Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

The Climate Change debate

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

The Climate Change debate

Old 16th Jun 2011, 07:50
  #8201 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 56
Posts: 25
Which part of " whole IPCC report " don't you get, Simonpro?

The whole report is presented as gospel based upon which decisions affecting millions are being taken and taxes worth billions are being levied.

So either the whole report is good or rotten. So why don't the real scientists stand up and say that what IPCC is doing is wrong? Where are their voices? They are not heard because they are busy supporting the alarmist propaganda of IPCC.

There's no value in what they write in WGI or III of a report when the whole report and the SPM of that report is crap.

And as far as blogs are concerned whether you read or not read them is one issue. But your propensity for making lofty comments without reading, is laughable.

And on AGW, enough semantics, try again.
rvv500 is offline  
Old 16th Jun 2011, 08:12
  #8202 (permalink)  
More bang for your buck
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 77
Posts: 3,511
Oh! dear another own goal by the IPCC

"The claim by the IPCCin the report was that: 80 percent of the world‘s energy supply could be met by renewables by mid-century…

Unfortunately, it has been revealed that this claim is similar to the Himalayan glacier melt by 2035 fiasco, with nothing independent to back it up. Worse, it isn’t the opinion of the IPCC per se, but rather that of Greenpeace. It gets worse.

Here’s what happened. The 80% by 2050 figure was based on a scenario, so Chapter 10 of the full report reveals, called ER-2010, which does indeed project renewables supplying 77% of the globe’s primary energy by 2050. The lead author of the ER-2010 scenario, however, is a Sven Teske, who should have been identified (but is not) as a climate and energy campaigner for Greenpeace International. Even worse, Teske is a lead author of the IPCC report also – in effect meaning that this campaigner for Greenpeace was not only embedded in the IPCC itself, but was in effect allowed to review and promote his own campaigning work under the cover of the authoritative and trustworthy IPCC. A more scandalous conflict of interest can scarcely be imagined."
green granite is offline  
Old 16th Jun 2011, 08:48
  #8203 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 56
Posts: 25
GG this is the article I posted from Steve McIntyre's blog, the one that Simonpro dissed without even reading it. Ad Simonpro went on to make a post eulogising IPCC's WG I and III challenging us to find something. You know what, that crappy report linked in the Climate Audit post I put up, was a report wherein IPCC used Greenpeace ad a source for it and the lead author of the IPCC report was the same Greenpeace employee who wrote that report. So a Greenpeace empoyee reviewing his own work is what IPCC can produce as science.

And this was done by the WG3 of IPCC, the same WG 3 Simonpro holds in high esteem as infallible. Go figure

So, Simonpro, this is what comes when you post lofty comments without reading what you post about. It's bound to make you look stupid.

This report is being discussed everywhere with both pro and anti-AGW sides concluding that IPCC have messed up royally and that their reputation is in tatters. Of course, for some of our resident experts here, such facts don't matter.
rvv500 is offline  
Old 16th Jun 2011, 08:58
  #8204 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: .
Posts: 306
What do you make of the announcement about that says that it appears our Sun is heading for a rest period? If it's true then it could have a much more devastating effect than a small amount of global warming.
I think it's interesting, and definitely something to keep an eye on - but to be honest we're still fairly early in the cycle; If, this time next year, solar activity is well below average then I'd be inclined to agree with the studies. But hey, they know more than me about solar activity.

But I've seen some people saying that this could 'stop global warming', and I think that's a step too far. To get to that conclusion you have to chain together a number of other conclusions, any one of which could be a weak link. We've only seen a Maunder minimum once before, so it's very extreme to link that to climate change based on no other data. Still, we'll see.
The Sun is, of course, important to our climate, but are sunspots?





Which part of " whole IPCC report " don't you get, Simonpro?
Any of it. The IPCC report is not one whole thing that should be either accepted or discarded in total. It is a sum of many smaller works (the working groups being the largest of those). It's fine to have issue with one section of the report, but that's no reason to instantly invalidate the entire thing.

So either the whole report is good or rotten. So why don't the real scientists stand up and say that what IPCC is doing is wrong? Where are their voices? They are not heard because they are busy supporting the alarmist propaganda of IPCC.
Because, quite frankly, of people like you much of the debate is conducted in private - as any public debate isjumped upon as "proof" that it's all a gigantic hoax. There is debate amongst scientists about such things (I was at a lecture with plenty of debate about WGII last week), but you don't hear much about it. Perhaps if people on both sides of the debate calmed down and stopped being hysterical then we could have a reasonable and open debate about things.


(edit) I'll respond to the other posts later. I have stuff to do now, but in the meantime:
And this was done by the WG3 of IPCC, the same WG 3 Simonpro holds in high esteem as infallible. Go figure
Where did I say they were infallible? I want a quote.
Nemrytter is offline  
Old 16th Jun 2011, 10:22
  #8205 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: London
Posts: 151
IPCC WG3 and the Greenpeace Karaoke

Climate change panel in hot water again over 'biased' energy report
By Oliver Wright, Whitehall Editor




The world's foremost authority on climate change used a Greenpeace campaigner to help write one of its key reports, which critics say made misleading claims about renewable energy, The Independent has learnt.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), set up by the UN in 1988 to advise governments on the science behind global warming, issued a report last month suggesting renewable sources could provide 77 per cent of the world's energy supply by 2050. But in supporting documents released this week, it emerged that the claim was based on a real-terms decline in worldwide energy consumption over the next 40 years – and that the lead author of the section concerned was an employee of Greenpeace. Not only that, but the modelling scenario used was the most optimistic of the 164 investigated by the IPCC.

Critics said the decision to highlight the 77 per cent figure showed a bias within the IPCC against promoting potentially carbon-neutral energies such as nuclear fuel. One climate change sceptic said it showed the body was not truly independent and relied too heavily on green groups for its evidence.

The allegations are particularly damaging as they represent the second controversy to hit the IPPC in a matter of years. In 2009, a tranche of emails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit were leaked two weeks before the crucial Copenhagen climate summit. Climate change sceptics said they showed scientists manipulating data to talk up the threat of global warming, as well as trying to suppress their critics.

Six committees investigated the allegations and published reports detailing their findings. Climate scientists were criticised for their disorganisation and a lack of transparency, but none of the inquiries found evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.

This week's criticism of the IPCC centres on the organisation's investigation into the potential of renewable energy to cut greenhouse gas emissions. In its six-page press notice it stated: "Close to 80 per cent of the world's energy supply could be met by renewables by mid-century." Further on it admitted that, at its lowest estimate, renewable energy might account for only 15 per cent of primary energy supply, but this was not picked up in media coverage in The Guardian and Daily Mail website, and on the BBC.

Yesterday, after the full report was released, the sceptical climate change blog Climate Audit reported that the 77 per cent figure had been derived from a joint study by Sven Teske, a climate change expert employed by Greenpeace, which opposes the use of nuclear power to cut carbon emissions.

Last night, the IPCC said it had been made clear that the 77 per cent figure was only one of the estimates made from the models and that Mr Teske was just one of 120 researchers who had worked on the report. John Sauven, executive director of Greenpeace UK, said: "Exxon, Chevron and the French nuclear operator EDF also contribute to the IPCC, so to paint this expert UN body as a wing of Greenpeace is preposterous." But Mark Lynas, a climate change writer in favour of using nuclear and renewables to combat global warming, said: "It is stretching credibility for the IPCC to suggest that a richer world with two billion more people will use less energy in 2050. Campaigners should not be employed as lead authors in IPCC reports."


Climate change panel in hot water again over 'biased' energy report - Climate Change, Environment - The Independent


Climate Audit



PRESS RELEASE: Potential of Renewable Energy Outlined in Report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change


http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/conten...tionreport.pdf
MaxRange120 is offline  
Old 16th Jun 2011, 11:01
  #8206 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 56
Posts: 25
Why don't you read your own post. You said " WGI and WGIII were composed more of proper scientists, so I'd be a bit more willing to listen to their conclusions than I would WGII.", in this very page.

Which scientist wrote the WG 3 renewable report then?

And the scientists must be debating really quietly in " private ". Wonder who they are. The IPCC insider coterie scientists who did the dodgy work are all bust blogging in places like Realclimate and Tamino's blog, spreading unscientific bullshit and claiming there is no doubt about their science and eveything is perfect.

Then you have Mann giving these press releases

" http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/06/solar-minimum-climate/"

And here is Jones giving the below fatuous statements about " statistical significane " and warming, showing he has no idea of maths or statistics ad no idea how to compute statistical significance

BBC News - Global warming since 1995 'now significant'

His statement was torn apart even by warming friendly blogs which showed that there was no such trend

The Blackboard » Statistical Significance since 1995? Not with HadCrut!

Here's Trenberth caught lifting text verbatim and plagiarising, in his AMS speech, the content of which itself was trash

Trenberth and Lifting Text Verbatim « Climate Audit

Here's Schneider as author in the infamous NAS " blacklist " paper, before he passed away, his last gift to bad science

Comments On The PNAS Article “Expert Credibility In Climate Change” By Anderegg Et Al 2010 | Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr.

So who's doing the shrill shouting and spouting crap here and which are the " climate scientists " talking about uncertainities?

Only one, Dr.Judith Curry has stood up and said enough is enough and criticised the climate scientists and associated organisations that are misbehaving. And she is more respected as a climate scientist and know much more well than unknown you. All you have been doing is being an apologist for bad science and bad scientific practices.

And you have the nerve to talk about others being shrill. Oh, and you're too busy. You can't read links with factual information and see bad behaviour that is obvious to Stevie Wonder. yet, you have time enough to come to an airline blog and show off as being an expert, supporting this kind of a science and behaviour. You have time to criticise us posters, but not a peep against these scientists who have basically shown to be unreliable cheats. And yes, it's a conspiracy, only for the blind.

Pull the other one Simonpro, and it has bells on it.

We in the real world can smell BS a mile away.
rvv500 is offline  
Old 16th Jun 2011, 12:14
  #8207 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 71
Posts: 1,560
Showing off...

Who really knows if Simonpro is some sort of expert? He could be anything, really, but if he's posing as a scientist then he seems to be doing that fairly convincingly.

What of those of you on the anti-AGW front, then? What are you, anyway? When you are not handing out high-fives among yourselves then it's lashings of contumely for those on the other side of the 'debate,' with all of the monosyllabic insults got right but those with two or more syllables often looking a bit shaky. Where are you coming from in this?

What is the (obviously big) problem you lot have with reading stuff that doesn't agree with your opinions? Is it that the taxman is going to force each of you to pay for all this AGW stuff in the end? it should all ruin the World Economy, so that we shall end our days living in caves (freezing, presumably)?
chuks is offline  
Old 16th Jun 2011, 12:57
  #8208 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 57
Posts: 211
pseudo-science such as Climate Change Theory
A proposition or hypothesis that may or may or may not be validated by experiment, observation etc. does not constitute anything more than a premise and should not be construed any other way pending the use of the scientific method.

A theory may ultimately be proved to be right or wrong (good or bad if you will) but the process that allowed that final definition is the science itself.


Introduction to the Scientific Method
Cacophonix is offline  
Old 16th Jun 2011, 12:59
  #8209 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Edinburgh and 3C
Age: 67
Posts: 195
You rather miss the point, there, Chuks. What climate rationalists do is consider analyses of data, statistical methods and so on, and permit those to raise a doubt about the veracity of statements made by the strident warmists. Those same rationalists also raise doubts about the results presented by the pro-CAGW camp when the latter have been proven, often by their own words, to cherry-pick data, use incorrect statistical methods, and attempt to subvert the peer-review process in order to suppress opposing views.

The sceptics challenge the data, the results and the modelling of the pro-warm camp. The warmists attack the sceptics ad hominem without attempting to address the points raised in the papers.

That's not science, that's character assassination, and should play no part in this debate.

I don't give a stuff whether the likes of Pachauri, Jones, Mann et al believe in dowsing, UFOs or a great sky pixie. I want some assurance that the way they address the specific issue of warming is valid, and just now there is sufficient evidence that it isn't. Why do alarmists pick on things like that to discredit the scientist, rather than addressing points raised. Could it be because they have no answer?
MagnusP is offline  
Old 16th Jun 2011, 13:52
  #8210 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 71
Posts: 1,560
Say what?

Just look at the typical post I refer to, there. It is stuffed with simple-minded insults, 'crap, BS,' and so-on, and when it goes beyond the simple then the wheels fall off the spelling. Well, why? What is the problem?

A lot of this AGW stuff is just science. Perhaps it is bad science, when science has ways of catching that out, but it is not 'shrill,' or 'hysterical' to begin with. No, here at least, that is pretty much starting with the anti-AGW camp, and I really would like to know why.

Of course, asking someone with this curious mindset to engage in a bit of self-examination is pretty obviously an exercise in futility, but I still thought it was worth trying.

Here, Magnus, I am referring to the post (#8182) right above mine. Am I missing the point to ask about its tone? You tell me; does it read as fair and balanced to you?

Why, indeed, ask if someone is a crank or not? Well, probably because it comes down to trust, when I do not trust cranks!

In aviation you may run across a type who never has a good word to say about other pilots; he is the World's Greatest Pilot and the rest of us just do not know what we are doing! When he tells you something you would be very, very wise to check with someone else if that is really so or if he's got it wrong in the same way his general approach is wrong. Put simply, you shouldn't trust him. Here, Doctor M. was presented as someone we can trust to tell us the anti-AGW true facts of rising ocean levels but he seems very like that World's Greatest Pilot type I already know, so that I do not trust him one little bit.

Really, this is pretty much the same as asking anyone here to read about Doctor M. to decide whether he's rational or a crank, when he's firmly in the anti-AGW camp. The science of most of this might be beyond most of us but reading a post or two to judge the mood of an author is not rocket science at all. There we are just using what life has taught us, what we call 'common sense.'

Last edited by chuks; 16th Jun 2011 at 14:02.
chuks is offline  
Old 16th Jun 2011, 14:10
  #8211 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Edinburgh and 3C
Age: 67
Posts: 195
rv500 might not use the language I'd use, but then that's a comment on the messenger and not the message, in the same way that we see comments on the climate sceptics, and not on the data or statistical analyses they provide that cast doubt on the veracity of CAGW.

I take the comments on shrillness and so forth as referring to the non-reviewed material from the warmists. There is a growing body of properly-reviewed material which is discrediting the inner-circle-cosily-reviewed material of the warmists.

Their strident pronouncements about CAGW don't bother me; that fact that their published material is being pulled apart by other scientists and statisticians is of considerably more interest.

I say again:
- there is some evidence of warming, but it has reversed;
- correlation with CO2 is not causation;
- imminent catastrophe is utterly unproven, and only comes from models that are discredited by real data.

Where stands CAGW now?
MagnusP is offline  
Old 16th Jun 2011, 15:05
  #8212 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 60
Posts: 5,329
Actually, the IPCC is on the right track. 80% of energy needs could be supplied by renewables by mid century ... if we decrease human population by about 50%. I am still more interested in Nukes as the bridge supply for the next century or so while other means are better developed.

chuks: Democracy in action...
I think you are missing the point, Simonpro. If enough people get together to make the same point on a blog then that point should be taken to be correct because that is essentially democratic; the mob has ruled.
If the mob can reinforce its (or 'it's' if you really must) point with overheated rhetoric, so much the better; that trumps some abstruse argument based on data no reasonable non-scientist is expected to believe in without having to, perhaps, open a book to figure out what in the world is under discussion. Anyone can understand accusations and insults but how many of us can understand what constitutes 'science,' let along 'good science,' especially when scientists themselves often disagree ...
chuks, are you describing the AGW alarmists, or their opponents, the anti AGW alarmists?
Simon
The scientist recommendations (Part 3 of the IPCC report) aren't "hysteria", that comes from clowns like Gore and Greenpeace. If you actually sit down and read the WGIII recommendations you'll see that they aren't hysterical and are (fairly) reasonable.

As I have said time and time again, the problem comes when politics gets involved, then we have lobby groups on either side twisting the data and text beyond all recognition so that it suits their point of view.
Mostly agree, but there's a catch: it is the politics that HAS to be answered, so stupid decisions are not made. When half arsed abuse of science is used to inform policy, you get policy based on eugenics, which, here I go with a Godwin, goes to race mastery theory and in one case genocide ... some decisions and policies have nasty side effects.

Junk science is to me the cherry picking and abuse of science (and its ongoing process) that only takes part of the finding to make a policy. Cui bono, eh?

THAT is where the pro AGW crowd, particularly the most vocal, are doing a disservice. In particular, they are not pursuing alternate strategies, because somebody behind that movement sees yet another pocketpicking opportunity.

Now, without joking, I will point out that it matters not if climate warming costs human lives. There were less than three billion humans on the planet on New Years Day 1900. We can lose back to that level of population with NO fear that the human race will die off. The risk is: how much progress and civilization will be lost if the floods, famines, wars, fires, and storms "caused by AGW" begin to kill off the excess humans we have now?

Other political question: how does one decide who dies, who doesn't breed? That's as onerous a political question as this pocket picking exercise underway by the Gore crowd, et al. Perhaps moreso.
... Sven Teske, a climate change expert employed by Greenpeace, which opposes the use of nuclear power to cut carbon emissions.
That decision on whether or not that one is among the excess population is pretty easy to make. What did Henry II say about a certain archbishop?

"Will not someone rid me of this meddlesome Swede? "
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 16th Jun 2011, 15:07
  #8213 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 56
Posts: 25
Chuks, you are the last person in the world who should talk about fair or balanced. read the reports and links attached and look at what is being done by the scientists and IPCC. Play the ball.

What I discuss with Simonpro and tell him, he will answer. You are not his mouthpiece.

Again you've discussed zero science or facts till now and have only indulged in character assasination. You have not contributed anything of substance to any discussion.
rvv500 is offline  
Old 16th Jun 2011, 17:24
  #8214 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 71
Posts: 1,560
Something of substance!

It is 'assassination,' actually. That much I know, and now you do as well!

There may be some facts buried in your anti-AGW diatribes but you do not seem to be able to present them in a way that is very appealing. Too, some of your chosen paladins, such as Dr. M., come across in varying degrees as unsound, eccentric, cracked, unhinged or downright barking mad.

I am sure you will understand if I do not join your brothers here in applauding the crystalline clarity of your thoughts on the weighty matter of climate change.

It troubles me to be called an assasin, and even to be called an assassin still troubles me but what of that? Man is born to trouble as the sparks fly upwards.
chuks is offline  
Old 16th Jun 2011, 17:35
  #8215 (permalink)  
More bang for your buck
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 77
Posts: 3,511
Has anyone else read chuck's profile?

About chuks

Licence Type (eg CPL. Pilots only)
JAR & FAA ATPL
Location
Potash Hill
Interests
Learning, Photography, Wind-ups
green granite is offline  
Old 16th Jun 2011, 17:38
  #8216 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 71
Posts: 1,560
Drat!

I must have been hacked! That SASless probably put that in my profile; it is exactly the sort of thing he would do!
chuks is offline  
Old 16th Jun 2011, 18:10
  #8217 (permalink)  
More bang for your buck
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 77
Posts: 3,511
green granite is offline  
Old 17th Jun 2011, 07:29
  #8218 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: orbital
Posts: 186
What do you make of the announcement about that says that it appears our Sun is heading for a rest period? If it's true then it could have a much more devastating effect than a small amount of global warming.
Unfortunately if the sun does take a rest, it won't help very much. Before the denialists start celebrating the impending new 'little ice age', they want to read this.

A recent paper by Georg Fulner and Stefan Rahmstorf asked what might happen to earth’s climate in the event of a new solar minimum. That paper’s key graph is adapted above. The paper’s conclusion:

In summary, global mean temperatures in the year 2100 would most likely be diminished by about 0.1°C. Even taking into account all uncertainties in the temperature re- construction, the forcings, and the model physics, the overall uncertainty is estimated to be at most a factor of 3, so the offset should not be larger than 0.3°C. Comparing this to the 3.7°C and 4.5°C temperature rise relative to 1961–1990 until the end of the century under the IPCC A1B and A2 emission scenarios, respectively, a new Maunder‐type solar activity minimum cannot offset the global warming caused by human greenhouse gas emissions.
Here is a link to Peter Sinclair's website. He is a very effective climate denialist debunker.

Graph of the Day: What if the Sun Goes into another Maunder Minimum? « Climate Denial Crock of the Week
Re-entry is offline  
Old 17th Jun 2011, 07:53
  #8219 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Edinburgh and 3C
Age: 67
Posts: 195
climate denialist
Here we go again. WTF is a climate denialist?

Hands up anybody who doesn't believe in climate? Thought not.

Hands up anybody who doesn't believe climate changes? Thought not.

So, nobody here denies climate. Good. Just another attempt to misuse a perfectly good language in order to repeat the mantra and attack the person.
MagnusP is offline  
Old 17th Jun 2011, 08:57
  #8220 (permalink)  
More bang for your buck
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 77
Posts: 3,511
He is a very effective climate denialist debunker.
Re-entry Why do you try to elevate the climate sceptics to the same level as the Holocaust deniers? And don't say you aren't because that is the reason the greens used the term in the first place in an attempt to poison peoples minds against us, it hasn't in fact worked, personally I thing it's on the same level as referring to black people using the ni........ word

We don't deny anything, we are merely sceptical that CO2 is wholly responsible for the apparent recent temperature increase
green granite is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.