AGW Denial, The Greatest Scam in History?

[mentalfloss]

Is the IPCC alarmist?

"Unquestionably, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was formed to build the scientific case for humanity being the primary cause of global warming. Such a goal is fundamentally unscientific, as it is hostile to alternative hypotheses for the causes of climate change." (Roy Spencer)

What the science says...

The IPCC lead authors are experts in their field, instructed to fairly represent the full range of the up-to-date, peer-reviewed literature. Consequently, the IPCC reports tend to be cautious in their conclusions. Comparisons to the most recent data consistently finds that climate change is occurring more rapidly and intensely than indicated by IPCC predictions.
----

The process that they have to go through to be able to approve any findings is pretty rigorous. Two sets of analysis and multiple drafts are made in order to make sure they are as objective as possible. And the groups approving these reports are organizations outside the IPCC, and they include the oil-lovin' administrations that would prefer to indoctrinate you with fox news bullcrap. The problem is that they can't argue against the science.

 

[petros]

Ranks right up there with "Creation Science".

 

[mentalfloss]

 

[captain morgan]

So if you get to throw out IPCC, then I can throw out NATO?

No, I didn't think so.

Not NATO, but the UN and Greenpeace would be a great start

 

[mentalfloss]

Not NATO, but the UN and Greenpeace would be a great start

The point is - as you've now just proven - that being an intergovernmental body does not automatically decry the purpose or intent of that body. Calling the IPCC a 'political body' does not invalidate its existence just as calling NATO a 'political body' does not invalidate its existence. It's not enough to back up the delusional rhetoric of conspiracy that you, petros or talk-radio pundit guy are throwing out.

 

[captain morgan]

It's not enough to back up the delusional rhetoric of conspiracy that you, petros or talk-radio pundit guy are throwing out.

But it's more than enough to idolize that body as the epitome of all things scientific and right.

Amazing how that hypocritical position is constantly applied by the greenies out there.

 

[mentalfloss]

But it's more than enough to idolize that body as the epitome of all things scientific and right.

Amazing how that hypocritical position is constantly applied by the greenies out there.

Firstly, I don't idolize that body as the epitome of all things scientific and right - because they don't actually produce the foundational science itself. They collect science from other peer-reviewed journals and scientists. Secondly, we've already been through the concept that science is not 100% accurate and has a margin for error. I don't know what's taking you so long to grasp such an incredibly simple concept. There is no hypocrisy at all there.

If anything, the hypocrites are the ones believing that one group is founding a conspiracy simply because they have some sort of political influence, but other groups with equal or more political clout are completely innocent. That's hypocrisy. I suggest you google the definition and read it over fifty or so times and you just might get it.

 

[captain morgan]

Firstly, I don't idolize that body as the epitome of all things scientific and right - because they don't actually produce the foundational science itself.

Sure you do... You think that they have god-like qualities; that they are infallible... Clearly this is the case as you have condemned anything contrary to the IPCC's position as "junk science".

And you're right by the way, that the IPCC doesn't produce the science, they are in the self-imposed position to cheery-pick what "science" that they approve and guide global policy via these skewed think tanks.

They collect science from other peer-reviewed journals and scientists. Secondly, we've already been through the concept that science is not 100% accurate and has a margin for error. I don't know what's taking you so long to grasp such an incredibly simple concept. There is no hypocrisy at all there.

Ohhh.. Peer reviewed and everything?

That doesn't mean a lot when the "peers" are hand selected for the pre-determined and pre-set conclusions that they are willing to approve for "review".

If anything, the hypocrites are the ones believing that one group is founding a conspiracy simply because they have some sort of political influence, but other groups with equal or more political clout are completely innocent. That's hypocrisy. I suggest you google the definition and read it over fifty or so times and you just might get it.

You tin-foiler-hatters really crack me up... Anyone that disagrees with you automatically qualifies are supporters of "a conspiracy"

No surprise in that logic though, it's par for the course with regard to the "peer review" process as described above.

 

[Cliffy]

Firstly, I don't idolize that body as the epitome of all things scientific and right - because they don't actually produce the foundational science itself. They collect science from other peer-reviewed journals and scientists. Secondly, we've already been through the concept that science is not 100% accurate and has a margin for error. I don't know what's taking you so long to grasp such an incredibly simple concept. There is no hypocrisy at all there.

If anything, the hypocrites are the ones believing that one group is founding a conspiracy simply because they have some sort of political influence, but other groups with equal or more political clout are completely innocent. That's hypocrisy. I suggest you google the definition and read it over fifty or so times and you just might get it.

Funny how anybody who has an opposing view is a conspiracy freak but but anyone who agrees with your position is using sound scientific data. The ironic thing is, that when the time comes that the atmosphere can no longer sustain life, the proponents of industrial mal-practice will be choking in the puke along with everybody else. Who cares if our children and grandchildren will have no future as long as I can make a profit now? Idiocy!

Sure you do... You think that they have god-like qualities; that they are infallible... Clearly this is the case as you have condemned anything contrary to the IPCC's position as "junk science".

And you're right by the way, that the IPCC doesn't produce the science, they are in the self-imposed position to cheery-pick what "science" that they approve and guide global policy via these skewed think tanks.

Ohhh.. Peer reviewed and everything?

That doesn't mean a lot when the "peers" are hand selected for the pre-determined and pre-set conclusions that they are willing to approve for "review".

You tin-foiler-hatters really crack me up... Anyone that disagrees with you automatically qualifies are supporters of "a conspiracy"

No surprise in that logic though, it's par for the course with regard to the "peer review" process as described above.

Isn't that a conspiracy theory? Foil hatter!

 

[captain morgan]

The ironic thing is, that when the time comes that the atmosphere can no longer sustain life, the proponents of industrial mal-practice will be choking in the puke along with everybody else. Who cares if our children and grandchildren will have no future as long as I can make a profit now? Idiocy!

I see that you are keen to bend over backwards in absolving the consumers and yourself from any responsibility in wrecking havoc on ole mother Gaia... It's all due to the big bad industrial machine, eh?

So, tell me Cliffy. Have you eliminated your consumption from these terrible industrialists?

I thought not

Isn't that a conspiracy theory? Foil hatter!

Go ask your buddy mentalfloss... They are essentially his words.

 

[Cliffy]

"That doesn't mean a lot when the "peers" are hand selected for the pre-determined and pre-set conclusions that they are willing to approve for "review".

I believe those are your words.

"I have a car but I hardly use it, perhaps $20 worth a month. I walk or use my bicycle.
I even built a log home using only standing dead trees. I built a methane digester and hooked it up to a gas engine to produce electricity to charge my 12 volt Cat battery. More efficient than kerosene, less dangerous and more environmentally friendly.
I do put my money where my mouth is, too bad more people don't."

These are my words. (from the filthy bitumen thread).

 

[Avro]

Re: 2010, another year of extreme coral bleaching

That answer doesn't really help your cause Avro.

I know it dosen't.

It's the honest answer.

No it's not. It's political. So it's not science leading the way to a better world is it?

If you know the answer then why ask?

Btw, you are wrong.

 

[mentalfloss]

Sure you do... You think that they have god-like qualities; that they are infallible... Clearly this is the case as you have condemned anything contrary to the IPCC's position as "junk science".

When did I ever say that they're infallible? When did I ever say that all science that does not support AGW is junk science? Where do you get off spouting this assumptive rhetoric?

How many times have I discussed solar irradiation? Or the nino and nina cycles? Or contrails? Or sunspot scycles? Or temperature recording apparatus? None of these facets of climate change constitute junk science. All of these are important to climate scientists - and all of have been shown to have some influence on our perception of global climate.

And despite their influence, the science as it stands, still shows that their influence is not as significant as AGW for contributing to the change in temperature. Even if you want to assume a margin of error in this sort of conclusion, the data still shows overwhelmingly that the greatest influence is anthropogenic.

In fact, the IPCC have actually underestimated the influence. If they`re the source of some sort of conspiracy, they are doing a pretty shoddy job.

You`re running out of excuses.

 

[Avro]

When did I ever say that they're infallible? When did I ever say that all science that does not support AGW is junk science? Where do you get off spouting this assumptive rhetoric?

How many times have I discussed solar irradiation? Or the nina cycles? Or contrails? Or temperature recording methods? None of these facets of climate change constitute junk science. All of these are important to climate scientists - and all of have been shown to have some influence on climate. I have never denied any of that.

You are part of the conspiracy Mentalfloss....fess up.

 

[mentalfloss]

shhhhh... you know you're not supposed to talk about that.. it makes us turn green. HULK SMASH!

 

[Avro]

...because as you know that when mistaken any good honest scientific body will make retractions.

How many retractions have the deniers made?

As far as I know.....0.

So Tim Ball is always right....Monckton is always right...Plimer is always right...Watts is always right.....now there is a trend if I have ever seen one.:lol:

 

[petros]

How many retractions have the deniers made?

Retractions from what? Reality of being shafted by some unelected body that states it's goals as social control? Anytime you Maoists are ready to cough up real proof of a problem other than monetizing a ****ing gas I'd love to hear it.

 

[Avro]

Retractions from what? Reality of being shafted by some unelected body that states it's goals as social control? Anytime you Maoists are ready to cough up real proof of a problem other than monetizing a ****ing gas I'd love to hear it.

So you and your ilk are always right?

I see, the picture becomes clear.

All the names I mentioned and deniers are infallible.

Too funny.:lol:

 

[captain morgan]

So you and your ilk are always right?

I see, the picture becomes clear.

All the names I mentioned and deniers are infallible.

Too funny.:lol:

Physician... Heal thyself

 

[Tonington]

Retractions from what?

You really need to read more carefully. If you read the bit above what you quoted from Avro, he said scientific bodies retract mistakes. Deniers do not. They repeat the same crap over and over again.