Most regular anti-science deniers are either too ignorant or too dishonest (or, as with the 5 of the top ten YA "global warming" answerers who are hard-core anti-science regulars, BOTH) to recognize the difference between a century of solid science and two decades of fossil fuel industry sponsored deceptions.
For the science:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_...
http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/...
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timel...
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index...
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument...
We do realise they are written for us. Normally, we would be grateful.
However, we would prefer it if they reported accurately what the conclusions of the contributing scientists were and did not make changes to push propaganda.
For instance, a conclusion of the Second Assessment Report (SAR) was that: "The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate."
Compare that to the observations made by Professor Frederick Seitz who compared the scientist-approved version with the published version and noted that the following comments had been excised:
"None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases."
"No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed to date] to anthropogenic [man-made] causes."
"Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced."
and the following had appeared:
"The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate."
Feel free to do your own research.
EDIT: What do warmists tell us skeptics that we do when we can't rebut an argument. Oh, I remember, they say we change the subject!
They claim our reading comprehension is poor. So is theirs. I will say again: "Feel free to do your own research."
The claim that the IPCC changed the published conclusions after the "final" review still stands. So their conclusions were not peer-reviewed. In fact, they mis-represented the scientists. The scientists did not conclude that they had evidence that man did it. The final report suggests otherwise.
You claim: "Scientists and informed non-professionals already know what information will be in the reports – because it has already been published and discussed." Not true, a small coterie can and do make last minute changes.
"They contain nothing new or unknown; no surprises; and no “game-changing” information – and anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional. " Use you scientific brain to work out who the delusional one is here.
It strikes me that you do not know very much about the IPCC reports. If you think they are about the science then you must be truly delusional. Their remit is to consider only man-made climate change. That skews the results somewhat from a balanced scientific view.
They ignore the review comments of participating scientists. That is documented. They use up to 30% grey literature - a good deal "greyer" than my reference above. You could, if you were interested find a link to the original letter I am sure.
What is happening to the report now. The science was in ages ago. What are they re-writing, exactly? and why? Do the scientists know? Where they consulted?
The IPCC summaries are written largely by the politicians. This is so that they can establish a consensus for further climate negotiations AKA a pretext for wealth distribution. They pay lip service to the science for purposes of plausible deniability, only.
Wake up, small the coffee!
Rainforest Jim:
The IPCC assessment reports are written to get more money from sucker countries. They are written to sustain their paycheck.
Quote by Nobel Prize Winner For Chemistry, Kary Mullis: “Global warmers predict that global warming is coming, and our emissions are to blame. They do that to keep us worried about our role in the whole thing. If we aren't worried and guilty, we might not pay their salaries. It's that simple.
Peggy:
Gary F:< kano –
>>while 95% of their models got it wrong<<
Explain what that means. How do you define wrongness in a model; how do you measure wrongness; and how do you test wrongness? >
Some scientist you are when we have to explain to you what is wrong and what is right. Ha! Ha! You don't know when something is wrong? That is precious!
CR: Give it up! Your ten warmest years has been debunked so often you should be embarrassed to put it forth any more. Is that all you got? Then give up. Good grief!
Gary F: I would answer your question, but you have already admitted that you don't know if something is wrong and want someone to explain it to you. So how would you know if I was wrong, even if I was wrong? Your utter ignorance is showing again.
Other then being absolutely wrong I notice the typical Alarmist spin.
The IPCC was founded from two organizations in 1988 the WMO and the UN. The IPCC purpose served as a basis for collaborative international government negotiations on carbon emissions. "Not the ranking of Deniers as you submitted."
Yet alarmist wonder why they are ignored by the general public.
Caliserv accuses realists of ad hominem attacks, yet, when anyone actually posts any actual science, such as
"The ten warmest years in the instrumental record are 2010, 2005, 2009, 2007, 2002, 1998, 2006, 2003, 2011 and 2012.
"http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/gra...
then denialists respond with ad homs against James Hansen.
Its funny - I have never met anyone who thinks climate science is a fraud , who has bothered to spend a few hours to read the IPCC Synthesis Report......but are pleased to regurgitate Daily Mail stories as if they are at the vanguard of science
"How do you define wrongness in a model; how do you measure wrongness; and how do you test wrongness?" I think they possibly mean "significance" - but seem to have no idea what that means. A significance of 0.05 in climate science is apparently cause for howls of derision but perfectly acceptable in pharmaceutical clinical trials
Perhaps they are sufficiently dedicated to critical thinking to recognize that reports edited by government appointees are not scientific, and that ad hominem attacks are not cogent arguments.
PS Saying that someone 'has no knowledge of science' is a baseless assertion; you have no way to measure that, but for disagreement with your position. It is, thus, a perfect example of circular reasoning. Further, the asker's literacy or knowledge would be relevant if--and only if--his argument were based on his own authority as an expert; but, that is not the form he used. Thus, you did introduce an irrelevant characteristic of the individual, rather than addressing the strength of the argument made. It is patently ad hom. It says nothing about him or his argument, but it does say something about your lack of commitment to the scientific method.
The AR5E you mean, their confidence in man made warming goes up proportionally to the evidence going down. 95% confidence while 95% of their models got it wrong.
edit
95% of models could not project the possibility of a pause.
Computer models are used too much these days, I read a long study of tree growth, where they were surprised that trees were not moving north or higher elevations as expected, this was plotted against model temperatures instead of having real measurements
Give me a realistic answer on Obama's Global Warming Council and who they are and then tell me it's not about money, power, and bigger Government. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...
Since you know so much, then why didn't Obama appoint you to be a speaker?
Are you too stupid or too poor?
Worst argument ever like watching a freight train crash it just kept getting worse, my favorite part is when you introduce your acceptable levels of wrongness concept.
.
After all, they are “assessments” of the existing scientific research written for people who don’t know anything about science or global climate – and no group fits that definition better than science Deniers.
Scientists and informed non-professionals already know what information will be in the reports – because it has already been published and discussed. They contain nothing new or unknown; no surprises; and no “game-changing” information – and anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional. Who else would excited over a leaked draft document than contains Information everyone already knows?
.
Stupidity and stubbornness prevents the realization
By deniers I take you mean people who live in the real world as opposed to political activists who use fantasies to forward their extreme political agenda.
Why do warmunists like you deny the supremacy of evidence over theory?
"In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job.
Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow. Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure for big donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet. Lysenko and his team lived very well, and they fiercely defended their dogma and the privileges it brought them."
Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris; J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting; Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University; Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society; Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences; William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton; Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT; James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University; Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences; Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator; Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem; Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service; Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva.
Let's face it, someone like Caliservative is never going to read anything remotely connected to science.
