• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

IPCC Report: Trouble Ahead

And the weird thing is... ‘they’ are often the very people who wrote the papers!


But then again, you continually demonstrate that you definitely know much more about these papers than the authors themselves.

No, the authors of the papers get included in the credits, but very few become the lead authors.

This is a waste of my time. You never read the papers. You only read what the lying pundits say about the papers.
 
No, the authors of the papers get included in the credits, but very few become the lead authors.

This is a waste of my time. You never read the papers. You only read what the lying pundits say about the papers.

You seem to think these people are holed up in their den with five computer screens surfing the Internet like you do all day.

These climate researchers generally know each other well, certainly be reputation, if not personally. They collaborate constantly on projects, they attend meetings you have never heard of. They discuss the research in intimate detail for hours over drinks at the end of conferences. They battle intellectually as roaming postdocs, faculty and PhD students challenge their work.

They volunteer their time as lead authors, and run extensive meetings with constant communication with confidence-authors, deliberating on every sentence they write on their report.

They literally spend the bulk of their lives working on their specialty, not for remuneration, or glory, but for the respect of their colleagues and the satisfaction of knowing their work and knowledge has advanced the science.

Yet somehow you think they deliberately misinterpret and misstate their colleagues work.

And more bizarrely, their colleagues, who’s work they supposedly misrepresent, stay silent.
 
You seem to think these people are holed up in their den with five computer screens surfing the Internet like you do all day.

These climate researchers generally know each other well, certainly be reputation, if not personally. They collaborate constantly on projects, they attend meetings you have never heard of. They discuss the research in intimate detail for hours over drinks at the end of conferences. They battle intellectually as roaming postdocs, faculty and PhD students challenge their work.

They volunteer their time as lead authors, and run extensive meetings with constant communication with confidence-authors, deliberating on every sentence they write on their report.

They literally spend the bulk of their lives working on their specialty, not for remuneration, or glory, but for the respect of their colleagues and the satisfaction of knowing their work and knowledge has advanced the science.

Yet somehow you think they deliberately misinterpret and misstate their colleagues work.

And more bizarrely, their colleagues, who’s work they supposedly misrepresent, stay silent.

When they don't have a rational answer, pull out the trusty old bad science.
 
You seem to think these people are holed up in their den with five computer screens surfing the Internet like you do all day.

These climate researchers generally know each other well, certainly be reputation, if not personally. They collaborate constantly on projects, they attend meetings you have never heard of. They discuss the research in intimate detail for hours over drinks at the end of conferences. They battle intellectually as roaming postdocs, faculty and PhD students challenge their work.

They volunteer their time as lead authors, and run extensive meetings with constant communication with confidence-authors, deliberating on every sentence they write on their report.

They literally spend the bulk of their lives working on their specialty, not for remuneration, or glory, but for the respect of their colleagues and the satisfaction of knowing their work and knowledge has advanced the science.

Yet somehow you think they deliberately misinterpret and misstate their colleagues work.

And more bizarrely, their colleagues, who’s work they supposedly misrepresent, stay silent.

I was going to respond to this post, but I will abstain. I can't say it any better than you did here!!!
 
I was going to respond to this post, but I will abstain. I can't say it any better than you did here!!!


[h=1]IPCC Chap.1: Verse 1: Commentary[/h]Posted on 12 Oct 18 by GEOFF CHAMBERS 13 Comments
This was going to be a comment on Jaime’s excellent article https://cliscep.com/2018/10/09/sr15...ipcc-claims-all-warming-is-now-anthropogenic/ but it got out of hand. Here are some quotes from the Executive Summary of Chapter 1 of the report, with comments: Depending on the temperature dataset considered, 20-40% of the global human population live in regions that, by the decade 2006-2015, had … Continue reading
 
You seem to think these people are holed up in their den with five computer screens surfing the Internet like you do all day.

These climate researchers generally know each other well, certainly be reputation, if not personally. They collaborate constantly on projects, they attend meetings you have never heard of. They discuss the research in intimate detail for hours over drinks at the end of conferences. They battle intellectually as roaming postdocs, faculty and PhD students challenge their work.

They volunteer their time as lead authors, and run extensive meetings with constant communication with confidence-authors, deliberating on every sentence they write on their report.

They literally spend the bulk of their lives working on their specialty, not for remuneration, or glory, but for the respect of their colleagues and the satisfaction of knowing their work and knowledge has advanced the science.

Yet somehow you think they deliberately misinterpret and misstate their colleagues work.

And more bizarrely, their colleagues, who’s work they supposedly misrepresent, stay silent.

Notice how the deniers are avoiding this one?
 
You seem to think these people are holed up in their den with five computer screens surfing the Internet like you do all day.

These climate researchers generally know each other well, certainly be reputation, if not personally. They collaborate constantly on projects, they attend meetings you have never heard of. They discuss the research in intimate detail for hours over drinks at the end of conferences. They battle intellectually as roaming postdocs, faculty and PhD students challenge their work.

They volunteer their time as lead authors, and run extensive meetings with constant communication with confidence-authors, deliberating on every sentence they write on their report.

They literally spend the bulk of their lives working on their specialty, not for remuneration, or glory, but for the respect of their colleagues and the satisfaction of knowing their work and knowledge has advanced the science.

Yet somehow you think they deliberately misinterpret and misstate their colleagues work.

And more bizarrely, their colleagues, who’s work they supposedly misrepresent, stay silent.

Notice how the deniers are avoiding this one?

No one is avoiding it. It's just a Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm description of the insular corruption exposed in Climategate. No rebuttal is necessary.
 
No one is avoiding it. It's just a Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm description of the insular corruption exposed in Climategate. No rebuttal is necessary.

Yeah, that was such an intelligent response. Hope you didn't strain your non-scientific brain.
 
Yeah, that was such an intelligent response. Hope you didn't strain your non-scientific brain.

It's really a cultural question rather than a scientific question. Their perception of the urgency of their advocacy, combined with their insular and self-referential social/professional interactions, creates the outcome described in my thread: Eschatology and Global Warming.
 
It's really a cultural question rather than a scientific question. Their perception of the urgency of their advocacy, combined with their insular and self-referential social/professional interactions, creates the outcome described in my thread: Eschatology and Global Warming.

Yes, in other words, you think it's a conspiracy of the scientific community. Thanks for the clarification.
 
Yes, in other words, you think it's a conspiracy of the scientific community. Thanks for the clarification.

Oh, no!

He doesn’t think it’s a conspiracy, it’s just that all the scientists have gotten together and ignore that real data to mysteriously promote a totally different reality.

Some people also call it ‘liberal groupthink’, but those are the ones who don’t understand anything about science.

The other odd thing is that the people who are telling us that the consensus is just delusional thinking are also vehemently denying a consensus exists on other threads. Hilarious, really.
 
Yes, in other words, you think it's a conspiracy of the scientific community. Thanks for the clarification.

Oh, no!

He doesn’t think it’s a conspiracy, it’s just that all the scientists have gotten together and ignore that real data to mysteriously promote a totally different reality.

Some people also call it ‘liberal groupthink’, but those are the ones who don’t understand anything about science.

The other odd thing is that the people who are telling us that the consensus is just delusional thinking are also vehemently denying a consensus exists on other threads. Hilarious, really.

It's really the opposite of a conspiracy, something you might understand if you gave the matter some thought rather than reacting tribally. Your reaction is, in fact, an example of the phenomenon I identified.
 
This report looks at the difference between a 1.5 deg C rise in temperature and a 2 deg C rise in temperature. Among other items, it reports:

B5. Climate-related risks to health, livelihoods, food security, water supply, human
security, and economic growth are projected to increase with global warming of 1.5°C
and increase further with 2°C.


http://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_headline_statements.pdf
 
This report looks at the difference between a 1.5 deg C rise in temperature and a 2 deg C rise in temperature. Among other items, it reports:

B5. Climate-related risks to health, livelihoods, food security, water supply, human
security, and economic growth are projected to increase with global warming of 1.5°C
and increase further with 2°C.


http://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_headline_statements.pdf

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[h=1]REBUTTAL: IPCC SR15 Climate Change Report is Based on Faulty Premises[/h][FONT=&quot]Via Friends of Science, Press Release today. IPCC SR15 Climate Change Report is Based on Faulty Premises that Will Lead to Poor Public Policy says Friends of Science Society in New Rebuttal Friends of Science Society has issued a new report entitled “Faulty Premises = Poor Public Policy on Climate,” rebutting the catastrophic climate claims, the misguided,…
[/FONT]






 
[FONT="][URL="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/31/rebuttal-ipcc-sr15-climate-change-report-is-based-on-faulty-premises/"]
cover-faulty-premises-ipcc-rebuttal-220x126.png
[/URL][/FONT]

[h=1]REBUTTAL: IPCC SR15 Climate Change Report is Based on Faulty Premises[/h][FONT="]Via Friends of Science, Press Release today. IPCC SR15 Climate Change Report is Based on Faulty Premises that Will Lead to Poor Public Policy says Friends of Science Society in New Rebuttal Friends of Science Society has issued a new report entitled “Faulty Premises = Poor Public Policy on Climate,” rebutting the catastrophic climate claims, the misguided,…
[/FONT]


Here's a list of the authors of Chapter 2 of the IPCC Report. This is just one of many chapters, all with many, many expert Climatologist authors from around the world. Who are the authors of your rebuttal?

Chapter 2: Observations: Atmosphere and Surface
11 Hartmann Dennis University of Washington United States of America 2 CLA I
12 Klein Tank Albert Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI) Netherlands 2 CLA I
13 Rusticucci Matilde Universidad de Buenos Aires Argentina 2 CLA I
14 Alexander Lisa University of New South Wales Australia 2 LA I
15 Broennimann Stefan University of Bern Switzerland 2 LA I
16 Charabi Yassine AbdulRahman
Sultan Qaboos University Oman 2 LA I
17 Dentener Frank Joint Research Center – European Commission Netherlands / European
Commission
2 LA I
18 Dlugokencky Ed National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) United States of America 2 LA I
19 Easterling David National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) United States of America 2 LA I
20 Kaplan Alexey Columbia University United States of America 2 LA I
21 Soden Brian University of Miami United States of America 2 LA I
22 Thorne Peter National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) United States of America 2 LA I
23 Wild Martin ETH Zurich Switzerland 2 LA I
24 Zhai Panmao China Meteorological Administration China 2 LA I
25 Hurrell Jim National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) United States of America 2 RE I
26 Marengo Jose National Institute for Space Research (INPE) Brazil 2 RE I
27 Tangang Fredolin National University of Malaysia Malaysia 2 RE I
28 Viterbo Pedro Instituto de Meteorologia Portugal 2 RE I
 
Here's a list of the authors of Chapter 2 of the IPCC Report. This is just one of many chapters, all with many, many expert Climatologist authors from around the world. Who are the authors of your rebuttal?

Chapter 2: Observations: Atmosphere and Surface
11 Hartmann Dennis University of Washington United States of America 2 CLA I
12 Klein Tank Albert Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI) Netherlands 2 CLA I
13 Rusticucci Matilde Universidad de Buenos Aires Argentina 2 CLA I
14 Alexander Lisa University of New South Wales Australia 2 LA I
15 Broennimann Stefan University of Bern Switzerland 2 LA I
16 Charabi Yassine AbdulRahman
Sultan Qaboos University Oman 2 LA I
17 Dentener Frank Joint Research Center – European Commission Netherlands / European
Commission
2 LA I
18 Dlugokencky Ed National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) United States of America 2 LA I
19 Easterling David National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) United States of America 2 LA I
20 Kaplan Alexey Columbia University United States of America 2 LA I
21 Soden Brian University of Miami United States of America 2 LA I
22 Thorne Peter National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) United States of America 2 LA I
23 Wild Martin ETH Zurich Switzerland 2 LA I
24 Zhai Panmao China Meteorological Administration China 2 LA I
25 Hurrell Jim National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) United States of America 2 RE I
26 Marengo Jose National Institute for Space Research (INPE) Brazil 2 RE I
27 Tangang Fredolin National University of Malaysia Malaysia 2 RE I
28 Viterbo Pedro Instituto de Meteorologia Portugal 2 RE I

So what? As Einstein said: "If I were wrong, one would have been enough."
 
Yup. Government.

Really? The governments of all 195 countries in the world are all the SAME? Let me guess. They are ALL 'globalist Marxist governments' in your fevered imagination?

What alternate conspiracy reality do you live in? SMH.
 
This report looks at the difference between a 1.5 deg C rise in temperature and a 2 deg C rise in temperature. Among other items, it reports:

B5. Climate-related risks to health, livelihoods, food security, water supply, human
security, and economic growth are projected to increase with global warming of 1.5°C
and increase further with 2°C.


http://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_headline_statements.pdf

So can you explain what exactly is likely to happen in any particular place, your choosing, and show how this +2c is going to cause any significant damage at all.

Significant in this case is a level that will require the local concil to spend more than its' traffic light budget to sort out.
 

So can you explain what exactly is likely to happen in any particular place, your choosing, and show how this +2c is going to cause any significant damage at all.

Significant in this case is a level that will require the local concil to spend more than its' traffic light budget to sort out.

I KNOW you were on the thread that discussed this.

Why do you continue to ask??
 
Really? The governments of all 195 countries in the world are all the SAME? Let me guess. They are ALL 'globalist Marxist governments' in your fevered imagination?

What alternate conspiracy reality do you live in? SMH.

No, but all governments have the same success metrics. They don't use a profit motive.
 
Back
Top Bottom