign Secretary and whose Directors and Trustees include four other members of the British House of Lords.

McKitrick does an excellent job in explaining the origins and structure of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. He also provides a damning indictment of its failings. He makes the following recommendations for its reform:

Recommendation 1: An objective and transparent Lead Author selection procedure.
Recommendation 2: A transparent Contributing Author recruitment process.
Recommendation 3: Appointment of an Editorial Advisory Board and identification of potentially controversial sections.
Recommendation 4: Explicit assignment of both section authorship and reviewer positions.
Recommendation 5: Adoption of an iterative process to achieve a final text under the joint supervision of authors, reviewers and editors.
Recommendation 6: Adoption of a procedure for seeking technical input when necessary from outside the list of authors and reviewers during the assessment process.
Recommendation 7: Due diligence regarding key supporting papers and full disclosure of all data and methods used to produce original IPCC Figures and Tables.
Recommendation 8: Immediate online publication of the full report upon finalization, prior to production of summary.
Recommendation 9: Production of Summary by Ad Hoc group appointed by the Panel based on recommendations from the Editorial Advisory Board.
Recommendation 10: Release of all drafts, review comments, responses and author correspondence records within 3 months of online publication of the full report.
Recommendation 11: That the nations involved in the IPCC Panel begin these reforms at once, and if such a process cannot be initiated then those national governments that seek objective and sound advice on climate change issues should withdraw from the IPCC and begin the process of creating a new assessment body free of the deficiencies identified herein.

McKitrick is one of the most active lecturers and writers to have exposed the errors of the “greenhouse” theory. He is part author, with Christopher Essex of “Taken by Storm 2007”, Key Press Books Canada and part author with Essex and Bjarne Andresen of “Does a Global Temperature Exist.”

This paper points out that temperature is an intensive property which means that it only exists for a substance that is in equilibrium. Contrary to the climate models favoured by the IPCC, the climate is constantly varying. The only approach to global temperature measurement, therefore, is to divide the entire system into transient infinitesimal increments of three linear dimensions, plus time, each of which would have a temperature. Such an array could not have a single average because day and night have such different temperature populations that a joint population involving both is heavily skewed, so there are therefore several different and conflicting definitions of an average.

It goes without saying that these measurements cannot currently be made and probably never will be. It might be remarked that even an acceptable surface temperature in one place is also “elusive” as has been explained by Hansen.

The “Mean Global Surface Temperature Anomaly Record” (MGSTAR), which is regarded by the IPCC as a legitimate guide to Global Temperature, falls far short of being a scientific or mathematically acceptable guide to global temperature trends. If this fact were to be accepted by the IPCC most of its arguments would collapse.

Ross McKitrick has devoted much attention to displaying some of the the defects of this record. Together with Pat Michaels he showed the record was influenced by socioeconomic changes.

Together with Steve McIntyre he carried out a long fight at over the so-called “Hockey Stick” graph which joined past proxy temperatures to the MGSTAR. They showed that there were statistical irregularities in the use of the proxy temperatures, which, it should be said deviate even more sharply from conceivable scientific justification than the MGSTAR itself.

The MGSTAR is based on:
Temperature measurements from a constantly changing set of unrepresentative samples of the earth’s surface.
It assumes that an average of a daily maximum and minimum temperature can be considered to be a genuine average.

The conditions of measurement and their control are not standardised. The measurements are subjected to a set of averaging procedures for which no plausible estimates of accuracy are supplied. Single annual figures in the record are assumed to be constants. “Trends” of less than one degree Celsius over one hundred years are assumed to represent disastrous warming when any rational estimates of uncertainty would greatly exceed this amount.

McKitrick seems reluctant to reject MGSTAR completely despite these problems and the conclusions of his book and papers with Christopher Essex, which damage the credibility of the entire IPCC system and make “reform” impossible.


The examples of fraud fraud and dubious scientific and mathematical practices by the IPCC given by McKitrick are part of a persistent and continuing pattern of selection, distortion and fabrication throughout the activities of the IPCC which I have documented in the following papers:
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Aug 1, 2013 - 11:49am PT
Having felt you failed a modified Rorschach test you feel compelled to scribble out your own again and again Bruce. Pathetic. Sad too, because i know you can see through this fraud of a science, the agenda behind it, the fat rich white bastards behind it- the same ones who plundered your native lands. Wake up Bruce if you value your freedom.

Ed, i know you like to pass yourself off as the ever helpful, lovable, Gerry Garcia look alike, patient and true professor. Exactly when did you appear on this forum and why do you put so much time into propping up this discredited CAGW scheme?

SF bay area
Aug 1, 2013 - 11:59am PT

SF bay area
Aug 1, 2013 - 12:19pm PT
The Chief has been most entertaining today.

Keep it up, Chief!

BTW, Chief, it's all about where you place the reference line, the scaling, and the smoothing you use. Your not very bright, are you?
raymond phule

Aug 1, 2013 - 12:26pm PT
Oh, I am surprised. The chief changed the subject once again. What about trying to discus one thing at the time?

Ricks comment in regard to Ed probably take the price as one of the most idiotic things posted on this forum so far.

SF bay area
Aug 1, 2013 - 12:27pm PT
Again, Chief, it's all about where you put the reference line, the scale, and the smoothing, you use.

Yer not very bright, are ya Chief?
raymond phule

Aug 1, 2013 - 12:33pm PT

Answering your strawman. I am no expert about paleoclimate but one of the lines in your own graph actually disputes the 7000ppm level.

Like this? Current Models compared to reality. Nice.

Where is the connection with what I wrote and you wrote? I cant see it.

SF bay area
Aug 1, 2013 - 12:41pm PT
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Aug 1, 2013 - 12:43pm PT
sooo i heard that they are TUNA fishing today at the north pole since the water has warned so much,, and "super fires" are scorching the earth black, while the oceans threaten to flood over the hills and drown the "super fires".. The spotted owls are all panting in the heat and liable to spontaneously burst into flame at any moment, thus causing more "super fires", while the reef fish are boiling, and the polar bears are all hitch hiking to the ANTarctic..
raymond phule

Aug 1, 2013 - 01:00pm PT

So PHUUULE, you believe the current Climate Models yet you question the CARBIII model that goes back some 500 or so million years?

I said that there where a model in the graph that you showed that didn't show any 7000% ppm. That model thus disputed the results of the carb111 model.

But I guess that it is denier/idiot/"skeptic" logic that applies. All models, data, conclusions, arguments that came to a conclusion that you like are correct. All models, data, conclusions and arguments that came to a conclusions that you don't like are incorrect.

I am sure that you have absolutely no idea if the result from the CARB111 model are good or if it is better than the other models in the figure you copied.
Messages 7541 - 7560 of total 21618 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks

Try a free sample topo!

SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews