Jump to content


Confirmed - Global Warming caused by humans


  • Please log in to reply
29 replies to this topic

#1 Bull Gator

Bull Gator

    Anarchist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 29,280 posts

Posted 26 September 2013 - 11:52 PM

http://t.nbcnews.com...ming-8C11266754

Troubling

#2 Micksails

Micksails

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 243 posts
  • Location:Bellingham, WA.

Posted 27 September 2013 - 12:18 AM

Yes, Troubling that you brought this up.



#3 R Booth

R Booth

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 37,280 posts
  • Location:Just out of eyesight....
  • Interests:Postponing my funeral 'til tomorrow....

Posted 27 September 2013 - 12:21 AM

Yeah, I fuking hate the cold.

 

Go The Coal!.....



#4 Saorsa

Saorsa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,666 posts

Posted 27 September 2013 - 01:19 AM

None of the other critters have thermometers to measure it.



#5 Happy Jack

Happy Jack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,938 posts
  • Location:Florida

Posted 27 September 2013 - 03:42 AM

Who knew Gator was human?



#6 tuk tuk joe

tuk tuk joe

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,205 posts

Posted 27 September 2013 - 06:05 AM

Human respiration is the culprit..

#7 zzrider

zzrider

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,746 posts
  • Location:New England
  • Interests:Sailing, motorcycling

Posted 27 September 2013 - 08:36 AM

Accepting for the sake of argument that this is true, how do you square this troubling concern with continued support of an economic system that requires infinite future expontial growth in human population (and consumption!) in order to sustain the current generation?  Such is the nature of Ponzis.



#8 Dog

Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,671 posts

Posted 27 September 2013 - 11:43 AM

This is news? We were told the science was settled 15 years ago.

#9 monsoon

monsoon

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 207 posts

Posted 27 September 2013 - 07:59 PM

This is news? We were told the science was settled 15 years ago.

 

Given that the IPCC report from 2000 reaches the same conclusions, only with less certainty, yes, the science is pretty settled.

 

That won't stop fools from sticking their heads back in the sand.



#10 TheFlash

TheFlash

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,614 posts
  • Location:San Francisco Bay
  • Interests:Rum

Posted 27 September 2013 - 08:16 PM

it's all you meat eaters dumping methane into the atmosphere. and farting cows. Don't forget the cows.



#11 Dog

Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,671 posts

Posted 27 September 2013 - 09:19 PM

This is news? We were told the science was settled 15 years ago.

 
Given that the IPCC report from 2000 reaches the same conclusions, only with less certainty, yes, the science is pretty settled.
 
That won't stop fools from sticking their heads back in the sand.
Yes, "settled science" which to date as failed to comport with observed reality. The scientific reaction to such a circumstance is skepticism. The belief in a theory that fails to predict what is observed is faith based.

#12 Happy Jack

Happy Jack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,938 posts
  • Location:Florida

Posted 27 September 2013 - 09:21 PM

This is news? We were told the science was settled 15 years ago.

 

Given that the IPCC report from 2000 reaches the same conclusions, only with less certainty, yes, the science is pretty settled.

 

That won't stop fools from sticking their heads back in the sand.

 

"Likelihood may be based on statistical or modeling
analyses, elicitation of expert views, or other quantitative
analyses. The categories defined in this table can be
considered to have “fuzzy” boundaries. A statement that
an outcome is “likely” means that the probability of this
outcome can range from ≥66% (fuzzy boundaries implied)"
 
 
"Characterize key findings regarding a variable (e.g., a
measured, simulated, or derived quantity or its change)
using calibrated uncertainty language that conveys the
most information to the reader"
 
It ends with this final admonition,  BOLD type in copy.
 
"In summary, communicate uncertainty carefully, using
calibrated language for key findings, and provide traceable
accounts describing your evaluations of evidence and
agreement in your chapter."
 
Ironic that they are only concerned with taking care with "Uncertaintyyet in the body of the text They say
 
"These notes define a common approach and calibrated language that can be used broadly for developing expert
judgments and for evaluating and communicating the degree of certainty in findings of the
assessment process. 
 
and
 
"The AR5 will rely on two metrics for communicating the degree of certainty in key findings:
 
• Confidence in the validity of a finding, based on the type, amount, quality, and consistency of
evidence (e.g., mechanistic understanding, theory, data, models, expert judgment) and the
degree of agreement. Confidence is expressed qualitatively.
 
• Quantified measures of uncertainty in a finding expressed probabilistically (based on statistical
analysis of observations or model results, or expert judgment)."
 
 
After reading the "Guidance Note for Lead Authors of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report
on Consistent Treatment of Uncertainties" I find no scientific, mathematical or statistical method for assigning these likelihoods. Just fuzzy euphemisms for "sell" the product. I would postulate that the lead authors of the Fifth AR are baptized followers of the Church of Warming and as such can not relied upon to offer unbiased "Expert Judgement". Why use the following Dumbo Jumbo and not just the calculated uncertainties from the science? I think I know why.... "High Agreement Limited Evidence"  That sums up the IPCC in nutshell.
 
2enp7gk.jpg
 
This ridiculous guidance has all the same scientific rigor and validity as 
 
advisory_system_yellow.gif

 

 

Link to Guidance report

 

http://www.ipcc.ch/p...idance-note.pdf



#13 Happy Jack

Happy Jack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,938 posts
  • Location:Florida

Posted 27 September 2013 - 09:27 PM

I missed this gem in the Guidance Note for Lead Authors of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report on Consistent Treatment of Uncertainties IPCC Cross-Working Group Meeting on Consistent Treatment of Uncertainties Jasper Ridge, CA, USA 6-7 July 2010

 

169pbwm.jpg

 
 
“About as likely as not” should not be used to express a lack of knowledge
 
 
So a 50/50 chance you are wrong should not be used to reflect a lack of knowledge about the outcome .....  UN FRICKEN BELEIEVABLE
 
Get out there and sell it baby...

Edited by Happy Jack, 27 September 2013 - 09:34 PM.


#14 Happy Jack

Happy Jack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,938 posts
  • Location:Florida

Posted 28 September 2013 - 05:14 AM

That sure shut everyone up....



#15 Keith

Keith

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,539 posts
  • Location:Vancouver B.C.

Posted 28 September 2013 - 05:26 AM

Yawn



#16 Happy Jack

Happy Jack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,938 posts
  • Location:Florida

Posted 28 September 2013 - 06:06 AM

Yawn

 

Get some sleep.

 

I want a White Spot Hamburger so bad... MMMM OOO



#17 monsoon

monsoon

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 207 posts

Posted 28 September 2013 - 01:20 PM

 

This is news? We were told the science was settled 15 years ago.

 
Given that the IPCC report from 2000 reaches the same conclusions, only with less certainty, yes, the science is pretty settled.
 
That won't stop fools from sticking their heads back in the sand.
Yes, "settled science" which to date as failed to comport with observed reality. The scientific reaction to such a circumstance is skepticism. The belief in a theory that fails to predict what is observed is faith based.

 

But the theory does predict what is observed. That there is unexplained decadal variability around the long term trend in no way invalidates the general theory that GHGs are the primary source of warming.



#18 Dog

Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,671 posts

Posted 28 September 2013 - 03:29 PM

monsoon, on 28 Sept 2013 - 09:24, said:


Dog, on 27 Sept 2013 - 17:23, said:


monsoon, on 27 Sept 2013 - 16:03, said:


Dog, on 27 Sept 2013 - 07:47, said:
This is news? We were told the science was settled 15 years ago.


Given that the IPCC report from 2000 reaches the same conclusions, only with less certainty, yes, the science is pretty settled.

That won't stop fools from sticking their heads back in the sand.
Yes, "settled science" which to date as failed to comport with observed reality. The scientific reaction to such a circumstance is skepticism. The belief in a theory that fails to predict what is observed is faith based.

But the theory does predict what is observed. That there is unexplained decadal variability around the long term trend in no way invalidates the general theory that GHGs are the primary source of warming.
You don’t know that what we are observing is decadal variability or that the long term trend is still operative or, if it is, to what degree is it influenced by AGW. You described it yourself as unexplained. You may be right, it may be a temporary pause or it may be the beginning of a natural cooling phase but all we do know for sure is that the predictions made based on AGW theory were wrong. That’s not proof that the theory is baseless but it certainly justifies skepticism and suggests that there is more factors in play than we considered.
It is the people who simply dismiss the inconvenient discrepancy between what has been predicted and what has been observed who have their heads in the sand.

#19 d'ranger

d'ranger

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,937 posts

Posted 28 September 2013 - 07:35 PM

http://www.telegraph...ore-common.html



#20 Regatta Dog

Regatta Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,627 posts

Posted 28 September 2013 - 11:42 PM

http://www.telegraph...ore-common.html

 

Scientists and politicians from 195 countries spent the past week debating every word in the summary, often into the early hours of the morning, including a 5am finish yesterday.

 

Well there you go.  I wonder how many of the politicians involved might have motivations which are not purely scientific-- who see a pot of gold at the end of the climate change rainbow. 



#21 d'ranger

d'ranger

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,937 posts

Posted 29 September 2013 - 12:42 AM

http://www.telegraph...ore-common.html

 

Scientists and politicians from 195 countries spent the past week debating every word in the summary, often into the early hours of the morning, including a 5am finish yesterday.

 

Well there you go.  I wonder how many of the politicians involved might have motivations which are not purely scientific-- who see a pot of gold at the end of the climate change rainbow. 

Well there you go, those facts are obviously biased.  :ph34r:



#22 Jon Eisberg

Jon Eisberg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,970 posts

Posted 29 September 2013 - 01:03 AM

http://www.telegraph...ore-common.html

 

Scientists and politicians from 195 countries spent the past week debating every word in the summary, often into the early hours of the morning, including a 5am finish yesterday.

 

Well there you go.  I wonder how many of the politicians involved might have motivations which are not purely scientific-- who see a pot of gold at the end of the climate change rainbow. 

 

On the other hand, the motivations of the fossil fuel industry, and the lobbyists and politicians they support,  are purely academic, no doubt...



#23 Saorsa

Saorsa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,666 posts

Posted 29 September 2013 - 01:30 AM

 

http://www.telegraph...ore-common.html

 

Scientists and politicians from 195 countries spent the past week debating every word in the summary, often into the early hours of the morning, including a 5am finish yesterday.

 

Well there you go.  I wonder how many of the politicians involved might have motivations which are not purely scientific-- who see a pot of gold at the end of the climate change rainbow. 

Well there you go, those facts are obviously biased.  :ph34r:

 

How many of the ones still there at 5AM were the scientists?



#24 Regatta Dog

Regatta Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,627 posts

Posted 29 September 2013 - 02:01 AM

 

http://www.telegraph...ore-common.html

 

Scientists and politicians from 195 countries spent the past week debating every word in the summary, often into the early hours of the morning, including a 5am finish yesterday.

 

Well there you go.  I wonder how many of the politicians involved might have motivations which are not purely scientific-- who see a pot of gold at the end of the climate change rainbow. 

 

On the other hand, the motivations of the fossil fuel industry, and the lobbyists and politicians they support,  are purely academic, no doubt...

 

I had no idea that the fuel industry lobbyists had a seat at the table when the report was drafted.

 

It will be interesting to see a full list of the people who drafted the document, what their titles are, and their countries of origin. 

 

I'll wager that the majority of politicians who helped craft the report had motivations that had nothing to do with science.  Simply having politicians in the group makes the report suspect bull shit. 



#25 Happy Jack

Happy Jack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,938 posts
  • Location:Florida

Posted 29 September 2013 - 05:03 AM

 

http://www.telegraph...ore-common.html

 

Scientists and politicians from 195 countries spent the past week debating every word in the summary, often into the early hours of the morning, including a 5am finish yesterday.

 

Well there you go.  I wonder how many of the politicians involved might have motivations which are not purely scientific-- who see a pot of gold at the end of the climate change rainbow. 

 

On the other hand, the motivations of the fossil fuel industry, and the lobbyists and politicians they support,  are purely academic, no doubt...

 

I'll speak for myself. Other than a few 100K invested in Exon I'm not connected with any fossil fuel industry and I'm perfectly happy to invest that elsewhere. 

 

I'd be the first to buy a practical EV. I'm pretty close with my Prius. I'll even conceded that CO2 may be warning the planet. What I won't budge on is my firm belief that there is no proposed solution on any table that isn't worse than the problem.

 

I get it ... amor terrae homines odiunt... here is an example...

 

'No children, happy to go extinct', tweets weatherman after grim climate-change report made him cry (now he's considering a vasectomy)

  • Eric Holthaus, who used to do weather for Wall Street Journal, was reacting to Friday's findings from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
  • Scientists found in the report that it was 'extremely likely' that humans are causing warming trends
  • Holthaus said he has decided not to have children in order to leave a lighter carbon footprint, and has considered having a vasectomy
  • He tweeted on Friday 'no children, happy to go extinct'
  • The weatherman also said he is committed to stop flying as 'it's not worth the climate'

People are the problem they are parasites destroying the earth and the planet would be better off without man.

 

I happen to disagree. 

 

 

 


 



#26 Gouvernail

Gouvernail

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,917 posts
  • Location:Austin Texas
  • Interests:margaritas, hippie chicks, durable flying discs for retriever dog play

Posted 29 September 2013 - 07:01 AM

Are the glaciers back yet??

#27 Happy Jack

Happy Jack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,938 posts
  • Location:Florida

Posted 29 September 2013 - 08:18 AM

Are the glaciers back yet

 

 


Yup and the IPCC  apologized for lying about them. Sort of. The IPCC doesn't have enough integrity to admit they lied or apologize, It was after all just one paragraph in a 938 page document. Ah ha ha ha Settled Science My Ass... By their own admission they substitute "Opinion" for calculated uncertainty. Using a "Likelihood Scale with finite percentages" that has no statistical, scientific or mathematical formulation or basis. 

 

Science by vote. Hey I vote the atomic number of Hydrogen should be 11. Thank God physics isn't resolved with a vote or we would be deadlocked. 30% say Bohr is or will be right, 30% wrong or will be wrong and 30% are weenies, like some others I know, who won't commit.

 

2v9ojyf.jpg

 

 

 

The IPCC is the  least scientific organ on the face of the earth after Chuckles 

 

 

IPCC statement on the melting of Himalayan glaciers
 
The Synthesis Report, the concluding document of the Fourth Assessment Report of the 
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (page 49) stated: “Climate change is expected to 
exacerbate current stresses on water resources from population growth and economic and land-use 
change, including urbanisation. On a regional scale, mountain snow pack, glaciers and small ice 
caps play a crucial role in freshwater availability. Widespread mass losses from glaciers and 
reductions in snow cover over recent decades are projected to accelerate throughout the 21st
century, reducing water availability, hydropower potential, and changing seasonality of flows in 
regions supplied by meltwater from major mountain ranges (e.g. Hindu-Kush, Himalaya, Andes), 
where more than one-sixth of the world population currently lives.” 
 
This conclusion is robust, appropriate, and entirely consistent with the underlying science and the 
broader IPCC assessment. 
 
It has, however, recently come to our attention that a paragraph in the 938-page Working Group II 
contribution to the underlying assessment  refers to poorly substantiated estimates of rate of 
recession and date for the disappearance of Himalayan glaciers. In drafting the paragraph in 
question, the clear and well-established standards of evidence, required by the IPCC procedures, 
were not applied properly.
 
The Chair, Vice-Chairs, and Co-chairs of the IPCC regret the poor application of well-established 
IPCC procedures in this instance. This episode demonstrates that the quality of the assessment 
depends on absolute adherence to the IPCC standards, including thorough review of “the quality 
and validity of each source before incorporating results from the source into an IPCC Report”. We 
reaffirm our strong commitment to ensuring this level of performance. 
 


#28 tuk tuk joe

tuk tuk joe

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,205 posts

Posted 30 September 2013 - 03:54 AM

Are the glaciers back yet??

Did the sun come up this morning? 



#29 Keith

Keith

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,539 posts
  • Location:Vancouver B.C.

Posted 30 September 2013 - 05:39 AM

http://dailycaller.c...riously-flawed/



#30 silent bob

silent bob

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,233 posts
  • Location:New Jersey

Posted 30 September 2013 - 05:54 AM

Gaytor, take the lead on this travesty. Do your part in the reduction of Global Warming Greenhouse gas CO2, stop breathing.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users