Global Warming: "Pseudoscientific Fraud"

[Color Me Badd Fan]

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...-a-923937.html

How about this little beauty from the article:

Environmental policymakers within the IPCC fear, though, that climate skeptics and industry lobbyists could exploit these scientific uncertainties for their own purposes. The IPCC's response has been to circle the wagons. To ensure it remains the sole authority on climate predictions, the panel plans not to publish the complete report for some time after the release of the summary and not even release transcripts from the negotiations in Stockholm.

Is the IPCC an organization dedicated to scientific research or not? Doesn't this quote capture some of the main arguments that climate skeptics have had about researchers involved with global warming alarmism? Clearly the IPCC isn't interested in an open honest scientific inquiry here, they're worried about massaging the summary and then releasing the data points later hoping people don't notice as much. How many trillions of dollars is the industrialized world sacrificing/hitching to these people again?

Der Spiegel is a serious publication, it occupies a more prominent spot in Germany than, say, Time does in the US. It's probably in between where Time and the NY Times sit as far as the hierarchy goes. It's been asking questions about this over the past several months. Public opinion can cascade different ways in Germany in fairly short order.

[SandYFan]

The biggest reason I don't believe the global climate change hype is because those who profess to believe it aren't doing everything in their power to stop it. If I really believed humans were directly causing massive and catastrophic changes to the earth to the point that it will kill hundreds of millions of people, I'd be working constantly to prevent it. Instead, we get a round of articles about it, then they stop for a while. We get An Inconvenient Truth, and then silence after the furor dies down. Own this movement, climate change believers. Show me you're serious about this stuff.

[USUC]

How about this little beauty from the article:



Is the IPCC an organization dedicated to scientific research or not? Doesn't this quote capture some of the main arguments that climate skeptics have had about researchers involved with global warming alarmism? Clearly the IPCC isn't interested in an open honest scientific inquiry here, they're worried about massaging the summary and then releasing the data points later hoping people don't notice as much. How many trillions of dollars is the industrialized world sacrificing/hitching to these people again?

Der Spiegel is a serious publication, it occupies a more prominent spot in Germany than, say, Time does in the US. It's probably in between where Time and the NY Times sit as far as the hierarchy goes. It's been asking questions about this over the past several months. Public opinion can cascade different ways in Germany in fairly short order.

IPCC is a political, not scientific, organization.

[Eddie]

How about this little beauty from the article:



Is the IPCC an organization dedicated to scientific research or not? Doesn't this quote capture some of the main arguments that climate skeptics have had about researchers involved with global warming alarmism? Clearly the IPCC isn't interested in an open honest scientific inquiry here, they're worried about massaging the summary and then releasing the data points later hoping people don't notice as much. How many trillions of dollars is the industrialized world sacrificing/hitching to these people again?

Der Spiegel is a serious publication, it occupies a more prominent spot in Germany than, say, Time does in the US. It's probably in between where Time and the NY Times sit as far as the hierarchy goes. It's been asking questions about this over the past several months. Public opinion can cascade different ways in Germany in fairly short order.

In all honesty, the first thought that came to me was this:

...The church was, thus, able to offer the correct interpretation of God's will, claiming exclusive knowledge not only of the path to repentance and salvation, and therefore to heaven, but also to the correct meanings and ways of dealing with naturally secular matters such as science and the economy. The church was thus free to validate only the kind of knowledge, logic and scientific inquiry that fits its interpretation of the scripture, rather than the state of affairs.

The kind of knowledge sought in medieval times was not of how things actually were or are, but rather how things must be according to scripture. The church's control over scientific matters disqualifying hypothesis and / or results that does not suit the absolute truth of the doctrine from its own point of view. Heresy was the charge waiting to be waged against any who dared, for the truth of things, challenge this control....

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_was_the_means_of_power_with_which_the_Catholic_Church_obtain_and_maintain_to_control_Europe_during_medieval_times

[old_gregg]

How about this little beauty from the article:



Is the IPCC an organization dedicated to scientific research or not? Doesn't this quote capture some of the main arguments that climate skeptics have had about researchers involved with global warming alarmism? Clearly the IPCC isn't interested in an open honest scientific inquiry here, they're worried about massaging the summary and then releasing the data points later hoping people don't notice as much. How many trillions of dollars is the industrialized world sacrificing/hitching to these people again?

Der Spiegel is a serious publication, it occupies a more prominent spot in Germany than, say, Time does in the US. It's probably in between where Time and the NY Times sit as far as the hierarchy goes. It's been asking questions about this over the past several months. Public opinion can cascade different ways in Germany in fairly short order.

avg global temp (probably not the best way to report warming... temp extremes, symptomatic of climate change, offset each other) not changing over the last 15 years is a reductionist, cherry picked stat that has zero conclusive value. the time horizon for their models is not 15 or even 100 years. the fact that the model doesn't exactly trend with actual results doesn't mean the model should be rejected.

[Indy Coug]

avg global temp (probably not the best way to report warming... temp extremes, symptomatic of climate change, offset each other) not changing over the last 15 years is a reductionist, cherry picked stat that has zero conclusive value. the time horizon for their models is not 15 or even 100 years. the fact that the model doesn't exactly trend with actual results doesn't mean the model should be rejected.

There's also very good reasons scientists shouldn't do linear extrapolations when predicting future global temperatures using a data set that spans only 15, 30, 50 or even 100 years.

[il Padrino Ute]

There's also very good reasons scientists shouldn't do linear extrapolations when predicting future global temperatures using a data set that spans only 15, 30, 50 or even 100 years.

Indy with the scientific smackdown.

[ERCougar]

The biggest reason I don't believe the global climate change hype is because those who profess to believe it aren't doing everything in their power to stop it. If I really believed humans were directly causing massive and catastrophic changes to the earth to the point that it will kill hundreds of millions of people, I'd be working constantly to prevent it. Instead, we get a round of articles about it, then they stop for a while. We get An Inconvenient Truth, and then silence after the furor dies down. Own this movement, climate change believers. Show me you're serious about this stuff.

That's why I don't really believe in the Church.

[SandYFan]

That's why I don't really believe in the Church.

Works for me.

[Jeff Lebowski]

There's also very good reasons scientists shouldn't do linear extrapolations when predicting future global temperatures using a data set that spans only 15, 30, 50 or even 100 years.

Good hell, stop with that nonsense. It is not a simple linear extrapolation.

[YOhio]

Good hell, stop with that nonsense. It is not a simple linear extrapolation.

:anger:

[Indy Coug]

Good hell, stop with that nonsense. It is not a simple linear extrapolation.

OK, my apologies.

[Jeff Lebowski]

avg global temp (probably not the best way to report warming... temp extremes, symptomatic of climate change, offset each other) not changing over the last 15 years is a reductionist, cherry picked stat that has zero conclusive value. the time horizon for their models is not 15 or even 100 years. the fact that the model doesn't exactly trend with actual results doesn't mean the model should be rejected.

The recent anomaly is partly a result of a strong la nina event around 1998-2002. These anomalies happen occasionally and that is why the models include a fairly wide band of uncertainty. No model is going to predict short term fluctuations but they can give us a reasonable estimate of long-term trends and the impact of various factors.

[Jeff Lebowski]

OK, my apologies.

Thanks. That link confirms you haven't a clue what you are talking about.

This is not a regression analysis. There is no linear extrapolation. These are physical models involving solutions to a complex series of differential equations solved on supercomputers. You pick a set of parameters and conditions and you get a solution such as one of the colored lines. They you tweak the parameters to get a different set of equally probable solutions and eventually you end up with a range of solutions. From those solutions you can begin to understand the long-term trends and the most likely outcomes. There is not a climate modeler anywhere that would point to a single projection and claim that that specific trend is the future, so you can stop beating that strawman to death.

[Dwight Schr-ute]

Thanks. That link confirms you haven't a clue what you are talking about.

This is not a regression analysis. There is no linear extrapolation. These are physical models involving solutions to a complex series of differential equations solved on supercomputers. You pick a set of parameters and conditions and you get a solution such as one of the colored lines. They you tweak the parameters to get a different set of equally probable solutions and eventually you end up with a range of solutions. From those solutions you can begin to understand the long-term trends and the most likely outcomes. There is not a climate modeler anywhere that would point to a single projection and claim that that specific trend is the future, so you can stop beating that strawman to death.

Ha ha. Lebowski typed "They" instead of "Then!" Idiot. (Isn't that how we're supposed to debate complex topics on the internets?)