Quote:

Time to dump the discredited IPCC by Cory Bernardi is a South Australian Liberal senator When any public organisation is exposed as being incompetent and deceptive, thereby destroying any semblance of credibility, it needs to be disbanded. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is one such body. The so-called authoritative voice for climate change, used by the global warming alarmists to justify their hysterical claims, has been caught relying on flawed documents, dodgy data and fanciful science to try and change the world. Many of us have suspected for some time that the IPCC was pursuing a political agenda rather than being a dispassionate provider of information. However, few suspected the astonishing scale of the campaign by members of the IPCC to further the alarmist cause. Clearly, these are people who don’t allow the facts to get in the way of their opinion. Alarmists have claimed that the IPCC reports were the conclusion of over 2500 climate scientists. The fact that only a handful of scientists contributed to the climate change section was conveniently overlooked. Climate realists have had the words ‘peer-reviewed’ thrust in their face by the alarmists and used to stifle debate or to denigrate dissenters. Now it turns out that “peer-reviewed” and “factual” can apply to nonsense taken from virtually any source that agrees with the IPCC agenda. Take for example the great Himalayan glacier melting hoax. According to the IPCC, these glaciers could disappear by 2035. The alarmists went wild stating it was almost too late to save the world. They ignored the fact that this claim was never made by the scientist it was attributed to, although it was used by the chairman of the IPCC to justify a massive research grant to his own organisation. What about the rise in natural disasters that would occur due to global warming? read the rest here http://australianconservative.com/2010/01/time-to-dump-the-discredited-ipcc/

Two  big PIGS....!!!

Maurice Strong and Al Gore
http://i39.tinypic.com/2a8er8i.jpg



Quote:

"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsiblity to bring that about?" - Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme

Quote:

"If we don't change, our species will not survive... Frankly, we may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse." -Maurice Strong quoted in the September 1, 1997 edition of National Review magazine.

Quote:

Peer review: the skeptic filter by Judith Curry As the IPCC struggles with its inconvenient truth – the pause and the growing discrepancy between models and observations – the obvious question is: why is the IPCC just starting to grapple with this issue now, essentially two minutes before midnite of the release of the AR5? Well I suspect that the short answer is that they didn’t think it was important and/or they thought they could get away with ignoring it; after all they are the experts and in charge of the ‘consensus.’    It seems that reviewers and policy makers have been clamoring for the IPCC to address this issue; I suspect that David Rose’s MSM assault on this issue, largely fueled by blogospheric analysis, has played a significant role here. A few weeks ago, I ran a  post Overestimated global warming over the past 20 years that referred to a recent paper published in Nature Climate Change by Fyfe et al.  This paper starkly laid out the discrepancy between CMIP5 model projections and observations of global surface temperature change.  This wasn’t exactly news to those of us who follow the skeptical blogosphere; we have seen similar analyses by John Christy (presented in his Congressional testimony) and the analysis of Ed Hawkins that was made famous by David Rose’s article. read the rest here http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/19/peer-review-the-skeptic-filter/

Burt Rutan's analysis of the IPCC and their data manipulation.

http://rps3.com/Files/AGW/EngrCritique.AGW-Science.v4.3.pdf

Quote:

ClimateDepot Analysis: UN IPCC Hides The Decline: ‘They are comparing a statistically insignificant amount of warming since 1998, with three decades of cooling. The result is to make this small trend sound much more significant than it is’ – ‘By this dodgy use of statistics and the 1998 red herring, they have also tried to distract attention from the clear fact that temperatures really have flatlined since 2001′ http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/09/29/analysis-un-ipcc-hides-the-decline-they-are-comparing-a-statistically-insignificant-amount-of-warming-since-1998-with-three-decades-of-cooling-the-result-is-to-make-this-small-trend-sound-much-m/

http://i44.tinypic.com/nn3d60.png http://i39.tinypic.com/2lw2dmo.png

IPCC stand for "I need to know how a train works"

IC the Koch army is out in force tonight. Hey fellas. What do you call a "skeptic" who only ever pushes one side of the argument. A propagandist

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Oct 16^th, 2013 at 7:00pm:

IC the Koch army is out in force tonight. What do you call a "skeptic" who only ever pushes one side of the argument. A propagandist

hmm I would have guessed an AGW'r, but then again, a fraud that follows a fraud, isnt exactly going to tell you that they are a fraud are they.

When you wake up maybe.

Vuk11 wrote on Oct 15^th, 2013 at 11:57am:

Burt Rutan's analysis of the IPCC and their data manipulation. ...

http://rps3.com/Files/AGW/Rutan.AGWdataAnalysis%20v11.pdf
Quote:

My study is NOT as a climatologist, but from a completely different perspective ...

Quote:

[I] do not hide the fact that I have a clear bias on AGW. My bias is based on fear of Government expansion ...

So his view, on a field in which he has no qualifications, is based on ideology. Credibility zero.

Well, I think horses for courses so, any person/group found to be discredited perhaps should be dumped.

Now, we need a whole new group to work out what is truly discredited, what is discredited by propaganda and what is claimed to be discredited but the actual claim is discredited. I think that needs to stop right there, it might get complex, confusing and inconsistent - oh wait, that would fit the model presented as debate so far...

We don't need another political group like the IPCC.

What we need is scientists from both sides to come to some sort of an agreement of whether or not AGW is real and if it needs mitigating.

Get the IPCC and all other political bodies OUT...!!!

Ajax wrote on Oct 18^th, 2013 at 9:45pm:

We don't need another political group like the IPCC. What we need is scientists from both sides to come to some sort of an agreement of whether or not AGW is real and if it needs mitigating. Get the IPCC and all other political bodies OUT...!!!

So, in short, we need a consensus.

Phemanderac wrote on Oct 19^th, 2013 at 7:23am:

Ajax wrote on Oct 18th, 2013 at 9:45pm: We don't need another political group like the IPCC. What we need is scientists from both sides to come to some sort of an agreement of whether or not AGW is real and if it needs mitigating. Get the IPCC and all other political bodies OUT...!!! So, in short, we need a consensus.

Not at all........!!!!

Scientists from both sides using science to determine if indeed AGW is a real threat to the whole planet.

No political bodies whatsoever.

Everything gets layed out on the table including things like Mann's computer program of the hockey stick.

No stone is left unturned.

Ajax wrote on Oct 19^th, 2013 at 9:26am:

Phemanderac wrote on Oct 19th, 2013 at 7:23am: Ajax wrote on Oct 18th, 2013 at 9:45pm: We don't need another political group like the IPCC. What we need is scientists from both sides to come to some sort of an agreement of whether or not AGW is real and if it needs mitigating. Get the IPCC and all other political bodies OUT...!!! So, in short, we need a consensus. Not at all........!!!! Scientists from both sides using science to determine if indeed AGW is a real threat to the whole planet. No political bodies whatsoever. Everything gets layed out on the table including things like Mann's computer program of the hockey stick. No stone is left unturned.

"
con·sen·sus
  [kuhn-sen-suhs]  Show IPA 

noun, plural con·sen·sus·es. 
1.
majority of opinion: The consensus of the group was that they should meet twice a month. 

2.
general agreement or concord; harmony.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Origin: 
1850–55;  < Latin,  equivalent to consent ( īre ) to be in agreement, harmony ( con-  con- + sentīre  to feel; cf. sense) + -tus  suffix of v. action


Can be confused:  census, consensus (see usage note at the current entry).


Usage note
Many say that the phrase consensus of opinion  is redundant and hence should be avoided: The committee's statement represented a consensus of opinion.  The expression is redundant, however, only if consensus  is taken in the sense “majority of opinion” rather than in its equally valid and earlier sense “general agreement or concord.” Criticism of consensus of opinion  has been so persistent and widespread that the phrase, even though in common use, occurs only infrequently in edited formal writing. The phrase general consensus  is objected to for similar reasons."


You did say, some sort of an agreement initially.

That said. I think that there are many who would and do argue that science has in fact done this, please understand that is an observation and not an opinion. I acknowledge that there are many who would say they haven't.

Of course, for what you suggest to actually occur that would mean a whole lot of non scientists who have a huge investment now in this debate would be out of the picture. Of itself that might not be such a bad thing.

And of course, the other significant barrier to your suggestion is that scientific research relies on funding at some level. Demonstrably the funding body can have an immense impact on the final findings, whether that is Government funding or a private industry. I think this is why the peer reviewed system is generally relied on, because that requires a bit of a "consensus" from a number of scientists who, by virtue of being a group, have a more widely varied range of "funders". Admittedly it is still not fool proof, but then anything with people involved is generally not going to be fool proof, possibly because our one consistency is a demonstrated capacity to produce fools (an observation, not a slight or comment about anyone particularly).

Arguably, that does not give much support for simply dumping the IPCC because having been discredited presently at least is merely opinion. It will always depend on who you talk to as to how much credibility either the IPCC has, or its detractors. That is what stands out in this entire debate to me. Neither side on the coal face at least appears particularly respectful of the other team, or their views, perspectives or even the information they have relied on to reach their conclusions.

This entire debate has occurred several times in our recent history and, sadly, the stand out thing is that the real underlying issue is about making money. I would directly site the tobacco industry and the struggle to convince people about the now accepted harmful effects of carcinogenic substances used in tobacco products, Asbestos and the now accepted and demonstrable harm that can do and Lead in petrol and a range of other "consumable" products as three prime examples of the power of making money trumping that old chestnut scientific understanding, at least for a while. They are prime examples though of demonstrably harmful human interactions that, in effect, were allowed to propagate because of the huge amounts of money they could generate and, even in the face of pointed and seemingly irrefutable evidence, were able to argue some campaign to protect their profits over human health.

Now, AGW may or may not be the next "tobacco/lead/asbestos" on the table, I don't know. I am concerned (and apologies for any offense that this comment causes) that the debate is shaping up the same as all three of the above ones. The significant difference here it would seem though is that, if AGW is in fact real and if we are harming our environment critically, then it won't be individuals dying horribly from Cancer, Asbestosis or Lead poisoning (as disgusting as that is) but entire nations potentially, entire species including our own even - yeah I know that is an absolute worst case scenario (at least one has to hope it is).

Ajax wrote on Oct 15^th, 2013 at 12:21pm:

Quote: ClimateDepot Analysis: UN IPCC Hides The Decline: ‘They are comparing a statistically insignificant amount of warming since 1998, with three decades of cooling. The result is to make this small trend sound much more significant than it is’ – ‘By this dodgy use of statistics and the 1998 red herring, they have also tried to distract attention from the clear fact that temperatures really have flatlined since 2001′ http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/09/29/analysis-un-ipcc-hides-the-decline-they-are-comparing-a-statistically-insignificant-amount-of-warming-since-1998-with-three-decades-of-cooling-the-result-is-to-make-this-small-trend-sound-much-m/ http://i44.tinypic.com/nn3d60.png http://i39.tinypic.com/2lw2dmo.png

The argument about which bits are used is an interesting one. It seems there has been an ongoing warming trend over centuries, however, within that period there are examples of relative cooling. I have seen it highlighted that this is an example of cherry picking, i.e. pick a decade with cooling and ignore the bigger picture. It does seem to my simple brain that the bigger picture demonstrates and overall warming trend. Just saying.

Phemanderac wrote on Oct 19^th, 2013 at 12:58pm:

Ajax wrote on Oct 15th, 2013 at 12:21pm: Quote: ClimateDepot Analysis: UN IPCC Hides The Decline: ‘They are comparing a statistically insignificant amount of warming since 1998, with three decades of cooling. The result is to make this small trend sound much more significant than it is’ – ‘By this dodgy use of statistics and the 1998 red herring, they have also tried to distract attention from the clear fact that temperatures really have flatlined since 2001′ http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/09/29/analysis-un-ipcc-hides-the-decline-they-are-comparing-a-statistically-insignificant-amount-of-warming-since-1998-with-three-decades-of-cooling-the-result-is-to-make-this-small-trend-sound-much-m/ http://i44.tinypic.com/nn3d60.png http://i39.tinypic.com/2lw2dmo.png The argument about which bits are used is an interesting one. It seems there has been an ongoing warming trend over centuries, however, within that period there are examples of relative cooling. I have seen it highlighted that this is an example of cherry picking, i.e. pick a decade with cooling and ignore the bigger picture. It does seem to my simple brain that the bigger picture demonstrates and overall warming trend. Just saying.

its also the RATE of warming that is critical. There are no known natural mechanisms that can account for the RATE of increase in global warming.

So what is driving this warming trend?

(remember in the 1990s a global agreement between all nations, banned the use of CFCs which were linked to the depletion of the ozone layer etc. In a very short period, CFCs were identified as the culprit or chemical driver that was causing disruption to the Ozone layer. Action was taken to ban CFCs and alternative refrigerants introduced into industry etc. You can see why there is resistance to take action on AGW and climate change - there are BIG profits to be made by Big Fossil fuel corporations, and states are reliant on these resources. Wars are fought over these valuable resources. So the lies and spin will continue I am afraid)

Phemanderac wrote on Oct 19^th, 2013 at 12:53pm:

" con·sen·sus   [kuhn-sen-suhs]  Show IPA  noun, plural con·sen·sus·es.  1. majority of opinion: The consensus of the group was that they should meet twice a month.  2. general agreement or concord; harmony. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Origin:  1850–55;  < Latin,  equivalent to consent ( īre ) to be in agreement, harmony ( con-  con- + sentīre  to feel; cf. sense) + -tus  suffix of v. action Can be confused:  census, consensus (see usage note at the current entry). Usage note Many say that the phrase consensus of opinion  is redundant and hence should be avoided: The committee's statement represented a consensus of opinion.  The expression is redundant, however, only if consensus  is taken in the sense “majority of opinion” rather than in its equally valid and earlier sense “general agreement or concord.” Criticism of consensus of opinion  has been so persistent and widespread that the phrase, even though in common use, occurs only infrequently in edited formal writing. The phrase general consensus  is objected to for similar reasons." You did say, some sort of an agreement initially. That said. I think that there are many who would and do argue that science has in fact done this, please understand that is an observation and not an opinion. I acknowledge that there are many who would say they haven't. Of course, for what you suggest to actually occur that would mean a whole lot of non scientists who have a huge investment now in this debate would be out of the picture. Of itself that might not be such a bad thing. And of course, the other significant barrier to your suggestion is that scientific research relies on funding at some level. Demonstrably the funding body can have an immense impact on the final findings, whether that is Government funding or a private industry. I think this is why the peer reviewed system is generally relied on, because that requires a bit of a "consensus" from a number of scientists who, by virtue of being a group, have a more widely varied range of "funders". Admittedly it is still not fool proof, but then anything with people involved is generally not going to be fool proof, possibly because our one consistency is a demonstrated capacity to produce fools (an observation, not a slight or comment about anyone particularly). Arguably, that does not give much support for simply dumping the IPCC because having been discredited presently at least is merely opinion. It will always depend on who you talk to as to how much credibility either the IPCC has, or its detractors. That is what stands out in this entire debate to me. Neither side on the coal face at least appears particularly respectful of the other team, or their views, perspectives or even the information they have relied on to reach their conclusions. This entire debate has occurred several times in our recent history and, sadly, the stand out thing is that the real underlying issue is about making money. I would directly site the tobacco industry and the struggle to convince people about the now accepted harmful effects of carcinogenic substances used in tobacco products, Asbestos and the now accepted and demonstrable harm that can do and Lead in petrol and a range of other "consumable" products as three prime examples of the power of making money trumping that old chestnut scientific understanding, at least for a while. They are prime examples though of demonstrably harmful human interactions that, in effect, were allowed to propagate because of the huge amounts of money they could generate and, even in the face of pointed and seemingly irrefutable evidence, were able to argue some campaign to protect their profits over human health. Now, AGW may or may not be the next "tobacco/lead/asbestos" on the table, I don't know. I am concerned (and apologies for any offense that this comment causes) that the debate is shaping up the same as all three of the above ones. The significant difference here it would seem though is that, if AGW is in fact real and if we are harming our environment critically, then it won't be individuals dying horribly from Cancer, Asbestosis or Lead poisoning (as disgusting as that is) but entire nations potentially, entire species including our own even - yeah I know that is an absolute worst case scenario (at least one has to hope it is).

You have missed the point once again.

Its not about getting scientists from both sides to a meeting every 2 months or so.

Its about getting scientists from both sides to work together on the science of Anthropogenic global warming.

That would be research worth following.

Ajax wrote on Oct 20^th, 2013 at 10:29am:

Phemanderac wrote on Oct 19th, 2013 at 12:53pm: " con·sen·sus   [kuhn-sen-suhs]  Show IPA  noun, plural con·sen·sus·es.  1. majority of opinion: The consensus of the group was that they should meet twice a month.  2. general agreement or concord; harmony. You did say, some sort of an agreement initially. That said. I think that there are many who would and do argue that science has in fact done this, please understand that is an observation and not an opinion. I acknowledge that there are many who would say they haven't. Of course, for what you suggest to actually occur that would mean a whole lot of non scientists who have a huge investment now in this debate would be out of the picture. Of itself that might not be such a bad thing. And of course, the other significant barrier to your suggestion is that scientific research relies on funding at some level. Demonstrably the funding body can have an immense impact on the final findings, whether that is Government funding or a private industry. I think this is why the peer reviewed system is generally relied on, because that requires a bit of a "consensus" from a number of scientists who, by virtue of being a group, have a more widely varied range of "funders". Admittedly it is still not fool proof, but then anything with people involved is generally not going to be fool proof, possibly because our one consistency is a demonstrated capacity to produce fools (an observation, not a slight or comment about anyone particularly). Arguably, that does not give much support for simply dumping the IPCC because having been discredited presently at least is merely opinion. It will always depend on who you talk to as to how much credibility either the IPCC has, or its detractors. That is what stands out in this entire debate to me. Neither side on the coal face at least appears particularly respectful of the other team, or their views, perspectives or even the information they have relied on to reach their conclusions. This entire debate has occurred several times in our recent history and, sadly, the stand out thing is that the real underlying issue is about making money. I would directly site the tobacco industry and the struggle to convince people about the now accepted harmful effects of carcinogenic substances used in tobacco products, Asbestos and the now accepted and demonstrable harm that can do and Lead in petrol and a range of other "consumable" products as three prime examples of the power of making money trumping that old chestnut scientific understanding, at least for a while. They are prime examples though of demonstrably harmful human interactions that, in effect, were allowed to propagate because of the huge amounts of money they could generate and, even in the face of pointed and seemingly irrefutable evidence, were able to argue some campaign to protect their profits over human health. Now, AGW may or may not be the next "tobacco/lead/asbestos" on the table, I don't know. I am concerned (and apologies for any offense that this comment causes) that the debate is shaping up the same as all three of the above ones. The significant difference here it would seem though is that, if AGW is in fact real and if we are harming our environment critically, then it won't be individuals dying horribly from Cancer, Asbestosis or Lead poisoning (as disgusting as that is) but entire nations potentially, entire species including our own even - yeah I know that is an absolute worst case scenario (at least one has to hope it is). You have missed the point once again. Its not about getting scientists from both sides to a meeting every 2 months or so. Its about getting scientists from both sides to work together on the science of Anthropogenic global warming. That would be research worth following.

If I didn't know better I would have thought this response was simply being ironic.

I didn't miss any point by the way, and, I would suggest respectfully you demonstrate at least two or more examples that are irrefutable demonstrations of my "missing the point" as you infer that this is something I have done repeatedly.

I would also suggest (respectfully) that the "point" was possibly not articulated all that clearly or succinctly, because, the very first statement clearly articulated "reaching an agreement" which, by definition (it was the definition of the word consensus which I posted) is a consensus. How was that missing the point exactly? Getting "scientists from both sides to work together" is an entirely different "point" to that which you originally articulated. The "meeting every two months" bit by the way was an example given in the dictionary and NOT my suggestion, just by the by.
As nice and Peachey as your suggestion sounds, I reckon the mechanisms are already in place for "getting together", however, they are not utilised by either "side" presently, because it would seem each team has too much invested in their individual cause to be interested in meeting halfway...
Please refrain from accusing me of missing points when the points are not clearly articulated...

I'm not proposing a consensus or meetings about global warming.

What 'm proposing is that both sides get together to nut out the science.

Bin what needs to be binned and develop what needs developing.

In other words the science is what matters and nothing else.