"The Science is Scuttled"
in [Physics]
|
Prev: arc of tractrix and circle that are equal (proofs??) #405 Correcting Math
Next: When the Large Hadron Collider goes back online in a few weeks...
From: Marvin the Martian on 19 Feb 2010 20:00 On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 16:36:12 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote: > On 2/14/10 11:37 AM, Marvin the Martian wrote: >> On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 21:26:37 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote: >> >>> On 2/9/10 7:01 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote: took a vote and agreed to >>> fake lots of photos of >>> >>> >>>> Ice age ended 25,000 years ago. It is stupid to presume that the >>>> first 24,900 years was due to natural causes, but the last 100 years >>>> is now "man made". >>>> >>>> >>> It is the rapid and increasing rate of warming in the last decades >>> that is troublesome. >> >> Your favorite fraud, Jones, admitted yesterday that there has been no >> significant warming since 1995, and that other periods in the 20th >> century and before have been similar to the last warming period. Seems >> Jones himself debunked this lie you are telling. > > What's the context of his statement? Cite reference please. Thanks for proving you're ignorant.
From: Marvin the Martian on 19 Feb 2010 20:03 On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 17:33:02 +0000, Cwatters wrote: > "Mike Jr" <n00spam(a)comcast.net> wrote in message > news:50c7f5c9-ffc4-4314-88d9- ea535f89f965(a)a13g2000vbf.googlegroups.com... > On Feb 8, 4:46 am, "Cwatters" > <colin.wattersNOS...(a)TurnersOakNOSPAM.plus.com> wrote: >> "Benj" <bjac...(a)iwaynet.net> wrote in message >> >> news:99c4e18c-e4ab-47bd-ae9d- bc1119998a65(a)z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com... >> On Feb 7, 11:38 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > --Mike Jr. >> >> > Seems unlikely that they are all wrong and you are right, Mike! >> >Right. Hey listen to the Worm, Mike. He'll set you straight that proof >> >in science has to do with majority vote. >> >> That's right. The glaciers also took a vote and the majority decided to >> melt. The photographers took a vote and agreed to fake lots of photos >> of melting glaciers. > >>Glaciers have been melting since the end of the last ice age. > > but not at current rates or they would have been gone long ago. Hint 2; The IPCC was exposed for telling that lie already.
From: Sam Wormley on 19 Feb 2010 22:32 On 2/19/10 7:03 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote: > > Hint 2; The IPCC was exposed for telling that lie already. I'll bet you have never read the excellent: Global Climate Change Resources http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf Welcome to the IPCC Data Distribution Centre http://www.ipcc-data.org/ http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf
From: Anonymous on 19 Feb 2010 22:48 "Sam Wormley" <swormley1(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:KZidne7ABeZeyuLWnZ2dnUVZ_o2dnZ2d(a)mchsi.com... > On 2/19/10 7:03 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote: >> >> Hint 2; The IPCC was exposed for telling that lie already. > > I'll bet you have never read the excellent: > > Global Climate Change Resources > http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf > > Welcome to the IPCC Data Distribution Centre > http://www.ipcc-data.org/ > http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf Forty Three Reasons Not To Trust The IPCC 20 Feb 2010 The IPCC officially released its Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) in 2007. This document is often regarded as the definitive word on the science behind global warming. However, AR4 gives a distorted, misleading, biased and often erroneous picture. Examples of these distortions are listed here, with attention focused on the Working Group 1 Report "The Physical Science Basis" (WG1), and in particular its Summary for Policymakers (SPM). Curiously, the SPM was released in February 2007, several months before the main report. Confusingly, a "Synthesis Report" was issued in November 2007, with its own SPM. More background to the structure of the IPCC report is given here. Errors, distortions and exaggerations in the WGI Report How the IPCC invented a new calculus. The IPCC authors invented a new way of measuring the slope of a graph, in order to create the false impression that global warming is accelerating. The table that didn't add up. The WG1 SPM was approved by the IPCC even though it contained a table with arithmetic errors. The table was quietly corrected with no admission of the error. False statement about Antarctic sea ice. The IPCC claims that there is no significant trends in Antarctic sea ice. In fact several papers (ignored by the IPCC) show a significant positive trend. Misleading claims about sea level rise. AR4 gives the misleading impression that the rate of sea level rise is increasing, using the trick of switching from one measurement system (tide gauges) to another (satellites). Incorrect calculation of an average. An arithmetic error was made in the calculation of an average of a contribution to radiative forcing. Hence four diagrams in AR4 are wrong and misleading. False claims about Antarctic ice sheet. The IPCC claims that the Antarctic ice sheet is melting and that this is contributing to sea level rise, but recent research papers show that in fact the ice sheet is thickening. Dubious claims about Greenland ice sheet. The IPCC claims that the Greenland ice sheet is melting and causing sea level to rise - ignoring or misrepresenting research that shows the opposite. Erroneous claims about snow cover. The IPCC makes the false claim that snow cover is decreasing in both hemispheres. Exaggerated claims about water vapour. The IPCC summary claims that water vapour has increased. In fact studies show no significant trend or in some cases a decrease. Erroneous claims on increased tropical cyclone activity. The IPCC states that tropical cyclones have increased, but research papers find no evidence of this. The IPCC contradicts itself over the medieval warm period. The IPCC's own data shows clear evidence that the medieval warm period was as warm as the late 20th century, but the text states the opposite. False statement about paleoclimate studies. The IPCC claims that there is increased confidence in proxy temperature reconstructions, but in fact the opposite is the case. Proxies that aren't proxies. The IPCC makes use of 'proxy' data such as tree rings to justify their claim that current temperatures are unusual - but this data doesn't match measured temperature. Downplaying the urban heat island effect. The IPCC significantly underestimates the influence of the fact that many temperature measurement sites are located in cities. The UN misquotes its own report. A UN press release coinciding with the release of AR4 blatantly misquoted the report, incorrectly claiming that man-made global warming was unequivocal. Underestimating past variation in carbon dioxide. The IPCC claims that variation of carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere was very low, ignoring published research that shows much greater variation. Biased reporting of the literature. One of many examples where the IPCC ignores or disparages research that does not support its agenda, in the area of past solar activity. Where's the beef? The crucial step of the argument for global warming - how carbon dioxide causes heating - is barely mentioned and the numbers not justified by the IPCC. Hypothetical positive feedback. The alarming predictions of the IPCC rely on the assumption of a strong positive feedback, for which there is no evidence. The lost continent of Antarctica. A world map of 'global warming' in the SPM omits Antarctica, where there has been cooling. Misleading claims about increased greenhouse effect. The IPCC claims that observations show an increase in the greenhouse effect, referring to one paper but ignoring more recent ones. Misleading statement about ocean heat. The IPCC SPM says that ocean heat content is increasing, without mentioning a paper that shows recent ocean cooling. Ignoring research that does not fit the agenda. Work of a Finnish research team with 34 publications in the field of tree ring temperature reconstructions is completely ignored by the IPCC. Inconsistent statement about wind strength. The IPCC SPM claims that the strength of westerly winds has increased - but if true this would be evidence for cooling of the atmosphere. Error regarding total radiative forcing. The 'total net anthropogenic radiative forcing' given by the IPCC is incorrect, according to climate scientist Roger Pielke. Unfair citation of criticism. IPCC author Kevin Trenberth cites his own criticism of the work of other authors, but does not mention those authors' response to his criticism. Ignoring criticism of the surface temperature record. Many papers have been written raising questions about the accuracy and bias of surface temperature measurements, but these are ignored by the IPCC. No explanation for mid-century cooling. The IPCC has no consistent or valid explanation for a period of cooling from 1940-1970. False statements about tropospheric warming. The IPCC claims that the troposphere (lower atmosphere) has warmed more than the surface, but the IPCC's own graphs show that this is not true. Unsubstantiated claims of human influence. The IPCC makes confident claims about man's influence on the climate but has no evidence to support these claims. Misleading temperature trends (1). The IPCC claims that the trend from 1906-2005 is larger than that from 1901-2000 due to recent warm years, but in fact this is due to a sharp drop in temperatures from 1901-1906. Misleading temperature trends (2). The IPCC compares chalk with cheese in order to convey the false impression that temperature trends are increasing. False claim of warming since the TAR. The IPCC's claim that temperatures have increased since its 2001 Third Assessment Report is demonstrably false. More false statements on temperature trends. The IPCC significantly underestimates temperature trends in the early part of the 20th century. Misleading claims about hurricanes. The IPCC makes unsustainable claims about increasing hurricane activity and a link with global warming; this lead to one expert resigning from the IPCC. If you don't like it, resign. Some scientists who do not support the IPCC agenda find they have no alternative but to resign from the IPCC process. Reviewer comments ignored. The IPCC reports undergo a process of review by scientists and goverments. But many valid comments and criticisms of the IPCC view are simply ignored. Exaggerated claims of increased precipitation. The IPCC summary greatly exaggerates the claims from its main report about an alleged very slight increase in heavy rainfall events. Trying to suppress work that doesn't support the agenda. IPCC authors try to keep a paper by McKitrick and Michaels out of AR4, "even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is". Errors, distortions and exaggerations in the WGII Report Incorrect claim about Himalayan glaciers. The IPCC incorrectly said that Himalayan glaciers could melt to one fifth of their current area by 2035. This is probably a misreading of 2350. False claims about disaster losses. The IPCC claims a link between disaster losses and climate, by relying on a single cherry-picked non-peer-reviewed paper. Unsubstantiated claim about loss of Amazon rainforest. Chapter 13 of WGII claimed that 40% of the Amazon rainforest could 'react drastically' to a change in climate. The source for this was a WWF report that does not even support the claim. See also BBC report and The Telegraph. Error about the Netherlands and sea level. Chapter 12 of WGII claims that 55% of The Netherlands is below sea level. In fact the figure is about 26%. See also reports here and here. Acknowledgements: These examples come from many different sources. Many of them arise simply from a careful reading of AR4. Many originated from a thread at climate audit, so thanks are due to those who contributed to that - especially Max. Several also come from Roger Pielke's Climate Science blog. Comments, questions and further examples of IPCC bias and distortion can be sent to globwarmqs at googlemail.com http://sites.google.com/site/globalwarmingquestions/ipcc Warmest Regards Bon_0 "It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
From: Sam Wormley on 19 Feb 2010 23:22
On 2/19/10 9:48 PM, @B O N Z O wrote: > "Sam Wormley"<swormley1(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> Global Climate Change Resources >> http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf >> >> Welcome to the IPCC Data Distribution Centre >> http://www.ipcc-data.org/ >> http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf > > > > Forty Three Reasons Not To Trust The IPCC > Nice scientific rebuttal! |