Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Did your sense of humour disappear?

It went to bed at 12:30am and allowed sarcasm to stay up late and have some fun.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

But is it a truthful and accurate statement? Or does that even matter? You didn't provide any context for why the statement was worded that way. For all we know they could have been exasperated from being in the midst of an argument with YOU.

It's accurate in the same way as "grass is green", but also as empty. It is not 'truthful' in that, if you gloss over the qualifiers it is misleading, and it contains no useful or actionable insight. I believe it was intended to mislead.

One doesn't usually enshrine a momentary exasperation into a statement of principle.

We DENY the validity of anyone who doesn't believe that WE know what's best when it comes to protecting the Earth. Is that it?

So logically your comment MUST mean that you believe that the fundamental prerequisite for all of mainstream MMGW science -- namely the methodology for taking the Earth's temperature in a consistent, reliable way -- might be flawed because it contradicts Christy & Spencer's science. So good, we agree there are two ways to gather this all-critical data, and due to the disparity btwn. them they obviously can't both be right. That's all I was looking for, at least until some new scientific discoveries help reconcile or clarify.

Why, in something as large and complex and difficult as measuring earth's temperature, are there only TWO ways, and one is 100% right and one is 100% wrong? Do Christy & Spencer's data completely, irrekovably prove that the other dataset is not useful, or that the declared findings are demonstrably wrong? Does their dataset include ocean temperature, at various depths? Are Christy & Spencer's data totally sufficient by themselves to accurately model and track the earth's temperature changes?

Don't think so. Its MUCH more complex than that, involving data from several sources, and very painstaking work to detect and adjust for problems that exist with every method.

Concession? You mean that there exists seemingly valid scientific evidence that supports the mainstream position? I think I've been pretty clear I have no wherewithal for rejecting that evidence, only questioning it.

Or should that no longer be permitted in your utopia?? My conclusion is that the science is unsettled at this point in time because there is too much scientific disagreement on how the baseline data is gathered, nothing more. You must agree with me if you can now see the validity of the sat-based temp data. Hopefully you at least understand that the reliability, consistency and accuracy of the temp data itself is indispensable to the science which relies on it.

I think your oversimplification and exaggeration of the difference between two datasets is still not indicative of a fundamental problem with the scientific work done to date. But you've found it, it's plausible enough to you to justify doing nothing about AGW, which fits your agenda, and you're gonna ride that nag til it drops.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Exile

Responding your word salad is very difficult.

Fair point. I can be a bit wordy, unfortunately. But responding to countless links to articles, charts & graphs, often without some sort of explanation of what you think they show, can also be very difficult. Simply stating that you "accept the data," or asserting what you have not said, does not exactly lend itself to "best practices."

Quote:
OK, so it's the measuring of the Earth's temperature from the troposphere that is unreliable in your opinion, not the measurements themselves. Fair reading?


That is Mear's opinion as well.

I understand. But there are plenty of critiques about the accuracy of data acquired from the 7,000 or so surface stations as well. Does that mean we should not acknowledge them either?

Quote:
That was all explained in the Mears article, but also prefaced with some uncertainty.

Science is based on evidence and probability. Proof is for booze and mathematics.

Exactly my point. Except that you have been advancing a veneer of certainty in your "proof" of the existence of catastrophic MMGW that is more consistent with booze & mathematics than science. When have you acknowledged any uncertainty in the rate of warming over the past three decades based on the different methods of gathering the raw data? "Accepting the data" is not the same as "accepting the data as a reliable measure of GW."

Quote:
OK, but you have been consistently insinuating that their religious beliefs are influencing outcomes in some illegitimate way. No sense arguing over semantics.

I have not said that. BTW - semantics is what provides us with meaning. (Freshman philosophy)

Not sure I remember much from my college freshman year, but in my all-too-many years of graduate school I learned that when someone insinuates that a person's personal beliefs are improperly influencing their professional opinions, then that does not constitute mere semantics. I believe your specific insinuation was that you agreed with the Spencer/Christy data, but thought that their policy prescriptions were skewered because of their adherence to the Cornwall Declaration. If I have misrepresented your comments, please correct.

Where have I said the science is settled? Please quote me.

Quoting you would not demonstrate that you have been obfuscating and refusing to acknowledge the established fact that two distinct & credible methodologies for gathering raw temp data exist, and one of the two fails to show the level of warming that the mainstream science community is relying on to bolster the MMGW agenda. The critiques of each of the two methodologies themselves is a separate matter.

This is not an economic statement, it is the first clause of the Cornwall Declaration

Quote:
We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history.

We already know that the Spencer/Christy/UAH sat data since 1979 shows a slight warming trend that is more consistent with natural forcing than human-influenced causes, i.e. "one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history." But you yourself have repeatedly said that you AGREE with that data, but not as a reliable measure of surface temps because it derives from the troposphere. Spencer/Christy beg to differ, obviously, as do other climatologists who believe sat data is a credible and reliable measure of GW. So how exactly are these religious beliefs influencing scientific opinions? The only way to prove improper influence is by proving their science wrong through science! Isn't that the same std. you (and L-E) want applied to Michael Mann and others who have been impugned with improper motives? Or does a different standard apply because you agree with them?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Why, in something as large and complex and difficult as measuring earth's temperature, are there only TWO ways, and one is 100% right and one is 100% wrong?

I'm only aware of two methodologies for gathering the data, namely by satellite and by surface readings on land and on water (ships & buoys). I'm sure there are countless methods of interpretation, determining the many variables, and calculating the necessary adjustments. Sorry if I confused you. I'm not suggesting which may be RIGHT or WRONG, only that they have produced rather dramatically different warming trends over several decades.

Do Christy & Spencer's data completely, irrekovably prove that the other dataset is not useful, or that the declared findings are demonstrably wrong?

No.

Does their dataset include ocean temperature, at various depths?

No. They are taken from the troposphere.

Are Christy & Spencer's data totally sufficient by themselves to accurately model and track the earth's temperature changes?

That's the zillion-dollar question.

Don't think so. Its MUCH more complex than that, involving data from several sources, and very painstaking work to detect and adjust for problems that exist with every method.

Agreed, but I've never suggested it was simple.

I think your oversimplification and exaggeration of the difference between two datasets is still not indicative of a fundamental problem with the scientific work done to date. But you've found it, it's plausible enough to you to justify doing nothing about AGW, which fits your agenda, and you're gonna ride that nag til it drops.

Spouting solely the surface data and the trends it produces is the oversimplification and exaggeration L-E, when a process so fundamental to everything else that follows remains unsettled. Don't assume that people who happen not to agree with your particular agenda have their own. Consider the alternative that they simply don't agree with you.

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Don't think so. Its MUCH more complex than that, involving data from several sources, and very painstaking work to detect and adjust for problems that exist with every method.



I think your oversimplification and exaggeration of the difference between two datasets is still not indicative of a fundamental problem with the scientific work done to date. But you've found it, it's plausible enough to you to justify doing nothing about AGW, which fits your agenda, and you're gonna ride that nag til it drops.

So you DO understand that quantifying temperature changes over the whole earth and in our oceans, and comparing it to other time periods is extremely difficult (actually impossible at this time), and yet you are willing to bet they somehow have it right and also know why and what the needed corrective action is. If it's SO complex, and they admit that the raw data always needs "adjusting," how can you be so sure of the conclusions and fix? Maybe they are what needs "adjusting?"

Calling someone's argument who disagrees with you an "agenda" etc. as a way of attacking their equally sincerely held opinion reflects more on your inability to effectively point out their flawed thinking with a logical argument than on them.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

So you DO understand that quantifying temperature changes over the whole earth and in our oceans, and comparing it to other time periods is extremely difficult (actually impossible at this time), and yet you are willing to bet they somehow have it right and also know why and what the needed corrective action is. If it's SO complex, and they admit that the raw data always needs "adjusting," how can you be so sure of the conclusions and fix? Maybe they are what needs "adjusting?"

Because many folks have no clue about temperature adjustments. Judith Curry and Steve Mosher, both well-known skeptics, have commented on this. Curry asked Zeke Hausfather to post some commentary on her blog.

Judith Curry, a skeptic and one of Inhofe's favorites, has published three discussions of temperature adjustments.

"There has been much discussion of temperature adjustment of late in both climate blogs and in the media, but not much background on what specific adjustments are being made, why they are being made, and what effects they have. Adjustments have a big effect on temperature trends in the U.S., and a modest effect on global land trends. The large contribution of adjustments to century-scale U.S. temperature trends lends itself to an unfortunate narrative that “government bureaucrats are cooking the books”."



Figure 1. Global (left) and CONUS (right) homogenized and raw data from NCDC and Berkeley Earth. Series are aligned relative to 1990-2013 means. NCDC data is from GHCN v3.2 and USHCN v2.5 respectively.

http://judithcurry.com/2014/07/07/un...perature-data/

http://judithcurry.com/2015/02/09/be...perature-data/

http://judithcurry.com/2015/02/22/un...ervation-bias/

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

To which I would add a comment from Steve Mosher, the skeptic who published the Climategate letters.

Christopher Booker win’s the irony of the year award with his piece on adjustments to the temperature record. That’s quite a feat considering it’s only February. His complaint overlooks the clear historical fact that skeptics, above all others, have made the loudest case for the need to adjust the temperature series. Over the years, it’s been skeptics, who have made a vocal case for adjustments . More disturbing is the claim that these adjustments are somehow criminal. We dealt with these type of claims before and completely debunked them.

https://andthentheresphysics.wordpre...d-adjustments/

++++++++++++++++++++++++

A denialist pointed me to this site.

Thorough, not thoroughly fabricated: The truth about global temperature data | Ars Technica

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

So you DO understand that quantifying temperature changes over the whole earth and in our oceans, and comparing it to other time periods is extremely difficult (actually impossible at this time), and yet you are willing to bet they somehow have it right and also know why and what the needed corrective action is. If it's SO complex, and they admit that the raw data always needs "adjusting," how can you be so sure of the conclusions and fix? Maybe they are what needs "adjusting?"

Jack has provided some specifics.

Yes, I am willing to bet on the majority of the subject-matter experts, vs a relative handful of dissenting opinions from the actual specialists. And I expect that the ability of climate scientists and their associations and institutions to work through any discrepancies is far superior to our own. What equips you or Exile to conclude that most of the world's climate scientists have it wrong, or that they have/had insufficient grounds to reach the conclusions they have?

Re the wild perceptions of fixes or "corrective action"- that always gets slipped into the argument, because that's what most anti-AGW people are actually opposed to. You can relax; we're so far from taking effective action that most of us on CF will be in rest homes before that comes to pass.

Calling someone's argument who disagrees with you an "agenda" etc. as a way of attacking their equally sincerely held opinion reflects more on your inability to effectively point out their flawed thinking with a logical argument than on them.

If you don't think I've been making a logic-based argument, then you really haven't been reading (or i really really suck at this). As above, my biggest point is that no-one has successfully proved that the majority have screwed up or got it wrong, and without that there is simply no foundation for the bulk of the anti-AGW position. Making most of that position illogical.

The anti-AGW side knows this, which is why there's so many attempts to attack the scientists themselves - Climategate, careerism, whoring for grants, peer pressure to conform, they're part of the great green soshulist conspiracy, government collusion towards some nefarious end, etc etc.

Re "agenda" - In most anti-AGW arguments is how the pro- side has their own soshulist/greenie agenda. I think it's ok to throw a little back. Besides, Exile has been sincere enough to acknowledge that his political outlook informs his position to some extent.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Because many folks have no clue about temperature adjustments. Judith Curry and Steve Mosher, both well-known skeptics, have commented on this. Curry asked Zeke Hausfather to post some commentary on her blog.

Judith Curry, a skeptic and one of Inhofe's favorites, has published three discussions of temperature adjustments.

"There has been much discussion of temperature adjustment of late in both climate blogs and in the media, but not much background on what specific adjustments are being made, why they are being made, and what effects they have. Adjustments have a big effect on temperature trends in the U.S., and a modest effect on global land trends. The large contribution of adjustments to century-scale U.S. temperature trends lends itself to an unfortunate narrative that “government bureaucrats are cooking the books”."



Figure 1. Global (left) and CONUS (right) homogenized and raw data from NCDC and Berkeley Earth. Series are aligned relative to 1990-2013 means. NCDC data is from GHCN v3.2 and USHCN v2.5 respectively.

http://judithcurry.com/2014/07/07/un...perature-data/

http://judithcurry.com/2015/02/09/be...perature-data/

http://judithcurry.com/2015/02/22/un...ervation-bias/

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

To which I would add a comment from Steve Mosher, the skeptic who published the Climategate letters.

Christopher Booker win’s the irony of the year award with his piece on adjustments to the temperature record. That’s quite a feat considering it’s only February. His complaint overlooks the clear historical fact that skeptics, above all others, have made the loudest case for the need to adjust the temperature series. Over the years, it’s been skeptics, who have made a vocal case for adjustments . More disturbing is the claim that these adjustments are somehow criminal. We dealt with these type of claims before and completely debunked them.

https://andthentheresphysics.wordpre...d-adjustments/

++++++++++++++++++++++++

A denialist pointed me to this site.

Thorough, not thoroughly fabricated: The truth about global temperature data | Ars Technica

Only shows the amount of unsettled debate about the adjustments, not just from the folks, but from amongst the scientists themselves. But even assuming the adjustments are all correct, that still leaves a large disparity in the 30+ year warming trends between the two types of datasets. They both support a long-term warming trend, but only one supports the theory that human causes/CO2 may have likely played a predominant role.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Jack has provided some specifics.

Yes, I am willing to bet on the majority of the subject-matter experts, vs a relative handful of dissenting opinions from the actual specialists.

This seems to be your only consistent argument, namely that the science should be determined by a poll. But what's even more fallacious is how often you change your characterization of your poll counts. When challenged, you then suggest (as does Jack) that we should be counting scientific "institutions" as opposed to individual scientists. This only shows how effective the bogus "consensus studies" have been in misleading all you "critical thinkers" who have talked yourself into believing that nobody else is using "best practices" in their own common sense analyses of the polling. You don't need Cook, Powell or other such self-proclaimed "experts," just go back to that Wiki link again and have your calculator ready. Only the + and - functions are needed.

And I expect that the ability of climate scientists and their associations and institutions to work through any discrepancies is far superior to our own.

Another one of your favs. So why are you here arguing about it on a sailing forum?

What equips you or Exile to conclude that most of the world's climate scientists have it wrong, or that they have/had insufficient grounds to reach the conclusions they have?

I can't speak for JT nor anyone else, but that's not my position in case you haven't have refused to notice. Btw, what equips you to conclude that "most" of the world's climate scientists have it right?

Re the wild perceptions of fixes or "corrective action"- that always gets slipped into the argument, because that's what most anti-AGW people are actually opposed to. You can relax; we're so far from taking effective action that most of us on CF will be in rest homes before that comes to pass.

Rather than expressing disapproval about other's supposedly exaggerated views of the needed fixes, why don't you posit what you believe the corrective action should be at this stage of the science? You & Jack claim the remedy has to be more on a systemic vs. individual level, but what we mostly hear about is carbon taxes and our personal recycling/trash reduction programs. You both seem to agree with Ken that solar panels aren't worth the time & money, or presumably your passion for saving the planet would have compelled you to install them. What, too expensive and inefficient or something? Is voting for politicians who promise "free" energy from wind turbines really enough?

If you don't think I've been making a logic-based argument, then you really haven't been reading (or i really really suck at this).

Errr . . . no comment.

As above, my biggest point is that no-one has successfully proved that the majority have screwed up or got it wrong, and without that there is simply no foundation for the bulk of the anti-AGW position. Making most of that position illogical.

The polling nos. seem to be changing again. Now it's a mere "majority" of climate scientists who support the MMGW position? Which position is that? Powell's 99% that believe humans have had some sort of role influencing the climate, or Cook's 97% that believe humans have had some sort of role influencing the climate? How much of a role and what are its expected impacts? OK, now I understand why your personal polling so often wavers.

The anti-AGW side knows this, which is why there's so many attempts to attack the scientists themselves - Climategate, careerism, whoring for grants, peer pressure to conform, they're part of the great green soshulist conspiracy, government collusion towards some nefarious end, etc etc. . . .

. . . etc., etc., Heartland Institute, the Happer "scandal," Big Tobacco, Republicans, religious fanatics, Cornwall Declaration, end-timers, Judith-Inhofe's-fav-Curry , etc. etc. . . . .

Re "agenda" - In most anti-AGW arguments is how the pro- side has their own soshulist/greenie agenda. I think it's ok to throw a little back. Besides, Exile has been sincere enough to acknowledge that his political outlook informs his position to some extent.

Indeed, but political outlook doesn't always translate to political party. My own voting record may surprise. Then again, I suppose it's a direct translation for some prone to the simple tasks of generalizing & stereotyping . . . . Btw, if it's not "soshulist/greenie," then what exactly IS your agenda, or are you just a forum contributor who likes to feel good about recycling your trash??

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

This seems to be your only consistent argument, namely that the science should be determined by a poll.

(I should use these judiciously; with this post CF could run out of 'em)

A 'poll'. Right.

This is either a deliberate provocation, or more evidence that you have no appreciation or understanding of how the IPCC conclusions were reached, or how scientists work together to produce and refine their results.

I'll assume it's just a provocation. Have to say though, if it wasn't any more than a poll, a result north of 90% from the experts is still pretty convincing, to me anyway.

But what's even more fallacious is how often you change your characterization of your poll counts. When challenged, you then suggest (as does Jack) that we should be counting scientific "institutions" as opposed to individual scientists.This only shows how effective the bogus "consensus studies" have been in misleading all you "critical thinkers" who have talked yourself into believing that nobody else is using "best practices" in their own common sense analyses of the polling.

The word "consensus" and the number "97%" have just about been worn out on CF. I have deliberately tried to change it up, and to NOT harp on "97%" partly out of fatigue, to not have to fight "97%" every time, and even as a small concession that the exact percentage might not be 97% (ouch, cramp). But... when it comes to climate scientists, the terms that accurately describe how many of them support the finding and importance of AGW are: just about all of them, a preponderance, north of 90%, near as dammit, the vast majority... I will yield to your preferred methodology to determine the exact percentage, be it 94%, 95%, 96%, ...98%.

Scientific Institutions. not "as opposed to individuals"; in addition. You do know what scientific institutions are, right? Perhaps this might help. The important bit here is that scientific institutions are where the bulk of the scientific work is shared, reviewed and refined. It's discussion, peer review, questions and yes challenges to the work. This is the "quality assurance" department of the scientific process.

Scientific institutions both in and outside of climatology were asked to review the soundness and validity of the conclusion of AGW and the work and process behind that conclusion.

Scorecard: out of X institutions reviewing the finding of AGW
- confirm: X
- oppose: 0 (that's a zero)

I'd add that just about all Western governments accept the findings, but I now assume that wouldn't impress you.

Another one of your favs. So why are you here arguing about it on a sailing forum?

I need a reason?

Btw, what equips you to conclude that "most" of the world's climate scientists have it right?

Eyeballs, and a grasp of English.

Rather than expressing disapproval about other's supposedly exaggerated views of the needed fixes, why don't you posit what you believe the corrective action should be at this stage of the science? You & Jack claim the remedy has to be more on a systemic vs. individual level, but what we mostly hear about is carbon taxes and our personal recycling/trash reduction programs.

Because we can't get past the "we have a problem"/"no we don't" part of the program. And you don't decide whether something is real or not by how you feel about the implications of it being real. Make sense?

You both seem to agree with Ken that solar panels aren't worth the time & money, or presumably your passion for saving the planet would have compelled you to install them. What, too expensive and inefficient or something? Is voting for politicians who promise "free" energy from wind turbines really enough?

moving along...

The polling nos. seem to be changing again. Now it's a mere "majority" of climate scientists who support the MMGW position? Which position is that? Powell's 99% that believe humans have had some sort of role influencing the climate, or Cook's 97% that believe humans have had some sort of role influencing the climate? How much of a role and what are its expected impacts? OK, now I understand why your personal polling so often wavers.

As I said... I'm not prepared to die on that hill. Which number would you find least objectionable - 95%? 99%? 97% (ow!)

. . . etc., etc., Heartland Institute, the Happer "scandal," Big Tobacco, Republicans, religious fanatics, Cornwall Declaration, end-timers, Judith-Inhofe's-fav-Curry , etc. etc. . . .

In that list, I count... one climate scientist. And I don't recall anyone here attacking her competence or accusing her of being part of a conspiracy, sorry. Certainly I haven't.

... political outlook doesn't always translate to political party. My own voting record may surprise. Then again, I suppose it's a direct translation for some prone to the simple tasks of generalizing & stereotyping

To be fair, I myself don't recall referring to your party affiliation, more to your preferred side of the classic "left-right" axis. Of course you are more than just the sum of your writings here on AGW, but that's all I got to go by

Btw, if it's not "soshulist/greenie," then what exactly IS your agenda, or are you just a forum contributor who likes to feel good about recycling your trash?

My agenda - we should be working with the best information we have, instead of suffering through this interminable and mostly fabricated debate about AGW.

[Exile]

Well, having obviously failed in my attempt to use logic & reason with L-E, maybe quoting a comedian as a last resort isn't such a bad idea. And if you can't convince someone of the brainlessness of stereotypes & over-generalizations, then why not join them? While I don't (usually) doubt the sincerity of their beliefs, this thread has taught me that (a) liberals often take themselves way too seriously and have a vastly inflated sense of their own importance, and (b) they are often apt to allow emotions to override basic common sense and reason.

Here goes:

Disclaimer: NO trees were killed in the sending of this email, however a great number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.

The Fence Test ... by Jeff Foxworthy

http://www.jefffoxworthy.com/uploads...oot__large.jpg

Which side of the fence?

If you ever wondered which side of the fence you sit on, this is a great test!

If a conservative doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one.
If a liberal doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.

If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat.
If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.

If a conservative doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels.
A liberal demands that those they don't like be shut down.

If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church.
A liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced.

If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.
If a liberal decides he needs health care, he demands that the rest of us pay for his.

If a conservative reads this, he'll forward it so his friends can have a good laugh.
A liberal will delete it because he's "offended."


That last one seems particularly apt, no? And how about if a liberal believes in the mainstream science of MMGW, he'll say anything to insure that nobody else is allowed any doubts!

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

[COLOR=navy][COLOR=Navy]

(I should use these judiciously; with this post CF could run out of 'em)

A 'poll'. Right.

This is either a deliberate provocation, or more evidence that you have no appreciation or understanding of how the IPCC conclusions were reached, or how scientists work together to produce and refine their results.

.

I have posted this before and I see I have to refresh peoples memory again

3 Things Scientists Need to Know About the IPCC | Big Picture News, Informed Analysis

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

Well, having obviously failed in my attempt to use logic & reason with L-E, maybe quoting a comedian as a last resort isn't such a bad idea.


Disclaimer: NO trees were killed in the sending of this email, however a great number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.

Ok, that was amusing

Which side of the fence?

If you ever wondered which side of the fence you sit on, this is a great test!

...



...

If a conservative reads this, he'll forward it so his friends can have a good laugh.
A liberal will delete it because he's "offended."


That last one seems particularly apt, no? And how about if a liberal believes in the mainstream science of MMGW, he'll say anything to insure that nobody else is allowed any doubts!

I thought you had something humorous to post?

There are actually some humorous conservatives*, tho'. I can recommend P.J. O'Rourke.

(*sorry, should have specified thoughtful conservatives, not reactionary hacks like Foxworthy)

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by newhaul

I have posted this before and I see I have to refresh peoples memory again

3 Things Scientists Need to Know About the IPCC | Big Picture News, Informed Analysis

A few more things people need to know about the IPCC:

The IPCC does not carry out its own original research, nor does it do the work of monitoring climate or related phenomena itself. The IPCC bases its assessment on the published literature, which includes peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed sources.[7]
Thousands of scientists and other experts contribute (on a voluntary basis, without payment from the IPCC)[8] to writing and reviewing reports, which are then reviewed by governments. IPCC reports contain a "Summary for Policymakers", which is subject to line-by-line approval by delegates from all participating governments. Typically this involves the governments of more than 120 countries.[9]
The IPCC provides an internationally accepted authority on climate change,[10] producing reports which have the agreement of leading climate scientists and the consensus of participating governments. The 2007 Nobel Peace Prize was shared, in two equal parts, between the IPCC and Al Gore.[11]

Endorsements of the IPCC

Various scientific bodies have issued official statements endorsing and concurring with the findings of the IPCC.

• Joint science academies' statement of 2001. "The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognise IPCC as the world's most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse its method of achieving this consensus".[39]
• Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences. "We concur with the climate science assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2001 ... We endorse the conclusions of the IPCC assessment..."[41]
• Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society. "CMOS endorses the process of periodic climate science assessment carried out by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and supports the conclusion, in its Third Assessment Report, which states that the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate."[42][clarification needed]
• European Geosciences Union. "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [...] is the main representative of the global scientific community [...][The] IPCC third assessment report [...] represents the state-of-the-art of climate science supported by the major science academies around the world and by the vast majority of scientific researchers and investigations as documented by the peer-reviewed scientific literature".[43]
• International Council for Science. "...the IPCC 4th Assessment Report represents the most comprehensive international scientific assessment ever conducted. This assessment reflects the current collective knowledge on the climate system, its evolution to date, and its anticipated future development".[159]
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (USA). "Internationally, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)... is the most senior and authoritative body providing scientific advice to global policy makers".[160]
• United States National Research Council. "The IPCC Third Assessment Report'] conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue".[161]
• Network of African Science Academies. "The IPCC should be congratulated for the contribution it has made to public understanding of the nexus that exists between energy, climate and sustainability".[162]
• Royal Meteorological Society, in response to the release of the Fourth Assessment Report, referred to the IPCC as "The world's best climate scientists".[163]
• Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London. "The most authoritative assessment of climate change in the near future is provided by the Inter-Governmental Panel for Climate Change".[164]

(source Wikipedia. What the heck, it's a place to start)

IPCC Overview from the Union of Concerned Scientists. A pro-AGW group, sure, but the overview is fairly concise

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Ok, that was amusing

[/COLOR]
[COLOR=DarkRed][COLOR=DarkRed]

I thought you had something humorous to post?

Were you offended?

There are actually some humorous conservatives*, tho'. I can recommend P.J. O'Rourke.

(*sorry, should have specified thoughtful conservatives, not reactionary hacks like Foxworthy)

Never heard of the guy until a friend forwarded the liberal vs. conservative gig I posted above. Thought it was rather insightful, actually.