Blimey JY – you are being harsh on raising the benchmarks on a mtb forum.

THM it is pretty pointless you taking little extracts from the IPCC report when their conclusion is pretty clear about what they think is the cause of the current warming and the role of man made C02 in it.
I assume you are not suggesting that they dont think the cause is AGW so why use selected extracts to “prove your point” or counter its own conclusions.

On the previous page you (1) imply that I haven’t read the IPCC and (2) that is refutes my point about the relative importance of water vapour vs CO2. All I did was the quote the IPCC conclusions on this point. The post was already far too long, so excuse me for not taking it too more rigorous levels.

Ransos – the point is that you choose the emphasis CO2 in isolation. The IPCC doesn’t do that. It acknowledges that water vapour is more important and explains the interaction of them both and the positive feedback involving them. So I was simply correcting you misplaced emphasis to incorporate both in exactly the same way as the IPCC does. Whereas deliberately or not you cleverly chose to highlight one part of it – CO2.

*pops head in*

Damn, I see this thread has dissolved into flaming and name calling. Shame we had a fairly interesting discussion going on there for a bit.

I’ll leave you to it.

*leaves*

Yep, as I thought!

Armchair climatologists abound!

So, can someone then quickly post up the cure for leukaemia or tell us about where mass comes from, since we have such geniuses around? After all all those scientists researching these subjects every day seem to have missed an awful lot of stuff. I’d remove their PhD’s and Nobel Prizes, bunch of idiots.

And don’t get me started on Louis Pasteur! Bacteria? What a load of cack! Did he take into account the locality of cheese when he came up with that load of rubbish! We should ban all of these so-called “antibiotics” and replace them with very small mice!

So, can someone then quickly post up the cure for leukaemia or tell us about where mass comes from, since we have such geniuses around?

Well, of course not, as the human body is a really complex system, and we don’t really understand all the systems within it, o how they work… similar with the universe… fortunately, the global ecosytem is really really simple, so we know all about it 😉

you are being harsh on raising the benchmarks on a mtb forum.

there is a 26 page one on this very subject with main as the main protagonist …I am just getting started 😯

I never refuted water
I said it was possible that the non main driver can have an effect and gave an example. Again no one disputes that water is a factor but the IPCC report you cite concludes that warming is highly likely due to AGW whatever it says about water. Unless you want to agree with its whole conclusion it is not actually supportive of your view unless you agree with AGW or you selectively cite it.
I think Graham is correct so I shall leave it now ….must resist.

JY – I missed the smiley. It was meant as a joke (the benchmark thing)

Time to leave this thread now – as there is little room for further debate. I’m afraid that any slight knowledge of the IPCC would lead any normal person to adopt a healthy degree of scepticism. But the post I like today most is AdamW’s for being so (unintentionally) spot on:

Armchair climatologists abound!

How true you are Adam. Thank you!

“The IPCC had reported, as highly probably, that the glaciers in the Himalayas would melt, due to global warming, by the year 2035. Expert glaciologists said the claims were total rubbish. But the IPCC was refusing to back down….

…The head of the IPCC, who has no degrees in the fields over which he presides, launched some very public attacks on people who actually are experts on glaciers…

…the IPCC “expert reviewer” responsible, Murari Lal, cited several sources for this startling claim—not a one of them considered a legitimate scientific source…

…Lal is trying to excuse his bogus claims, published by the IPCC as fact. He says: “I am not an expert on glaciers and I have not visited the region so I have to rely on credible published research. The comments in the WWF report were made by a respected Indian scientist and it was reasonable to assume he knew what he was talking about.” So, Lal admits he published this extreme claim about glaciers on nothing more than the hearsay report from a political lobbying group like the World Wildlife Fund. There was no attempt to verify the claim, there was no scientific data investigated, no peer reviewed reports read. It was published simply because one IPCC office “assumed” it must be right. Why that assumption? Because skepticism is discouraged by the IPCC.”

Good night!!

Ransos – the point is that you choose the emphasis CO2 in isolation. The IPCC doesn’t do that. It acknowledges that water vapour is more important and explains the interaction of them both and the positive feedback involving them. So I was simply correcting you misplaced emphasis to incorporate both in exactly the same way as the IPCC does. Whereas deliberately or not you cleverly chose to highlight one part of it – CO2.

Wrong. I was responding to a point about CO2. Water vapour responds to climate change rather than driving it, so whilst it may be the most “important” gas in terms of its global warming potential, all it does is amplify the effect of other gases. The other point is that it doesn’t stay in the atmosphere very long, unlike CO2.

Why that assumption? Because skepticism is discouraged by the IPCC.”
Good night!!

Wow all that report and that is all you have Powerful counter
I note you don’t mention the previous quote I gave or the section of the IPCC report that covers glaciers in details rather than this regional section. I note that you fail to mention that it was an IPCC contributor who first noted this and commented.

You are placing hugely disproportionate weight to one minor error/mistake
I am going to claim we are in global boom times based solely on China.
I am quite surprised you would go down this road tbh.

Who gets the last word 😉

Why that assumption? Because skepticism is discouraged by the IPCC.”
Good night!!

What terrible selective quoting? That is really poor even by your standards! 😯

I note you don’t mention the previous quote I gave or the section of the IPCC report that covers glaciers in details rather than this regional section. I note that you fail to mention that it was an IPCC contributor who first noted this and commented.

Is that the same report written by a new intern graduate without his masters degree yet? 🙄

Is that the same report written by a new intern graduate without his masters degree yet?

What’s that got to do with anything?

3 zombies and counting!

What terrible selective quoting? That is really poor even by your standards

Was it really terrible to quote their conclusion and then refute it? Odd reasoning or are you just doing digs now?

Is that the same report written by a new intern graduate without his masters degree yet?

so what you are saying is you cannot attack the science so you will attack the person and this is a more credible tactic/approach?
They will be better qualified than you so I assume you need to be quiet as well then?
Go on apply the same rule to your views 😛

so what you are saying is you cannot attack the science so you will attack the person

Nice try, but answer the question, do you think the author of a report should be:

a) A graduate intern with no masters / PHD / credibility within their field or

b) The opposite!

I have answered [they should be correct in what they report], the fact you dont like the answer is not my concern.
As i said you cannot attack the science so you attack the person.
Ps following your logic as you are not a graduate in the field I assume I can give even less weight to what you say than what they said then – see it not agreat point you are making is it.

Defeat the science not the person.
play the ball no the person
etc

see it not a great point you you are making

FTFY kinda

You are side-stepping the question, a report from the supposed robust experts in their fields which is concerned with the complex climatic interactions of our planet which is influencing political policy for many nations around the world was authored by a trainee!

How is that robust?

I am side steeping ok fine then

It would be better if everything had been written by a noble prize winner but the main issue is whether what they said was right not whether they had completed a PhD.
1.Can we just ignore the criticism of anyone not qualified in the field as it does remove most [99% minimum]of objectors or is their lack of knowledge ok

2.Are you happy now your own argument means you no have to stop talking as I can just point out you lack of qualifications

3.The central issue is whether what they said [ peer reviewed and doubtlessly approved/signed off by a number of people with a PhD] is true
Do you wish to refute any of these three points?

its all said show because you cannot attack what they said. That is obvious hence why you just labour this point.

I would say that the credentials of the report’s author in the field of climatology are not important. I’m sure he or she did not dream it all up a few hours before the deadline. I would hope that the report grew out of a process of collaboration (of respected scientists) and the intern simply typed it all out.

You’d have to have some pretty good evidence that the qualifications of the author directly influenced the content.

In other words, don’t shoot the messenger.

not least when they know more than you and are better qualified yet you want to discount what they said based on lack of qualification …surely you see the irony/contradiction in your position.

I would say that the credentials of the report’s author in the field of climatology are not important

😯

If you were waiting for a heart bypass operation and an insurance salesman came up to you and introduced himself as the person performing your operation, would you be slightly concerned?

Yes, but this isn’t anything like the same.

If I told you to write down that Rule Studio and Team Sever call the extractable property handler in different ways, could you do that?

If I told you to write down that Rule Studio and Team Sever call the extractable property handler in different ways, could you do that?

Relevance?

Reduce the planes in the sky and i might take it serious

It doesn’t matter who wrote it – what matters is what the content is and who the contributors / analysts of the data are.

I am so looking forward to quoting all this back at you. 😈

this is a large peer review gold standard piece of research and you deny its conclusions not because you can find any fault with them, not because you have any data that is counter to it but because you think the minion who did the data entry is underqualified.

who is avoiding the issue now LHS ???

So are you qualified to comment on climatology what is your background etc – that argument works against anything you say and that is why you are not answering.
Its a poor point that you are still labouring , if we apply it to this thread it means we can ignore all you have said on this issue and everyone else as well obviously.

who is avoiding the issue now LHS ???

Answering a question with a question – good work, still side stepping as usual!

So are you qualified to comment on climatology what is your background etc – that argument works against anything you say and that is why you are not answering.

I have a background in science/engineering/statistical analysis. I don’t need to strut around an internet forum stating my qualifications to have an opinion. What qualifications do you hold to tell me I am wrong?

Its a poor point that you are still labouring , if we apply it to this thread it means we can ignore all you have said on this issue and everyone else as well obviously

You can ignore what you want, it doesn’t concern me. I have seen nothing on this thread which tell me anything different from what I have seen before, just blind faith.

So are you qualified to comment on climatology what is your background etc

Don’t think anyone on here has The above background, Qualifications so end of thread!

this is a large peer review gold standard piece of research

Gold standard? Do you really want to stand by that statement?

C’mon guys, really its time to call a truce. No one is going to convince the other on their point of view. JY believes passionately (it seems) in the quality of the IPCC, so it seems does TJ (“gold standard research”), Mol seems less concerned. LHS and I happen to believe differently, but surely time to put the debate to bed. Its not going anywhere.

LHS – if you are interested refer to the IPCC debate over their June 2011 publication on renewable energy. I can only conclude that this is a either a well meaning body that is merely naive in its PR or an organisation that willfully sets out to deceive and distort public opinion. Interestingly this year they achieved the latter resulting in the BBC and Guardian incorrectly reporting the conclusions inaccurately. And this has been my gripe right from the start. I will accept that this wasn’t Berkeley’s fault this week, but with the IPCC I am less convinced. (Google Mark Lynas to see what he has to say about that). JY criticised me for pointing out “one minor error/mistake” but really the IPCC is an organisation that simply cant help itself. Cue Lady Bracknell….

I really promise that this is my last post on the subject. MTB is far more fun than wasting time on this forum. But from Mark Lynas:

Good science, like life, is nothing if not a learning process. This is especially the case in a contested and controversial scientific discipline like climate change. Early predictions are often wrong, as one should of course expect them to be. Sometimes they are wildly conservative; other times predictions later prove to have been too alarmist.

That seems like an open invitation to maintain a healthy degree of scepticism/critical reasoning.

p.s. JY – feel free to have the final word!! 😉

Thanks 😀
All you say is generally correct its just your absence of any data to refute its central claim or to account for the effects of increased C02 that is the weakness in your attack/view.
Every scientific view and theory may be wrong but that fact does not prove any particular theory is wrong. You are some way short of this but I am happy to read any evidence you may have…..Ok lets not 😀

I think many people look for an excuse not to believe AGW because it’ll mean they are partly culpable in something bad, and they will either have to make compromises or feel really guilty.