[ Envirowatchers ] [ Main Menu ]
15840
From: pamela, [DNS_Address]
Subject: About the IPCC
|
The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) was created by a group of scientists concerned about flaws in the organization and procedures of another organization, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), so it is necessary and appropriate that those flaws be presented here. Though often described by scientists and media as an independent scientific organization, the IPCC is in fact an arm of the United Nations. Dr. Steven J. Allen reminded us of the true nature of the United Nations in a recent article for the Capital Research Center: “The United Nations [is] a famously corrupt body in which most votes are controlled by kleptocracies and outright dictatorships. Most of the member-states, as they’re called, are rated as either “not free” or “partly free” by Freedom House, and both Communist China and Putinist Russia have veto power. And any settlement of the Global Warming issue by the UN would entail massive transfers of wealth from the citizens of wealthy countries to the politicians and bureaucrats of the poorer countries. Other than that, one supposes, the IPCC is entirely trustworthy on the issue. (Well, aside from the fact that the IPCC’s climate models predicting Global Warming have already failed.)”* More at link; click on each section and you can read at leisure the topics: History- Procedural Problems -False Consensus |
Responses:
[15842] [15850] [15852] [15857] [15860] [15861] [15862] [15855] [15856] [15859] [15843] [15844] [15849] [15851] [15853] [15854] [15858] [15845] [15846] [15847] [15841]
15842
From: sheila, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Adversaries, zombies and NIPCC climate pseudoscience
URL: http://theconversation.com/adversaries-zombies-and-nipcc-climate-pseudoscience-17378
|
What is the NIPCC? Is it just like the IPCC, but with an “N”? Well, no. The NIPCC is a group of climate change “sceptics”, bankrolled by the libertarian Heartland Institute to promote doubt about climate change. This suits the Heartland Institute’s backers, including fossil fuel companies and those ideologically opposed to government regulation. The NIPCC promotes doubt via thousand-page reports, the latest of which landed with a dull thud last week. These tomes try to mimic the scientific reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), right down to the acronym. However, unlike the IPCC, the NIPCC reports are works of partisan pseudoscience. Consensus and adversaries We know 97% of climate scientists have concluded, based on the evidence, that anthropogenic climate change is real. Contrary to recent claims in the media, there is remarkably good agreement between models of climate change and the temperature data. How does the NIPCC spread doubt, given the temperature record and consensus of professional scientists? The answer is manufactured partisanship. The IPCC (no N) produces a comprehensive and critical overview of climate change science for governments. It is written by hundreds of scientists, anyone can volunteer to review drafts, and those comments appear online. IPCC reports openly discuss the strengths, weaknesses, criticisms and uncertainties of the science. The reports provide policy makers with a range of plausible outcomes given rising atmospheric CO2. Heartland’s NIPCC partially mimics the IPCC, but with key differences. It is written and reviewed by dozens of people, almost exclusively drawn from the “sceptic” community, and is consequently highly partisan. more at the link... |
Responses:
[15850] [15852] [15857] [15860] [15861] [15862] [15855] [15856] [15859] [15843] [15844] [15849] [15851] [15853] [15854] [15858] [15845] [15846] [15847]
15850
From: JTRIV, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Adversaries, zombies and NIPCC climate pseudoscience
|
Have to watch these sources as many are less than reputable. For example in this article it says "We know 97% of climate scientists have concluded, based on the evidence, that anthropogenic climate change is real." The article links that claim to a paper by some of the usual suspects, Dana Nuccitelli and John Cook of the ironically named skeptical science blog. These guys have long been advocates...even zealots for climate change. And their paper claimed to read and group climate science papers and judge which agreed and which did not. BUT... the authors didn't do this, they did citizen science fashion by have readings of the blow read and judge these papers to categorize them as with the consensus or not. Think about that, reading and categorizing science papers was done by a bunch of blog readers who spend most of their time on the skeptical science blog spouting off and slandering skeptics. Here is Richard Tol poining at the problems from the charlatans at skeptical science. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2014/ju n/06/97-consensus-global-warming Cheers Jim |
Responses:
[15852] [15857] [15860] [15861] [15862] [15855] [15856] [15859]
15852
From: sheila, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Scientific consensus: Earth's climate is warming (NASA)
|
skeptical science blog notwithstanding, NASA has a list of all the science orgs who are among the 97% consensus that climate change anthropogenic in origin. There is also a link to a list of 200 worldwide scientific orgs. who agree with the consensus. Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources. American Association for the Advancement of Science "The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (2006)3 American Geophysical Union "Human]induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)5 American Medical Association "Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changefs fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2013)6 American Meteorological Society "It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide." (2012)7 The Geological Society of America "The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse]gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s." (2006; revised 2010)9 American Physical Society "The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earthfs physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." (2007)8 Note: More at the link. |
Responses:
[15857] [15860] [15861] [15862] [15855] [15856] [15859]
15857
From: JTRIV, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Scientific consensus: Earth's climate is warming (NASA)
|
> skeptical science blog notwithstanding, NASA has a > list of all the science orgs who are among the 97% > consensus that climate change anthropogenic in > origin. As usual you miss the point. There is no 97% consensus. There are many organizations that do agree that the world is warming and anthropogenic causes are a primary driver of climate. And I think they are right. But dishonest advocates overstate the case trying to convince the uninformed that 97% of somebody is behind whatever climate fear porn is being promoted. The origin of the 97% consensus was a paper by Doran and Zimmerman that polled 10,257 Earth scientists on two questions. Is the Earth's temperature rising and are humans playing a significant role. They received 3,146 responses and of these 90% said temperatures are rising and 82% said humans contributed significantly to that. But then they narrowed the field down to 79 responses from people who said their field was climate science and 77 of them said temperatures were rising and 75 of those 77 said humans are playing a significant role. But consensus science is a marketing tool for advocates and not a scientific distinction. The 97% claim is often used by advocates to throw stones at anyone who disagrees but it is a pretty foolish concept. Cheers Jim |
15860
From: sheila, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Scientific consensus: Earth's climate is warming (NASA)
|
There are at least SEVEN studies and surveys that all produce a consensus figure from a minimum of 82% to a maximum of 99% if you survey only actively qualified publishing climate scientists. There is NO 'debate' about AGW in the scientific community and there hasn't been for decades. The carbon industry was specifically advised to "Always attack the consensus". One of the key areas if you want to try to discredit accepted scientific fact is to simply claim that there is a 'debate' going on about it. There simply isn't. UCSUSA has an article on climate consensus with several of these studies at the link. There are links to the various studies and their methodology as well. PS: Looks like the whole state of Tenn. is under flash food warnings/watches! You ok where you live? |
15861
From: JTRIV, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Scientific consensus: Earth's climate is warming (NASA)
|
> There are at least SEVEN studies and surveys that > all produce a consensus figure from a minimum of 82% > to a maximum of 99% if you survey only actively > qualified publishing climate scientists. > There is NO 'debate' about AGW in the scientific > community and there hasn't been for decades. This is where you show how naive you are. Consensus science isn't science but advocacy which is why those promoting consensus science act so sleazy attacking anyone who disagrees. The Doran and Zimmerman study polled 10,000 Earth scientists and of the more than 3,000 responses 90% said Earth is warming and 80 percent said humans contribute. They did raise their percentage up to 97% by excluding 98% of the responses that they polled. Skeptical science used their highly biased blog readers to judge science papers for their study. (would you accept a study where WUWT blog readers made many objective determinations? Of course not and you shouldn't. And if you decide you want to follow the science instead of the advocates you will find there is still plenty of debate on climate change. Not about if Earth is warming or if humans contribute but about what the impacts will actually be. Unsurprisingly those who promote consensus science also promote the most extreme and unlikely climate scenarios, climate fear porn. Just remember everyone who disagrees with you isn't the big oil boogeyman lying for some selfish motive and everyone who agrees with you isn't some altruistic saint. Very wet here in Tennessee although I spent much of the week up north in the snow. Cheers Jim |
Responses:
[15862]
15862
From: sheila, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Scientific consensus: Earth's climate is warming (NASA)
|
silly me, I was hoping to have an actual discussion with you, not being called names which denigrate me like "naïve"! I'd hoped that after 10+ years of our arguments back and forth with each other, we've both mellowed out enough to not resort to such tactics. I was wrong. Truth be told, I'm well past any sort of "consensus" argument, and continue to study the impacts therein. I'm well aware of the arguments about sea level rise, etc., yet concerned that people who live in the areas most prone to damage from rising sea levels aren't aware of the various scenarios that could place their properties in jeopardy. As an example, my daughter and her family live right on the ocean in Oahu, Hi. They have seen their property erode tremendously in past years from storm surge, etc. Just a small smattering of what's happening on our coastal areas in many areas with rising sea levels. You said: "Just remember everyone who disagrees with you isn't the big oil boogeyman lying for some selfish motive and everyone who agrees with you isn't some altruistic saint." Same can be said to you, not all who disagree with your pronouncements have selfish motives, I certainly do not. I respect your posts insomuch as I can though I part ways when you try to say that "fear porn" is the venue of those like myself who view extreme weather events as the new normal. Probably good to warn folks that 1000, 100 year flood events are now happening far more frequently than before. Add to that, I've seen more "fear porn" from those who think we'll have another ice age - well because...it's winter and it's so cold, get your parkas! ;) I'm so sorry that we couldn't discuss these thing in a civil manner. I don't consider anyone who disagrees with me a "big oil boogeyman" nor do I consider anyone who agrees me to be a saint, just that some folks aren't worth the effort to respond to. I'm done here, hoping all's well with you and your family and you know how to tread water and know what a "cubit" is. Happy trails, Sheila |
Responses:
None
15855
From: sequoia, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Scientific consensus: Earth's climate is warming (NASA)
|
Hi sheila, you have offered no explanation for the diametrically opposite "scientific consensus" in the Copernicus and Galilei cases which later turned out to be 100% wrong. Your list of Nasa-proof science orgs "supporting" the idea of human- caused climate change is worthless. The peer-review process in publishing scientific papers and peer- reviewed access to physical resources including money is completely broken and nothing gets peer-published which does not favor the consensus results required by the establishment no matter how accurate and reproducible the arguments are which tear apart the deceptive presentation and incorrect analysis of climate data. Unless you submit your soul to the prevailing idea you get yelled at with unprintable unscientific words so that the prevailing scientific train does not run out of steam travelling on the wrong track. You are not doing yourself or anyone a favor by letting yourself get brainwashed to the last molecule. The graph showing monthly averages of global sea surface temperatures which was shown a few weeks ago on the earthwatchers board contains easily recognizable patterns which completely invalidate the "scientific consensus" claims. Yet not one word in the NAS/RS paper refers to those patterns. The climate warming thing is a closed shop. The prevailing characters push a political agenda. Scientists they are not. sequoia |
15856
From: sheila, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Scientific consensus: Earth's climate is warming (NASA)
|
I won't be addressing anything in any of your posts Sequoia, like I said, I do not suffer fools gladly. Maybe you should stick to goats and earth wobbles! |
Responses:
[15859]
15859
From: sequoia, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Scientific consensus: Earth's climate is warming (NASA)
|
Hi sheila, it seems quite obvious that you avoid talking about facts which you dislike strongly because they contradict your opinion. Now, when one day not far away, in the middle of summer, your porported global warming sets in by piling up snow in your banana tree yard while keeping your natural seating bumper elements well below their normal temperatur, due to excessive wind chill, then you may begin recalibrating your personal climate assessments. Similar arguments could be developed concerning the natural sensory intelligence of goats and the significance of earth wobbles. On 21 Feb 2019 there was a shallow microquake 0.8 degrees north and 0.08 degrees west of the Loma Prieta epicenter, this one here: http://scedc.caltech.edu/recent/Quakes/nc73144396.html Let's wait and see how things develop, goatwise and earthwobbly. Perhaps one day not too far away we can learn from uneducated goats going for strange walks on highways? sequoia |
Responses:
None
15843
From: sequoia, [DNS_Address]
Subject: consensus science?
|
Hi sheila, you are certainly aware that the history of "scientific consensus" is nothing but a string of failures. When Copernicus claimed that, based on his research, the earth revolves around the sun the scientific consensus was the very opposite. When Galilei claimed, based on his observations, that the Jupiter moons circled their home planet, the scientific consensus was the very opposite. His contemporary scientists even refused to simply look through his telescope and observe the situation themselves. It took the church, the keepers of all wisdom as we know, 400 years to acknowledge that their consensus opinion was false. So you better take your consensus science argument to a fireplace where hopefully it will release some pleasant warmth to keep you warm when the sun goes into a prolonged sunspot minimum. sequoia |
Responses:
[15844] [15849] [15851] [15853] [15854] [15858] [15845] [15846] [15847]
15844
From: sheila, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: consensus science?
I do not suffer fools gladly!!
|
Responses:
[15849] [15851] [15853] [15854] [15858] [15845] [15846] [15847]
15849
From: pamela, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: consensus science? thanks for the graphic
| I will put it in my saves file. |
15851
From: sheila, [DNS_Address]
Subject: a link to it for you pamela
|
I like this website a lot because it affords me a global view of weather across the world. It also has many other graphs easily accessed like jet stream, SSTs, etc. BTW, the jet stream is going bonkers, diving way south on the W. coast.! |
15853
From: pamela, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: a link to it for you pamela
| Yes, thanks I found it yesterday after you posted the graph - looked up the website. High today here is 13 degrees F. All week into next only in the low 20's or teens for the highs. Minus degrees for the nights. |
15854
From: sheila, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: a link to it for you pamela
|
wow and I was complaining about our 29 degree nights! Here in the Willamette valley, our snow in the mountains didn't really start to happen until Feb. Before that it was a bust for skiers, now we have a good amount to keep the rivers flowing unless a pineapple express melts it all! It's been a strange winter here, nights never froze enough for deciduous trees like our 2 huge Maple trees to lose their leaves until late December. That was frustrating as we wanted them all gone way before that. Dec., Jan. were unusually warm here. Then that jet stream that'd been hovering over the Midwest came here for a visit and hasn't left yet! The old "polar vortex" thingy thought by some scientists to have been caused by so much ice melt over time but that's probably another post. Best to you and hoping you stay warm in spite of those yucky temps! PS: Thanks for that link for "Mikes Weather page" I love it! At least the South is going to enjoy some nice, warm temps tomorrow! |
Responses:
[15858]
15858
From: pamela, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: a link to it for you pamela
|
Its 17 now, F. Never got up to the 30's as this graph showed. AZ got more snow and in low temps, for C to N Az. |
Responses:
None
15845
From: sequoia, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: consensus science?
|
Hi sheila, looks like, as of 20 Feb 2019, your consensus science is not producing enough warmth west of the Mississippi and in the Northeast. Hope your globally warmed banana trees are doing ok. Your response does not address the issue that I brought up in my above post which is that, historically, consensus science has a nothing but shameful record. Your current temperature anomaly map does not invalidate my arguments. There was snow in Yucca Nat Park as reported by sfgate and in Las Gambling, too. May I recommend an excursion to Florida, Alaska or Siberia where the anomalies are nicely warmish? sequoia |
15846
From: pamela, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: consensus science? lots of snow in PNW too
| the cold here has lasted longer than usual, at least for where I am at in SW Montana. Not so much snow but the colder temps. All week long in the teens or lower to minus F. If those brown to reddish areas are correct, that's only 50ish F in those places. |
Responses:
[15847]
15847
From: pamela, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: consensus science? lots of snow in PNW too
URL: https://dsx.weather.com/util/image/map/WEB_Snow_Cover_1280x720.jpg
| …. |
Responses:
None
15841
From: sequoia, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: About the IPCC
|
Hi pamela, that NIPCC is quite a read and a sad example for political agendas which are camouflaged as science. Seismology is in a similarly sad state. All money flows to those who preach the randomness of earthquakes and their unpredictability. Those who, based on facts and logic, chose to disagree with the "consensus" makers are routinely labelled charlatans and, of course, get not one penny for their truly independent research. sequoia |
Responses:
None
[ Envirowatchers ] [ Main Menu ]