Having explained why Abigail Bristow deserved to be on the IPCC's list of experts, I then challenged the folks at Climate Resistance to describe what aspect of the AGW debate television gardener Alan Titchmarsh, who appears on Inhofe's list of "400 eminent scientists", was competent to address. In response, "the editors" over there have deleted that comment and the link back to my original post on the topic. Talk about shutting down dissent! I am reminded of that old ballad:
He is packing it in and packing it up
And sneaking away and buggering up
And chickening out and pissing off home,
Yes, bravely he is throwing in the sponge.
And I would repeat repeat that challenge to any of my denying readers. In what sense is Alan Titchmarsh any kind of climate change expert? Halloo? Halloo? Anyone? Anyone??
PS. Just to point out something I should have noticed earlier, and to emphasize the thoroughly shitty nature of CR's "research": all the names on their list are from IPCC WGII, which is not the working group concerned with establishing the basics physics etc. behind AGW (that''s working group 1), but to make various statements re "Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability ". So, if the guys from CR really wanted to find a list of climate modellers etc. associated with the IPCC, they are looking in entirely the wrong document!
32 comments:
These types really are quite skilled at long-winded, meaningless baffle-gab.
Right.
No qualifications at all.
Same as Al Gore and David "Dr. fruit fly" Suzuki.
Trade you two 'experts" for one.
Don't forget the the web developer and the two admin assistants in your count of your experts.
Why do you deliberately avoid politics, BCL? Is it because the status quo is so objectionable that it condemns you?
I hate to pick you out as this criticism applies to virtually everyone in North America, but whatever happened to politics, man?
At this point anyone who discusses AGW is engaged in a deliberate attempt to hide how shitty western civilization has become.
Tell me BCL,
aside from all of the "I'm a specialist in making people feel good in apocolyptic scenarios" types,
how many hard core "scientists" do you say are actually involved with the, you know, important aspect of actually making scientific findings that man is causing the earth to warm:
you know, like with phd's and years of experience and a myriad of peer reviewed papers and such?
You know, like the ones with the senate 400???
"You know, when the world is warmer (we'll move right on to the conclusion) baskets will be more important for carrying things as more people will have to walk, so
basket weaving "experts" are certainly "qualified" to be in the report.
All those esteemed scientists in the senate 400 report: losers.
We have an undergrad major in basket weaving to dictate the allocation of the world's resources.
She's been 'published' in 'Country Living', a 'Home Sense' mailer and my local community service newspaper."
Uh oh,
now they'll go and look into (and...gulp) scrutinize the working group 1 list.
Scrutiny/debate bad.
Should have left well enough alone BCL.
I see Biff has just wiped off the sick from the pile he passed out in yesterday night and has rejoined the discussion.
How thrilling.
BCL, the whole thing is a result of Senator Inhofe's (R-Christofascist God-buggerer) minority report (fuck the US and its Manichean politics that descend right down to committee level), which, given a sane parliamentary system, would never have seen the light of day.
Rob Anders worked with Inhofe, by the way. To quote an anony-tard: 'nuff said.
The Al Gores. David Suzukis and many more of the worlds more notable Climate Change fear- mongers, have declared that it is time ‘to move’ on with the issue; that a huge majority of the worlds scientists believe that the planet is warming because of anthropogenic global warming (APG); and that because there is such a strong consensus of the ‘climate’ scientists believing this, that we should be taking action as we now have a world climate crisis to deal with.
Let’s take a closer look at these comments:
• Neither Mr. Gore nor Mr. Suzuki is climate scientists. Gore of course is a politician, while David Suzuki’s work has been principally in genetics; they have not had any formal studies in climate science per se. These ‘cheer leaders’ are in reality fear mongers.
• The temperature data used by the IPCC in their modeling of temperature change for the future has been found by leading researchers to be seriously flawed by some scientists (McIttrick et al) who were formerly reviewers of the IPCC temperature data used in the temperature modeling. “Garbage in- garbage out”. The IPCC as a result did make some adjustment to the data, but not all of them as to do so would destroy their temperature model and the basis for the Kyoto accord altogether.
• As to this so called ‘crisis’ that wee are currently in, it now seems that for some very 'inexplicable reason', we in the northern hemisphere are now in the midst of a below normal, cold winter. I should think that the crisis is being put on hold or postponed for the time being- but there has been no such report to this effect. I am waiting for the global warmingists to declare that this global cooling is being caused by global warming. Nothing like having it both ways. Too funny!
• As to the rational that ‘global warming” must be man made because there is such a huge consensus within the scientific community concluding this, it must be true, really! I don’t think so.
Here is one for those same scientists to think about how consensus didn’t make it right when it actually was wrong.
An analogous story of “the consensus of scientists":
Briefly it is a story of two young Australian medical researchers, one of which who started researching the subject in 1979, and in 1982 discovered that bacteria in the lining of the stomach was the cause of stomach ulcers and not the long held belief of virtually 100 percent of the world medical community, that they were caused by stomach acid and human stress. This young doctor even infected himself with those Helicobacter pylori to help prove his findings.
For many years these young scientists were pilloried and scorned by the medical community, similar to today’s scientists who seriously question the global warming theories. Well the doubters of the Australian researcher’s findings were 100 percent wrong. It took many years before they were recognized for having found a cure for those same ulcers, that at one time had infected as many as a 25 million Americans. Ulcer sufferers no longer have to suffer, however the medical community were unfortunately slow in recognizing these Doctors huge contribution to medical science. Finally in 2005 Drs. Barry Marshall and Robin Warren were honored with a Nobel Prize in Medicine.
It is most unfortunate that Al Gore who also received a Nobel Prize, but in this instance for having discovered nothing; accept how to successfully alarm the world to a hypothetical danger that just might also turn out to be wrong.
Hopefully the 'global warmingists' won't be as blind, to the new and irrefutable findings that cast serious doubts on their unproven and wildly exaggerated claims. In one instance the Nobel Committee were 25 years late and in the other 20 years premature, they have now cheapened Nobel prizes that at one time were the ultimate compliment to its recipients.
We should also remember that real scientists do not attempt to discredit scientist's research, as is so often occuring in the great AGW issue.
"No qualifications at all.
Same as Al Gore and David "Dr. fruit fly" Suzuki."
But, Gore and Suzuki aren't IPCC experts, are they, dipshit?
"now they'll go and look into (and...gulp) scrutinize the working group 1 list."
So, the brilliant minds at "Climate Resistance" whose scrutiny is so fear-inspiring didn't even have a clue what the different working groups are responsible for? Ha Ha Ha Ha! But seriously, you might be dumb enough to believe that, but the rest of us know they didn't look at WG 1.
Doesn't look like any of your regular band of anonymous dimwits are up to your challenge, BCL.
FWIW
I find more scientific, rational debate, on the subject of AGW at the "small dead animals" blog in one day's postings than a years worth on your site. The only thing that you and some of your foul mouthed poster-supporters are good at, is in attempting to discredit all who dare question the famous Gore and Suzuki neither of which have one iota of formal education in climate science.
You cannot even give any rationale for the colder than "normal" winter that Canadians are now experiencing.
"Coldest winter in years, Environment Canada warns
Updated Fri. Nov. 30 2007 1:00 PM ET
CTV.ca News Staff
The weather phenomenon La Nina will bring Canada the coldest winter in nearly 15 years, Environment Canada warned Friday...."
http://tinyurl.com/36bbly
(The rightwing stupid! It chills so much it burns!)
I always get my 12 year old son to read thru this stuff to see what his prospective on it is.
The first thing he asked me was "If Abigail Bristow was asked to do a study on the effects of GW on transportation if the cause of GW was a natural occurance...would her report be any different?
I find more scientific, rational debate, on the subject of AGW at the "small dead animals" blog in one day's postings than a years worth on your site.
No you don't.
By the way, how come the righty-tighties aren't outraged by the public resources Inhofe wasted producing this list of climate 'tards?
I always get my 12 year old son to read thru this stuff to see what his prospective on it is.
"Prospective?" Oh dear.
Good God, KKKate. Teach your minions how to read and write, at least.
sorry ti-guy...perspective, hope that is better for you.
Now that we have got past my spelling problems ti-guy...do you have a response to my son's question if her report would have been any different?
Ti-Guy said...
I see I'm not going to get an answer.
...as usual.
I always hate using someones words against them, but my 12 year old son is wondering.
BTW, his second question was...Why would Al Gore buy a $2 million condo close to the ocean if it is going to rise as much as he said in his movie? He won't tell me where he found that out...anybody know?
Holly Stick,
For your info, it is not quite so simple as to say it is caused by La Nina. Even Dave Phillips of Env.Canada who has been widely reported on the winter forecast, warns that there are other factors, but of course people such as yourself fail to get the whole story.
EG Phillips said the forecast for cold weather is being triggered "in part" by La Nina.
Steve Pierce - Weather Specialist
Vancouver, Washington, reports:
"As we look to this coming winter, there are many factors that we take into account. Without ranking these, we primarily look at the following when making our forecast for the upcoming season; tropical Pacific SST's (sea surface temps), PDO (pacific decadal oscillation) Solar Cycle phase/activity and current and historical trends known here as "analogs" or "similar" years where we observed the same readings as to what is currently being reported. Lets look at these in more detail below:
Tropical Pacific SST's:
As of late August 2007, the short lived weak El Nino of last winter was completely gone by April and has since been replaced by a weak La Nina. The waters off the coast of South America are cooler now than they have been since the last major La Nina that lasted from 1998 to 2001. This falls in line with the historical average of a La Nina occurring every 5-7 years. SST forecasts are suggesting that some additional cooling will occur this fall and a leveling off will take place at some point in December or January, again in line with historical cycle averages. For additional reference see: http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/people/wwang/cfs_fcst/ and
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/tao/jsdisplay/
PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation):
The PDO is currently in the positive phase and has been for the majority of the time since the late 1970's. The PDO oscillates on a cycle every 25 years or so. If history repeats itself, we are overdue for another shift at any point after the year 2002. This is such a slow evolution that we may not know if we have truly shifted back to a cool PDO for at least 5-8 years after we have entered it. There have been 91 months since January of 2000, and out of 91, there have been 36 months of below zero PDO reading. vs. 18 out of 91 months from January 1990 to July 1997, vs. only 10 from the same time in 1980 to 1987. Compare that with an amazing 72 from January 1960 to July 1967. The trends are clear. At the present time, the PDO is averaging about zero and is fluctuating from positive to negative month to month over the past 16 months or so. This may be an indication of a change in the overall pattern and the resultant La Nina. For additional reference see: http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/
Solar Cycle:
Solar activity cycle (also known as sunspots or solar flares) is currently at its lowest point of the average 11 year cycle. This will also play a part in our forecast, as many historical extreme weather events have occurred during solar minima, including phase reversals in such indices as the PDO, etc. For additional reference see: http://www.sec.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/
"Holly Stick, with you having such technical knowledge I am sure you appreciate getting the whole story.
You see Holly, it has nothing to do with wings, be they right or left, it has to do with engaging ones brain before putting mouth into gear.
Holly, Too further your logic, would not the last cycle before La Nina not explain the same period of raising temps across the northern hemisphere and the melting glaciers. Seriously I am not trying to be obtuse here but you cannot have it both ways. We, in the early 2000 started to leave an El Nino cycle and we have seen no significant change in Global temp since that point. Could 7 to 10 years the normally time cycle from now see the reversal of the melting glaciers.
La Niña is characterized by unusually cold ocean temperatures in the equatorial Pacific, as compared to El Niño, which is characterized by unusually warm ocean temperatures in the equatorial Pacific
What is all this blather about La Niña about? Don't any of you have library cards? Or are some of you hypothesising that it disproves Global Warming? If so, don't waste your time here...PUBLISH, my friends! Exxon's got tons o' cash just lying around for scientitians like you guys. And best of all...NO PEER REVIEW!
Kingston, if I were you, I'd be on this like a Port-aux-Basques'er on a pogey cheque.
Now that we have got past my spelling problems ti-guy...do you have a response to my son's question if her report would have been any different?
Get a blogger account if honestly (which I doubt) want a dialogue, sockie.
JimBobby Sez has left the Liberal party and will be voting for the Greens in the upcoming election.
Hard to be critical, when the Liberals were in power from 1993 to 2006 their environmental record was arguably one of the worst in the western world, Dion's gavel-banging displays at international meetings notwithstanding.
Oh and BTW JimBobby Sez agrees that the environment is the number one issue.
Well to be fair to Dion, as he said in answer to Ignatieff last year "Do you think it's easy to set priorities?"
JimBobby Sez isn't impressed with the guy but who can blame him, I'm debating sitting the next election out myself.
Ahh Ti, and I thought you would appreciate my attempt at sarcasm concerning Holly. I mean really, you never left me have it both ways when I throw up a weak ass argument. LMAO.
Port-aux-Basques'er on a pogey cheque that is priceless by the way, you spend much time the Rock.
I'm going to try this again. Seems that my last post did not make it.
Now that ti-guy has so graciously bowed out, because he cannot answer a question from a 12 year old, just curious if anybody else can. Halloo? Halloo? Anyone? Anyone??
anon, the scientists figuring out the impacts take the various scenario projections (from WG1) as a given. Those projections exceed any plausible range of natural variability, although whether they do or not would not be an issue for someone working on impacts.
Kingston:
you spend much time the Rock.
Not nearly enough. If it weren't for the weather, I'd live there.
If anyone here, including ti-guy, BCL, were qualified climate scientists, they would have something meaningfull to say about the issue, instead of verbally attacking Climate Resistance and other AGW skeptics. That is the mantra of both the left and right wings. Attack the slightest error in fact, spelling, grammar etc...but completely miss the point of the arguement. The Climate Resistance article doesn't deny the fact that many "scientists" from many different fields are needed to study/analize/debate the AGW issue. So they looked at WGII. Does it matter? There are credible scientists on both sides of the AGW debate, both for AGW and skeptical of AGW. Does that mean that either side is wrong? No. Attempts to discredit a scientist because he/she believes or doesn't believe that AGW is happening now are wrong and a useless waste of energy. What has BCL done to help stop AGW? Nothing. Except spout off continually degrading comments toward AGW skeptics, or cherry pick articles and attack whichever issue gives him the most press time. Climate Resistance is attempting to be skeptical, which is what science is all about. Many expert "scientists" in the middle ages believed that the earth was flat and that if you sailed out too far you would fall off. Thank god for skeptics. Sorry ti-guy, you wanna talk menaingless baffle-gab...got to your local pub. You wanna talk real science, stop by MIT, look me up.
Anon 12:53
Right on the money.
"would not the last cycle before La Nina not explain the same period of raising temps across the northern hemisphere and the melting glaciers."
Ignoring your double negative; no, El Nino's effect on Canada would not explain the melting glaciers all over the world including the Alps which are not close to the Pacific Ocean.
"Could 7 to 10 years the normally time cycle from now see the reversal of the melting glaciers."
No, not unless human-induced global warming was magically made to disappear.
It's not just natural cycles; it's all those emissions we humans are producing. In the real world, what you do has consequences. When you emit a lot of GHG, you cause global warming. God is not going to prevent this happening any more than God prevents people from murdering each other in Rwanda, Iraq, or Canada. Sorry, but God helps those who help themselves, not those who refuse to admit there is a problem.
Whoops that was me just now.
Some of the amateur hour games that the skeptics play really make me start to question the cause. Things like not being able or willing to write papers (publish on blogs, decry peer review like Cold Fusionists). The amateur fringe touting whatever they can find is also distressing. Of course I see similar problem from the other side.
Post a Comment