Top MIT Scientist Mocks New UN Climate Report

page: 1
31
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+16 more 
posted on Sep, 30 2013 @ 02:35 AM
link   
Top MIT Scientist Mocks New UN Climate Report


A top climate scientist from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology lambasted a new report by the UN’s climate bureaucracy that blamed mankind as the main cause of global warming and whitewashed the fact that there has been a hiatus in warming for the last 15 years.

“I think that the latest IPCC report has truly sunk to level of hilarious incoherence,” Dr. Richard Lindzen told Climate Depot, a global warming skeptic news site. “They are proclaiming increased confidence in their models as the discrepancies between their models and observations increase.”

In response to the threads touting the latest report from the IPCC, here is an example of an internationally recognized topic expert with full scientific credentials calling the report "hilariously incoherent".

And the agenda behind the scientifically ridiculous IPCC report?


Scientists have been struggling to explain the 15-year hiatus in global warming, and governments have been urging them to whitewash the fact that temperatures have not been rising because such data would impact the upcoming climate negotiations in 2015.

I realize there have already been enough threads about the grand conspiracy behind "Climate Change", as it is now called since the term "Global Warming" no longer applies.

I just wanted to throw this in the mix. Finally, a scientist whose pockets are not lined by the dirty money.

Here's a few links:

MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen Rips UN IPCC Report

Background and Credentials: Professor Richard S. Lindzen, MIT
edit on 9/30/2013 by InTheFlesh1980 because: fix



+3 more 
posted on Sep, 30 2013 @ 02:38 AM
link   
reply to post by InTheFlesh1980
 

Ok. He's right and the whole panel is wrong. No more to say about it I guess.
Got it. Everything's fine. Thanks.
edit on 9/30/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)


+29 more 
posted on Sep, 30 2013 @ 02:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 



Ok. He's right and the whole panel is wrong. No more to say about it I guess.
Got it. Thanks.

At least speak to the content of his statement. His credentials are undeniable.

What about his criticisms of the report?

Edit: And as for the "panel", I'm pretty sure getting on the panel is like everything else like this in life. You obtain your prestigious position on the IPCC panel after it is determined that you are onboard with the agenda.

Why would they elect a scientist to the "panel" if that would run the risk of undermining the pre-determined outcome of the fudged data?
edit on 9/30/2013 by InTheFlesh1980 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2013 @ 02:48 AM
link   
Good video I came across the other day:




posted on Sep, 30 2013 @ 02:52 AM
link   
reply to post by InTheFlesh1980
 

I didn't say anything about his credentials but don't you think it's a bit premature for Lindzen to be denigrating the report before it is released?


I'm pretty sure getting on the panel is like everything else like this in life.
I'm sure you must be right. All the scientists I know think alike about everything and never argue.
edit on 9/30/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)


+4 more 
posted on Sep, 30 2013 @ 02:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


I didn't say anything about his credentials but don't you think it's a bit premature for Lindzen to be denigrating the report before it is released?

I believe the final report was released on Friday, Sept 27 2013.

UN climate change report dismisses slowdown in global warming

But a final version of the report released Friday morning by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) strips out the failure of models and explains away the downward trend.

Link to Final IPCC Report - Sept 27 2013

???



posted on Sep, 30 2013 @ 02:58 AM
link   
Didn't a batch of emails from a long time past put this issue to rest as far as the trust worthiness of IPCC panel?

Climate change is real, some weather patterns can be cyclical. Have we funked up global weather patterns due to our habits? Probably. But global warming? Nah, just another money making scheme co opted Al Gore.

I hear those carbon credits are cleaning house house, pun intended



posted on Sep, 30 2013 @ 03:01 AM
link   
reply to post by InTheFlesh1980
 




I believe the final report was released on Friday, Sept 27 2013.

I believe the title of that document is:
Summary for Policymakers

But maybe I'm wrong.


+11 more 
posted on Sep, 30 2013 @ 03:02 AM
link   
And yet the CO2 concentration in the Martian atmosphere is approximately x28 by volume GREATER than that in the Earth's atmosphere and strangely enough ... NOT even the slightest hint of any kind of global warming taking place on Mars that is detectable.

So, global warming here on Earth caused by the negligible contribution of CO2 over the last 10 decades or so by humans ... don't think so. Instead, how about ANY climate change (warming OR cooling) instead actually being a cyclical process completely INDEPENDENT of human activity.



posted on Sep, 30 2013 @ 03:04 AM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 




And yet the CO2 concentration in the Martian atmosphere is approximately x28 by volume GREATER than that in the Earth's atmosphere and strangely enough ... NOT even the slightest hint of any kind of global warming taking place on Mars that is detectable.

Why would Mars get warmer if the concentration of CO2 in its atmosphere doesn't change? It's done all the warming it's going to and that ain't much because the surface of Mars has about as much "air" as Earth does at an altitude of 100,000 feet.
edit on 9/30/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)


+5 more 
posted on Sep, 30 2013 @ 03:49 AM
link   
Science is wonderful and in it's pure form one of the highest pursuits of man. What bothers me is that people think scientists are all of pure intent and would never go against their own conscience to obtain a paycheck. I'm pretty sure they like to be able to eat and pay their bills like everyone else.

Is there any other occupation where no one compromises their professional ethic? - Priests! of course, those preaching the word of God would never harm the flock in their care, would they? What makes scientists so sacrosanct as to be beyond suspicion?


+17 more 
posted on Sep, 30 2013 @ 04:10 AM
link   
Science is now a whore. Write the appropriate pay check and you can have any report you want.

Just look at big tobacco for multiple examples going back decades.

This is not about scientists disagreeing, this is fundamental untruths. I have lost faith in the scientific community.

Sorry Phage, that is what it is.

P



posted on Sep, 30 2013 @ 04:10 AM
link   
These are comments from people who's opinions on the subject should be considered. collected from WUWT
wattsupwiththat.com...-94762

Marcel Crok: AR5 gives no best estimate for climate sensitivity; breaks with a long tradition; good news is hidden from policy makers

One of the most surprising things in the just released SPM is the absence of a best estimate for climate sensitivity. The SPM now says this:

The equilibrium climate sensitivity quantifies the response of the climate system to constant radiative forcing on multi-century time scales. It is defined as the change in global mean surface temperature at equilibrium that is caused by a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5°C to 4.5°C (high confidence), extremely unlikely less than 1°C (high confidence), and very unlikely greater than 6°C (medium confidence)16. The lower temperature limit of the assessed likely range is thus less than the 2°C in the AR4, but the upper limit is the same. This assessment reflects improved understanding, the extended temperature record in the atmosphere and ocean, and new estimates of radiative forcing. {TFE6.1, Figure 1; Box 12.2}

16 No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.

Andrew Montford at Bishop Hill:

Ducking, diving, bobbing and weaving are the general themes of the Summary for Policymakers, just released this morning.

You would imagine that the document would review what was said last time round and how things have changed since that time, but you’d be wrong. This is, after all, the bureaucracy at work: difficulties have to be brushed under carpets and stones left unturned.

…The general theme of obscurantism runs across the document. Whereas in previous years the temperature records have been shown unadulterated, now we have presentation of a single figure for each decade; surely an attempt to mislead rather than inform. And the pause is only addressed with handwaving arguments and vague allusions to ocean heat.www.bishop-hill.net...

Donna Laframboise:

9,000 Nobel Pretenders | NoFrakkingConsensus

The unadorned truth was door number one. Cringe-worthy exaggeration was door number two. The IPCC made the wrong call.

Bob Tisdale at WUWT:

Regarding the cause of the warming, still living in fantasy world, they write:

Greenhouse gases contributed a global mean surface warming likely to be in the range of 0.5°C to 1.3°C over the period 1951−2010, with the contributions from other anthropogenic forcings, including the cooling effect of aerosols, likely to be in the range of −0.6°C to 0.1°C. The contribution from natural forcings is likely to be in the range of −0.1°C to 0.1°C, and from internal variability is likely to be in the range of −0.1°C to 0.1°C. Together these assessed contributions are consistent with the observed warming of approximately 0.6°C to 0.7°C over this period. {10.3}

They’re still misleading the public. Everyone knows (well, many of us know) their models can’t simulate the natural processes that cause surface temperatures to warm over multidecadal timeframes, yet they insist on continuing this myth.

wattsupwiththat.com...

Pointman says:
Apart from the usual climate-fixated organs of the MSM, it’s being barely reported. Looks like a dead cat bounce to me …

thepointman.wordpress.com...

Jimbo says:

September 27, 2013 at 4:31 am

We can’t explain the increase in Antarctic sea ice extent. We have improved models that predict a decrease in extent. We don’t really know why but we will simulate it and create a scary scenario anyway.

D.1 Evaluation of Climate Models
Climate models have improved since the AR4…………..
Most models simulate a small downward trend in Antarctic sea ice extent, albeit with large inter-model spread, in contrast to the small upward trend in observations……

—–

There is low confidence in the scientific understanding of the small observed increase in Antarctic sea ice extent due to the incomplete and competing scientific explanations for the causes of change and low confidence in estimates of internal variability in that region
www.climatechange2013.org...

Let’s all hope this is the last IPCC report. There is nothing useful here.

Dr. Judith Curry:

The IPCC has officially (and anti-climactically) issued the AR5 WG1 Summary for Policy Makers. I haven’t had time to go through the report in detail, I mainly looked for these two statements. Note the changes in these two statements from the final draft discussed last week:

“Models do not generally reproduce the observed reduction in surface warming trend over the last 10 –15 years.”

“It is extremely likely that human influence on climate caused more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951−2010.”

These changes as a result of the ‘conclave’ this week totally dissonates my cognitives. Well, IPCC has thrown down the gauntlet – if the pause continues beyond 15 years (well it already has), they are toast. Even though they still use the word ‘most’ in the attribution statement, they go all out and pretty much say it is all AGW: ”The best estimate of the human induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period.”

In case you haven’t been paying attention, ‘extremely likely‘ in the attribution statement implies 95% confidence. Exactly what does 95% confidence mean in this context?

judithcurry.com...

Douglas Fischer – The Daily Climate What we’re seeing now: Climate scientists get Swift-boated

Six years after the IPCC’s massive Fourth Assessment Report was excoriated for a handful of errors, four years after the uproar over leaked emails put scientists on the defensive, the climate denial camp still controls the message.

www.dailyclimate.org...

Patrick J. Michaels and Paul C. “Chip” Knappenberger – Band-aids Can’t Fix the New IPCC Report

The U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) today released the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) of the physical science volume of its Fifth Assessment Report. The SPM is the most widely-read section of the IPCC reports and purports to summarize and highlight the contents of the thousand-odd pages of the full report. The SPM is agreed to word by word by the international attendees of the IPCC’s final editorial meeting which concluded as the SPM was released.

The Humpty Dumpty-esque report once claiming to represent the “consensus of scientists” has fallen from its exalted wall and cracked to pieces under the burdensome weight of its own cumbersome and self-serving processes, which is why all the governments’ scientists and all the governments’ men cannot put the IPCC report together again.

www.cato.org...



posted on Sep, 30 2013 @ 04:19 AM
link   

Phage
reply to post by tauristercus
 




And yet the CO2 concentration in the Martian atmosphere is approximately x28 by volume GREATER than that in the Earth's atmosphere and strangely enough ... NOT even the slightest hint of any kind of global warming taking place on Mars that is detectable.

Why would Mars get warmer if the concentration of CO2 in its atmosphere doesn't change? It's done all the warming it's going to and that ain't much because the surface of Mars has about as much "air" as Earth does at an altitude of 100,000 feet.
edit on 9/30/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

But the greenhouse effect does not depend on the presence of air because it is supposed to transfer thermal radiation from a planetary surface back to the ground by re-radiation by atmospheric greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, not by convection through gases. You don't seem to understand the basic physics of the greenhouse effect. Your dismissal of the lack of global warming on Mars even though its atmosphere has a much greater concentration of carbon dioxide than Earth's is not scientific and must therefore be rejected.



posted on Sep, 30 2013 @ 04:24 AM
link   
"Denying Climate Change Is Worse Than Spreading the Usual Kind of Conspiracy Theory - It Costs Lives"

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk...



posted on Sep, 30 2013 @ 07:38 AM
link   
"Scientists have been struggling to explain the 15-year hiatus in global warming"


That's because there isn't a 15 year hiatus in global warming.

Look at every single chart mapping temperatures, it's all increasing. If this guy is saying there is an unexplained 15 year hiatus in global warming then... he's off in cloud cuckoo land.



posted on Sep, 30 2013 @ 07:44 AM
link   

monkeyluv
"Denying Climate Change Is Worse Than Spreading the Usual Kind of Conspiracy Theory - It Costs Lives"

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk...



Brilliant article. I particularly liked this bit:


97% of climate scientists agree the world is warming and that mankind is responsible. Consider also: a survey by Oreskes of every peer-reviewed abstract on the subject "global climate change" published between 1993 and 2003 - 928 in total - couldn't find a single paper that rejected the consensus position on human-induced climate change.



As for the "conspiracy theorist" tag, let me be blunt: climate-change deniers are the biggest conspiracy theorists of all. In order to embrace the delusions of the deniers, you have to adopt the belief that tens of thousands of researchers, some of them awardwinning scientists, from across the world (not to mention the political spectrum) have conducted behind the scenes, undetected by the media, a campaign of peer-reviewed deceit in defiance of empirical data.



posted on Sep, 30 2013 @ 07:49 AM
link   

Painterz
"Scientists have been struggling to explain the 15-year hiatus in global warming"


That's because there isn't a 15 year hiatus in global warming.

Look at every single chart mapping temperatures, it's all increasing. If this guy is saying there is an unexplained 15 year hiatus in global warming then... he's off in cloud cuckoo land.

You may need to catch up on the news.
It isn't just a hiatus, it got cooler.
They are using the term hiatus because their computer models were wrong. They predicted that Greenland would be ice free by now.

They have succeeded in proving that they suck at predicting climate change.



posted on Sep, 30 2013 @ 07:52 AM
link   

Phage
reply to post by InTheFlesh1980
 

Ok. He's right and the whole panel is wrong. No more to say about it I guess.
Got it. Everything's fine. Thanks.
edit on 9/30/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



So you know better? just because you have a cult following?



posted on Sep, 30 2013 @ 07:53 AM
link   
Global warming my azz! It's such BS!!

I live in one of Canada's most northerly cities, and no not way up north either. I'm only about 500km north of the US boarder. We had a record low of -46c only a few years ago, and this summer we might had maybe a handful of days above 30c. it's already almost freezing at night right now. Nothings changed ever since I was a kid. We still get long artic winters. Its' just as bad if not worse than when I was a kid. Nothings changed at all!





top topics
 
31
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join