Waiting for Global Cooling still

Poptech · 27-04-2008, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Besoeker

Hi Popeye
Have you read any of the WG4 report?
I mean actually read any section of the report, not what people say about it.
Make your own mind up about the data presented.

Yes I have read much of the WG4 report and find it overly and poorly worded, so much so I would say intentionally to confound the made up conclusions that it draws from worthless climate models. The WG4 report is a desperate attempt to manufacturer what does not exist in empirical evidence to come to a preconceived conclusion. Have you read any criticism of the report? I have:

Independent Summary for Policymakers: IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (PDF) (Fraser Institute)
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report 2007 Analysis and Summary (PDF) (Science & Public Policy Institute)
Has the IPCC inflated the feedback factor? (PDF) (Science & Public Policy Institute)
Peer Review? What Peer Review? Failures of scrutiny in the UN's Fourth Assessment Report (PDF) (Science & Public Policy Institute)
What is Wrong with the IPCC? (PDF) (Science & Public Policy Institute)
Why the IPCC should be disbanded (PDF) (Science & Public Policy Institute)

Yes please make up your own mind especially once you realize the "forcings" are computer manufactured.

Clippo · 27-04-2008, 06:48 PM

So, Poptech,

Five out of six of you references in the last post are from The Science & Public Policy Institute. Let me show our readers what Wiki has to say about them:- (and you know that wiki can be challenged by anyone so since the SPPI haven’t apparently challenged this content we must suppose it to be reasonably accurate)

Quote:

The Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI) is a man made climate change skeptic organization, formerly the Center for Science and Public Policy for the Frontiers of Freedom [1], a conservative think tank founded by former Republican senator Malcolm Wallop[2]. The institute describes itself as a
nonprofit institute of research and education dedicated to sound public policy based on sound science. Free from affiliation to any corporation or political party, we support the advancement of sensible public policies for energy and the environment rooted in rational science and economics. Only through science and factual information, separating reality from rhetoric, can legislators develop beneficial policies without unintended consequences that might threaten the life, liberty, and prosperity of the citizenry. [3]
The organization's Executive Director is Robert "Bob" Ferguson, a former Chief of Staff to Republican Congressmen Jack Fields (1981-1997), John E. Peterson (1997-2002), and Rick Renzi (2002). The chief science adviser to the institute is Willie Soon, PhD an astrophysicist and geoscientist, an opponent of man made global warming and advancer of the theory that climate change is caused by solar variation. The chief policy adviser is Christopher Monckton, a former special adviser to Margaret Thatcher and one of the UK's most prominent climate change sceptics. Further science advisers include William Kininmonth, Robert M. Carter, David Legates, Craig D. Idso, all known skeptics of man made climate change, and James J. O'Brien. Joe D'Aleo is the institute's Meteorology Adviser.
The institute has funded a film "Apocalypse No" intended to show the errors of the Al Gore film An Inconvenient Truth. It will show Monckton, chief policy adviser of the institute presenting a slide show to the Cambridge University Union examining climate change science. [4].
The Frontiers of Freedom Institute received a donation of $100,000 from ExxonMobil in 2002 for the foundation (in 2003) of the Frontiers of Freedom Institute's Center for Science and Public Policy [5]. The institute received $90,000 in funding from ExxonMobil in 2006[6]

There's too much for me to highlight btw.

And I invite readers to look up the Fraser Institute similarly.

Game, Set & Match !!!!!

kernow · 27-04-2008, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clippo

Despite the naysayers the world has warmed over the last decade :-

Good! I hate the bloody cold!

Poptech · 27-04-2008, 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clippo

Five out of six of you references in the last post are from The Science & Public Policy Institute. Let me show our readers what Wiki has to say about them:- (and you know that wiki can be challenged by anyone so since the SPPI haven’t apparently challenged this content we must suppose it to be reasonably accurate)

AHAHAHAHA! Back to Wikipedia that a 5 year old can edit at will! You never learn. Maybe SPPI understands the futility of changing anything on Wikipedia. You are going to have to do much better then that. To bad it does not change the information in the papers.

The Faith-Based Encyclopedia (Robert McHenry, Former Editor in Chief, the Encyclopedia Britannica)
Wikipedia's Zealots (National Post, Canada)

A false Wikipedia 'biography' (USA Today)
A History Department Bans Citing Wikipedia as a Research Source (The New York Times)
Wikipedia "broken beyond repair", co-founder says (The Inquirer)
Wikipedia founder admits to serious quality problems (The Register)
Wikipedia - I have the power (Penny Arcade)

BonnieDundee · 28-04-2008, 01:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poptech

AHAHAHAHA! Back to Wikipedia that a 5 year old can edit at will! You never learn. Maybe SPPI understands the futility of changing anything on Wikipedia. You are going to have to do much better then that. To bad it does not change the information in the papers.

Actually Wikipedia has strict rules on editing. At anyone time an article might have been edited by a five year old, but it will be picked up on rapidly and reverted, so over quite a short amount of time any dodgy editing is usually removed. Particularly on the notable articles.

BonnieDundee · 28-04-2008, 01:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by C_steam

You think? have you no clue as to how the wiki is organised or managed? It has very little academic support, consisting as it does of articles written or edited by individuals - in many cases unknown.

Fact is that V large companies and governments employ staff to 'update' the wiki in their favour so that it acts in their best interests.

I have quite a good knowledge of it in fact. There are strict rules of editing.

Alex McKee · 28-04-2008, 01:28 AM

I personally think Wikipedia is great. But then, I participate and help to improve it.

BonnieDundee · 28-04-2008, 01:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poptech

Then it should be easy to prove via the scientific method. Please do this for me.

Not my job, you can argue with the Royal society and if they and their counterparts from America to Australia agree with you then I will believe you. I'm not a climatologist and I personally do not derive much interest out of the subject, I know that the temperature record has risen greatly, that CO2 and Methane which contribute a sizeable amount of the Greenhouse effect have risen significantly as well and scientists generally blame the rising temperature on the increase of these gases as other phenomena, natural ones, in recent decades have been tending towards what would normally cause a cooling.

Poptech · 28-04-2008, 01:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BonnieDundee

Actually Wikipedia has strict rules on editing. At anyone time an article might have been edited by a five year old, but it will be picked up on rapidly and reverted, so over quite a short amount of time any dodgy editing is usually removed. Particularly on the notable articles.

Since you are so certain then please answer the following questions for me:

1. If Wikipedia is so accurate then why would anyone ever need to make corrections to it? The pages should simply be locked for all eternity in their current perfectly accurate state.

2. Who decides who a "good editor" is? How are their qualifications determined? (anyone with an internet connection can edit any Wikipedia page at will and anyone can create a Wiki account)

3. How do you determine if a page is "good editor" corrected or "bad editor" inaccurate?

4. What is the time frame for a "good editor" to correct a page and how is this time frame determined?

5. If more then one "good editor" wants to make completely different changes to a page who wins? Could it be the last one who edited it? But which is the truth?

6. If more then one person is "watching" a topic for changes and they both want to make completely different changes to a page who wins? Could it be the last one who edited it? But which is the truth?

7. Are there more expert or non-expert people with Internet connections on a certain subject that can edit that subject's Wikipedia page?

8. With no value assigned to level of expertise for editors per Wikipedia page how is the accuracy of the edits determined?

9. How is a "neutral point of view" determined on Wikipedia pages and who makes this decision? Could it be the person who edited it last? How is this a "neutral point of view"?

10. At the time that you are looking at a page how do you determine it's level of accuracy?

Poptech · 28-04-2008, 01:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BonnieDundee

Not my job, you can argue with the Royal society and if they and their counterparts from America to Australia agree with you then I will believe you. I'm not a climatologist and I personally do not derive much interest out of the subject, I know that the temperature record has risen greatly, that CO2 and Methane which contribute a sizeable amount of the Greenhouse effect have risen significantly as well and scientists generally blame the rising temperature on the increase of these gases as other phenomena, natural ones, in recent decades have been tending towards what would normally cause a cooling.

But you sound so certain about it being settled science then surely the scientific method applies.

The temperature record has risen 0.6c in the last 100 years (IPCC). You call that great?

CO2 only accounts for about 4.2-8.4% of the greenhouse effect.

Methane has actually stopped increasing worldwide:

Methane - Global Halt To Major Greenhouse Gas Growth (Science Daily)
Methane - Level Of Important Greenhouse Gas Has Stopped Growing (Science Daily)

28-04-2008, 01:28 AM	#37 (permalink)
Alex McKee Moderator Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Gloucester Posts: 6,542	I personally think Wikipedia is great. But then, I participate and help to improve it. __________________ Anything I post on this website is my personal opinion and not necessarily my professional opinion (unless stated as such) nor is an opinion necessarily shared by any committee or group I am affiliated with. Users on Ignore list: None. Please click one of these once a day: http://gloucesterr.myminicity.com/tra

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode