[Jabberwalker]

The climate is a simple thing. You'd think that they would have their story together, by now.

[Zipperfish]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

"The drafts became too alarmist,� said Richard Tol, a Dutch professor of economics at Sussex University in England, to Reuters."

An Economist? Weren't there any Home Economics teachers available?

Oh man, they should'a got Suzuki. His knowledge of fruit fly genetics would have been invaluable.

Yeah, but this is coming from a guy who described Rob Ford as "an intellectual giant."

[DrCaleb]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

What might happen, not what will happen. Economists and climate scientists share a common problem of not adequately communicating the uncertainty of their predictions.

^^ That!

[N_Fiddledog]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Yeah, but this is coming from a guy who described Rob Ford as "an intellectual giant."

So Suzuki isn't a moron then? Cause, you know...Rob Ford.

Hey I just noticed something. Rob Ford is our George Bush.

[Xort]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

He doesn't like alarmists, but he certainly doesn't view climate chnage theory as unfounded. As a matter of fact he's pretty dismissive of people who think that think that the greenhouse effect is a fraud.

$1:

To better understand the issue of climate change, including the controversies over the IPCC summary documents, the White House asked the National Academy of Sciences, the country's premier scientific organization, to assemble a panel on climate change. The 11 members of the panel, which included Richard Lindzen, concluded that the science is far from settled: "Because there is considerable uncertainty in current understanding of how the climate system varies naturally and reacts to emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols, current estimates of the magnitude of future warming should be regarded as tentative and subject to future adjustments (either upward or downward)."

Not about the greenhouse effect, but about what degree CO2 will drive warming.

I have another 20 odd scientists I can quote from the same source that have issues with different aspects of the Global Warming theory.

[Zipperfish]

Xort Xort:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

He doesn't like alarmists, but he certainly doesn't view climate chnage theory as unfounded. As a matter of fact he's pretty dismissive of people who think that think that the greenhouse effect is a fraud.

$1:

To better understand the issue of climate change, including the controversies over the IPCC summary documents, the White House asked the National Academy of Sciences, the country's premier scientific organization, to assemble a panel on climate change. The 11 members of the panel, which included Richard Lindzen, concluded that the science is far from settled: "Because there is considerable uncertainty in current understanding of how the climate system varies naturally and reacts to emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols, current estimates of the magnitude of future warming should be regarded as tentative and subject to future adjustments (either upward or downward)."

Not about the greenhouse effect, but about what degree CO2 will drive warming.

I have another 20 odd scientists I can quote from the same source that have issues with different aspects of the Global Warming theory.

Every scientist should have issues with some aspect of global wamring theory. The point is that the writer is misrepresenting Lindzen's skepticism of specific aspects of the theory as a dismissal of the entire theopretical edifice, and that's not the case.

[Xort]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Every scientist should have issues with some aspect of global wamring theory. The point is that the writer is misrepresenting Lindzen's skepticism of specific aspects of the theory as a dismissal of the entire theopretical edifice, and that's not the case.

I don't believe that is the narrative being put forward. What I was getting was that IPCC was having it's science based conclusions ignored for political activism. That the real and valid concerns about the science of global warming were being changed into a false statement of total certainty.

$1:

: "Because there is considerable uncertainty in current understanding of how the climate system varies naturally and reacts to emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols, current estimates of the magnitude of future warming should be regarded as tentative and subject to future adjustments (either upward or downward)."

The press's spin on the NAS report? CNN, in language typical of other reportage, stated that it represented "a unanimous decision that global warming is real, is getting worse, and is due to man. There is no wiggle room."

Anyway, the author is painting an overall picture of scientist that have dissenting views of global warming. It's a multi part series, and the author presents many different scientists' views of the problems of global warming theory, and the scientists run ins with the 'consensus' side of global warming movement.

~

The story that the public is being told is that only quacks and people outside of the proper fields of science have a issues with Global Warming and the predictions being made.

As an example see, DrCaleb being dismissive of a scientist working with the IPCC because he was 'just' an economist. Which as I pointed out is a valid and important field of study for someone trying to predict what global warming will do to humanity and future economics.

[Zipperfish]

Xort Xort:

I don't believe that is the narrative being put forward. What I was getting was that IPCC was having it's science based conclusions ignored for political activism. That the real and valid concerns about the science of global warming were being changed into a false statement of total certainty.

I'd certainly agree with that sentiment. And with AGW theory. I don't see the two as mutually exclusive. The problem is this Exectuive Summary that they are asked to put together, because the politicians don't want to have to wade through the nitty-gritty. There's no doubt it's politicized. Frankly the IPCC should just tell the politicans to go pound sand and do away with the Summary for Policy Makers altogether. Problem solved.

$1:

:

The press's spin on the NAS report? CNN, in language typical of other reportage, stated that it represented "a unanimous decision that global warming is real, is getting worse, and is due to man. There is no wiggle room."

I was flicking through channels today and there was a article about new police procedures to battle the hazards of "dangerous hoarding." Anyone who watches CNN for anything other than a quick update on a breaking news story is an idiot. They rot your brain worse than candy rots your teeth.

$1:

Anyway, the author is painting an overall picture of scientist that have dissenting views of global warming. It's a multi part series, and the author presents many different scientists' views of the problems of global warming theory, and the scientists run ins with the 'consensus' side of global warming movement.

Consensus with what? That's my problem. There's no such thing, really as a "climate scientists." It's a word that captures atmospheric physicists, biologists, statisticians, dendrologists, hydrologists, yadda yadda yadda. Plenty to argue with in their. But the basic theory--the idea that more anthrpogenic CO2 in the atmosphere is very likely to be producing measurable changes in the planetary climate is pretty accepted.

~

$1:

The story that the public is being told is that only quacks and people outside of the proper fields of science have a issues with Global Warming and the predictions being made.

I just don't accept this. There are plenty of OpEds and articles and editorial stances and pundits and special reports about all sides of the global warming debate. Most of it is a bunch of stage-managed claptrap drawn along the same boring lines of the political left and right. And that's pretty much where it lies now. If you are right you are suspicious of global wamring, if youre' left you accept it. Nobody seems to giove much of a tinker's damn for facts.

Look me at infidel--we practically agree on the science, but still argue the issue to no end. It's hard to escape your ideology. Me included, unfortuantely.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

"The drafts became too alarmist,� said Richard Tol, a Dutch professor of economics at Sussex University in England, to Reuters."

An Economist? Weren't there any Home Economics teachers available?

Oh man, they should'a got Suzuki. His knowledge of fruit fly genetics would have been invaluable.

Yeah, but this is coming from a guy who described Rob Ford as "an intellectual giant."

Uhhh wow dude. I see your comprehension skills are failing you, yet again. This is what you said in that thread.

Zippy Zippy:

So what--Ford is an intellectual giant?

To which I responded, "Compared to the way Chow came off? Sadly, yes".

Did no one bother to explain to you that the term "relative" means something other than just someone you are related to?

If you're going to try and mock me, at least get your shit straight.