The warmers are becoming skeptics

[shadron]

Thanks Shadron.
I have no idea why others could not have explained this in a simple way.

So he is independent. Great, that is something at least.
And his opinion is valid - but others have different ones and can pull it apart from another angle.
My point here remains that the video is not the final word, which some would have us believe. If it were, investigations into Climategate would not be continuing/getting underway.

Potholer54 has just released another video about incorrect claims by Imhofe and other AGW deniers. This includes, in particular, BAC's thread on global cooling since 1998:

And his opinion is valid - but others have different ones and can pull it apart from another angle.

Show me.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Hiyo!

Two things, firstly I was asking a question on what you say I "stated". I had heard it and wanted clarification on it's accuracy. That said, there is a link below that outlines what I asked.
So, is this accurate? If so, how/why/should we 'deniers' (and anyone else ftm) fully trust the IPCCand its reports. How many other lies are in there? Is it all politically based, exaggerated and alarmist. Seriously, why should we trust them?


PS. Apologies for the delay - I have been off line for the past week (millions cheer ).

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html

In part..

The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.
Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.
In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report’s chapter on Asia, said: ‘It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.
‘It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in.’

 

[The Painter]

Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995
click it

Data: Professor Phil Jones admitted his record keeping is 'not as good as it should be'

Another oops. No warming for 15 years.

 

[Dancing David]

Two things, firstly I was asking a question on what you say I "stated". I had heard it and wanted clarification on it's accuracy. That said, there is a link below that outlines what I asked.
So, is this accurate? If so, how/why/should we 'deniers' (and anyone else ftm) fully trust the IPCCand its reports. How many other lies are in there? Is it all politically based, exaggerated and alarmist. Seriously, why should we trust them?


PS. Apologies for the delay - I have been off line for the past week (millions cheer ).

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html

In part..

Thanks Alfie, I will read and see!

This is what you said "Have the IPCC not (basically) admitted they lied for politicaly prudent reasons in recent times"

 

[Megalodon]

Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995
click it

Another oops. No warming for 15 years.

Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm

 

[Dancing David]

Alfie this is what you said and I am reading your artcile

Have the IPCC not (basically) admitted they lied for politicaly prudent reasons in recent times?

Article quotes:

Dr Lal’s admission will only add to the mounting furore over the melting glaciers assertion, which the IPCC was last week forced to withdraw because it has no scientific foundation.

...

You have not at all provided evidence of your claim AA Alfie, in what way does this say that The IPCC intended to 'tell a lie'. It says one author of a chapter made a huge error.

I thinl you are engaing in hyperbole and haven't proved your statement.

In fact your article says that other memebers of the IPCC tried to talk to Lal about this:

Last week, Professor Georg Kaser, a glacier expert from Austria, who was lead author of a different chapter in the IPCC report, said when he became aware of the 2035 claim a few months before the report was published, he wrote to Dr Lal, urging him to withdraw it as patently untrue.

I think I could call you a liar by the same standard you are applying. After all you exagerated your conclusions from your data!

here is another version of the story:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/en...s-mistake-over-Himalayan-glacier-melting.html

SINCE WHEN DID MAKING A RETRATION BECOME ADMITTING TO TELLING A LIE?

 

[drkitten]

Another oops. No warming for 15 years.

Aside from the fact that that's NOT AT ALL what he said,....

well, aside from that, you got nothing.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Alfie this is what you said and I am reading your artcile

Article quotes:

You have not at all provided evidence of your claim AA Alfie, in what way does this say that The IPCC intended to 'tell a lie'. It says one author of a chapter made a huge error.

I thinl you are engaing in hyperbole and haven't proved your statement.

In fact your article says that other memebers of the IPCC tried to talk to Lal about this:


I think I could call you a liar by the same standard you are applying. After all you exagerated your conclusions from your data!

here is another version of the story:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/en...s-mistake-over-Himalayan-glacier-melting.html

SINCE WHEN DID MAKING A RETRATION BECOME ADMITTING TO TELLING A LIE?

DD, I was not making a statement, I was asking a question (sure I forgot the question mark) around what I had heard and read when I said: "Have not the IPCC...."
That aside, is it a lie to repeat what is out there anyway?
How does a retraction not make it a lie anyway.

This all seems a little beside the point. The question remains, did they or did they not include this "lie" in the report for political reasons? That is what has been reported.

 

[Dancing David]

DD, I was not making a statement, I was asking a question (sure I forgot the question mark) around what I had heard and read when I said: "Have not the IPCC...."
That aside, is it a lie to repeat what is out there anyway?
How does a retraction not make it a lie anyway.

This all seems a little beside the point. The question remains, did they or did they not include this "lie" in the report for political reasons? That is what has been reported.

Evidently you don't know the meaning of the word lie.

But then you have shown yourself to be biased long ago.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

What?
Why do you say that?

Where is the lie and which one are you talking about? Mine (alleged) or theirs?

If the former, how have I lied by reporting what is freely on the internet and asking about and raising it as possible evidence?
If theirs why is it not a lie if they put something in they knowingly knew was incorrect? They then retract it when they get caught out. Seems like a lie to me.
But please let me know your definition, frankly I'm lost.

 

[a_unique_person]

DD, I was not making a statement, I was asking a question (sure I forgot the question mark) around what I had heard and read when I said: "Have not the IPCC...."
That aside, is it a lie to repeat what is out there anyway?
How does a retraction not make it a lie anyway.

This all seems a little beside the point. The question remains, did they or did they not include this "lie" in the report for political reasons? That is what has been reported.

You are a big fan of the hasty generalisation.

Meanwhile

http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/2010/02/why_the_denial_camp_is_winning_1.php

The denialists are winning because they lie.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

No, the denialists are winning because the IPCC lie.
Hasty generalisation? You might need tgo explain as I've missed something here.

 

[a_unique_person]

No, the denialists are winning because the IPCC lie.
Hasty generalisation? You might need tgo explain as I've missed something here.

One person enters some information in the report that was poorly sourced. The error is pointed out to him, by people in the IPCC but he does not remove it. Therefore the whole IPCC is responsible for this one persons error. Therefore AGW is a lie, and the laws of physics no longer apply.

 

[Belz...]

Yes, AUP, that seems to be the crux of Alfie's argument. In fact, such arguments apply to conspiracy theories and Holocaust denial as well.

 

[Dancing David]

What?
Why do you say that?

Where is the lie and which one are you talking about? Mine (alleged) or theirs?

If the former, how have I lied by reporting what is freely on the internet and asking about and raising it as possible evidence?
If theirs why is it not a lie if they put something in they knowingly knew was incorrect? They then retract it when they get caught out. Seems like a lie to me.
But please let me know your definition, frankly I'm lost.

Your veiw of reality is pretty obviously not sceptical, I will avoid insulting you.

But just because a tabloid or blog prints something does not mean anything.

You can't even stand by your own words and then start spinning as fast as possible.

 

[Dancing David]

One person enters some information in the report that was poorly sourced. The error is pointed out to him, by people in the IPCC but he does not remove it. Therefore the whole IPCC is responsible for this one persons error. Therefore AGW is a lie, and the laws of physics no longer apply.

Thanks.

 

[a_unique_person]

Denialist lies

http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...d-to-discredit-climate-scientist-1894552.html

 

[Belz...]

Baleeted.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

One person enters some information in the report that was poorly sourced. The error is pointed out to him, by people in the IPCC but he does not remove it. Therefore the whole IPCC is responsible for this one persons error. Therefore AGW is a lie, and the laws of physics no longer apply.

From what I understand, the 'lie' was pointed out before publication and it was decided leaving it in was a 'good idea'. Only when they were called on it did they retract.

You are correct however that this one instance of one person should not taint the whole IPCC.

However, when we have a string of such events, political (and/or financial) interests being used as valid reasons for inclusion, senior members' outside interests and integrity being questioned, a lack of objective neutrality of the body etc etc.

One must begin to become skepical to a point. When will you?

Your veiw of reality is pretty obviously not sceptical, I will avoid insulting you.

And in this one sentence we see the total acceptance and justification of contradiction and insult.

But just because a tabloid or blog prints something does not mean anything.

Agreed, but how does that make me a liar?

You can't even stand by your own words and then start spinning as fast as possible.

Not true, I am not standing by your interpretation of my words. At any rate, I think I have explained both sides (yours and mine). If you wish to continue with trivialities on my language (or misuse thereof) you can go it alone from here.

 

[a_unique_person]

From what I understand, the 'lie' was pointed out before publication and it was decided leaving it in was a 'good idea'. Only when they were called on it did they retract.

You are correct however that this one instance of one person should not taint the whole IPCC.

However, when we have a string of such events, political (and/or financial) interests being used as valid reasons for inclusion, senior members' outside interests and integrity being questioned, a lack of objective neutrality of the body etc etc.

One must begin to become skepical to a point. When will you?

I was sceptical from the start, since I could still remember the ice age scare, and could not see how CO2 could have a significant effect on the climate. I educated myself on the physical basis for the claims, and was convinced. You refuse to acknowledge there is a physical basis for AGW, and are not any sort of a sceptic until you do.