The Failure of Official Global Warming Predictions

[Threegoofs]

"... intentionally lie and misrepresent their positions for financial gain."
Irony is that he wasn't talking about the IPCC $7M annual budget, half coming from the USA suckers.

Ah, but there are predictions that will be seen as obvious B.S. long after we're gone when the damage from the imposed solutions is irreversible.

The National Academy of Science disagrees.


I'll stick with the top scientists in the nation, thank you, instead of amateur speculation.

 

[polgara]

You've avoided the analogy.

Which analogy? If you are referring to the last line of your post, I have a thought on that. 1) What kind of doctor would give the time of day to a "charlatan" peddling purified rat urine as a cure without confirming the information either with other doctors or checking medical journals? Most people trust their doctor to have their best interest at heart, so if you meant that analogy, then yes, that doctor should be prosecuted because he has gone against his own Hippocratic oath to treat the patient to the best of his ability which should never include a bribe being pocketed! :shock:

 

[Threegoofs]

Which analogy? If you are referring to the last line of your post, I have a thought on that. 1) What kind of doctor would give the time of day to a "charlatan" peddling purified rat urine as a cure without confirming the information either with other doctors or checking medical journals? Most people trust their doctor to have their best interest at heart, so if you meant that analogy, then yes, that doctor should be prosecuted because he has gone against his own Hippocratic oath to treat the patient to the best of his ability which should never include a bribe being pocketed! :shock:

Well, I thought the analogy was quite clear.

There are many physicians might do borderline unethical things - and if they only check the 'denier medical journal of science', they can gradually convince themselves that all the other doctors are in a conspiracy to use expensive drugs and drive up their fees with unnecessary visits and procedures. In fact, this could lead to the doctor dismissing all the major cancer research organizations (which stand strongly with written statements against IV rat urine) with 'not having polled every member' so therefore the six guys who write on a blog he reads were not counted.

So you would agree that this doctor should be prosecuted, but what about the guys who run the rat urine website that is convincing these doctors to use it, and publish all kinds of false information and amateur 'analysis' that looks scientific enough to fool a general practitioner like our poor convicted doctor? Should those people be held at fault? And what if those people were convincing non-licensed professionals to 'think for themselves' and treat patients? Illegal?

 

[polgara]

Well, I thought the analogy was quite clear.

There are many physicians might do borderline unethical things - and if they only check the 'denier medical journal of science', they can gradually convince themselves that all the other doctors are in a conspiracy to use expensive drugs and drive up their fees with unnecessary visits and procedures. In fact, this could lead to the doctor dismissing all the major cancer research organizations (which stand strongly with written statements against IV rat urine) with 'not having polled every member' so therefore the six guys who write on a blog he reads were not counted.

So you would agree that this doctor should be prosecuted, but what about the guys who run the rat urine website that is convincing these doctors to use it, and publish all kinds of false information and amateur 'analysis' that looks scientific enough to fool a general practitioner like our poor convicted doctor? Should those people be held at fault? And what if those people were convincing non-licensed professionals to 'think for themselves' and treat patients? Illegal?

I'm not familiar with how the medical profession disseminates information, but aren't there watchdogs whose job it is to look out for public safety? How many pharmas have had to pull their products off the market because they're causing too many deaths? Is that a job for the FDA to do?

General practitioners are doctors, so the same rules apply to them, IMO. What they can't handle are referred to specialists I guess, but I don't really know.

 

[bubbabgone]

The National Academy of Science disagrees.


I'll stick with the top scientists in the nation, thank you, instead of amateur speculation.

Oh please, you'll agree with anyone who says what you want to hear.
But, regardless, what precisely did the NAS have to say about future alarmist predictions and exactly what did you & they do in the way of critical analysis?

 

[bubbabgone]

Well, I thought the analogy was quite clear.

There are many physicians might do borderline unethical things

- and if they only check the 'denier medical journal of science', they can gradually convince themselves that all the other doctors are in a conspiracy to use expensive drugs and drive up their fees with unnecessary visits and procedures. In fact, this could lead to the doctor dismissing all the major cancer research organizations (which stand strongly with written statements against IV rat urine) with 'not having polled every member' so therefore the six guys who write on a blog he reads were not counted.

So you would agree that this doctor should be prosecuted, but what about the guys who run the rat urine website that is convincing these doctors to use it, and publish all kinds of false information and amateur 'analysis' that looks scientific enough to fool a general practitioner like our poor convicted doctor? Should those people be held at fault? And what if those people were convincing non-licensed professionals to 'think for themselves' and treat patients? Illegal?

You could have stopped the alarmist analogy right there.

 

[Threegoofs]

I'm not familiar with how the medical profession disseminates information, but aren't there watchdogs whose job it is to look out for public safety? How many pharmas have had to pull their products off the market because they're causing too many deaths? Is that a job for the FDA to do?

General practitioners are doctors, so the same rules apply to them, IMO. What they can't handle are referred to specialists I guess, but I don't really know.

Well, one of the organizations that acts as an expert panel for Medicine is the National Institute of Medicine. When they issue statements, it's considered a consensus.

Know who the IoM is a branch of? Yep...the National Academy of Science, which is one of the 200 organizations that have issued very clear statements on the impending danger of Global Warming.

 

[Threegoofs]

Oh please, you'll agree with anyone who says what you want to hear.
But, regardless, what precisely did the NAS have to say about future alarmist predictions and exactly what did you & they do in the way of critical analysis?

Feel free to read it.

National Academy Of Sciences Delivers Highly Readable Climate Change Warning | ThinkProgress

 

[polgara]

Well, one of the organizations that acts as an expert panel for Medicine is the National Institute of Medicine. When they issue statements, it's considered a consensus.

Know who the IoM is a branch of? Yep...the National Academy of Science, which is one of the 200 organizations that have issued very clear statements on the impending danger of Global Warming.

3G, what are they going to say if it starts cooling big time, as many scientists predict as almost inevitable in the coming years? More people freeze to death than warm to death, so it will be noticed....

 

[Threegoofs]

3G, what are they going to say if it starts cooling big time, as many scientists predict as almost inevitable in the coming years? More people freeze to death than warm to death, so it will be noticed....

'Many' scientists DONT predict this. I think you're confusing amateur deniers with scientists.

I just told you that the most respected and authoritative scientific body in the US has made it quite clear that global warming is both real and an impending problem.

You seem surprisingly resistant to this basic information. Telling.

 

[polgara]

'Many' scientists DONT predict this. I think you're confusing amateur deniers with scientists.

I just told you that the most respected and authoritative scientific body in the US has made it quite clear that global warming is both real and an impending problem.

You seem surprisingly resistant to this basic information. Telling.

I don't have time to find and then post what some well-known universities around the world are stating, but it really doesn't matter. Time will tell who is correct, but you haven't answered my question... ,

 

[Threegoofs]

I don't have time to find and then post what some well-known universities around the world are stating, but it really doesn't matter. Time will tell who is correct, but you haven't answered my question... ,

The analogy is 'what will you say if IV rat urine really IS a cure for cancer?'. I think we both know the answer.

You're right though. You don't have time to search, because it would take you hours since the information doesn't really exist.

However, in mere seconds, I can find lists of hundreds of organizations, many among the most respected in all of science, that have issued statements that confirm the IPCC findings are real and concerning.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Obviously...its s giant conspiracy!

What is it with you?

There is no conspiracy. It's a bandwagon ride. It's groupthink.

Are you incapable of understanding the nuances?

How many dozens of times have we all said there is no conspiracy, your you continue to paint us as if we believe that.

Shame on you!

 

[polgara]

The analogy is 'what will you say if IV rat urine really IS a cure for cancer?'. I think we both know the answer.

You're right though. You don't have time to search, because it would take you hours since the information doesn't really exist.

However, in mere seconds, I can find lists of hundreds of organizations, many among the most respected in all of science, that have issued statements that confirm the IPCC findings are real and concerning.

They do exist, 3G or I would not have said so. I think you just like to argue. :thumbdown:

 

[Threegoofs]

They do exist, 3G or I would not have said so. I think you just like to argue. :thumbdown:

Actually, I like data.

Not imaginary thinking.

I'm sure you can find a couple scientists who say it will cool. There's always people on the fringe. But much like treating cancer with rat urine, fringe ideas are not adopted by the majority for good reason. It's called 'evidence'.

 

[Fearandloathing]

They do exist, 3G or I would not have said so. I think you just like to argue. :thumbdown:

I have become a GW activist..

The warming climate that helped trigger B.C.'s mountain pine beetle outbreak might also be helping the province's forests recover, according to new research led by federal government scientists in Victoria.

That's because B.C. forests are responding to climate change by growing faster, said the lead author of the study published in Geophysical Research Letters.

"Since we are putting more CO2 into the atmosphere and things are getting warmer, trees are responding to that," said lead author Vivek Arora, a climate modeller with Environment and Climate Change Canada.Climate change helping B.C. forests recover from pine beetle says study - British Columbia - CBC News

Notice how global warming both caused the outbreak and is helping to solve it. Man, any science where you can have your cake, pie, crullers AND marshmallows and eat it too can't be all bad.

:lamo

 

[Threegoofs]

I have become a GW activist..



Notice how global warming both caused the outbreak and is helping to solve it. Man, any science where you can have your cake, pie, crullers AND marshmallows and eat it too can't be all bad.

:lamo

An odd interpretation, but I guess when people are faced with complex subjects they get easily confused.

AGW causing the infestation (pretty well established) is not incompatible with AGW increasing tree growth more rapidly and establishing a carbon sink. Of course, if the pine beetle infestation was on a continental scale, it might actually really be helping, but since it's confined to higher altitudes and latitudes in the Rockies, the carbon offsets will not be enough.

 

[bubbabgone]

Feel free to read it.

National Academy Of Sciences Delivers Highly Readable Climate Change Warning | ThinkProgress

Haven't you yourself read what the NAS has said?
Reading that, didn't it occur to you that what you seem to be suggesting is conclusive evidence of AGW consists of Think Progress (hoo-boy) saying what NAS said about what they read the alarmists say.
And we already know the alarmists had to adjust data to change history to get the graph the NAS included as evidence in their report.

So, leaving aside your undisturbed lazy record of only presenting links, your argument and theirs can be reduced to "Because they said so and I don't care to know anything else."

So I ask again, what did the NAS and you do in the way of critical analysis.
You have never even acknowledged the deceit in the ClimateGate emails but you have acknowledged never reading skeptic material.
If you had you'd have noticed that many of the names writing or reviewing that NSA report (did you read it?) were also all over the ClimateGate emails.

Now, getting the right people in place to keep the game going is a good tactic but it doesn't look good and should raise an alarm.

 

[Threegoofs]

Haven't you yourself read what the NAS has said?
Reading that, didn't it occur to you that what you seem to be suggesting is conclusive evidence of AGW consists of Think Progress (hoo-boy) saying what NAS said about what they read the alarmists say.
And we already know the alarmists had to adjust data to change history to get the graph the NAS included as evidence in their report.

So, leaving aside your undisturbed lazy record of only presenting links, your argument and theirs can be reduced to "Because they said so and I don't care to know anything else."

So I ask again, what did the NAS and you do in the way of critical analysis.
You have never even acknowledged the deceit in the ClimateGate emails but you have acknowledged never reading skeptic material.
If you had you'd have noticed that many of the names writing or reviewing that NSA report (did you read it?) were also all over the ClimateGate emails.

Now, getting the right people in place to keep the game going is a good tactic but it doesn't look good and should raise an alarm.

Yes, I've seen the report. I could have linked it, but I linked a short article about it instead. Predictably, you attack the source and complain that I post links.

Here's the report, not that you'll bother to educate yourself:

http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/exec-office-other/climate-change-full.pdf

And then you complain that the people who are in the report are in your fake email 'scandal'. That's because those people are highly respected in the scientific community, thus eroding your weak argument further.

 

[longview]

Yes, I've seen the report. I could have linked it, but I linked a short article about it instead. Predictably, you attack the source and complain that I post links.

Here's the report, not that you'll bother to educate yourself:

http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/exec-office-other/climate-change-full.pdf

And then you complain that the people who are in the report are in your fake email 'scandal'. That's because those people are highly respected in the scientific community, thus eroding your weak argument further.

I would actually expect better from The Royal Society
and the National Academy of Science
On page 3 they describe the surface temperature warming,

The clearest evidence for surface warming comes from widespread thermometer records.
In some places, these records extend back to the late 19th century.
Today, temperatures are monitored at many thousands of locations, over both the land and ocean surface.

yet on page 8, they clearly say the modeled
temperature is that of the lower atmosphere or troposphere.

In the early 1960s, results from mathematical/physical models of the climate system first showed
that human-induced increases in CO2 would be expected to lead to gradual warming of
the lower atmosphere (the troposphere).

They go on to say,

At that time, there was insufficient observational data to test this prediction,
but temperature measurements from weather balloons and satellites have since confirmed these
early forecasts.

So the weather balloons and satellites were used to confirm the model,
but they choose to use the surface temperatures as their warming reference,
even though the surface temperatures are a poor proxy for the lower atmosphere molded.
A graph of the two shows the surface temperatures look more alarming.
Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

In addition to the above points, Section 8 on page 10,

Is there a point at which adding more CO2 will not cause further warming?
No. Adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will cause surface temperatures to continue to increase.
As the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 increase, the addition of extra CO2 becomes progressively
less effective at trapping Earth’s energy, but surface temperature will still rise.

This statement does a poor job of describing the natural log response curve
of CO2, one might say there is an attempt to mislead.

There is also no mention of the diurnal asymmetry,
(that over 60% of the observed warming in in nighttime lows not going as low)
They also do not mention that the vast majority of all the observed warming is only in the northern hemisphere.

Lastly on page B10 they say,

The reviewers provided comments and suggestions, but were not asked to endorse
the views of the writing team, nor did they see the final draft before its release.

So none of the reviewers were asked to endorse the work or even saw the final draft.

This is just a fluff piece, describing a politically correct position!

 

[Threegoofs]

I would actually expect better from The Royal Society
and the National Academy of Science

Well, this is for public consumption - a document directly aimed toward people who arent scientists -thats why I directed Polgara to it.

Of course, you will also ignore the NAS and Royal Societies larger position papers on this and dismiss it as 'politically correct', despite the fact that neither organization is political, while your POV is distinctly libertarian.

Its funny and quite disturbing how a seemingly overwhelmingly obvious point - that the best scientists in the world have no issue with declaring AGW real and a growing problem - can be dismissed by people like you who are apparently so blinded by their idoelogy (or is it willful ignorance from another cause)they literally have to rationalize away the hand in front of their nose.

 

[longview]

Well, this is for public consumption - a document directly aimed toward people who arent scientists -thats why I directed Polgara to it.

Of course, you will also ignore the NAS and Royal Societies larger position papers on this and dismiss it as 'politically correct', despite the fact that neither organization is political, while your POV is distinctly libertarian.

Its funny and quite disturbing how a seemingly overwhelmingly obvious point - that the best scientists in the world have no issue with declaring AGW real and a growing problem - can be dismissed by people like you who are apparently so blinded by their idoelogy (or is it willful ignorance from another cause)they literally have to rationalize away the hand in front of their nose.

You completely disregardful their comment at the end,

The reviewers provided comments and suggestions, but were not asked to endorse
the views of the writing team, nor did they see the final draft before its release.

Where the reviewers were not asked to endorse the views of the writing team.

 

[longview]

Well, this is for public consumption - a document directly aimed toward people who arent scientists -thats why I directed Polgara to it.

Of course, you will also ignore the NAS and Royal Societies larger position papers on this and dismiss it as 'politically correct', despite the fact that neither organization is political, while your POV is distinctly libertarian.

Its funny and quite disturbing how a seemingly overwhelmingly obvious point - that the best scientists in the world have no issue with declaring AGW real and a growing problem - can be dismissed by people like you who are apparently so blinded by their idoelogy (or is it willful ignorance from another cause)they literally have to rationalize away the hand in front of their nose.

If you have a NAS or Royal Society larger position paper, please link to it.

 

[Threegoofs]

If you have a NAS or Royal Society larger position paper, please link to it.

Really? Again?

Why?

You apparently skipped it the last dozen times, and clearly dont care enough about it to devote a ten second search for it.

 

[longview]

Really? Again?

Why?

You apparently skipped it the last dozen times, and clearly dont care enough about it to devote a ten second search for it.

So I take it you do not have a link!