Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

It may sound stupid, but why are you not addressing my point about the scientists who've complained that the source of the 97% consensus bullshit used their papers in a fraudulent way?

Or, that the IPCC decided to delete the following passages from the approved report:

The following passages are examples of those included in the approved report but deleted from the supposedly peer-reviewed published version:

-- "None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases."

-- "No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed to date] to anthropogenic [man-made] causes."

-- "Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced."
___________________________________________________

Would you care to defend them?

No, because I'm no climate scientist (I'd taken just a few courses in [naval] meteorology, good enough to give and data and "make" the weather on board, but not such qualifications to dispute your scientific responses about climate and not-climate-change.)

Why are you talking about my scientific responses? Do you not understand what I've posted? Of course you do. The criticisms of the 97% consensus bullshit are coming from the scientists whose papers Cook misrepresented in order to come up the 97% consensus bullshit.

Indeed, I do. But I just and only wanted to say that I can't argue against your scientific post because I don't have any qualification as a climate scientist - I just know the differences between climate and weather, I can collect meteorological data, read them out and draw out conclusions for the current weather conditions, but that's it.

I never could write such disparaging facts about the IPCC like you did - I not only miss the qualification to such but I really don't have such a knowledge about this science like you do.

Again you are pretending that I have not shown you that it is the scientists whose papers were misrepresented by the author of the 97% consensus bullshit who are the knowledgeable ones here. Not me, but them.

And just so we're clear, if you continue to take up space here for the purpose of playing dumb, I will repost what you seem to forget immediately after reading it. And I will wait until the next page to post it.

the point exactly. Its easy for lay- folks to copy something down from other folks equally untrained and claim it a evience. The basis for "fake anything".

You've apparently lapsed into cognitive dissonance again. Here are the "folks" you've labelled as untrained. Perhaps you should ask yourself why these untrained "folks'" papers were used to create the 97% consensus bullshit if they were so untrained as you have mindlessly implied here.

Examples:

Dr. Idso, your paper 'Ultra-enhanced spring branch growth in CO2-enriched trees: can it alter the phase of the atmosphere’s seasonal CO2 cycle?' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Implicitly endorsing AGW without minimizing it".

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

"That is not an accurate representation of my paper . . . It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming."
____________________________________________________

Dr. Scafetta, your paper 'Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900–2000 global surface warming' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+%"

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

"What my papers say is that the IPCC view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun."
__________________________________________________

Dr. Shaviv, your paper 'On climate response to changes in the cosmic ray flux and radiative budget' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Explicitly endorses but does not quantify or minimise"

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

"Nope... it is not an accurate representation . . . "Science is not a democracy, even if the majority of scientists think one thing (and it translates to more papers saying so), they aren't necessarily correct. Moreover, as you can see from the above example, the analysis itself is faulty, namely, it doesn't even quantify correctly the number of scientists or the number of papers which endorse or diminish the importance of AGW."
____________________________________________________

Dr. Morner, your paper 'Estimating future sea level changes from past records' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as having; "No Position on AGW".

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

"Certainly not correct and certainly misleading. The paper is strongly against AGW, and documents its absence in the sea level observational facts. Also, it invalidates the mode of sea level handling by the IPCC."
___________________________________________________

Dr. Soon, your paper 'Polar Bear Population Forecasts: A Public-Policy Forecasting Audit' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as having; "No Position on AGW".

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

"I am sure that this rating of no position on AGW by CO2 is nowhere accurate nor correct. Rating our serious auditing paper from just a reading of the abstract or words contained in the title of the paper is surely a bad mistake. Specifically, anyone can easily read the statements in our paper as quoted below:

"For example, Soon et al. (2001) found that the current generation of GCMs is unable to meaningfully calculate the effects that additional atmospheric carbon dioxide has on the climate. This is because of the uncertainty about the past and present climate and ignorance about relevant weather and climate processes."

Here is at least one of our positions on AGW by CO2: the main tool climate scientists used to confirm or reject their CO2-AGW hypothesis is largely not validated and hence has a very limited role for any diagnosis or even predicting real-world regional impacts for any changes in atmospheric CO2.

I hope my scientific views and conclusions are clear to anyone that will spend time reading our papers. Cook et al. (2013) is not the study to read if you want to find out about what we say and conclude in our own scientific works."
____________________________________________________

Untrained, you say . . .

The ipcc panels were pretty much open. Nearly anyone could offer input which meant that s lot of denialists without much actual relevant knowledge or ecperiencebtrieheir d to sway the conclusions to their viewpoints in the mmiddle of the work but their attmppted points fell short and did not make it into gthe final reviewed consolidated report. Its very much like sen. Imhofes notorious list of allegeed scientists dissing agw which came up with scintists so called who espused msny different alleged rrasons against gw which were mutually incompatible with each other and logically could not all be true. The ipcc denialists didnt make it into the final report for the ssme resason.
.

The participating scientists accepted "The Science of Climate Change" in Madrid last November; the --- full IPCC accepted it the following month in Rome. But more than 15 sections in Chapter 8 of the report -- the key chapter setting out the scientific evidence for and against a human influence over climate -were changed or deleted after the scientists charged with examining this question had accepted the supposedly final text.

Few of these changes were merely cosmetic; nearly all worked to remove hints of the skepticism with which many scientists regard claims that human activities are having a major impact on climate in general and on global warming in particular.

The following passages are examples of those included in the approved report but deleted from the supposedly peer-reviewed published version:

-- "None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases."

-- "No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed to date] to anthropogenic [man-made] causes."

-- "Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced."
____________________________________________________

What was their motive for these omissions?

Oh I'm sorry, I interrupted you singing the praises of the IPCC. You were saying?

Sorry, but I'm going to interrupt you again.

The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released “Global Warming of 1.5 C,” dubbed SR15, an IPCC special report last week, claiming that, unless governments virtually eliminate human production of carbon dioxide (CO2), we are headed toward a climate catastrophe.

The UK’s The Guardian reported that the report authors say, “urgent and unprecedented changes are needed to reach the target, which they say is affordable and feasible although it lies at the most ambitious end of the Paris Agreement pledge to keep temperatures between 1.5C and 2C.”

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change climate forecasts were wrong from their earliest reports in 1990. They were so inaccurate that they stopped calling them forecasts and made three “projections”: low, medium, and high. Since then, even their “low” scenario projections were wrong.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change created an illusion of certainty about their science, and therefore their forecasts. They let people think that they study all causes of climate change when they only look at human-caused change. That is impossible unless you know and understand total climate change and the mechanisms, and we don’t. It allowed them to ignore all non-human causes of change, including the Sun.

Those last two paragraphs are completely wrong. I've read the IPCC Assessments and they take account of ALL the factors we know of that affect climate and its change including non-human ones, , including the sun. Top-of-atmosphere TSI as measured by satellite fell during the last solar cycle as temps. continued to rise. It ain't the sun.

Mind you, in addition to being a renowned climatologist, Glenn is also widely admired for his expertise in skyscraper demolition and steel melting. He's quite the renaissance man...

Oh good. Why don't you post that so that we know exactly what you're talking about. Since you've read it, I assume you can produce it.

So glad you decided to participate in the demonstration of the cognitive dissonance taking place in this thread. Though the criticisms of the 97% consensus bullshit are coming from the scientists whose Papers Cook misrepresented in order to come up the 97% consensus bullshit, you believe that it came from me.

The participating scientists accepted "The Science of Climate Change" in Madrid last November; the --- full IPCC accepted it the following month in Rome. But more than 15 sections in Chapter 8 of the report -- the key chapter setting out the scientific evidence for and against a human influence over climate -were changed or deleted after the scientists charged with examining this question had accepted the supposedly final text.

Few of these changes were merely cosmetic; nearly all worked to remove hints of the skepticism with which many scientists regard claims that human activities are having a major impact on climate in general and on global warming in particular.

The following passages are examples of those included in the approved report but deleted from the supposedly peer-reviewed published version:

-- "None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases."

-- "No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed to date] to anthropogenic [man-made] causes."

-- "Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced."
____________________________________________________

If you want to contribute to this thread, why don't you start by telling me what you think their motive was for these omissions.

Theyre online. I suggest you read them so youll know whst youre talking about. They run to hundreds of pages so posting them here is a little silly. Do your homework.

Not asking you to copy and paste hundreds of pages. Asking you to produce a link to the segment of the Report that backs your claim. Otherwise, your answer here amounts to a admission that you like to litter threads with bullshit.

How the **** would I know what their "motivations" were? Given the preponderance of evidence the most charitable explanation is that they were simply mistaken. Unlike Glennn, I'm not a respected climatologist. But I'd like to know why the CO2 released from fossil fuels over the last 300 years wouldn't have the effect of increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, especially as it coincides with a period of increased deforestation.

As far as I know, this thread started nearly 10 years before Glenn became a member.
I sincerely doubt that Glenn is blatham's alter ego.

But perhaps being a respected climatologist like Glenn makes at all different.

...?