Working Group II Contribution to AR5

Races for the Senate, U.S. House, etc. and other issues of national importance.
Sandi
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2379
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 11:31 pm

Working Group II Contribution to AR5

Postby Sandi » Tue Apr 01, 2014 3:40 pm

It is time for a new CAGW thread. The old one is not only around 100 pages, but predicated on as vastly debunked 97% consensus.

The Working Group II report is freshly out, and a lot is being written about it. This IPCC Working Group II report which has so much gloom and doom in it,Dr. Richard Tol (one of the lead authors) asked to have his name removed from it because it is too alarmist for what data is in evidence.

It would be understandable if the gloom and doom had an iota basis in science to give it some credibility, but it doesn't.

From: IPCC WGII AR5 Summary for Policymakers (pdf)

Based on many studies covering a wide range of regions and crops, negative impacts of climate change on crop yields have been more common than positive impacts (high
confidence
).
The smaller number of studies showing positive impacts relate mainly to highlatitude regions, though it is not yet clear whether the balance of impacts has been negative or positive in these regions (high confidence). Climate change has negatively affected wheat and maize yields for many regions and in the global aggregate (medium confidence).

[Their emphasis]

Note the past tense "has" negatively affected wheat and maize (corn) yields. Also conveniently left unknown are the "wide range of regions," and "clarity of whether the balance of impacts has been negative or positive." Still, in spite of the uncertainty they give it a level of "high confidence." Well as the United States is a huge producer of corn and wheat, it would be derelict to not include it. The IPCC claim about corn and wheat is false for the world, and also the USA. Lets see what the USDA says about yeilds.

Source: USDA Data

Image

Gee. It looks very un-alarming!

Well, maybe because temperatures in the US Corn belt are not rising at all. However we know that the IPCC models are, and they prefer model output over reality. Unfortunately this isn't April Foolery, but what passes for science.

Image

Source: USHCN data NOAA, CMIP5 model data plotted by Roy Spencer

The IPCC and alarmists should spend more time in reality and less time with models that are setup to model their hearts desire.

O.J.
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3137
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2007 10:13 am

Re: Working Group II Contribution to AR5

Postby O.J. » Tue Apr 01, 2014 3:53 pm

Image

Stebben84
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 5877
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 12:59 pm
Contact:

Re: Working Group II Contribution to AR5

Postby Stebben84 » Tue Apr 01, 2014 3:58 pm

Ha, April Fools.

Good one.

nutria
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 823
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2004 9:53 am

Re: Working Group II Contribution to AR5

Postby nutria » Tue Apr 01, 2014 4:02 pm

Sandi wrote:It is time for a new CAGW thread. The old one is not only around 100 pages, but predicated on as vastly debunked 97% consensus.


Well, glad you cleared that up.


You know, you might spare yourself some embarrassment by removing this post, and putting the email chain forward back up.

nutria
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 823
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2004 9:53 am

Re: Working Group II Contribution to AR5

Postby nutria » Tue Apr 01, 2014 4:03 pm

Sandi wrote:...but predicated on as vastly debunked 97% consensus.

...had an iota basis in science to give it some credibility, but it doesn't.


Irony, thy name is Sandi.

Sandi
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2379
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 11:31 pm

Re: Working Group II Contribution to AR5

Postby Sandi » Tue Apr 01, 2014 4:33 pm

Stebben84 wrote:Ha, April Fools.

Good one.


nutria wrote:
Sandi wrote:It is time for a new CAGW thread. The old one is not only around 100 pages, but predicated on as vastly debunked 97% consensus.


Well, glad you cleared that up.


You know, you might spare yourself some embarrassment by removing this post, and putting the email chain forward back up.


nutria wrote:
Sandi wrote:...but predicated on as vastly debunked 97% consensus.

...had an iota basis in science to give it some credibility, but it doesn't.


Irony, thy name is Sandi.


You all mean there is not a single issue any of you can speak to (other than your usual trolling)? You cannot produce any science that shows my post to be wrong?

You all seem to thrive in a self-contained bubble of circular reaffirmation. You simply cannot abandon your most cherished delusions. You haven't learned the lesson that consensus is generally wrong when trying to predict future events.

Some alarmists proclaim sincerely, because of the warming pause/hiatus, that most of the warming mysteriously disappeared in, and warmed the oceans instead. Hmm maybe if I turn my oven on, instead of warming my kitchen, it will warm the water in my bathtub instead. I guess it would be a big mistake to underestimate the magical properties of human caused CO2.

Prof. Wagstaff
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 9447
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2002 6:35 pm
Contact:

Re: Working Group II Contribution to AR5

Postby Prof. Wagstaff » Tue Apr 01, 2014 4:50 pm

Sandi wrote:... consensus is generally wrong when trying to predict future events.


She's got us here. Science sure is a miserable failure.
Quantum theory? Generally wrong when trying to predict future events. I can't think of something for which there is scientific consensus which is more full of holes.
Chemistry? What predictions have ever been made by this field that have proven to be true? None that I can think of. Consensus has gotten us nowhere.
Relativity? I can't think of a single prediction tied to Einstein's theory that's ever come to pass. Can anyone? I doubt it.
Mathematics? Puh-leaze. Who knows what 1 + 1 really equals? Certainly not those know-it-all scientists. Math has never been used to predict outcomes successfully because science simply doesn't work.

Lucky for us, great thinkers like Sandi are here to demonstrate just how wrong scientists are and have always been. Too bad there's no way for her to tell us about it. After all, the Internet doesn't exist because science is nothing but a colossal failure.

nutria
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 823
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2004 9:53 am

Re: Working Group II Contribution to AR5

Postby nutria » Tue Apr 01, 2014 7:48 pm

Sandi wrote:You haven't learned the lesson that consensus is generally wrong when trying to predict future events.

johnfajardohenry
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1694
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2012 12:22 pm

Re: Working Group II Contribution to AR5

Postby johnfajardohenry » Fri Apr 04, 2014 11:28 am

It always about the money, isn't it? The warmists make that claim about the massive amounts of money being spent by us denialists. They claim that us skeptics are only in it because of the money.

They never seem to look in the mirror at themselves:

From the NY Times Tuesday:


It cited a World Bank estimate that poor countries need as much as $100 billion a year to try to offset the effects of climate change; they are now getting, at best, a few billion dollars a year in such aid from rich countries.

The $100 billion figure, though included in the 2,500-page main report, was removed from a 48-page executive summary to be read by the world’s top political leaders. It was among the most significant changes made as the summary underwent final review during an editing session of several days in Yokohama.


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/01/scien ... .html?_r=0

That is $100 billion (100,000,000,000 dollars). Every single year. Yeah, lots of people will do very well from that. Maybe I need to become a warmist and see if I can snag a piece of it.

How come we never hear how the warmists are not in it for the money? There is certainly enough of it floating around. It's a nifty racket. Give it to "scientists" for "research". Then the GE's et al use the research to lobby congress to give them money to fight global warming. When when they get the money donate part of it back to the politicians that gave it to them in the first place. Everybody gets rich.

It's a 3 sided bukkake with the taxpayer, who has to come up with the $100,000,000,000 every year, in the middle getting splooged on.

I've posted elsewhere on how companies such as GE, Dupont, Seimens, Quebec Hydro and others are raking in the dough from various environmental scams like acid rain, ozone holes and now the mother of all scams, global warming.

That bit about the shenanigans with the editing makes it sound like even the participants feel a bit ashamed about what they are doing and how excessive it is. Not ashamed enough to stop but ashamed enough that they don't want it any more public than necessary.

Disgusting.

John Henry

Stebben84
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 5877
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 12:59 pm
Contact:

Re: Working Group II Contribution to AR5

Postby Stebben84 » Fri Apr 04, 2014 11:51 am

johnfajardohenry wrote:I've posted elsewhere on how companies such as GE, Dupont, Seimens, Quebec Hydro and others are raking in the dough from various environmental scams like acid rain, ozone holes and now the mother of all scams, global warming.


Except you never proved it. You just said it, as with pretty much everything else you say and have just said.

johnfajardohenry
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1694
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2012 12:22 pm

Re: Working Group II Contribution to AR5

Postby johnfajardohenry » Fri Apr 04, 2014 12:34 pm

Stebben84 wrote:Except you never proved it. You just said it, as with pretty much everything else you say and have just said.


No, I discussed it before. I don't know what you would accept as "proof" but if you will let me know, I'll see what I can do.

Dupont owned the name Freon but it had long been off patent. A number of companies made generic freon and it was a commodity with commodity level profits. OK, but not great. Dupont developed a replacement that is patented. As the patent owner, they could dominate the market and not have to compete for sales. They could license the technology to others now with the stipulation that they continue to pay license fees even after the patent expires.

That is how Dupont benefited from the ozone hole.

Quebec Hydro developed a massive hydro power project at James Bay beginning back in the 70's. Something of an environmental disaster, rather expensive and a lot more capacity than they could sell in Canada. (Equal to about 16-20 nuclear plants).

Acid rain came along and was used to force scrubbers and other things on US coal plants. Voila! US electricity becomes more expensive, QH can now offload some of their power into New England.

That is how Quebec Hydro benefited from acid rain.

GE makes wind turbines. If they are not the biggest maker, they are #2 or 3. These have never been economic for general use and have long been subsidized going back to the 70s. The global warming scam has boosted the market for wind turbines and GE sells a lot more, and get a lot more subsidies, than they otherwise would.

That is how GE benefits from global warming. At least, it is one of the ways.

And so on.

Want more? Just let me know.

John Henry

HawkHead
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1176
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 1:29 pm

Re: Working Group II Contribution to AR5

Postby HawkHead » Fri Apr 04, 2014 12:37 pm

It's never been about money one way or the other to me.

It simple is I want a planet where my great great grandchildren can enjoy the same wonderful time I have had here.

Fossil fuels will run out. That is a fact. We don't have dinosaurs running around any more to wait millions of years to make more. So let's all use less by using other methods of energy production.

Bland
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1237
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 1:46 am

Re: Working Group II Contribution to AR5

Postby Bland » Fri Apr 04, 2014 12:41 pm

Hey Junk Henry-
Can you show a link between all the scientists who research global warming and the corporations you claim are profiting? Because that seems like a pretty important step if your argument is that this is all just a scam. Since I know for a fact that the vast majority of climate scientists are NOT employed by energy providers, I'm very curious how you can justify this idiotic assertion of yours. Because any time someone tells me their theory about "how things really are" that necessitates believing that every university, scientific journal, and independent researcher on the planet are in cahoots, I can't help but laugh given that worldwide conspiracies involving hundreds of thousands of people are ludicrous on their face.

rabble
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 7477
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 7:50 pm

Re: Working Group II Contribution to AR5

Postby rabble » Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:29 pm

Bland wrote:Hey Junk Henry-
Can you show a link between all the scientists who research global warming and the corporations you claim are profiting? Because that seems like a pretty important step if your argument is that this is all just a scam.

No, no. You're not understanding. It's pretty simple really.

If anybody makes a profit from one aspect of it, it's a scam.

Once you've figured that out it all falls together. You don't even need to check and see if any other expenses rose because of the scam. Somebody sold something at a profit. Therefore, scam.

Sandi
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2379
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 11:31 pm

Re: Working Group II Contribution to AR5

Postby Sandi » Fri Apr 04, 2014 3:09 pm

HawkHead wrote:Fossil fuels will run out. That is a fact. We don't have dinosaurs running around any more to wait millions of years to make more. So let's all use less by using other methods of energy production.


Well: as Ray Kurzweil, say, if documented trends continue, in 35 years or so, technology will be so far advanced that it will render the future unrecognizable. Already the cost curves of alternative energy and storage technologies are plunging. It won't be that long before they devastate fossil fuels.

The stone age did not end for lack of stones.

For those who believe global warming is about to become catastrophic, You might think the below quote is from skeptics?

In climate research and modelling, we should recognition that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.


No, it is from: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
Third Assessment Report (2001), Section 14.2.2.2 page 774
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/505.htm

And neither have models been improved much since the Third Assessment. Not to mention climate sensitivity has never been meaningfully measured, so human caused global warming remains an uncorroborated hypothesis.


Return to “National Politics & Government”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Archipants and 8 guests