IPCC lacks credibility
Jim McGinn
Global Warming Issue: Computer models forecast rapidly rising global
temperatures, but data from weather satellites and balloon instruments show
no warming whatsoever. Nevertheless, these same unreliable computer models
underpin the Global Climate Treaty, negotiated at the 1992 Rio de Janeiro
"Earth Summit," and are the driving force behind United Nations efforts to
force restrictions on the use of oil, gas, and coal. The Third Conference of
Parties (COP-3) to the Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) (a.k.a.
Global Climate Treaty), meeting in Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997 agreed to
set mandatory limits and timetables. Politicians were told that the science
is "settled" and "compelling," when in reality, scientific experts still
strongly disagree on the evidence. Considering the economic damage from
energy rationing and taxation, the plans are drawing strong negatives in the
U.S. Congress. Without firm evidence that an appreciable warming will occur
as a result of human activities, or that its consequences would be harmful,
there can be no justification for bureaucratic remedies or any action beyond
a "no-regrets" policy of energy efficiency and market-based conservation.
For additional commentary, see articles on Global Warming and the Btu Tax.
See also Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warming's Unfinished Debate and the
convenient 12 point summary of Global Warming: Unfinished Business. We also
refer you to the Scientific Case against the Climate treaty in English and
in German.
The IPCC Controversy: In May 1996, unannounced and possibly unauthorized
changes to the latest United Nations report on climate change touched off a
firestorm of controversy within the scientific community. The
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the science group that
advises the United Nations on the global warming issue, presented the draft
of its most recent report in December 1995, and it was approved by the
delegations. When the printed report appeared in May 1996, however, it was
discovered that substantial changes and deletions had been made to the body
of the report to make it "conform to the Policymakers Summary." The
clandestine changes put a spin on the report's conclusions that "the balance
of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate." Lead
authors of the crucial--and doctored--Chapter 8, dealing with the detection
and attribution of climate change, have since backed off from this
conclusion and now admit that it may take 10 years or more before any human
influence on climate can be detected. For commentary and letters on this
issue, see IPCC.
Raymond Arritt
> http://www.sepp.org/keyissue.html
Oh dear. Not SEPP, please.
If Fred Singer says the sun rises in the east, you should go out at
6 a.m. to check.
Jim McGinn
"Raymond Arritt" <raymon...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:oo_Wf.657005$084.210090@attbi_s22...
Ray, do you dispute this quote:
"Politicians were told that the science is "settled" and "compelling," when
in reality, scientific experts still strongly disagree on the evidence?"
So far the strongest argument for Global Warming is that a consensus of
scientist support it. Unfortunately that was also the strongest argument
that Galileo heard disputing his heliocentric beliefs.
One thing I noticed about the IPCC website is that it mostly avoids any
discussion of the data that underlies the belief in GW and instead focusses
on the dramatic implications based on the assumptions that GW will result in
significant warming. And even then it only focusses on the negative
implications and avoids discussion of any potential positive implications of
global warming.
Jim
Coby Beck
news:DH_Wf.54167$F_3....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
>
> "Raymond Arritt" <raymon...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:oo_Wf.657005$084.210090@attbi_s22...
>> Jim McGinn wrote:
>>> http://www.sepp.org/keyissue.html
>>
>> Oh dear. Not SEPP, please.
>>
>> If Fred Singer says the sun rises in the east, you should go out at
>> 6 a.m. to check.
>
> Ray, do you dispute this quote:
> "Politicians were told that the science is "settled" and "compelling,"
> when in reality, scientific experts still strongly disagree on the
> evidence?"
Of course. The science is settled on the basic theory: human emissions are
causing a rapid warming that will continue unless emissions are reduced.
> So far the strongest argument for Global Warming is that a consensus of
> scientist support it. Unfortunately that was also the strongest argument
> that Galileo heard disputing his heliocentric beliefs.
No, the church disputed it, not scientists. Like today, the curch of the
free market disputes GW, not the scientists.
> One thing I noticed about the IPCC website is that it mostly avoids any
> discussion of the data that underlies the belief in GW and instead
> focusses on the dramatic implications based on the assumptions that GW
> will result in significant warming. And even then it only focusses on the
> negative implications and avoids discussion of any potential positive
> implications of global warming.
This is only because you have not read it, of course.
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
Jim McGinn
"Coby Beck" <cb...@mercury.bc.ca> wrote
>> Ray, do you dispute this quote:
>> "Politicians were told that the science is "settled" and "compelling,"
>> when in reality, scientific experts still strongly disagree on the
>> evidence?"
>
> Of course. The science is settled on the basic theory: human emissions
> are causing a rapid warming that will continue unless emissions are
> reduced.
Your whole position is based on the assumption that the models are right
(and on cherry picking which models to consider) and you just ignore that
fact that the statistician indicate that the uncertainties associated with
ANY model are so great that there is no basis for drawing conclusions.
>
>> So far the strongest argument for Global Warming is that a consensus of
>> scientist support it. Unfortunately that was also the strongest argument
>> that Galileo heard disputing his heliocentric beliefs.
>
> No, the church disputed it, not scientists.
No, your wrong, it was the scientist in addition to the pope. It's referred
to as the Ptolemaic theory of celestial motion. It was the prevailing
scientific paradigm at Galileo's time and had been for over a thousand
years.
> Like today, the curch of the free market disputes GW, not the scientists.
Climatologists were seduced by the mechanics of the climate and lost sight
of the very real uncertainty of the discipline.
>
>> One thing I noticed about the IPCC website is that it mostly avoids any
>> discussion of the data that underlies the belief in GW and instead
>> focusses on the dramatic implications based on the assumptions that GW
>> will result in significant warming. And even then it only focusses on
>> the negative implications and avoids discussion of any potential positive
>> implications of global warming.
>
> This is only because you have not read it, of course.
Oh, I read it. It was the typical bureacratic inspired propaganda. It
completely avoided any discussion of the uncertainties underlying
atmospheric science.
Raymond Arritt
> "Raymond Arritt" <raymon...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:oo_Wf.657005$084.210090@attbi_s22...
>> Jim McGinn wrote:
>>> http://www.sepp.org/keyissue.html
>>
>> Oh dear. Not SEPP, please.
>>
>> If Fred Singer says the sun rises in the east, you should go out at
>> 6 a.m. to check.
>
> Ray, do you dispute this quote: "Politicians were told that the
> science is "settled" and "compelling," when in reality, scientific
> experts still strongly disagree on the evidence?"
Yes, I do. Your statement may have been true a decade or so ago but is
no longer. In fact I did not become convinced, myself, until around the
late 1990's when it became clear that evidence for anthropogenic global
warming was consistent across a range of methodologies. There remains
a small minority of principled skeptics, along with a few highly visible
"professional naysayers" who are regularly quoted in the popular press.
But to say that "scientific experts still strongly disagree" is false.
> So far the strongest argument for Global Warming is that a consensus
> of scientist support it.
No. The perception of what is the "strongest" argument for global
warming probably varies from one scientist to another. To me, the
strongest argument for global warming is that it is consistently
supported across an unusually broad range of evidence -- atmospheric
observations, phenological changes, climate reconstructions, basic
energetic physics, and yes even (zounds! horrors!) model projections.
The second strongest argument for anthropogenic global warming is simple
radiative transfer. We know that if CO2 doubles from its pre-industrial
level, the first-order effect is an increase in downwelling long-wave
radiation at the surface of about 4 watts per square meter. We know
that from basic radiative physics; it's beyond dispute.
The burden of proof has to be on those who contend that an increase in
incoming radiation does *not* produce a temperature change. Every
so-called skeptic has to confront the ultimate question, "Where do the
watts go?" I've seen a lot of handwaving explanations that "well, it
might do this" or "it might do that" but no scientifically well-posed
explanation of how this energy can disappear.
So, since you apparently consider yourself a skeptic, let me ask you:
Where do the watts go?
> Unfortunately that was also the strongest
> argument that Galileo heard disputing his heliocentric beliefs.
No. Galileo was persecuted by the church, not by other scientists, for
his arguments in favor of the heliocentric model. In fact the charges
against Galileo referred to the heliocentric model as "a false doctrine
taught by many", reflecting its acceptance in the scientific community.
By the way, the argument you're employing is so common that it has a
name, the "Galileo gambit." There's a good discussion of the Galileo
gambit at http://oracknows.blogspot.com/2005/03/galileo-gambit.html
> One thing I noticed about the IPCC website is that it mostly avoids
> any discussion of the data that underlies the belief in GW and
> instead focusses on the dramatic implications based on the
> assumptions that GW will result in significant warming.
Did you actually *read* the IPCC materials? If you had read the Summary
for Policymakers you would have seen extensive discussion of
uncertainties -- starting with the first complete sentence! "This
summary, approved in detail at IPCC Plenary XVIII (Wembley, United
Kingdom, 24-29 September 2001), represents the formally agreed statement
of the IPCC concerning key findings and uncertainties contained in the
Working Group contributions to the Third Assessment Report."
> And even
> then it only focusses on the negative implications and avoids
> discussion of any potential positive implications of global warming.
Again, did you actually *read* the IPCC materials? If you did, you
would know that your statement is demonstrably false. See e.g., the
discussion under Q3.
Coby Beck
>
> "Coby Beck" <cb...@mercury.bc.ca> wrote
>
>>> Ray, do you dispute this quote:
>>> "Politicians were told that the science is "settled" and "compelling,"
>>> when in reality, scientific experts still strongly disagree on the
>>> evidence?"
>>
>> Of course. The science is settled on the basic theory: human emissions
>> are causing a rapid warming that will continue unless emissions are
>> reduced.
>
> Your whole position is based on the assumption that the models are right
No. What is your basis for this claim? My position is based in part on
this:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm
> (and on cherry picking which models to consider) and you just ignore that
And which model do you prefer? Shirley, you have one in mind right? The
one I am ignoring...? no?
>>> So far the strongest argument for Global Warming is that a consensus of
>>> scientist support it. Unfortunately that was also the strongest
>>> argument that Galileo heard disputing his heliocentric beliefs.
>>
>> No, the church disputed it, not scientists.
>
> No, your wrong, it was the scientist in addition to the pope. It's
> referred to as the Ptolemaic theory of celestial motion. It was the
> prevailing scientific paradigm at Galileo's time and had been for over a
> thousand years.
And which *scientists* disputed Galileo when he presented his new theory?
References?
>> Like today, the curch of the free market disputes GW, not the scientists.
>
> Climatologists were seduced by the mechanics of the climate and lost sight
> of the very real uncertainty of the discipline.
Gee, what a scientific argument.
>>> One thing I noticed about the IPCC website is that it mostly avoids any
>>> discussion of the data that underlies the belief in GW and instead
>>> focusses on the dramatic implications based on the assumptions that GW
>>> will result in significant warming. And even then it only focusses on
>>> the negative implications and avoids discussion of any potential
>>> positive implications of global warming.
>>
>> This is only because you have not read it, of course.
>
> Oh, I read it. It was the typical bureacratic inspired propaganda. It
> completely avoided any discussion of the uncertainties underlying
> atmospheric science.
No you didn't read it. For any lurkers that would like some evidence of Jim
McGinns falsehoods, have a look at this chart (from the Summary for Policy
Makers, not buried on page 1000) and see if the IPCC was hiding
uncertainties in atmospheric science:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-3.htm
Sorry, Jim. Another post you will have to ignore or snip badly.
Jim McGinn
"Coby Beck" <cb...@mercury.bc.ca> wrote
>> Your whole position is based on the assumption that the models are right
>
> No. What is your basis for this claim? My position is based in part on
> this:
> http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm
Good luck with that.
>
>> (and on cherry picking which models to consider) and you just ignore that
>
> And which model do you prefer? Shirley, you have one in mind right? The
> one I am ignoring...? no?
None of them.
>
>>>> So far the strongest argument for Global Warming is that a consensus of
>>>> scientist support it. Unfortunately that was also the strongest
>>>> argument that Galileo heard disputing his heliocentric beliefs.
>>>
>>> No, the church disputed it, not scientists.
>>
>> No, your wrong, it was the scientist in addition to the pope. It's
>> referred to as the Ptolemaic theory of celestial motion. It was the
>> prevailing scientific paradigm at Galileo's time and had been for over a
>> thousand years.
>
> And which *scientists* disputed Galileo when he presented his new theory?
> References?
Learn to use a search engine.
>
>>> Like today, the curch of the free market disputes GW, not the
>>> scientists.
>>
>> Climatologists were seduced by the mechanics of the climate and lost
>> sight of the very real uncertainty of the discipline.
>
> Gee, what a scientific argument.
It's not necessary (or possible) to dispute that which has not yet been
established.
>
>>>> One thing I noticed about the IPCC website is that it mostly avoids any
>>>> discussion of the data that underlies the belief in GW and instead
>>>> focusses on the dramatic implications based on the assumptions that GW
>>>> will result in significant warming. And even then it only focusses on
>>>> the negative implications and avoids discussion of any potential
>>>> positive implications of global warming.
>>>
>>> This is only because you have not read it, of course.
>>
>> Oh, I read it. It was the typical bureacratic inspired propaganda. It
>> completely avoided any discussion of the uncertainties underlying
>> atmospheric science.
>
> No you didn't read it. For any lurkers that would like some evidence of
> Jim McGinns falsehoods, have a look at this chart (from the Summary for
> Policy Makers, not buried on page 1000) and see if the IPCC was hiding
> uncertainties in atmospheric science:
> http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-3.htm
>
> Sorry, Jim. Another post you will have to ignore or snip badly.
Maybe you need to explain what it is that we should all be seeing. Keep in
mind not everybody can see the king's new clothes.
Jim
Eric Swanson
>
>http://www.sepp.org/keyissue.html
>
>Global Warming Issue: Computer models forecast rapidly rising global
>temperatures, but data from weather satellites and balloon instruments show
>no warming whatsoever.
Singer's posting of this false claim just shows how biased his comments are.
It's been wrong for several years now, as the satellite data does show a
warming trend and did so even before the latest round of corrections.
--
Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------
H2-PV NOW
You are given LEGAL NOTICE that you are aiding and abetting an
ORGANIZED CRIME FELONY FRAUD operation, that you have joined in an
"enterprise" as defined by law, have committed one or more acts of
fraud using WIRES or U.S. Mail in collaboration with the illegal
enterprise. From this date forward any further actions on your part to
aid this enerprise are legally considered prima facia premeditated,
willful intent to violate FEDERAL LAW.
SEPPtic Tank is an ORGANIZED CRIME front operation headed by lifelong
career-criminal S. Fred Singer.
In 1994 Singer wrote a science hoax piece for big tobacco. The piece
was submitted to RJ Reynolds lawyers pre-publication. The piece was
short some "peer-reviewers" so a request was made for some names of
tame "whitecoats" willing to lie for money to sign off on the document.
Ultimately a bunch of names appeared on this science hoax document, as
well as inside it's pages. The whole thing became evidence in the
FEDERAL trial of the Big Seven Tobacco Companies in the late 1990s. The
documents were produced by subpoena (a turm meaning "under pain", like
we will hurt you bad if you don't comply). The evidence passed due
process of law in a trial admitted as evidence. The judge ordered the
evidence posted online for 10 years at Big Tobacco's expense -- oh,
year, the Tobacco Companies also agreed to pay $246,000,000,000.00 too.
Fred Sing is corrupt and I have seen the evidence from the trial that
proved he is corrupt. He is an ORGANIZED CRIME figure who uses science
hoaxes for corporate clients to falsify the state of knowledge on
subjects his clients need confused and obfuscated.
SEPP was organized in the premises of a Sun Myung Moon-owned office
suite. Moon is also a career criminal who was convicted of tax evasion
and money laundering, sent to FREDERAL PRISON, and is a known convict.
FRED SINGER's SEPPtic Tank moved to the offices of Charles G. Koch
Summer Fellows Program at the Koch-owned George Mason University.
Killer Charles G. Kock and brother Killer David Koch operate KOCH
INDUSTRIES, which itself has been convicted of the largest fine in
corporate history -- $35,000,000.00 for pollution of air, lands and
waters of six states.
http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2000/January/019enrd.htm
http://www.motherjones.com/news/special_reports/mojo_400/51_koch.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37628-2004Jul8.html
http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/981d17e5ab07246f8525686500621079?OpenDocument
Charges G. Koch co-founded CATO Inst., David Koch sits on it's board
watching the family interests, and SINGER, MILLOY, MICHAELS, LINDZEN &
BALLING are all organized crime figures on the payrolls of a known
ORGANIZED CRIME ring founded by known ORGANIZED CRIME Lords.
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=361
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Singer-1993-1994.html
http://www.atlasusa.org/highlight_archive/1995/H1995-02-Environment.html
Dr. Singer. SEPP's address is 4084 University Drive, Suite 101,
Fairfax, VA 22030 (Tel. 703-934-6932).
http://snipurl.com/og9j
Results about 172 for 4084 University Drive, Suite 101 Fairfax, VA
22030 Koch.
http://snipurl.com/og9o
Results about 92 for 4084 University Drive, Suite 101 Fairfax, VA
22030 SEPP.
http://snipurl.com/og9s
Resultsabout 149 for 4084 University Drive, Suite 101 Fairfax, VA 22030
IHS | "Institute for Humane Studies"
http://snipurl.com/oga1
Results about 581 for Fred Singer Koch IHS | "Institute for Humane
Studies".
http://snipurl.com/ogai
Science, Economics, and Environmental Policy: A Critical Examination
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Singer-Nightline.html
Documenting the Corruption of S. Fred Singer
http://snipurl.com/ogay
Results about 333 for "Science, Economics, and Environmental Policy: A
Critical Examination".
H2-PV NOW
Jim McGinn wrote:
> "Raymond Arritt" <raymon...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:oo_Wf.657005$084.210090@attbi_s22...
> > Jim McGinn wrote:
> >> http://www.sepp.org/keyissue.html
> >
> > Oh dear. Not SEPP, please.
> >
> > If Fred Singer says the sun rises in the east, you should go out at
> > 6 a.m. to check.
>
> Ray, do you dispute this quote:
> "Politicians were told that the science is "settled" and "compelling," when
> in reality, scientific experts still strongly disagree on the evidence?"
You are given LEGAL NOTICE that you are aiding and abetting an
H2-PV NOW
Jim McGinn wrote:
> Oh, I read it. It was the typical bureacratic inspired propaganda. It
> completely avoided any discussion of the uncertainties underlying
> atmospheric science.
You are given LEGAL NOTICE that you are aiding and abetting an
H2-PV NOW
Jim McGinn wrote:
> Learn to use a search engine.
You are given LEGAL NOTICE that you are aiding and abetting an
Lloyd Parker
"Jim McGinn" <jimm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>http://www.sepp.org/keyissue.html
>
Industry-funded propaganda site. Jim, you're either incredibly stupid, or you
think we are.
>Global Warming Issue: Computer models forecast rapidly rising global
>temperatures, but data from weather satellites and balloon instruments show
>no warming whatsoever.
Total lie.
Another lie.
>The
>clandestine changes put a spin on the report's conclusions that "the balance
>of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate." Lead
>authors of the crucial--and doctored--Chapter 8, dealing with the detection
>and attribution of climate change, have since backed off from this
>conclusion and now admit that it may take 10 years or more before any human
>influence on climate can be detected. For commentary and letters on this
>issue, see IPCC.
>
>
Yes, we've been telling you to read the IPCC reports.
Lloyd Parker
"Jim McGinn" <jimm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>"Raymond Arritt" <raymon...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:oo_Wf.657005$084.210090@attbi_s22...
>> Jim McGinn wrote:
>>> http://www.sepp.org/keyissue.html
>>
>> Oh dear. Not SEPP, please.
>>
>> If Fred Singer says the sun rises in the east, you should go out at
>> 6 a.m. to check.
>
>Ray, do you dispute this quote:
>"Politicians were told that the science is "settled" and "compelling," when
>in reality, scientific experts still strongly disagree on the evidence?"
>
Yes. It is a total lie.
>So far the strongest argument for Global Warming is that a consensus of
>scientist support it. Unfortunately that was also the strongest argument
>that Galileo heard disputing his heliocentric beliefs.
No it wasn't.
>
>One thing I noticed about the IPCC website is that it mostly avoids any
>discussion of the data that underlies the belief in GW and instead focusses
>on the dramatic implications based on the assumptions that GW will result in
>significant warming.
It does not.
>And even then it only focusses on the negative
>implications and avoids discussion of any potential positive implications of
>global warming.
Like medicine doesn't discuss any potential positive implications of AIDS.
>
>Jim
>
>
>
Lloyd Parker
"Jim McGinn" <jimm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>"Coby Beck" <cb...@mercury.bc.ca> wrote
>
>>> Ray, do you dispute this quote:
>>> "Politicians were told that the science is "settled" and "compelling,"
>>> when in reality, scientific experts still strongly disagree on the
>>> evidence?"
>>
>> Of course. The science is settled on the basic theory: human emissions
>> are causing a rapid warming that will continue unless emissions are
>> reduced.
>
>Your whole position is based on the assumption that the models are right
Wrong. It's based on data and scientific principles.
1. Humans are creating CO2.
2. CO2 was stable in the atmosphere for 600,000 years and is up 30% in the
last 150 years.
3. CO2 traps heat.
4. The earth is warming.
>(and on cherry picking which models to consider) and you just ignore that
>fact that the statistician indicate that the uncertainties associated with
>ANY model are so great that there is no basis for drawing conclusions.
You ignore that that's a total lie.
>
>>
>>> So far the strongest argument for Global Warming is that a consensus of
>>> scientist support it. Unfortunately that was also the strongest argument
>>> that Galileo heard disputing his heliocentric beliefs.
>>
>> No, the church disputed it, not scientists.
>
>No, your wrong, it was the scientist in addition to the pope. It's referred
>to as the Ptolemaic theory of celestial motion. It was the prevailing
>scientific paradigm at Galileo's time and had been for over a thousand
>years.
>
>> Like today, the curch of the free market disputes GW, not the scientists.
>
>Climatologists were seduced by the mechanics of the climate and lost sight
>of the very real uncertainty of the discipline.
>
And you and only you see through the incompetence and conspiracy all those
scientists are engaging in? Unbelievable.
Jim McGinn
"Lloyd Parker" <lpa...@emory.edu> wrote
> Industry-funded propaganda site. Jim, you're either incredibly stupid, or
> you
> think we are.
So, in your mind we can judge the validity of somebody's statement based
solely on who stated them. Right?
Jim McGinn
"Lloyd Parker" <lpa...@emory.edu> wrote
>>Your whole position is based on the assumption that the models are right
>
> Wrong. It's based on data and scientific principles.
>
> 1. Humans are creating CO2.
True.
> 2. CO2 was stable in the atmosphere for 600,000 years and is up 30% in the
> last 150 years.
True.
> 3. CO2 traps heat.
True.
> 4. The earth is warming.
Speculative.
>>(and on cherry picking which models to consider) and you just ignore that
>>fact that the statistician indicate that the uncertainties associated with
>>ANY model are so great that there is no basis for drawing conclusions.
>
> You ignore that that's a total lie.
You're a fool.
Jim McGinn
"Lloyd Parker" <lpa...@emory.edu> wrote
>>Ray, do you dispute this quote:
>>"Politicians were told that the science is "settled" and "compelling,"
>>when
>>in reality, scientific experts still strongly disagree on the evidence?"
>>
>
> Yes. It is a total lie.
Evidence?
>
>>So far the strongest argument for Global Warming is that a consensus of
>>scientist support it. Unfortunately that was also the strongest argument
>>that Galileo heard disputing his heliocentric beliefs.
>
> No it wasn't.
Like you have a clue.
>
>>
>>One thing I noticed about the IPCC website is that it mostly avoids any
>>discussion of the data that underlies the belief in GW and instead
>>focusses
>>on the dramatic implications based on the assumptions that GW will result
>>in
>>significant warming.
>
>
> It does not.
Show us.
\
>
>>And even then it only focusses on the negative
>>implications and avoids discussion of any potential positive implications
>>of
>>global warming.
>
> Like medicine doesn't discuss any potential positive implications of AIDS.
Aids is demonstrable empirically. GW is not. Sorry to burst your bubble.
Jim
Jim McGinn
"Thomas Lee Elifritz" <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote
> GW is not. Sorry to burst your bubble.
>
> You aren't bursting anyone's bubble crackpot,
> you are an industry paid usenet troll.
Evidence?
Coby Beck
>
> "Coby Beck" <cb...@mercury.bc.ca> wrote
>
Jim:
>>>>> One thing I noticed about the IPCC website is that it mostly avoids
>>>>> any discussion of the data that underlies the belief in GW and instead
>>>>> focusses on the dramatic implications based on the assumptions that GW
>>>>> will result in significant warming. And even then it only focusses on
>>>>> the negative implications and avoids discussion of any potential
>>>>> positive implications of global warming.
>>>>
>>>> This is only because you have not read it, of course.
>>>
>>> Oh, I read it. It was the typical bureacratic inspired propaganda. It
>>> completely avoided any discussion of the uncertainties underlying
>>> atmospheric science.
>>
>> No you didn't read it. For any lurkers that would like some evidence of
>> Jim McGinns falsehoods, have a look at this chart (from the Summary for
>> Policy Makers, not buried on page 1000) and see if the IPCC was hiding
>> uncertainties in atmospheric science:
>> http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-3.htm
>>
>> Sorry, Jim. Another post you will have to ignore or snip badly.
>
> Maybe you need to explain what it is that we should all be seeing. Keep
> in mind not everybody can see the king's new clothes.
Why don't you tell me what you saw there? I provided it as contradictory
evidence refuting your lie that the IPCC TAR "completely avoided any
discussion of the uncertainties underlying atmospheric science". I believe
if the link is followed, it is self explanatory why it contradicts you.
What did you see when you viewed that page? I will try to help you.
Coby Beck
In some cases, such as yours and sepp, a correlation between the speaker and
the unreliability of what is spoken emerges quickly and proves to be
consistent. In such cases, it is prudent and justifiable to simply seek
other sources.
Jim McGinn
"Coby Beck" <cb...@mercury.bc.ca> wrote
> Why don't you tell me what you saw there?
Well, as I attempted to convey above, the problem was with what I didn't
see. I didn't see any discussion of the science that underlies the
assumption/conclusion that athropogenetic CO2 is/will result in catastrophic
global warming. I don't know how I can say it any clearer than that.
There's just nothing there on the IPCC website that discusses this specific
subject. What I saw managed to dance around directly addressing this
specific issue. All I saw was a lot of discussion of the dire circumstances
*if* GW turns out to be true. What little there was that discussed this
specific subject (the science that underlies the assumption/conclusion that
athropogenetic CO2 is/will result in catastrophic global warming) referred
to the computer models. And, unfortunately, it completely failed to discuss
the level of confidence (which can only be very low) associated with these
computer models.
> I provided it as contradictory evidence refuting your lie that the IPCC
> TAR "completely avoided any discussion of the uncertainties underlying
> atmospheric science".
You're misquoting me. What I actually stated was that the IPCC website,
"mostly avoids any discussion of the data that underlies the belief in GW."
IOW, the IPCC website only discusses the confidence associated with the
various scenarios that assume significant global warming. It fails to
discuss the confidence, or lack thereof, underlying the BELIEF that the
assumption/conclusion that athropogenetic CO2 is/will result in catastrophic
global warming. In short, the IPCC website talks a lot about what will
happen if, it talks little or not at all about why we should assume that
"if" will happen.
I hope this clarifies things.
> I believe if the link is followed, it is self explanatory why it
> contradicts you.
You should never assume anything is self explanatory.
> What did you see when you viewed that page? I will try to help you.
I think I may be beyond help.
Jim
Jim McGinn
"Coby Beck" <cb...@mercury.bc.ca> wrote
>> So, in your mind we can judge the validity of somebody's statement based
>> solely on who stated them. Right?
>
> In some cases, such as yours and sepp, a correlation between the speaker
> and the unreliability of what is spoken emerges quickly and proves to be
> consistent. In such cases, it is prudent and justifiable to simply seek
> other sources.
Thank you for your honesty.
Coby Beck
>
> "Coby Beck" <cb...@mercury.bc.ca> wrote
>
>> Why don't you tell me what you saw there?
>
> Well, as I attempted to convey above, the problem was with what I didn't
Whoa! Back up the boat there champ. You did the right thing by snipping
context, but I insist we recall what the discussion is about:
"Jim McGinn" <jimm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:Jw3Xf.61882$Jd.2...@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
>
> "Coby Beck" <cb...@mercury.bc.ca> wrote
>
Jim:
>>>>> One thing I noticed about the IPCC website is that it mostly avoids
>>>>> any discussion of the data that underlies the belief in GW and instead
>>>>> focusses on the dramatic implications based on the assumptions that GW
>>>>> will result in significant warming. And even then it only focusses on
>>>>> the negative implications and avoids discussion of any potential
>>>>> positive implications of global warming.
>>>>
>>>> This is only because you have not read it, of course.
>>>
>>> Oh, I read it. It was the typical bureacratic inspired propaganda. It
>>> completely avoided any discussion of the uncertainties underlying
>>> atmospheric science.
>>
>> No you didn't read it. For any lurkers that would like some evidence of
>> Jim McGinns falsehoods, have a look at this chart (from the Summary for
>> Policy Makers, not buried on page 1000) and see if the IPCC was hiding
>> uncertainties in atmospheric science:
>> http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-3.htm
>>
>> Sorry, Jim. Another post you will have to ignore or snip badly.
>
> Maybe you need to explain what it is that we should all be seeing. Keep
> in mind not everybody can see the king's new clothes.
Why don't you tell me what you saw there? You have made a specific claim
that the IPCC report "completely avoided any discussion of the uncertainties
underlying atmospheric science". I have posted a link to a part of the
Summary for Policy Makers. Scientists look at all the evidence, remember?
Those are you own wise words.
Look at it, and reconsider your claim!
>> I provided it as contradictory evidence refuting your lie that the IPCC
>> TAR "completely avoided any discussion of the uncertainties underlying
>> atmospheric science".
>
> You're misquoting me. What I actually stated was that the IPCC website,
> "mostly avoids any discussion of the data that underlies the belief in
> GW."
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/1e481d5b16a5b589
=======================================================
> Coby wrote:
> This is only because you have not read it, of course.
Oh, I read it. It was the typical bureacratic inspired propaganda. It
completely avoided any discussion of the uncertainties underlying
atmospheric science.
=======================================================
As I quoted.
> I hope this clarifies things.
Oh, it's clear, don't worry, you are quite transparent.
>> I believe if the link is followed, it is self explanatory why it
>> contradicts you.
>
> You should never assume anything is self explanatory.
Indeed. All your teachers must have learned this lesson with you.
>> What did you see when you viewed that page? I will try to help you.
>
> I think I may be beyond help.
No shit.
H2-PV NOW
Jim McGinn wrote:
> Thank you for your honesty.
Your position is well understood. Global Warming is proved by six
independent trails of evidence. Each one by itself proves Global
Warming is real, it is here now, it is damaging.
Arguments about computer models is only to bamboozle the gullible.
Corals are incapable of lying. When the sea waters reach their heat
death temperature then they die. Coral colonies dated to be over 800
years old have been dying from heat stress this past year. No
temperatures in over 800 years ever reached their heat death
temperatures before, or they would have already gone extinct back then.
No models necessary. No cloud cover ambiguity needed. The corals
worldwide have announced global warming in terms which cannot be
denied.
Jim McGinn keeps arguing from CATO, from SEPP, from FRED SINGER, all
known ORGANIZED CRIME OPERATIONS SERVING ENERGY FOSSIL FUEL CLIENTS.
The goal is to create illusion that there is an "ongoing controversy",
but the only controversy comes from ORGANIZED CRIME sites and known
science hoaxers.
Arguing the details with McGinn only creates an illusion that some
scientific debate continues, which is the goal of ORGANIZED CRIME.
There are SIX TRAILS of evidence, and any doubt theory on Global
Warming must provide alternative explanations for all six
SIMULTANEOUSLY.
Each one of these trails confirms all of the others.
+++ Coral Bleaching in 1998. It never was worse than that during any
time since apes stood upright. There would be massive fossil beds of
corals to testify to higher sea temperatures. The best fossils are all
within 6,000 years old and they are clear and unambiguous. There never
was a worse coral bleaching event in the last 6,000 years than 1998.
1998 came within two degrees of killing 90% of all the nurseries of the
ocean. Any event which ever killed 90% of the nurseries of the ocean
are recorded in fossil beds -- it happened five times in global
history, and the last time was 65,000,000 years ago, when the Alverez
Asteroid struck near Yucatan.
So we have established without doubt that 1998 is as hot as it can get
with higher oceanic life surviving. Fortunately for the oceans, vicious
storms have been relieving the heat content of the seas sufficiently so
that oceanic life is continuing, although 2002 was also a bad year for
coral bleaching. We have to pray for hurricanes to save us from death
of higher life in the seas.
+++ Another trail leading to the inescapable conclusion of Man-Made
global warming is the flooding rate in Bangladesh. This one is far more
complex, and has plenty of superficial confounding-appearance data.
First, there was a massive earthquake in the 1950s which changed river
course and land elevations. Second there was a political change when
"east" Pakistan became independent. Govt records are likely confused
and may still reside physically divided between countries. Third, the
generalized poverty means that good science and good archives are hard
to maintain.
Despite these illusions of confounding, the history of the area is not
a blank. It has been highly densely populated for centuries. India has
kept better records of the area. It has always had some flooding of
intermittant amounts and intervals. The poorest population gets the
floodplains because nobody else wanted them -- they adapted to short
flooding of mild levels of localized nature and could move out of the
way.
The cultures celebrate the changes of the seasons in various traditions
and festivals. The melting of the Himalaya snows is fairly predictable
and steady, just like the monsoons arrive within days of a calendar
date each year. Deforestation below the treeline does not completely
explain earlier dates of annual melting above the treeline.
Severe flooding began after 1954. It first occurred an average of ten
year intervals. In the recent time span it has progressively increased
in frequency, secondly to about every 6 years, now to every other year.
Blame Game has put the cause on upstream deforestation, but there is
earlier snowmelt each year.
That snowmelt was separated from the monsoons by time, and the two peak
water flows were separated by time. Now the snowmelt coincides by date
with the monsoons and record-breaking historically severe flooding is
the result. Nothing this severe is known for hundreds of years, and the
frequency of repetition is a physical impact requiring a physical
explanation.
The flooding is confirmed by the greenhouse gases causing Global
Warming. One must provide an alternate explanation for the trapped heat
to escape the system. Unless one can do that, the provisional
explanation, Man-Made Global Warming, stands unchallenged.
+++ Massive retreats of glaciers and icepacks. One must explain the the
sudden rate of increased meltaway. Global Warming explains this effect
without sweeping any data under the rug. Greenhouse Gases are trapping
heat in the system.
+++ Increased temperatures recorded across the globe by every measuring
means available on the planet. Records are broken with regularity. The
coral bleaching limit shows these are not representative of cyclic
heating events, but are anomalous in the geological record. Nothing
like this has happened in 65,000,000 years of fossil evidence. All the
direct and proxy temperature measures agree within acceptable errors
ranges.
+++ El Nino is a direct effect of sea surface heat accumulation. While
El Nino leaves poor records in the fossil archives, the known observed
rate was averaging 7 years between El Nino events. With greater recent
measured thermal storage in the sea surface, the El Nino events have
been forced to 2-3 year intervals. Physical events require physical
exlanations. The explanation which fits the measurements is Global
Warming from Man-Made Greenhouse Gases.
+++ Storm intensity and frequency is directly related to heat fuel
stored in the tropical oceans. Currently there is peak for all
recorded history of 25% more total hurricanes, more severe hurricanes
and closer frequency of hurricane-level storms. Add that to 500
tornadoes on land in the USA in May 2003 and you see tangible proof of
heat-engines at work disposing of surplus heat according to the best
modern physics theories.
NOBODY has a comprehensive alternate explanation which explains ALL of
this data, and any explanation which fails to explain ALL of the data
may be downrated as attempted Leprechans at work.
Besides the main trails there are many minor trails of evidence, all
confirming, none positively disconfirming the Man-Made Greenhouse Gases
Explanation.
All of the attempted counter-explanations deal with one trail at a
time, such as land-use changes and deforestation upstream from
Bangladesh. All they prove of a certainty is there are piggish humans
who care nothing about the downstream misery of those less fortunate,
thereby strengthening the case against the organized crime rings
falsifying science and committing felony frauds to piggishly injure
downstream less-fortunates. That evidence confirms criminal psychology,
but does not injure the measured recorded and reliable evidence of
increased frequency beyond the power of deforestation only to cause.
Raymond Arritt
> "Coby Beck" <cb...@mercury.bc.ca> wrote
>
>> Why don't you tell me what you saw there?
>
> Well, as I attempted to convey above, the problem was with what I didn't
> see. I didn't see any discussion of the science that underlies the
> assumption/conclusion that athropogenetic CO2 is/will result in catastrophic
> global warming.
Had you actually read the SPM, you would have seen extensive discussion
of both observations and model results.
> All I saw was a lot of discussion of the dire circumstances
> *if* GW turns out to be true.
Had you actually read the SPM, you would have seen discussion of
uncertainties, possible benefits of AGW, etc.
> What little there was that discussed this
> specific subject (the science that underlies the assumption/conclusion that
> athropogenetic CO2 is/will result in catastrophic global warming) referred
> to the computer models.
Had you actually read the SPM, you would have seen extensive
presentation of observed trends.
> And, unfortunately, it completely failed to discuss
> the level of confidence (which can only be very low) associated with these
> computer models.
Had you actually read the SPM, you would have seen discussion of
uncertainties and limitations of the models.
>> I provided it as contradictory evidence refuting your lie that the IPCC
>> TAR "completely avoided any discussion of the uncertainties underlying
>> atmospheric science".
>
> You're misquoting me. What I actually stated was that the IPCC website,
> "mostly avoids any discussion of the data that underlies the belief in GW."
> IOW, the IPCC website only discusses the confidence associated with the
> various scenarios that assume significant global warming. It fails to
> discuss the confidence, or lack thereof, underlying the BELIEF that the
> assumption/conclusion that athropogenetic CO2 is/will result in catastrophic
> global warming. In short, the IPCC website talks a lot about what will
> happen if, it talks little or not at all about why we should assume that
> "if" will happen.
To the extent that I can decipher your response, Coby seems to have
addressed your original point and you're trying to dance around the
issue. Had you actually read the SPM, you would have seen extensive
discussion of uncertainties.
> I hope this clarifies things.
Yes, it clarifies that you're making statements about something that you
haven't even read. In other words, you are acting in bad faith.
> I think I may be beyond help.
At last, something we can agree on.
Jim McGinn
"Raymond Arritt" <raymon...@hotmail.com> wrote
There is no model on this website that has a a verifyably high degree of
confidence AND that indicates catastrophic GW. All of the current trends
indicate very moderate global warming. There is no drama in the data. The
drama is in the models and they either have low levels of confidence or no
mention at all about what level of confidence we can attribute to them.
Jim McGinn
"Coby Beck" <cb...@mercury.bc.ca> wrote
You can point to some things that have drama and you can point to other
things that have a high degree of confidence but you can't point to any one
thing that indicates both.
Raymond Arritt
Ah, so you didn't actually read the SPM.
Tell us, which part of the SPM asserts "catastrophic" global warming
will occur?
bill
See, that would depend on your definition of "drama". The vast
majority of models predict somewhere between 1-4 degrees C of warming.
Some predict more, some less.
Many climate scientists see this 1-4 degrees as dramatic enough to
be pretty worrying, and state that it will result in rising sea levels,
increased desertification, and increased extreme weather. fairly
dramatic, ask anyone in new orleans. They are right.
Others say that 1-4 degrees over 100 years is really pretty
manageable with just a modicum of foresight in picking battles. They
are right too (if we have that modicum).
Some models predict greater warming, those are the ones the GW
alarmists latch on to. Some predict less, those are the ones the
sceptics latch on to. Both sets are outliers, and there are crackpots
on both sides.
I was also a sceptic until a few years ago, and I don't realy
trust ipcc either, I don't consider the UN to be significantly more
reliable as a source of good science than exxon. both have axes to
grind, and will say what is in their interests. But the fact remains
that there is nowhere for the watts to go. That means it is going to
get warmer, and that warming will have effects. Some of those effects
are predictable, some are predictable within ranges, and some will be
surprising.
Coby Beck
>
> "Coby Beck" <cb...@mercury.bc.ca> wrote
>
> There is no model on this website that has a a verifyably high degree of
> confidence AND that indicates catastrophic GW. All of the current trends
> indicate very moderate global warming. There is no drama in the data.
I disagree.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png
> drama is in the models and they either have low levels of confidence or no
> mention at all about what level of confidence we can attribute to them.
References? Which models are you thinking of? Please provide a link to the
material that you read that lead you to this conclusion, where *should* you
have seen discussion of confidence levels?
H2-PV NOW
message publically with a title of "IPCC lacks credibility".
Jim McGinn comes from the ORGANIZED CRIME group -- he started out
citing CATA, then SEPP, then FRED SINGER, all organized crime
operatives or fronts. HE was instantly exposed as a member of organized
crime.
Their intent is to "create an appearance of controversy" which you aid
and abet by collaborating with him. Even people who don't read message
texts see the headlines or title -- you repeated and recirculated his
false and fraudulant title, making you a collaborator in his frauds.
In the future you will take the moment and make the title of the
message reflect the truth rather than repeat lies.
You are given LEGAL NOTICE that you are aiding and abetting an
ORGANIZED CRIME FELONY FRAUD operation, that you have joined in an
"enterprise" as defined by law, have committed one or more acts of
fraud using WIRES or U.S. Mail in collaboration with the illegal
enterprise. From this date forward any further actions on your part to
aid this enterprise are legally considered prima facia premeditated,
willful intent to violate FEDERAL LAW.
SEPPtic Tank is an ORGANIZED CRIME front operation headed by lifelong
career-criminal S. Fred Singer.
In 1994 Singer wrote a science hoax piece for big tobacco. The piece
was submitted to RJ Reynolds lawyers pre-publication. The piece was
short some "peer-reviewers" so a request was made for some names of
tame "whitecoats" willing to lie for money to sign off on the document.
Ultimately a bunch of names appeared on this science hoax document, as
well as inside it's pages. The whole thing became evidence in the
FEDERAL trial of the Big Seven Tobacco Companies in the late 1990s. The
documents were produced by subpoena (a turm meaning "under pain", like
we will hurt you bad if you don't comply). The evidence passed due
process of law in a trial admitted as evidence. The judge ordered the
evidence posted online for 10 years at Big Tobacco's expense -- oh,
year, the Tobacco Companies also agreed to pay $246,000,000,000.00 too.
Fred Singer is corrupt and I have seen the evidence from the trial that
proved he is corrupt. He is an ORGANIZED CRIME figure who uses science
hoaxes for corporate clients to falsify the state of knowledge on
subjects his clients need confused and obfuscated.
SEPP was organized in the premises of a Sun Myung Moon-owned office
suite. Moon is also a career criminal who was convicted of tax evasion
and money laundering, sent to FREDERAL PRISON, and is a known felon
convict.
FRED SINGER's SEPPtic Tank moved to the offices of Charles G. Koch
Summer Fellows Program at the Koch-owned George Mason University.
Killer Charles G. Koch and brother Killer David Koch operate KOCH
Jim McGinn
"bill" <ford_pr...@hotmail.com> wrote
>> There is no model on this website that has a a verifyably high degree of
>> confidence AND that indicates catastrophic GW. All of the current trends
>> indicate very moderate global warming. There is no drama in the data.
>> The
>> drama is in the models and they either have low levels of confidence or
>> no
>> mention at all about what level of confidence we can attribute to them.
>>
>> You can point to some things that have drama and you can point to other
>> things that have a high degree of confidence but you can't point to any
>> one
>> thing that indicates both.
>
> See, that would depend on your definition of "drama". The vast
> majority of models predict somewhere between 1-4 degrees C of warming.
> Some predict more, some less.
> Many climate scientists see this 1-4 degrees as dramatic enough
You aren't listening, Bill. The models have a low degree of confidence.
The drama is in the models. Not in the data.
to
> be pretty worrying, and state that it will result in rising sea levels,
> increased desertification, and increased extreme weather. fairly
> dramatic, ask anyone in new orleans.
So, hurricanes didn't happen previously?
They are right.
> Others say that 1-4 degrees over 100 years is really pretty
> manageable with just a modicum of foresight in picking battles.
"Others," can say what they want. It doesn't make it true.
> They
> are right too (if we have that modicum).
Science involves evidence. You have none.
> Some models predict greater warming, those are the ones the GW
> alarmists latch on to. Some predict less, those are the ones the
> sceptics latch on to. Both sets are outliers, and there are crackpots
> on both sides.
> I was also a sceptic until a few years ago, and I don't realy
> trust ipcc either, I don't consider the UN to be significantly more
> reliable as a source of good science than exxon. both have axes to
> grind, and will say what is in their interests. But the fact remains
> that there is nowhere for the watts to go.
Evidence? References? Proof?
> That means it is going to
> get warmer, and that warming will have effects. Some of those effects
> are predictable, some are predictable within ranges, and some will be
> surprising.
Wishful thinking. If you come up with anything substantive let us know.
Jim
Jim McGinn
"Coby Beck" <cb...@mercury.bc.ca> wrote in message
news:QzzXf.28314$%H.16621@clgrps13...
> "Jim McGinn" <jimm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:vuxXf.43866$_S7....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>> "Coby Beck" <cb...@mercury.bc.ca> wrote
>>
>> There is no model on this website that has a a verifyably high degree of
>> confidence AND that indicates catastrophic GW. All of the current trends
>> indicate very moderate global warming. There is no drama in the data.
>
> I disagree.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
Hockey stick nonsense. (This is statistically insignificant.)
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png
I don't know what it is you think you see here.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png
There's nothing dramatic or catastrophic in these graphs. If you think
there is then you're seeing things.
>
>> drama is in the models and they either have low levels of confidence or
>> no
>> mention at all about what level of confidence we can attribute to them.
>
> References? Which models are you thinking of? Please provide a link to
> the material that you read that lead you to this conclusion, where
> *should* you have seen discussion of confidence levels?
You want me to show you where I didn't find it? Uh, I couldn't find it
anywhere.
Jim
Jim McGinn
Why don't you look it up.
H2-PV NOW
Jim McGinn wrote:
> Evidence? References? Proof?
You never produce any -- just cite ORGANIZED CRIME mouthpieces, but
never do serious homework or MANDATORY DUTY to ascertain facts.
H2-PV NOW
Jim McGinn wrote:
> Science involves evidence. You have none.
McGinn cites ONLY ORGANIZED CRIME MOUTHPIECES. He cites NO science.
Raymond Arritt
> "Raymond Arritt" <raymon...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:tAyXf.871123$x96.92167@attbi_s72...
>
>>Jim McGinn wrote:
>>
>>>"Raymond Arritt" <raymon...@hotmail.com> wrote
>>>
>>>
>>>There is no model on this website that has a a verifyably high degree of
>>>confidence AND that indicates catastrophic GW. All of the current trends
>>>indicate very moderate global warming. There is no drama in the data.
>>>The
>>>drama is in the models and they either have low levels of confidence or
>>>no
>>>mention at all about what level of confidence we can attribute to them.
>>
>>Ah, so you didn't actually read the SPM.
>>
>>Tell us, which part of the SPM asserts "catastrophic" global warming
>>will occur?
>
>
> Why don't you look it up.
I did.
The point is, you didn't. You've repeatedly made statements about the
contents of the SPM without having read it.
Jim McGinn
"Raymond Arritt" <raymon...@hotmail.com> wrote
>> Why don't you look it up.
>
> I did.
>
> The point is, you didn't. You've repeatedly made statements about the
> contents of the SPM without having read it.
I did too. The point is that the IPCC website is nothing but a vehicle for
propaganda. There is no science there. The website does nothing but
encourage the readership to blindly accept the premise of GW. Then it
continues with drama filled what-if scenarios.
Jim
H2-PV NOW
Jim McGinn wrote:
> I did too. The point is that the IPCC website is nothing but a vehicle for
> propaganda. There is no science there. The website does nothing but
> encourage the readership to blindly accept the premise of GW. Then it
> continues with drama filled what-if scenarios.
You are given LEGAL NOTICE that you are aiding and abetting an
Coby Beck
>
> I did too. The point is that the IPCC website is nothing but a vehicle
> for propaganda. There is no science there. The website does nothing but
> encourage the readership to blindly accept the premise of GW. Then it
Let's just grab a random page:
All greenhouse gases except CO2 and H2O are removed from the atmosphere
primarily by chemical processes within the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases
containing one or more H atoms (e.g., CH4, HFCs and HCFCs), as well as other
pollutants, are removed primarily by the reaction with hydroxyl radicals
(OH). This removal takes place in the troposphere, the lowermost part of the
atmosphere, ranging from the surface up to 7 to 16 km depending on latitude
and season and containing 80% of the mass of the atmosphere. The greenhouse
gases N2O, PFCs, SF6, CFCs and halons do not react with OH in the
troposphere. These gases are destroyed in the stratosphere or above, mainly
by solar ultraviolet radiation (UV) at short wavelengths (<240 nm), and are
long-lived. Because of the time required to transport these gases to the
region of chemical loss, they have a minimum lifetime of about 20 years. CO2
is practically inert in the atmosphere and does not directly influence the
chemistry, but it has a small in situ source from the oxidation of CH4, CO
and VOC.
Tropospheric OH abundances depend on abundances of NOx, CH4, CO, VOC, O3 and
H2O plus the amount of solar UV (>300 nm) that reaches the troposphere. As a
consequence, OH varies widely with geographical location, time of day, and
season. Likewise the local loss rates of all those gases reacting with OH
also vary. Because of its dependence on CH4 and other pollutants,
tropospheric OH is expected to have changed since the pre-industrial era and
to change again for future emission scenarios. For some of these gases other
removal processes, such as photolysis or surface uptake, are also important;
and the total sink of the gas is obtained by integrating over all such
processes. The chemistry of tropospheric O3 is closely tied to that of OH,
and its abundance also varies with changing precursor emissions. The
chemistry of the troposphere is also directly influenced by the
stratospheric burden of O3, climatic changes in temperature (T) and humidity
(H2O), as well as by interactions between tropospheric aerosols and trace
gases. Such couplings provide a “feedback” between the climate change
induced by increasing greenhouse gases and the concentration of these gases.
Another feedback, internal to the chemistry, is the impact of CH4 on OH and
hence its own loss. These feedbacks are expected to be important for
tropospheric O3 and OH. Such chemistry-chemistry or climate-chemistry
coupling has been listed under “indirect effects” in the SAR (Prather et
al., 1995; Schimel et al., 1996).
This chapter uses 3-D chemistry-transport models (CTMs) to integrate the
varying chemical processes over global conditions, to estimate their
significance, and to translate the emission scenarios into abundance changes
in the greenhouse gases CH4, HFCs, and O3. An extensive modelling exercise
called OxComp (tropospheric oxidant model comparison) – involving model
comparisons, sensitivity studies, and investigation of the IPCC SRES
scenarios was organised to support this report.
Stratospheric circulation and distribution of O3 control the transport of
the long-lived greenhouse gases to regions of photochemical loss as well as
the penetration of solar UV into the atmosphere. At the same time, many of
these gases (e.g., N2O and CFCs) supply ozone-depleting radicals (e.g.,
nitric oxide (NO) and Cl) to the stratosphere, providing a feedback between
the gas and its loss rate. Another consequence of the observed stratospheric
ozone depletion is that tropospheric photochemical activity is expected to
have increased, altering tropospheric OH and O3. Climate change in the 21st
century, including the radiative cooling of the stratosphere by increased
levels of CO2, is expected to alter stratospheric circulation and O3, and,
hence, the global mean loss rates of the long-lived gases. Some of these
effects are discussed in WMO (1999) and are briefly considered here.
The biosphere’s response to global change will impact the atmospheric
composition of the 21st century. The anticipated changes in climate (e.g.,
temperature, precipitation) and in chemistry will alter ecosystems and thus
the “natural”, background emissions of trace gases. There is accumulating
evidence that increased N deposition (the result of NOx and ammonia (NH3)
emissions) and elevated surface O3 abundances have opposite influences on
plant CO2 uptake: O3 (>40 ppb) inhibits CO2 uptake; while N deposition
enhances it up to a threshold, above which the effects are detrimental. In
addition, the increased N availability from atmospheric deposition and
direct fertilisation accelerates the emission of N-containing trace gases
(NO, N2O and NH3) and CH4, as well as altering species diversity and
biospheric functioning. These complex interactions represent a
chemistry-biosphere feedback that may alter greenhouse forcing.
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/131.htm
oooohh, political propaganda...
Jim McGinn
"Coby Beck" <cb...@mercury.bc.ca> wrote
<snip>
Uh, I don't know what you see here, Coby. All I see is a discussion about
the mechanistic aspects of the biosphere/climate. There is nothing in any
of this that explains why we should accept the premise of catastrophic
AGW--nothing. What little there is that discusses this subject can be
summed up with the following: trust the scientists. You go ahead and trust
the scientist. I know better.
H2-PV NOW
McGinn's FRAUD: Re: IPCC lacks credibility
> called OxComp (tropospheric oxidant model comparison) - involving model
Roger Coppock
> their posts are archived for everybody to see
> in the future.
But most crackpots do not post under their own
name.
H2-PV NOW
"Re: IPCC lacks credibility" is named Roger Cooppock.
It would have taken 2 seconds to change the title. You preferred to
spread the meme itself, suggesting that there is ongoing controversy.
That's what ORGANIZED CRIME wants to accomplish -- That's what you
aided McGinn in accomplishing.
You could have changed the message title but you CHOSE to spread the
fraud meme instead.
Coby Beck
\
> You go ahead and trust the scientist. I know better.
Yes, yes. And pi is 3, the world was made in 6 days, the earth is the
center of the universe, and the Intelligent Designer created you with all
the knowledge you'll need so why read a book...
Thanks for your input.
H2-PV NOW
Jim McGinn
"Coby Beck" <cb...@mercury.bc.ca> wrote
>> You go ahead and trust the scientist. I know better.
>
> Yes, yes. And pi is 3, the world was made in 6 days, the earth is the
> center of the universe, and the Intelligent Designer created you with all
> the knowledge you'll need so why read a book...
My methods involve rationality and reason. Your methods involve faith and
drama.
Jim
Coby Beck
Well reasoned, Jim. Ahmen.
H2-PV NOW
Jim McGinn wrote:
> My methods involve rationality and reason. Your methods involve faith and
> drama.
Your methods are ORGANIZED CRIME Frauds. I have faith you will spend
time in prison.
Lloyd Parker
"Jim McGinn" <jimm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>"bill" <ford_pr...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
>>> There is no model on this website that has a a verifyably high degree of
>>> confidence AND that indicates catastrophic GW. All of the current trends
>>> indicate very moderate global warming. There is no drama in the data.
>>> The
>>> drama is in the models and they either have low levels of confidence or
>>> no
>>> mention at all about what level of confidence we can attribute to them.
>>>
>>> You can point to some things that have drama and you can point to other
>>> things that have a high degree of confidence but you can't point to any
>>> one
>>> thing that indicates both.
>>
>> See, that would depend on your definition of "drama". The vast
>> majority of models predict somewhere between 1-4 degrees C of warming.
>> Some predict more, some less.
>> Many climate scientists see this 1-4 degrees as dramatic enough
>
>You aren't listening, Bill. The models have a low degree of confidence.
Sez who?
>The drama is in the models. Not in the data.
>
> to
>> be pretty worrying, and state that it will result in rising sea levels,
>> increased desertification, and increased extreme weather. fairly
>> dramatic, ask anyone in new orleans.
>
>So, hurricanes didn't happen previously?
>
>They are right.
>> Others say that 1-4 degrees over 100 years is really pretty
>> manageable with just a modicum of foresight in picking battles.
>
>"Others," can say what they want. It doesn't make it true.
>
>> They
>> are right too (if we have that modicum).
>
>Science involves evidence. You have none.
So we're imagining all that increased CO2 and all those higher temps?
>
>> Some models predict greater warming, those are the ones the GW
>> alarmists latch on to. Some predict less, those are the ones the
>> sceptics latch on to. Both sets are outliers, and there are crackpots
>> on both sides.
>> I was also a sceptic until a few years ago, and I don't realy
>> trust ipcc either, I don't consider the UN to be significantly more
>> reliable as a source of good science than exxon. both have axes to
>> grind, and will say what is in their interests. But the fact remains
>> that there is nowhere for the watts to go.
>
>Evidence? References? Proof?
>
Ever hear of the First Law of Thermodynamics?
Lloyd Parker
"Jim McGinn" <jimm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>"Raymond Arritt" <raymon...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
>
>There is no model on this website that has a a verifyably high degree of
>confidence AND that indicates catastrophic GW. All of the current trends
>indicate very moderate global warming.
Define "very moderate."
>There is no drama in the data. The
>drama is in the models and they either have low levels of confidence or no
>mention at all about what level of confidence we can attribute to them.
>
>
I doubt most drug companies report that when they provide data to the general
public either.
Lloyd Parker
"Jim McGinn" <jimm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>"Raymond Arritt" <raymon...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
>>> Why don't you look it up.
>>
>> I did.
>>
>> The point is, you didn't. You've repeatedly made statements about the
>> contents of the SPM without having read it.
>
>I did too. The point is that the IPCC website is nothing but a vehicle for
>propaganda.
Unlike Cato and Sepp that you cite?
>There is no science there.
You're lying again.
Lloyd Parker
"Jim McGinn" <jimm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>"Coby Beck" <cb...@mercury.bc.ca> wrote in message
>news:QzzXf.28314$%H.16621@clgrps13...
>> "Jim McGinn" <jimm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:vuxXf.43866$_S7....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>>>
>>> "Coby Beck" <cb...@mercury.bc.ca> wrote
>>>
>>> There is no model on this website that has a a verifyably high degree of
>>> confidence AND that indicates catastrophic GW. All of the current trends
>>> indicate very moderate global warming. There is no drama in the data.
>>
>> I disagree.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
>
>Hockey stick nonsense. (This is statistically insignificant.)
>
You are a fool.
Jim McGinn
"Lloyd Parker" <lpa...@emory.edu> wrote
>>> Many climate scientists see this 1-4 degrees as dramatic enough
>>
>>You aren't listening, Bill. The models have a low degree of confidence.
>
> Sez who?
Are you suggesting we should just assume the confidence is high?
>>Science involves evidence. You have none.
>
> So we're imagining all that increased CO2 and all those higher temps?
You're imagining catastrophic consequences for which we have no reason to
expect.
>>Evidence? References? Proof?
>>
>
> Ever hear of the First Law of Thermodynamics?
Yes, jackass, what's your point?
Jim
Global Warming @ARMY.com
Jim McGinn wrote:
> You're imagining catastrophic consequences for which we have no reason to
> expect.
>
>
> >>Evidence? References? Proof?
> >>
> >
> > Ever hear of the First Law of Thermodynamics?
>
> Yes, jackass, what's your point?
You are given LEGAL NOTICE that you are aiding and abetting an
Global Warming @ARMY.com
Thomas Lee Elifritz who posted a message titled with libel "Re: IPCC
lacks credibility" wrote:
> Jim McGinn wrote:
>
> > "Lloyd Parker" <lpa...@emory.edu> wrote
>
> >>Ever hear of the First Law of Thermodynamics?
> >
> > Yes, jackass, what's your point?
>
>
> Every time you hear a bell,
> another ignorant troll gets internet access.
Your message was titled with a libel: "Re: IPCC lacks credibility",
making you an accomplice by not changing it. I guess that means another
DING because you fell into their trap of answering on THEIR TERMS. They
showed more intelligence than you by making you act as accomplice in
publishing repeated libels. IF you had any intelligence you would have
changed the message title to reflect what is really going on.
DING, DING, DING, DING, DING, DING, DING, DING, DING, DING, DING, DING,
DING, DING, DING, DING, DING, DING, DING, DING, DING, DING, DING, DING,
DING, DING, DING, DING, DING, DING, DING, DING, DING, DING, DING, DING,
DING, DING, DING, DING, DING, DING, DING, DING, DING, DING, DING, DING,
DING, DING, DING, DING, DING, DING, DING, DING, DING, DING, DING, DING,
DING, DING, DING, DING, DING, DING, DING, DING, DING, DING, DING, DING,
DING, DING, DING, DING, DING, DING, DING, DING, DING, DING, DING, DING,
DING, DING, DING, DING, DING, DING, DING, DING, DING, DING, DING, DING,
DING, DING, DING, DING, DING, DING, DING, DING, DING, DING, DING, DING,
DING, DING, DING.
Lloyd Parker
"Jim McGinn" <jimm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lpa...@emory.edu> wrote
>
>>>> Many climate scientists see this 1-4 degrees as dramatic enough
>>>
>>>You aren't listening, Bill. The models have a low degree of confidence.
>>
>> Sez who?
>
>Are you suggesting we should just assume the confidence is high?
I'm asking why you assert the confidence is low.
>
>
>>>Science involves evidence. You have none.
>>
>> So we're imagining all that increased CO2 and all those higher temps?
>
>You're imagining catastrophic consequences for which we have no reason to
>expect.
>
If a forest fire is burning the acreage next door, it's reasonable to assume
pretty bad consequences it if continues unchecked.
>
>>>Evidence? References? Proof?
>>>
>>
>> Ever hear of the First Law of Thermodynamics?
You demanded proof that all that energy has to go somewhere.
Jim McGinn
"Lloyd Parker" <lpa...@emory.edu> wrote
>>>>You aren't listening, Bill. The models have a low degree of confidence.
>>>
>>> Sez who?
>>
>>Are you suggesting we should just assume the confidence is high?
>
> I'm asking why you assert the confidence is low.
Answer the question you evasive twit: Are you suggesting we should just
assume the confidence is high?
Jim
Lloyd Parker
well, given past data.
Jim McGinn
"Lloyd Parker" <lpa...@emory.edu> wrote
> That makes more sense, as the models now predict the present climate very
> well, given past data.
Like you have a clue.
H2-PV NOW
> > That makes more sense, as the models now predict the present climate very
> > well, given past data.
>
> Like you have a clue.
You are given LEGAL NOTICE that you are aiding and abetting an