Total Posts:13|Showing Posts:1-13
Jump to topic:

IPCC alternative

16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2012 9:57:09 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Here is the shorter report, 400 pages of a more neutral association. It explores all options and concluded opposite of the IPCC. The 800 page report is also online I think.
(2011 report) http://nipccreport.org...
(2009 report) 800 pages http://www.nipccreport.org...

Thoughts?
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2012 10:34:05 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Summary plox.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2012 10:53:57 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/15/2012 10:34:05 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
Summary plox.

IPCC is corrupt and there really isn't any global warming.

Just guessing.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2012 11:01:25 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/15/2012 10:34:05 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
Summary plox.

Out of the 1200 pages? Natural factors are the main force behind current warming.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2012 11:07:11 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/15/2012 10:53:57 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 7/15/2012 10:34:05 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
Summary plox.

IPCC is corrupt and there really isn't any global warming.

Just guessing.

In the 2011 report this is the closest you get too it's a hoax:
"Considering each of the three studies described above, plus a host of others discussed in the 2009 NIPCC report, it is difficult to see how the IPCC (2007) can claim to have ferreted out all significant influences of the world‘s many and diverse urban heat islands from the temperature databases they use to portray the supposedly unprecedented warming of the past few decades."
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2012 11:08:19 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/15/2012 11:07:11 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 7/15/2012 10:53:57 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 7/15/2012 10:34:05 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
Summary plox.

IPCC is corrupt and there really isn't any global warming.

Just guessing.

In the 2011 report this is the closest you get too it's a hoax:
"Considering each of the three studies described above, plus a host of others discussed in the 2009 NIPCC report, it is difficult to see how the IPCC (2007) can claim to have ferreted out all significant influences of the world‘s many and diverse urban heat islands from the temperature databases they use to portray the supposedly unprecedented warming of the past few decades."

And page 115
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2012 11:25:44 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Heartland Institute was created for the sole purpose of catering to right-wing beliefs. Obviously you don't understand the basic tenets of the scientific method, if you think it's OK to decide what the answer is first and then produce and interpret data solely to fit that mold.

You know I am starting to wonder if this "liberal media" craze is even real. Right-wingers complain that all of the scientific community and all of the media are all working to forward liberal goals, but what it seems like to me is that they are simply pissed off that their views aren't getting supported. It seems to me like the science is clear, and they believe that science should be like politics - a game - so they come out with fake-a$$ organizations like the Heartland Institute, the Heritage Foundation, etc. and then turn science on its head by approaching it with extreme bias. In the eyes of the right-winger, science isn't about truth, it's about manipulation. They want their fair share of opportunity to manipulate the public with their views because they understand the politics is a game and even though science isn't, it becomes one because it is degraded by politics. And then to top it off, they saturate the subject with economic analyses, which direct the eye away from scientific truth and toward the Ptolemaic universe of political economic thinking. Economics never advances us towards a higher goal, never achieves a higher standard of efficiency for us, and always leaves us worse and worse off every year. The last half-century has seen nothing but a steady decline in the wealth and well-being of the average American, yet we continue to use economics as if it were a tool that's propelling us forward in some way. I'm not sure exactly what way that's supposed to be... we are always in an economic crisis, unemployment is ridiculous, wealth disparity is worse than ever, war is pretty much now just the standard state of our nation, our liberties are being curtailed at accelerating rates, our culture is so backwards I'm ashamed to be an American... And yet I'm supposed to believe its the liberal media and liberal scientists that are to blame. Yet the conservatives are the ones who support wars, who shirk the scientific community, who defend income disparity, who most vigorously support nationalism...

Anyway, if you want scientific advice about global warming, there is no shortage of institutions to look for: http://en.wikipedia.org...

If you want to instead turn to a handful of renegade right-wing institutions that take the scientific method back 3,000 years, then you're probably just going to believe what you want to believe despite what science has to say anyway.
Rob
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2012 11:33:19 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/15/2012 11:25:44 AM, Lasagna wrote:
The Heartland Institute was created for the sole purpose of catering to right-wing beliefs. Obviously you don't understand the basic tenets of the scientific method, if you think it's OK to decide what the answer is first and then produce and interpret data solely to fit that mold.

You know I am starting to wonder if this "liberal media" craze is even real. Right-wingers complain that all of the scientific community and all of the media are all working to forward liberal goals, but what it seems like to me is that they are simply pissed off that their views aren't getting supported. It seems to me like the science is clear, and they believe that science should be like politics - a game - so they come out with fake-a$$ organizations like the Heartland Institute, the Heritage Foundation, etc. and then turn science on its head by approaching it with extreme bias. In the eyes of the right-winger, science isn't about truth, it's about manipulation. They want their fair share of opportunity to manipulate the public with their views because they understand the politics is a game and even though science isn't, it becomes one because it is degraded by politics. And then to top it off, they saturate the subject with economic analyses, which direct the eye away from scientific truth and toward the Ptolemaic universe of political economic thinking. Economics never advances us towards a higher goal, never achieves a higher standard of efficiency for us, and always leaves us worse and worse off every year. The last half-century has seen nothing but a steady decline in the wealth and well-being of the average American, yet we continue to use economics as if it were a tool that's propelling us forward in some way. I'm not sure exactly what way that's supposed to be... we are always in an economic crisis, unemployment is ridiculous, wealth disparity is worse than ever, war is pretty much now just the standard state of our nation, our liberties are being curtailed at accelerating rates, our culture is so backwards I'm ashamed to be an American... And yet I'm supposed to believe its the liberal media and liberal scientists that are to blame. Yet the conservatives are the ones who support wars, who shirk the scientific community, who defend income disparity, who most vigorously support nationalism...

Anyway, if you want scientific advice about global warming, there is no shortage of institutions to look for: http://en.wikipedia.org...

If you want to instead turn to a handful of renegade right-wing institutions that take the scientific method back 3,000 years, then you're probably just going to believe what you want to believe despite what science has to say anyway.

So citing every single study the IPCC ignores is bad? Also the Wikipedia article is laughable. There are more reasons to go with the IPCC: guess who has the funding?

I have read many PDFs from both sides, and the skeptics have a better case.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2012 11:35:08 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/15/2012 11:33:19 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 7/15/2012 11:25:44 AM, Lasagna wrote:
The Heartland Institute was created for the sole purpose of catering to right-wing beliefs. Obviously you don't understand the basic tenets of the scientific method, if you think it's OK to decide what the answer is first and then produce and interpret data solely to fit that mold.

You know I am starting to wonder if this "liberal media" craze is even real. Right-wingers complain that all of the scientific community and all of the media are all working to forward liberal goals, but what it seems like to me is that they are simply pissed off that their views aren't getting supported. It seems to me like the science is clear, and they believe that science should be like politics - a game - so they come out with fake-a$$ organizations like the Heartland Institute, the Heritage Foundation, etc. and then turn science on its head by approaching it with extreme bias. In the eyes of the right-winger, science isn't about truth, it's about manipulation. They want their fair share of opportunity to manipulate the public with their views because they understand the politics is a game and even though science isn't, it becomes one because it is degraded by politics. And then to top it off, they saturate the subject with economic analyses, which direct the eye away from scientific truth and toward the Ptolemaic universe of political economic thinking. Economics never advances us towards a higher goal, never achieves a higher standard of efficiency for us, and always leaves us worse and worse off every year. The last half-century has seen nothing but a steady decline in the wealth and well-being of the average American, yet we continue to use economics as if it were a tool that's propelling us forward in some way. I'm not sure exactly what way that's supposed to be... we are always in an economic crisis, unemployment is ridiculous, wealth disparity is worse than ever, war is pretty much now just the standard state of our nation, our liberties are being curtailed at accelerating rates, our culture is so backwards I'm ashamed to be an American... And yet I'm supposed to believe its the liberal media and liberal scientists that are to blame. Yet the conservatives are the ones who support wars, who shirk the scientific community, who defend income disparity, who most vigorously support nationalism...

Anyway, if you want scientific advice about global warming, there is no shortage of institutions to look for: http://en.wikipedia.org...

If you want to instead turn to a handful of renegade right-wing institutions that take the scientific method back 3,000 years, then you're probably just going to believe what you want to believe despite what science has to say anyway.

So citing every single study the IPCC ignores is bad? Also the Wikipedia article is laughable. There are more reasons to go with the IPCC: guess who has the funding?

I have read many PDFs from both sides, and the skeptics have a better case.

Plus most climate geologists are skeptics
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2012 11:36:39 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
"History will record the NIPCC as the most significant contribution any person or group on the climate realist side of the debate made in helping society get back on track towards making climate and energy decisions that actually help the environment and society."

Tom Harris, International Climate Science Coalition
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2012 11:52:34 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/15/2012 11:33:19 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 7/15/2012 11:25:44 AM, Lasagna wrote:
The Heartland Institute was created for the sole purpose of catering to right-wing beliefs. Obviously you don't understand the basic tenets of the scientific method, if you think it's OK to decide what the answer is first and then produce and interpret data solely to fit that mold.

You know I am starting to wonder if this "liberal media" craze is even real. Right-wingers complain that all of the scientific community and all of the media are all working to forward liberal goals, but what it seems like to me is that they are simply pissed off that their views aren't getting supported. It seems to me like the science is clear, and they believe that science should be like politics - a game - so they come out with fake-a$$ organizations like the Heartland Institute, the Heritage Foundation, etc. and then turn science on its head by approaching it with extreme bias. In the eyes of the right-winger, science isn't about truth, it's about manipulation. They want their fair share of opportunity to manipulate the public with their views because they understand the politics is a game and even though science isn't, it becomes one because it is degraded by politics. And then to top it off, they saturate the subject with economic analyses, which direct the eye away from scientific truth and toward the Ptolemaic universe of political economic thinking. Economics never advances us towards a higher goal, never achieves a higher standard of efficiency for us, and always leaves us worse and worse off every year. The last half-century has seen nothing but a steady decline in the wealth and well-being of the average American, yet we continue to use economics as if it were a tool that's propelling us forward in some way. I'm not sure exactly what way that's supposed to be... we are always in an economic crisis, unemployment is ridiculous, wealth disparity is worse than ever, war is pretty much now just the standard state of our nation, our liberties are being curtailed at accelerating rates, our culture is so backwards I'm ashamed to be an American... And yet I'm supposed to believe its the liberal media and liberal scientists that are to blame. Yet the conservatives are the ones who support wars, who shirk the scientific community, who defend income disparity, who most vigorously support nationalism...

Anyway, if you want scientific advice about global warming, there is no shortage of institutions to look for: http://en.wikipedia.org...

If you want to instead turn to a handful of renegade right-wing institutions that take the scientific method back 3,000 years, then you're probably just going to believe what you want to believe despite what science has to say anyway.

So citing every single study the IPCC ignores is bad? Also the Wikipedia article is laughable. There are more reasons to go with the IPCC: guess who has the funding?

Yes research scientists are just a bunch of hacks looking for grant money, so the answer is to start giving even more grant money to research that has even less foundation in the scientific method.

I have read many PDFs from both sides, and the skeptics have a better case.

Oh please the science behind CC is complex; your opinion is at best just going to cheerlead someone that's against the theory. Don't come on here and tell me you weighed all the facts and after careful consideration you decided CC theory was lacking, it's no secret that CC theory would put your political stance in jeopardy. You see it as a threat and you are attacking it. This is where the game of politics intersects science... If CC theory was proven trrue tomorrow it would be a HUGE defeat for the right. It would be like your football team losing the Super Bowl. And I give as much credit to your objectiveness as I do a Patriots' fan rooting for them at the big game.
Rob
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2012 12:47:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/15/2012 11:52:34 AM, Lasagna wrote:
At 7/15/2012 11:33:19 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 7/15/2012 11:25:44 AM, Lasagna wrote:
The Heartland Institute was created for the sole purpose of catering to right-wing beliefs. Obviously you don't understand the basic tenets of the scientific method, if you think it's OK to decide what the answer is first and then produce and interpret data solely to fit that mold.

You know I am starting to wonder if this "liberal media" craze is even real. Right-wingers complain that all of the scientific community and all of the media are all working to forward liberal goals, but what it seems like to me is that they are simply pissed off that their views aren't getting supported. It seems to me like the science is clear, and they believe that science should be like politics - a game - so they come out with fake-a$$ organizations like the Heartland Institute, the Heritage Foundation, etc. and then turn science on its head by approaching it with extreme bias. In the eyes of the right-winger, science isn't about truth, it's about manipulation. They want their fair share of opportunity to manipulate the public with their views because they understand the politics is a game and even though science isn't, it becomes one because it is degraded by politics. And then to top it off, they saturate the subject with economic analyses, which direct the eye away from scientific truth and toward the Ptolemaic universe of political economic thinking. Economics never advances us towards a higher goal, never achieves a higher standard of efficiency for us, and always leaves us worse and worse off every year. The last half-century has seen nothing but a steady decline in the wealth and well-being of the average American, yet we continue to use economics as if it were a tool that's propelling us forward in some way. I'm not sure exactly what way that's supposed to be... we are always in an economic crisis, unemployment is ridiculous, wealth disparity is worse than ever, war is pretty much now just the standard state of our nation, our liberties are being curtailed at accelerating rates, our culture is so backwards I'm ashamed to be an American... And yet I'm supposed to believe its the liberal media and liberal scientists that are to blame. Yet the conservatives are the ones who support wars, who shirk the scientific community, who defend income disparity, who most vigorously support nationalism...

Anyway, if you want scientific advice about global warming, there is no shortage of institutions to look for: http://en.wikipedia.org...

If you want to instead turn to a handful of renegade right-wing institutions that take the scientific method back 3,000 years, then you're probably just going to believe what you want to believe despite what science has to say anyway.

So citing every single study the IPCC ignores is bad? Also the Wikipedia article is laughable. There are more reasons to go with the IPCC: guess who has the funding?

Yes research scientists are just a bunch of hacks looking for grant money, so the answer is to start giving even more grant money to research that has even less foundation in the scientific method.

People say skeptics lie for money, when alarmism is what has the big bucks. And Alarmism is not based on the scientific method.


I have read many PDFs from both sides, and the skeptics have a better case.

Oh please the science behind CC is complex; your opinion is at best just going to cheerlead someone that's against the theory. Don't come on here and tell me you weighed all the facts and after careful consideration you decided CC theory was lacking, it's no secret that CC theory would put your political stance in jeopardy. You see it as a threat and you are attacking it. This is where the game of politics intersects science... If CC theory was proven trrue tomorrow it would be a HUGE defeat for the right. It would be like your football team losing the Super Bowl. And I give as much credit to your objectiveness as I do a Patriots' fan rooting for them at the big game.

My favorite study actually concludes CO2 causes warming, it made good argunment... For an alarmist. Over 2000 studies have skeptic conclusions, and those briefs are 800 pages, half of it references. All of it studies. I bet somewhere in 400 pages of sources or appendixes there is a lot of credible studies.

Also, I see you never researched skeptic studies and only have looked into a few Wikipedia articles. Read these: http://www.populartechnology.net...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2012 4:14:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/15/2012 11:25:44 AM, Lasagna wrote:
so they come out with fake-a$$ organizations like the Heartland Institute, the Heritage Foundation, etc. and then turn science on its head by approaching it with extreme bias. In the eyes of the right-winger, science isn't about truth, it's about manipulation. ...

Here's the deal. Nearly all scientists agree the world is warming. Nearly all scientists agree that CO2 causes warming. So the dispute is how much of warming is caused by CO2 and how much by nature. CO2 believers say: we saw the earth warm rapidly from about 1975 to 1995. We have accounted for every natural cause, and there is nothing in nature causing warming. Therefore current global warming is all CO2. There were natural causes in the past, but we know those are not operating now. Climate is a solved problem.

Knowing in 2000 that nothing is currently driving climate except CO2, and with CO2 increasing, a confident prediction was made that the earth would be much warmer in 2010 than in 2000. The problem is that almost no warming occurred in the decade. It stayed hot for sure, but it didn't get any hotter. Hence skeptics are correct that climate is not a solved problem. One factor identified is the Pacific Decadal Oscillaion, a long term (60 year) climate cycle of unknown origins.

CO2 is contributing to global warming. Everyone seems to agree that the effect of CO2 is theoretically logarithm, so a lot of CO2 produces less and less warming.

M.I.T has started a new climate modeling effort in order to get it right. I'm sure scientist will eventually solve the problem and produce reliable models. It just hasn't happened yet.