Australian Politics Forum - Clearly, the IPCC are just guessing. Nothing more.

progressiveslol

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17029

Clearly, the IPCC are just guessing. Nothing more.
Jan 10^th, 2014 at 7:06am

“Clearly, the near-term figures provided by the AR5 are neither simulations nor projections. They are simply guesses.”

The IPCC discards its models

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/09/the-ipcc-discards-its-models

The IPCC have lost most of their credibility to the extent that they should be gone within a 10 year period at most. Has been a blast.

Back to top

IP Logged

Bam

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21905
Gender: male

Re: Clearly, the IPCC are just guessing. Nothing more.
Reply #1 - Jan 10^th, 2014 at 8:13am

The essay was written by Barry Brill. Who is he?

Brill is a former New Zealand politician. He has been in parliament for the National party, the New Zealand's centre right party until he was defeated in 1981. Most recently he stood as a candidate for ACT at the 2011 election.

He is also the Chairman of the misleadingly-named "New Zealand Climate Science Coalition", an anti-climate change organisation.

Hardly an unbiased source.

Back to top

You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to hold opinions that you can defend through sound, reasoned argument.

IP Logged

progressiveslol

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17029

Re: Clearly, the IPCC are just guessing. Nothing more.
Reply #2 - Jan 10^th, 2014 at 8:23am

Bam wrote on Jan 10^th, 2014 at 8:13am:

The essay was written by Barry Brill. Who is he?

Brill is a former New Zealand politician. He has been in parliament for the National party, the New Zealand's centre right party until he was defeated in 1981. Most recently he stood as a candidate for ACT at the 2011 election.

He is also the Chairman of the misleadingly-named "New Zealand Climate Science Coalition", an anti-climate change organisation.

Hardly an unbiased source.

Either is the IPCC. So your point is mute.

Anyone and everyone is qualified to show that the IPCC have changed their goal posts, discarded what they used to regard. That they dont have concensus in their report where they used to have concensus “No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.”

Back to top

IP Logged

Bam Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 21905 Gender:	Re: Clearly, the IPCC are just guessing. Nothing more. Reply #3 - Jan 10^th, 2014 at 8:26am Who funds the "New Zealand Climate Science Coalition"? The Heartland Institute, a dubious American organisation. Who funds the Heartland Institute? Big businesses including the fossil fuel industry. Follow the money ...
Back to top	You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to hold opinions that you can defend through sound, reasoned argument. IP Logged

progressiveslol

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17029

Re: Clearly, the IPCC are just guessing. Nothing more.
Reply #4 - Jan 10^th, 2014 at 8:28am

Bam wrote on Jan 10^th, 2014 at 8:26am:

Who funds the "New Zealand Climate Science Coalition"? The Heartland Institute, a dubious American organisation.

http://i2.wp.com/hot-topic.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/HeartNZCSC2007.gif

Who funds the Heartland Institute? Big businesses including the fossil fuel industry.

Follow the money ...

lol pathetic. You think that gives weight. You got nothing. The content stands on its own of the OP.

Back to top

IP Logged

Bam

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21905
Gender: male

Re: Clearly, the IPCC are just guessing. Nothing more.
Reply #5 - Jan 10^th, 2014 at 8:33am

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 10^th, 2014 at 8:23am:

Bam wrote on Jan 10^th, 2014 at 8:13am:

The essay was written by Barry Brill. Who is he?

Brill is a former New Zealand politician. He has been in parliament for the National party, the New Zealand's centre right party until he was defeated in 1981. Most recently he stood as a candidate for ACT at the 2011 election.

He is also the Chairman of the misleadingly-named "New Zealand Climate Science Coalition", an anti-climate change organisation.

Hardly an unbiased source.

Either is the IPCC. So your point is mute.

Firstly, it's MOOT, not "mute". Roll Eyes

Secondly, your point is false. The IPCC relies on peer-reviewed science papers, which means these are not published without being subjected to rigorous scrutiny. Who applies rigorous scrutiny to the publications of the NZCSC? Nobody (unless you count their corporate masters making sure that they publish satisfy their propaganda line).

Quote:

Anyone and everyone is qualified to show that the IPCC have changed their goal posts, discarded what they used to regard. That they dont have concensus in their report where they used to have concensus “No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.”

Follow the money trail for the deniers, and they lead back to the fossil fuel industry rather more often than would be expected by chance. (Assuming they haven't attempted to conceal their involvement.)

Follow the money.

Back to top

You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to hold opinions that you can defend through sound, reasoned argument.

IP Logged

progressiveslol

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17029

Re: Clearly, the IPCC are just guessing. Nothing more.
Reply #6 - Jan 10^th, 2014 at 8:42am

Bam wrote on Jan 10^th, 2014 at 8:33am:

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 10^th, 2014 at 8:23am:

Bam wrote on Jan 10^th, 2014 at 8:13am:

The essay was written by Barry Brill. Who is he?

Brill is a former New Zealand politician. He has been in parliament for the National party, the New Zealand's centre right party until he was defeated in 1981. Most recently he stood as a candidate for ACT at the 2011 election.

He is also the Chairman of the misleadingly-named "New Zealand Climate Science Coalition", an anti-climate change organisation.

Hardly an unbiased source.

Either is the IPCC. So your point is mute.

Firstly, it's MOOT, not "mute". Roll Eyes

Secondly, your point is false. The IPCC relies on peer-reviewed science papers, which means these are not published without being subjected to rigorous scrutiny. Who applies rigorous scrutiny to the publications of the NZCSC? Nobody (unless you count their corporate masters making sure that they publish satisfy their propaganda line).

Quote:

Anyone and everyone is qualified to show that the IPCC have changed their goal posts, discarded what they used to regard. That they dont have concensus in their report where they used to have concensus “No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.”

Follow the money trail for the deniers, and they lead back to the fossil fuel industry rather more often than would be expected by chance. (Assuming they haven't attempted to conceal their involvement.)

Follow the money.

Yeh yeh, you are fooling yourself, preaching to the choir. Good luck with that because you have given nothing that would change the fact “No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.”

And the fact that the OP stand on its own merit by what is available from the IPCC themselves.

As for using peer-pal-reviewed papers... pfft, selectively I might add.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jan 10^th, 2014 at 8:48am by progressiveslol »

IP Logged

Sir lastnail

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 30923
Gender: male

Re: Clearly, the IPCC are just guessing. Nothing more.
Reply #7 - Jan 10^th, 2014 at 9:26am

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 10^th, 2014 at 8:42am:

Bam wrote on Jan 10^th, 2014 at 8:33am:

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 10^th, 2014 at 8:23am:

Bam wrote on Jan 10^th, 2014 at 8:13am:

The essay was written by Barry Brill. Who is he?

Brill is a former New Zealand politician. He has been in parliament for the National party, the New Zealand's centre right party until he was defeated in 1981. Most recently he stood as a candidate for ACT at the 2011 election.

He is also the Chairman of the misleadingly-named "New Zealand Climate Science Coalition", an anti-climate change organisation.

Hardly an unbiased source.

Either is the IPCC. So your point is mute.

Firstly, it's MOOT, not "mute". Roll Eyes

Secondly, your point is false. The IPCC relies on peer-reviewed science papers, which means these are not published without being subjected to rigorous scrutiny. Who applies rigorous scrutiny to the publications of the NZCSC? Nobody (unless you count their corporate masters making sure that they publish satisfy their propaganda line).

Quote:

Anyone and everyone is qualified to show that the IPCC have changed their goal posts, discarded what they used to regard. That they dont have concensus in their report where they used to have concensus “No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.”

Follow the money trail for the deniers, and they lead back to the fossil fuel industry rather more often than would be expected by chance. (Assuming they haven't attempted to conceal their involvement.)

Follow the money.

Yeh yeh, you are fooling yourself, preaching to the choir. Good luck with that because you have given nothing that would change the fact “No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.”

And the fact that the OP stand on its own merit by what is available from the IPCC themselves.

As for using peer-pal-reviewed papers... pfft, selectively I might add.

and you know everything because you read it in Andrew Bolts column in the Herald Sun Cheesy

LOL

Back to top

"If you take out Saddam, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region..." - Benjamin Netanyahu in 1995

IP Logged

greggerypeccary Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 156197 Gender:	Re: Clearly, the IPCC are just guessing. Nothing more. Reply #8 - Jan 10^th, 2014 at 9:40am Bam wrote on Jan 10^th, 2014 at 8:13am: ... an anti-climate change organisation.
Back to top	GOP = Guardians Of Paedophiles IP Logged

cods

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 88048

Re: Clearly, the IPCC are just guessing. Nothing more.
Reply #9 - Jan 10^th, 2014 at 9:48am

Bam wrote on Jan 10^th, 2014 at 8:13am:

The essay was written by Barry Brill. Who is he?

Brill is a former New Zealand politician. He has been in parliament for the National party, the New Zealand's centre right party until he was defeated in 1981. Most recently he stood as a candidate for ACT at the 2011 election.

He is also the Chairman of the misleadingly-named "New Zealand Climate Science Coalition", an anti-climate change organisation.

Hardly an unbiased source.

Brill was national president of the New Zealand Manufacturers Federation 1988-91, and of the Electricity Supply Association in 1993-4. He was president of the Employers & Manufacturer Association (Northern) in 1998-2001 and founding Vice-President of Business New Zealand in 2002-4.
In the 1996 New Year Honours, he was awarded an OBE for services to manufacturing.[1]
More recently, Brill has been active in challenging establishment climate scientists' views on global warming.[2][3] Since 2009, he has been Chairman of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition.
Brill stood for ACT New Zealand in Northland in the 2011 general election.[4]

just putting that into perspective it wasnt ACT OZ.. Roll Eyes

its interesting that everyone is allowed an opinion as long as it is the same as those who have been conned... Roll Eyes

if it wasnt so funny it would be sick...but there you are..let them believe what they like hopefully one day someone will find a way for the true believers to be the ones that pay for it all...and us sceptics can keep our money in our pockets..

I am happy to clean up the planet...that really isnt that hard to do...driving manufacturing overseas. doesnt change the atmosphere at all. I still =like to wear shoes and clothing.all of which need to be manufactured.along with the fridge in my kitchen and the car in my driveway.I havent found a way to live without any of them I am afraid.

Back to top

IP Logged

Bam

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21905
Gender: male

Re: Clearly, the IPCC are just guessing. Nothing more.
Reply #10 - Jan 10^th, 2014 at 10:23am

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 10^th, 2014 at 8:28am:

Bam wrote on Jan 10^th, 2014 at 8:26am:

Who funds the "New Zealand Climate Science Coalition"? The Heartland Institute, a dubious American organisation.

http://i2.wp.com/hot-topic.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/HeartNZCSC2007.gif

Who funds the Heartland Institute? Big businesses including the fossil fuel industry.

Follow the money ...

lol pathetic. You think that gives weight.

OK. I will hold you to that in future with rigour. For a start, this thread is based on a biased article full of emotive language and shooting-the-messenger crap that the denial industry is built on, with no science of its own to contribute. If you're linking an article that is as biased as this, I have every damn right to provide information about the source of that article.

Quote:

You got nothing.

Claim it all you want. That doesn't make it true. Given your lack of information in your - for lack of a better word - "refutation", actually it's you that has got nothing.

You are wilfully ignoring that the climate denial movement is just the propaganda arm for the fossil fuel industry, as is amply shown by the money trail, some of which I have provided from IRS records in a previous post. And if it's not, why does the fossil fuel industry provide them with so much funding? Your weak rubbish quoted above is a pretty poor refutation not even worthy of being called an argument.

Climate models can change as new information and more powerful computers become available. So what? Glaciers are still melting in many locations, sea levels are still rising, and global temperatures still track CO₂ concentrations closely. As Galileo Galilei said: And yet it moves.

Quote:

The content stands on its own of the OP.

Pretty poor content. Any article that has to use emotive language to make a point is not objective.

Back to top

You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to hold opinions that you can defend through sound, reasoned argument.

IP Logged

Bam

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21905
Gender: male

Re: Clearly, the IPCC are just guessing. Nothing more.
Reply #11 - Jan 10^th, 2014 at 10:27am

cods wrote on Jan 10^th, 2014 at 9:48am:

Bam wrote on Jan 10^th, 2014 at 8:13am:

Brill is a former New Zealand politician. He has been in parliament for the National party, the New Zealand's centre right party until he was defeated in 1981. Most recently he stood as a candidate for ACT at the 2011 election.

Brill stood for ACT New Zealand in Northland in the 2011 general election.[4]

just putting that into perspective it wasnt ACT OZ.. Roll Eyes

I accept this correction.

Back to top

You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to hold opinions that you can defend through sound, reasoned argument.

IP Logged

greggerypeccary Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 156197 Gender:	Re: Clearly, the IPCC are just guessing. Nothing more. Reply #12 - Jan 10^th, 2014 at 10:47am "Clearly, the IPCC are just guessing. Nothing more."
Back to top	GOP = Guardians Of Paedophiles IP Logged