Re: OT: is the AGW bubble about to burst?

On Aug 20, 5:10 am, JosephKK <joseph_barr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
bill.slo...@xxxxxxxx bill.slo...@xxxxxxxx posted to
sci.electronics.design:





On Aug 19, 9:14 am, JosephKK <joseph_barr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
bill.slo...@xxxxxxxx bill.slo...@xxxxxxxx posted to
sci.electronics.design:

On Aug 17, 2:55 pm, JosephKK <joseph_barr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
bill.slo...@xxxxxxxx bill.slo...@xxxxxxxx posted to
sci.electronics.design:
<snip>

Perfectly true and quite irrelevant. The only interesting
question is when the Antarctic and Greenland ice caps are
going to slide off into
the sea. They have - of course - been sliding off into
the sea pretty much since they formed, but since we
started measuring the rate of ice- transport within the
ice-cap the flow rates have increased appreciably - more
than enough to compensate for any increase in snow-fall
onto the tops of the ice pack - see

http://www.junkscience.com/oct98/shrink.html

I guess that you don't get that by being posted on Junk
Science that they are being pilloried for being junk.

So, you believe in a class of infallible experts who can
reliably identify junk science.

Not in the least. This is a single case of well proven
politically inspired junk science.

And your evidence for this claim is?

About a dozen or more reputable climatologists (MIT / Stanford /
CalTech class) have created or have websites documenting this.
Why can't you be bothered to google when there is plenty of
contrary evidence to your position.

Googling on those search terms doesn't bring up anything useful.
If these reputable climatologists exist, you should be able to
produce a couple of names, and a web-site or two. If you can't do
that, a sceptical observer might suspect that you were bluffing.

How very strange, i could find them before and i can find them now.

But, oddly enough, you can't be bothered to post a few examples. The
alternative explanation is that the examples you could find don't
actually support your specific claims.

What a pity that these experts aren't available to take part
in the peer-review process that controls whether scientific
articles get published in the first place.

They had been consulted, they had reviewed the contributions,
and the results were not what the the majority of the climate
scientists have reported. The IPCC report has been twisted to
support political ends.

One more conspiracy theory. Could you point to a site where the
offending report is compared with the data that is claimed to
contradict it?

See above, google for them.

I tried, and it didn't work. Be more specific, or shut up.

It is not my job to do your work for you unless you pay me.

In other words you can't find a single web site that confirms your
claim.

In fact, people - like the late Senator Proxmire - who make
a business of identifying "junk science" are notorious for
picking out scientific articles that seem implausible to
people who don't know the field involved, rather than
articles presenting poor-quality science.

This kind of critic is seeking publicity rather than any
kind of scientific reputation, and if their websites make a
relevant article available, why should I hesitate to refer
to it?

I have searched and read extensively, at first i did not
believe in
global warming at all. The AGW types do not bother to provide
proper backup. The worthwhile climatologists provide pointers
to
the raw data. I have checked some of the raw data myself.

With reference to above, global warming is happening, We may
reach
or exceed temperatures like those of the medieval warm period.
The various solar and Milankovitch cycles show the real
driving factors.

So you are claiming that the rapidly rising CO2 levels aren't
influencing the the surface temperature of the earth?
This isn't a popular opinion amongst climatologists - at least
those who haven't been got at by the oil and coal interests.

Search much more completely, read much more; the actual majority
disagree with the IPCC conclusions. I doubt all of that over a
thousand of them have the "obligations" that you imply.

Since you don't cite web-sites supporting your point of view, I'm
inclined to suspect that your silent majority exists only in your
imagination.

Give "AGW dispute" to any search engine. Plenty of hits. A real
thinker tests their hypotheses.

That phrase does give plenty of hits. Most of them were quite
irrelevant. A few involved Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT who shows up as
a climate change sceptic. Nothing I could find suggests that he ever
sued the IPCC to have his name removed from any of their reports.

I did find a reference that says a Dr. Paul Reiter, professor,
Institut Pasteur, Unit of Insects and Infectious Diseases, Paris,
France claims to have had to threaten to sue the IPCC before they
would remove his name from the list of authors on one of their
reports, but that falls a long way short of your formulation.

For one thing, a threat to sue isn't documented in accessible public
records, so it is pretty much impossible to confirm.

http://www.digg.com/environment/Climate_scientist_duped_to_deny_global_warming

And Paul Reiter is an expert on malaria, and disagreed only with an
IPCC assessment of the effect global warming might have on the
incidence of malaria and other similar insect-bourne diseases.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

.

Relevant Pages

  • OT ~ "The IPCC Reputation Is In Shreds"
    ... A perfect storm is brewing for the IPCC ... Climate Change and its chairman Dr Rajendra Pachauri would have made ... centred on the IPCC's last 2007 report is that they were only a few ... that global warming was about to destroy ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)
  • Re: Stockwell 2 IPCC report
    ... I would have thought that the most recent IPCC report was the one to have ... decision not to prosecute based upon it. ... Police shootings are at least partly ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: Die Kopenhagen-Diagnose zur globalen Klimaaenderung
    ... Wissenschaftlern aus der ganzen Welt, als Update zum letzten IPCC- Report, ... Ich bin dafuer, dass Verleumdung, auch die Verleumdung gegen ... of one Chapter of the IPCC report. ...
    (de.soc.umwelt)
  • Re: Generating electricity?
    ... The IPCC report was carefully edited and the data filtered. ... The UN climate change numbers hoax ... Assessment Report released during 2007 (upon which the UN ... The numbers of scientist reviewers involved in WG I is actually less ...
    (rec.martial-arts)
  • Re: OT: is the AGW bubble about to burst?
    ... politically inspired junk science. ... About a dozen or more reputable climatologists (MIT / Stanford / ... articles get published in the first place. ... scientists have reported. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)