"UN scientists warn time running out to tackle global warming" Topic

link

· Scientists say eight years left to avoid worst effects
· Panel urges governments to act immediately

which includes:

Governments are running out of time to address climate change and to avoid the worst effects of rising temperatures, an influential UN panel warned yesterday.

Greater energy efficiency, renewable electricity sources and new technology to dump carbon dioxide underground can all help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the experts said. But there could be as little as eight years left to avoid a dangerous global average rise of 2C or more.

Only eight years… anyone know how they came up with that? They say "…as little as…" but don't really bound it. As little as eight and as long as ten? As long as 25? As long as a hundred? More?

Should ANY credibility be given to such an apparently unfounded warning based on who knows what? More of those great computer models that don't work? Crystal Balls? Ouija Board? Tarot cards? Goat entrails? WHAT exactly is the basis for this dire warning and call to action?

They don't have a great track record with the "predictions of doom in (fill in the blank)" or "Tipping point by X if we don't"

Mayan Calendars?

Exaggeration hurts. I didn't read the article, but sometimes journalists don't help the message.

While there is nothing that can dissuade me that releasing 100s of millions of years of potential energy in just 2-300 years is going to have some major effects (and far more than worldwide volcanic activity), I don't know if we have enough information to make predictions like the above.
--
Tim

, I don't know if we have enough information to make predictions like the above.

Thanks Tim,

If you do read the article there are a few pretty dire quotes from a variety of different folks connected to the whole thing. I don't think this one is on the journalists, more the folks being quoted.

JJ

obviously they didnt hear the poll results. climate change isnt man made, our congress has voted on it :P

I for one welcome our warmer Earth. Move to Montana and enjoy the warmer winters. Things change. Sometimes in the past it was colder, sometimes it was warmer. Get used to it.

Mike Bunkermeister Creek
Bunker Talk blog

As the old saying goes "the life of the universe is the span of a persons lifetime". In the past when the earth went through prolonged warming (approx 1300's to 1400's)food production went up and famine and starvation was decreased.

And our Canadian friends should welcome this. as an increase in temperature will dramatically increase the production of Canadian wheat farmers.

I mean, what's so great about the current temperature?

Dave

So in 8 years the UN will go away?

In case anyone didn't notice, the article was written 8 years ago.

Exactly why I posted it. UN declaration that we have 8 years, and 2014 may be too late.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, life continues…

Gotta love those tipping points and declarations of doom. Really adds to the credibility, don't you think?

Fortune Cookies?

6D10?

Where oh where are the true believers?

I believe.

A lot of things….

I equate this to the same crap they told us about the oil running out in 2020 way back in the 80's.

We've had how many billions of barrels of new oil fields found around the world in the last 5 years?

Things will be fine just like they always have been. The UN just loves to cry wolf.

… Oh, wait, I can't type that here, this is not the Bluey Fezzy. Whew! that was close….

A hat tip to Tim, who strongly holds a position different from many of the posters in this thread, made his point clearly and rationally while at the same time acknowledging that the over the top exaggerated claims don't really help.

That is more than any others on the AGW side have ever done, and AFAIK, more than any of the "names" either directly connected with the IPCC or their fanboys have ever done.

JJ

JJ – I agree with your comment above.

My personal belief is that this is more akin to keeping the volcano god happy by shaking a monkey skull on a stick every once in a while. We want to feel we have control over events so we do things that seem to make some sense even if we actually have absolutely no control.

To me the answer to the use of hydrocarbons for energy would be to go nuclear, but I have not seen anyone on the pro AGW side willing to argue for that option.

Personally, I am as green as I can be – somewhat. I try to maximize my mileage driving and have downsized vehicles. I recycle as much as possible. We set the thermostat to 63 in the winter and wear warm clothes at home. I come at this by viewing man as stewards of the earth and we need to make the best, most efficient use of its resources.

Terrement,

Stop fighting it. Embrace it!!!

Dan
PS. Jump in, the water feels great!
TMP link
TMP link

By the way, if we nuke all the filthy factories in China, we'll eliminate 90% of the world's fossil fuel pollution!

Then all we have to worry about is the fallout. Easy peasy.

Dan
PS. Sooner or later …
TMP link
TMP link

Dan,

Nuclear winter the quick cure for Global warming.

Vince

Yep. True, so very true. You can't please everyone, can you? No matter what you do, there's always gonna be someone that will complain:

YouTube link

So, like I said before, just embrace whatever is coming:

Instead of embracing it, some act miserable all the time:

YouTube link

Until they too finally come to understand and accept the inevitable:

YouTube link

Dan

Cacique Caribe,

WRT the first poster, I love that pic.

WRT the second poster, I absolutely do!

Vedic Astrology?

Casting Runes?

Mahjong Divination?

Note the continual deafening silence of the true believers. Truly funny.

I live by the quotes on those posters these days!

Dan

Tim said everything that needed to be said. Anything else is unnecessary.

I'm a bit of a traditionalist whe it comes to this sort of stuff. So, I say, go get a sheep and read the omens in the entrails! Just make sure none of what you do gets to PETA.

Dan

jPattern, JJ is just continuing to making it into a political thing (sorry JJ). He's jumping around with glee, daring people "who believe" (again betraying a lack of understanding of what science is) to challenge him. I believe in god, I don't "believe" in global warming. I accept the evidence.

Again, if it hadn't been Al Gore sensationalizing it, we would not have the problem we do with people who will cherry pick science and accept only what they want. That sort of thing happens in a lot of areas, creationism for one, for sure, also the anti-vaccine screamers.

But his jumping around here reminds me of the sort of thing you see an evil cartoon caharacter do, like Gargamel in The Smurfs.
--
Tim

Now there's an image I won't soon be able to scrub from my brain!

…
(again betraying a lack of understanding of what science is).

As opposed to the folks making these wild ass predictions? That' science?

,,,people who will cherry pick science and accept only what they want.

Not cherry picking a thing. I'm quoting the buffoons that made these dire predictions. It seems they can't accept the fact that their powers of prognostication really sucks, no matter how many times they get it wrong. Not even wise enough after all these years and all their failures to actually look at the reality of their inability to do what they think they can on a subject that they are convinced they "know."

Is Charlie Brown their role model?

Are they using the right brand of tin foil for their hats?

I'm enjoying how repeatedly wrong all of the folks preaching settled science are. There is a very long string of dire predictions and tipping points that never come true. Exaggeration so made by non-scientists are never contradicted or re-framed by the IPCC scientists.

They are so wrong, so continually, but we're supposed to trust their judgment about how we need to wreck our economies to satisfy their mystical predictions based on crap models?

Damn right I'm enjoying this. And I use the "believers" term just like they use the "deniers" term. Difference is, I don't think anyone to whom I've applied it does not believe the IPCC hypocrites, yet the folks here that love throwing around the "D" word do so with anyone who disagrees with them, even if the target of their derision has repeatedly posted that he doesn't deny that climate change is occurring, just that he doesn't believe the broken model folks know as much as they assert, nor that their claims hold water.

As evidenced by articles such as the one starting this thread.

So you can view me any way you want. I'm still waiting for someone from the "believers" to either find a post of mine where I deny climate change, or their defense of the apparently endless string of over the top, unrealistic prophecies of doom and tipping points that somehow never occur, nor are they ever remarked upon by the folks who made them.

And I'm laughing at y'all the whole time.

And I'm not even close to finished kicking this dead horse.

Martin, do you have a graph that covers their tipping point accuracy?

JJ

Peyote Visions?

Dart board with predictions and dates?

Tim, if you have the chance pick up a copy of Merchants of Doubt by Oreskes & Conway. You'll see that the obfuscation would happen regardless of what the winner of the 2000 Presidential popular vote did since much of the denial is rooted in the belief that environmentalism has red roots (pun intended) and that measures to delay action on climate change have been happening since the Johnson Administration. Except that now we have a lot more sunk costs in infrastructure that we won't be able to fully utilize without cooking the planet.

And meanwhile the rest of us will get on living with the hottest/coldest/wettest/driest/windiest/calmest weather since records began. Looking out of the window right now it seems to be all six simultaneously.

Perhaps the tipping point has been and gone and we are now all royally stuffed.

At least I live on a hill.

just read the article. Isn't it saying that they thought we had as little as 8 years to avoid the worst effects, rather than the worst effects will be in 8 years? Also I can't see any dire quotes in the article linked to. It seems to me that the article is simply saying that scientists think we should start trying to tackle the problem sooner rather than later. What's the fuss about?

Normally I try to avoid these threads, but the posts above beg a rational, measured answer.

I'll make the following observations:

1. This is a news article citing excerpts from reports. It is *not* a peer reviewed scientific paper.

2. The predictions are clearly *estimates*.

3. The article clearly states that the prediction is a 2C rise if emissions are capped by 2015 and 6C rise if they are completely unchecked by 2100.

The cited report, like any other peer reviewed paper of standing, would have citations of research and substantiating research. These, of course, do not make it into the news story. The fact is that forming "scientific" opinions based on news reporting is probably not good science.

Now, understand, that I'm *not* saying that conclusions are wrong. What I'm saying is that the method used to reach them is not scientific. So, if they conclusions are correct, it's by accident…and that's no way to run a planet.

"The earth isn't going anywhere… we are."-George Carlin

People read the news, not peer reviewed journals.

The Guardian is AFAIK, a reliable source with no axe to grind.

The warning came in a report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published yesterday in Bangkok. It says most of the technology needed to stop climate change in its tracks already exists, but that governments must act quickly to force through changes across all sectors of society.

Note the word "force." Are you claiming this isn't the IPCC position?

There were also rows about the role of nuclear power, with countries including Spain and Austria opposed to any form of words that endorsed an increase in electricity from nuclear technology.

Is this not reflective of their positions? Let's see…stop burning coal and petroleum based fuels, don't build reactor driven plants, meet the ever growing need for energy that cannot be met by wind and solar as Spain's complete Government Driven and fully funded program proved in its abysmal failure, while at the same time one of the major polluters, India, has said not only will they not cut back, they will expand their coal plants to meet their nation's energy needs. Wonder what the peer-reviewed articles recommend. Or maybe ask DiCaprio if you can catch him on one of his private jet hops.

The predictions are clearly *estimates*.

Which are the SAME estimates that the IPCC is using as the basis to try to get nations to buckle under. Estimates or not, they are the folks making them, they are the folks clamouring for action because the sky is falling, and they get a pass on being wrong because they are "only estimates" BUT at the same time, we should use those estimates to aggressively drive economic disaster?

The article clearly states that the prediction is a 2C rise if emissions are capped by 2015

18 years is it of almost completely flat lined warming? That starts eighteen years ago? That the IPCC scientists continue to struggle to explain (see previous links in previous threads) And includes the period of time in question?

So, if they conclusions are correct, it's by accident…and that's no way to run a planet.

Yet that same method is used by the believers to threaten doom and gloom and upon which we are all supposed to live as the lords of hypocrisy tell us to because we can't afford the lifestyles that entitle them to do otherwise?

I also question the validity of "peer reviewed" documents that are shared among the true believers who are pre-disposed to agree with the things they are reading. No chance of bias there.

And meanwhile the rest of us will get on living with the hottest/coldest/wettest/driest/windiest/calmest weather since records began. Looking out of the window right now it seems to be all six simultaneously.

Which is happening even if I am right and you are wrong. Never claimed it isn't happening. Just the reason is uncertain, the remedy unsound and impossible.

Perhaps the tipping point has been and gone and we are now all royally stuffed.

Perhaps. But given the very long string of false tipping points, I suspect the odds are more that once again, we are not tipped and therefore not stuffed.

Meanwhile we have the folks who believe this telling lies and acting like hypocrites and telling everyone else what to do. Counter arguments are automatically dismissed because fun ding may be from energy or right wing sources, yet at the same time, left wing and left leaning government and university money has no affect whatsoever on the approach or conclusions of the "independent and objective" scientists, right?

link

1. As director of this UN organization, should he be taken seriously when he makes statements like this?

2. As the scientists who are only interested in "real" science and not "junk science" hear these things, don't they have a responsibility to be, well, responsible and declare that the guy is full of crap and there is no scientific data that supports this? Or, if they agree, don't they have a responsibility to add their voices? Or, should they keep doing like they have been doing for decades, sit back and let the hysteria mongers with official titles spread unwarranted panic because it suits their cause? Oh, wait a minute…that would be politically rather than scientifically driven, so "true scientists" practicing "real science" would only go where the science leads right? Not their funding?

3. In the multiple decades of dire declarations such as this, has there been ANY effort ANY time by the "true scientists, practicing real science" to re-frame the point being made, correct misconceptions, or otherwise clarify the issue? Why not?

4. IIRC, the "unscientific scientists practicing junk science" routinely have criticized the tipping point and doom declarations and have been pretty much right pretty much of the time. Guess their tin hats are made correctly.

See also

25 Years Of Predicting The Global Warming ‘Tipping Point'

link

link

A new report has given world leaders a deadline of 2014 to embrace a low-carbon economy or see the planet hit a "point of no return".

The economic modelling, commissioned by WWF Australia, has found that an emissions trading scheme is not enough to drive the change needed to sufficiently cut global emissions.

Instead, it says governments must rapidly put in place greater incentives for industry to make the transition.

Karl Mallon, a scientist with Climate Risk and one of the key authors of the report, says 2014 has been calculated as the point at which there is no longer enough time to develop the industries that can deliver a low carbon economy.

"The point of no return," he said.

OK, so we're doomed.

President 'has four years to save Earth'

link

(Isn't Hansen one of the Gods of Warming?)

Barack Obama has only four years to save the world. That is the stark assessment of Nasa scientist and leading climate expert Jim Hansen who last week warned only urgent action by the new president could halt the devastating climate change that now threatens Earth. Crucially, that action will have to be taken within Obama's first administration, he added.

So we're REALLY doomed…

Hansen said current carbon levels in the atmosphere were already too high to prevent runaway greenhouse warming.

So…we were already doomed and unable to prevent runaway greenhouse warming in 2009. Guess that means we're doomed for certain.

link

Scientists Identify Possible 'Tipping Point' of Global Warming

According to the research, synchronization of climate variability in the North Pacific and North Atlantic Oceans is that tipping point – where rapid melting of ice and further warming may become irreversible. This is what happened a few hundred years before the rapid warming that took place at the end of the last ice age about 15,000 years ago.

Yeah, I remember all of those pre neanderthal sweat shops burning all of that dinosaur dung to power the plants and heat the homes and businesses…what other explanation than man-made pollution could their possibly be?

The study, published this week in the journal Science, suggests that this combined ocean warming may have forced the Earth's climate past the point of no return.

OK, so we're already completely and totally doomed because of natural cycles that occur naturally and are beyond our control – just as they were the last time this happened. Plant as many trees as you want, WE'RE DOOMED!

<<sigh>>

I understand there is a new tipping point set for 2016…

You know, discussing this issue with you (and other hardcore deniers) is about as useful as discussing quantum mechanics with a pig (and far less enjoyable). Why bother? You're so locked into your POV, that you'll never accept ANY data/views to the contrary. And when you can't refute the science, you attack the messenger. So what's the point of trying?

Like I said before, there's a whole lot sand out there for you to bury your head in….

Like I've said before, I'm not a denier, no matter how many times I post to the contrary or you continue to insult me with the same baseless claim. Obviously you missed this in this very thread:

…repeatedly posted that he doesn't deny that climate change is occurring, just that he doesn't believe the broken model folks know as much as they assert, nor that their claims hold water.

Just like you seem to miss every other specific statements I make in other threads. Why is that? You seem so locked in your point of view you can't accept things in black and white that don't fit your narrative. Did you even read the Duke article?

I have accepted some views contrary to what I originally held.

Pointing out the non-science and lies and worthless predictions is an attack of the "science" of the folks saying it as much, if not more than an attack on the messenger.

I don't have to refute the science of their predictions – the world and passage of time has done that quite well for me.

As for burying my head, I'm certainly not doing that – simply pointing out that the "settled science" certainly has major gaps and holes, there are alternate scientific explanations (which you seem so locked in your point of view you can't accept them) so here you are attacking the messenger.

Challenge is still on the table to find the post where I state that climate change isn't happening. You keep stating I'm a denier…prove it. I can find several posts rather easily in a number of these related threads where my posts specifically state otherwise.

Why do you continually insist on making things up? Is it just because you can't argue either against the failure of the predictions, the flaws in the models or the hypocrisy demonstrated by the IPCC itself?

about as useful as discussing quantum mechanics with a pig (and far less enjoyable).

One, you don't discuss anything with me, you just accuse and pontificate without proof to back you up. My challenges have gone unanswered.

Two, I'm not sure why you thought discussing quantum mechanics with a pig was a good use of your time. But with a specific declaration like yours and the enjoyment level you got from doing it, one must conclude that you are speaking from experience. Maybe try it with a dog? They might enjoy it even more.

link

link

are an interesting pair of write-ups from a scientist who I think does a good job of identifying problems with the IPCC approach as well as recommendations as to what is needed in climate study.

True believers need not bother as you're so locked into your POV, that you'll never accept ANY data/views to the contrary. And when you can't refute the science, you attack the messenger. But for the rest of us, it is a good read (from a REAL scientist)!

whatever…..

Nothing like consistency. Last time you came in threw around some unsubstantiated claims and when challenged, used the "Whatever" exit because you can't prove your claims.

Tell me do you always lie about others with whom you disagree? Feel some need to throw stones and then go run and hide?

You've really added nothing to either of these discussions and quickly run away when questioned. Maybe you'd have more fun explaining plumbing to a stuffed rabbit? Save yourself the time and trouble of posting your nothing posts here.

JJ you might as well say "I'm not JJ", you silly sausage (I am a Tintin fan, and though Archibald never said it, I'm presenting it as a haddockism – it comes from an old children's show called Uncle Bobby where Uncle Bobby would call the children on his show this).

You are a denier. There is no doubt in my military mind you are one. You use the same construct for a particular public figure.

Once again, I say, you do not understand science. You've proved it yet again in your response to me as you always do.

And to illustrate my point I made previously, I offer the following in good nature. Your behaviour on this topic is gloating and puts me in mind of:

I never said I don't believe in smurfs!

--
Tim

JJ- I really could care less what you think of me (that would be giving you far more credibility than you deserve). And I have absolutely no intention of getting into a fruitless discussion with you since you're so closed minded on the subject. And, its not me who's throwing around accusations of scientific malfeasance. And its also painfully obvious that you don't understand the science involved. So… As I said before, in as dismissive (and gentle) a way possible…

WHATEVER….

Tim,

Once again, I say, you do not understand science.

I understand models, and can say with some certainty that the models are badly flawed. If those are the basis for the IPCC predictions, then THEY don't understand.

What's more, all of the predictions of doom based on (apparently nonsense) come from scientists who supposedly do understand science. If so, their willingness to speak like fools does not speak highly of them or their version of science. But more on that later.

Let's see…you KNOW I'm a denier, even though:

I have acknowledged that climate change is happening – just that I don't agree that science "knows" the extent to which mankind is a contributor.

I link to a Duke University site that has an alternate scientific explanation for the pause in warming (natural variation) but that states that there is nothing to say how long it would last or that heating would not return quickly once the period ends

Threads where I specifically state that I do not dispute that it is happening and / or that we should be taking concrete steps to improve the earth:

TMP link

RavenscraftCybernetics Supporting Member of TMP 25 Apr 2015 1:11 p.m. PST
that's good news, but is it reason enough to ignore climate change and not do what can be done to not contribute to it?
I think the practical answer is no.

Terrement Supporting Member of TMP 25 Apr 2015 2:07 p.m. PST
Never suggested either ignoring it, nor do what can be done to not contribute

I' m not claiming I have data that the Duke study validates as to what IS. I am claiming that I am qualified to say that when models don't correctly predict reality when fed data leading up to that reality, the problem isn't that the models are correct and science can 't prove what the answer is but rather the models themselves are flawed.

I also agree with Weasel that steps should be taken to improve things. I don't think flawed modeling is the basis on which to decide. India has already said "Hell no" to cutting their expansion of carbon emitters needed for their economy.

But since there is scientific results that explain what is happening more accurately and more precisely, But since there is scientific results that explain what is happening more accurately and more precisely, …

which does not claim there is no climate change, just that the natural variation answer is a better fit.

Clicking around the site a bit, did you read their section on climate change?
Seems they are not deniers.

link

Terrement Supporting Member of TMP 04 May 2015 12:04 p.m. PST
Neither am I. Just don't buy crappy recommendations based on crappy models

other thread:
TMP link

There was one IPCC conference where one of the primary experts on polar bears who had expressed a position not in compliance with the official position was disinvited from the meeting by the head of the IPCC because his position was "not helpful."

challenges the politics of the folks, not the fact of climate change.

If there are reports from among the IP C scientists trying to explain the lack of warming, I don't think it is a big stretch to claim there is a lack of warming. If a university study demonstrates that the lack of warming is consistent with natural variations, I do not find it hard to accept that natural variations are the reason for what we have seen. Which is not what the IPCC models predict.

No denial there…

To continually insist the science is settled and no more work needs to be done other than look at second and third order effects when their own models do not predict reality when fed past data makes it pretty clear their models do not work – unlike Duke's. To trash economies based of 100 year projections based on predictions from models that do not work?

doesn't deny climate change, just crap recommendations from crap models.

Given how long these folks have been adding a significant carbon footprint with their around the world meetings, someone might have expected that, after all of these years, it would be more than something "they'll look into and decide…EVENTUALLY"

attacks the judgment of the folks involved and their do as I say not as I do attitude. No denial.

TMP link

Oh Look! Something not considered properly in the climate models! Makes one wonder what else they have wrong, and why it was Lawrence Livermore Laboratory and MIT and NOT not the IPCC folks who found this.

Could it be that they were so certain they were right they NEVER LOOKED AT THIS? Didn't need to…there is a consensus.

Maybe, just maybe, there is a problem as well with cloud activity modeling and water droplets or other moisture droplets in the upper atmosphere as well.

Goes back to my basic premise that they don't know as much as they think they do and by blinding themselves to outside possibilities, they can miss things, important things like this.

Attacking the modeling and the judgment of the IPCC. No denial.

This is a great illustration of how one seemingly small component of an incredibly complex and changing equation was disregarded via a simplifying assumption (we don't really have the data but it seems like this is too small of a factor to consider) turned out to have significant impact on the results.

My concerns include but are not limited to:
1. how many other simplifying assumptions are included that similarly be wrong or incorrectly modeled? I have no idea. Neither do they. But LLL just proved that they do exist, and they can have a significant impact on both the ability to predict correctly, and a more complete understanding of how the puzzle fits together.

Modeling and data. No denial

I can go on and on and on. For those who haven't noticed in all of the threads where I've posted and of course, those who KNOW things, even though it is completely contrary to my continued recurring position, here it is – and I have been consistent with this string of points:

a. the climate is changing. It always has, it always will. There were massive changes in the climate throughout history when man was not contributing greenhouse gasses. There has been change when the gasses were not in the concentrations we have today, and periods of no changes when they exceeded what we have today.

b. the models used by the IPCC are crap. This is based on over 40 years working with developing and testing computer models, combined with the fact that their models do not predict reality when fed past data.

c. because the models are crap, they are unsuitable for justification of the massive economic changes the world supposedly needs.

d. which don't make any difference since there is no workable acceptable solution regardless of what commitments are made. Germany is increasing coal usage. India has said not only will they not cut back they will continue to continue to expand their numbers of coal fired plants.

e. there is insufficient energy supplies even now with the plants that IPCC and associated folks want to discontinue.

f. wind and solar are inadequate and bring their own disruptions to the ecology here on earth.

g. Nuclear power, which could be a component has too many well funded and influential opponents to make it a viable option. A few nations were even specifically noted as opposing the policy in the last IPCC report, and here in the US the anti-nuke lobby and those in government supported by them have successfully kept any new plants from being built for decades.

h. even fully supported government run programs are no guarantee, as evidenced by Spain's abysmal failure, which resulted in both less energy and higher prices.

i. The IPCC itself is either hypocritical or stupid, as demonstrated by such things as their inability after all of these decades to decide whether they should stop taking trips for the IPCC conferences and do it differently (Well, duh!) as well as the ludicrous claim that that there most recent conference, largest carbon footprint ever (I seem to recall) 1.5 times the previous one, which at the time was the largest) was completely offset by the forests surrounding the location. If they believe that, they are fools. If they don't believe it and still claim it, they liars.

j. the IPCC scientists are derelict in not speaking out and educating the world when non-scientists make exorbitant claims that are not scientifically based.

k. the IPCC scientists themselves are derelict in their duties and either liars or woefully self-deceiving when they themselves are the source of unfounded (and yet to come true) doom and gloom "the sky is falling" and tipping point predictions.

NOTHING in that says I deny climate change, no matter what you claim or believe or "know." Folks don't have to lie about what my positions are – I've said them enough times in enough threads that there is plenty of real substance to argue about without the total BS from coastal 2, or Tim's good-natured but incorrect ribbing.

How about switching gears and READING the Duke study and commenting on why natural variability isn't a better explanation.

How about explaining the scientific basis for the IPCC claims about the offset of their footprint at the last IPCC event? I don't understand science? OK, explain how they are correct here and I'm not.

How about addressing the politicalization of the IPCC that turns away recognized experts because "their position is not helpful." That's real science?

How about explaining how IPCC isn't about politics when the politicians write the conclusions and positions and then the scientific papers are edited to match?

How about explaining why studies and scientists who get funded by RW or fuel based sources are discredited right off without even addressing what they have claimed while there is no similar discredit for studies and science funded by LW sources, LW universities, and governments who prefer to support global warming as a driver to allow them to force their agendas?

How about explaining why is green power is the answer right now, that Spain failed so miserably?

Am I gloating? Do you find it comical? Fine I'll readily admit I am gloating, simply because as I've said the IPCC and associated crowd and spokespersons and toadies are lying hypocrites proved to be so wrong so often, even though they are supposedly the ones with all the answers, the settled science, and other such nonsense. Is it comical? I find it laughable that guys like Hansen can still be revered and held in such high regard when he pontificates as he does and makes such wild assed predictions that no one points out that the emperor has no clothes. I find it pathetic that so many are so wedded to a single path of beliefs on the subject that they preclude honest disagreement and better analysis as recommended by such folks as Judith Curry who I linked above.

I I think that it is comical that the tin hatters like a number of folks here insist the sky is falling, they can prove it, they KNOW what is really in my mind and heart (though they can't produce a post that says so, and there are MANY that contradict them) when in fact, the reality is much different.

So believe in smurfs or not, laugh at me or not, I've raised a number of valid points where the messenger gets attacked, name calling takes place, insults are hurled, but somehow, there is no response (other than Tim's earlier in this thread) where any of the believers will take on the substance of what I've shown in black and white to be true.

And I find that extremely funny.

JJ

JJ- I really could care less what you think of me

I think you mean "couldn't"

And I have absolutely no intention of getting into a fruitless discussion with you since you're so closed minded on the subject.

You haven't discussed anything, and I am no more close minded than many others here like Martin, and Tim, and you. I just have a difference of opinion, but it is one that is backed up by reality.

And, its not me who's throwing around accusations of scientific malfeasance.

Nor am I. I'm not throwing around accusations. I'm stating provable facts. The lack of volcanic activity in IPCC modeling is a fact. the head of the IPCC disinviting the polar bear expert is a fact. The IPCC not being able to figure out "until they get more clarity" that the carbon footprint of their travels and meetings is a fact. Their claim that they offset their footprint with pre-existing woodlands is a fact. the models not predicting reality is a fact. Seems like a lot of facts and not so much accusations.

And I think you mean "it's"

And its also painfully obvious that you don't understand the science involved.

Unlike of course the "real" scientists who talk through their ass making wild predictions that never come true? THEY understand, but I don't? Really?

So… As I said before, in as dismissive (and gentle) a way possible

Be as dismissive as you like and as lame as you choose. You shouldn't go around lying about things and then refuse to back them up. When you do you should expect to be called on it. But this is not two different threads where you've called me a denier, failed to produce any evidence and then "whatevered" off into the sunset when challenged.

So, gently or not, whether you choose to respond or not, I'd appreciate it if you'd stop with the false claims and accusations and stick to what I've actually posted and linked for your comments. There is no shortage of fertile ground to plow there. Or is that somehow an unrealistic request?

JJ

Boy JJ, reading some of those comments there must be a major attraction in the DH for you…

You already know my views on the subject so I won't repeat them!

Rob

Rob

Perhaps, and if so then off I go. Like you imply, won't be virgin territory for me either. I don't push the complaint button, but if I go, it seems like a lot of personal attacks leveled against me should bring me some number of fellows to keep me company. I've said nothing that isn't true, and in responding to the specifics of attacks I don't think I've overstepped the rules here. Could be wrong. For example "I think you mean "couldn't" but then being precise isn't your long suit." isn't a personal attack if it is demonstratively true. Which it is. It is just a statement of fact. Although it would be more correct if I said that neither precision nor accuracy were his long suits. Still demonstratively true.

I have a long history of not silently sitting by when folks lie about what I have and have not posted, and I take exception to folks who seem to have the ability, despite all evidence to the contrary, to KNOW what I REALLY believe, as opposed to what I continually post.

Why should I not?

That won't change, even if the DH is the result. Seems like lying should be a DH'able offence as well, but apparently since it isn't specifically against TMP rules, the site will allow it to go unnoticed and unpunished.

I don't.

JJ

I understand models, and can say with some certainty that the models are badly flawed.

OK, I'm going to be a head in the shape of a reproductive organ here and nit pick: You can understand how the software behind a model works. But to understand what is being modelled, you must be able to understand what the model is about to understand the model. I've mentioned (only about 15 trillion times on TMP) I've been involved with computer simulations, in the last century – it really has been a long time.

Nonetheless, the first simulation I was involved with, the contractor spent a lot of time with us going over exactly how different aspects being modelled were affecting the outcome, justified choices made with operational research, direct experience with optics, and so on. We all knew what was happening inside out. The second one I was involved with, I did not understand quite as much, just the area I was involved with which had to do with soil strengths. Another modelling I was involved with has to do with shaped charges against incoming projectiles and other than a basic understanding of how shaped charges work (which most of us who play WWII and later war games, at least, understand), I was clueless. But in that case I was project managing a pile 'o scientists and a technology company.

I don't pretend to understand the details of the science and methods of models that scientists are using. I have piles of respect for the things you've done in your career we've talked about publicly and privately, but I don't think you can make the claim either unless you understand both the methods being used and the science behind it.

the climate is changing. It always has, it always will. There were massive changes in the climate throughout history when man was not contributing greenhouse gasses.

There it is right there. That's you position. You are clearly saying "the same thing has happened before", a standard mantra of the global warming deniers. I am a big fan of paleo-geography and yes, there are many different theories well supported by evidence about climate change in the past. But you are forgetting one very, very major thing about humankind's involvement with the environment. Carbon dioxide is thought to have had a lot to do with, I think the big huge major mass extinction where 95 or 96% of all life on land and sea was extinguished and there are a number of things associated with that. The other big climate changers have to do with continental drift and glaciation.

But what key element of those climate changes are we missing? What others are we missing in your quoted claim directly above.

Time is the first one. The others can be summed up by simply stating that the very same paleo-sciences that show us that climate has changed demonstrate very clearly that climate change has to do with stuff happening – continental drift, Siberian traps (I always think about the geology of Yellowstone Park in the US when I read about the Siberian Traps), sun activity and so on. NOW, it's humankind that is causing it.

As I've mentioned 16.78 billion times already, in 2-300 years, not even a microsecond in geological time, we've been releasing potential energy that has built up over 100s of millions of years, probably billions, if one is familiar with pre-cambian paleontology (it's not even called precambrian anymore, I don't think) and how breathable oxygen arose from anerobic bacteria. Not even 300 years and all that energy.

Yup, climate change is occurring naturally, but we are the propelling factor that is driving it. I know a lot of folks think we have nothing to do with it. But, to think that all the above mentioned release of PE stored over hard-to-imagine long periods of time is not having any effect at all is completely unimaginable to me.

That's the part you are keen to deny and you can protest much, JJ, but again, the above quote shows it.

(That and you previous uses of "anthropomorphic climate change" which is, in my very unscientific feeling, a term that climate change deniers use constantly.)

All the best, OVER (our French speaking units used a term "α vous" instead of over, which translates to "to you", much more appropriate in this case!)
--
Timmy Smurf

PS, does anyone get the impression that we are buck bucking endlessly like chickens in a different hen houses (aka topics) over this subject?

The quote shows that it happened before, but does not mean that as it is happening now, pollution isn't a contributor, I just question the extent to which it is and whether it is modeled correctly.

That's how I've always couched it. That does not prove I am a denier. Sorry, but you are incorrect.

Yup, climate change is occurring naturally, but we are the propelling factor that is driving it. I know a lot of folks think we have nothing to do with it. But, to think that all the above mentioned release of PE stored over hard-to-imagine long periods of time is not having any effect at all is completely unimaginable to me.

That's the part you are keen to deny and you can protest much, JJ, but again, the above quote shows it.

Again you are mistaken. I never claimed it has nothing to do with it. I've never claimed that it is not having any effect. Please show me where I have varied from my position.

Am I lying about my agreement with the Duke University study? If so, why? Because of a descriptive term I use? Does that study deny climate change? No? Seems pretty clear. You can go back through years of my posts, and the common thread is "the models suck and I don't know the extent to which CO2 is a factor, and don't think the IPCC does either."

As for the use of terminology, the fact that I use terms that other groups use does not make me a member of that group. If it did, I think you'll also find I use terms used by the IPCC. Does that make me a believer? Hardly.

Tim, you trying to stretch my position into what it is not is no different than the scientists who have demonstratively crap models but insist they are a sound method for driving policy. Doesn't fit.

I don't think you can make the claim either unless you understand both the methods being used and the science behind it.

Whether I understand the science behind it or not, the evidence is pretty clear that if the predictive model fails to predict accurately when fed historical data. On that basis alone and even without my background, it is pretty clear the models are crap.

Have you read the two articles I recommended by Judith Curry? Please do and comment on them. I think she has some very legitimate points.

Bwaaaaaack!