The following is the Economists report on the second volume of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report.
The following is the Economists report on the second volume of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report. http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21600080-new-report-ipcc-implies-climate-exceptionalism-notion"… Richard Tol of Sussex University, in Britain, disparagingly appraised the report’s conclusions as “the four horsemen of the apocalypse". The final version appears to have been fought over paragraph and comma between those (such as Dr Tol) who want to describe dispassionately what they think is happening and those who want to scare the world into taking action. …" Oh boy the crazy makers are ratcheting it into high gear, aren't they. As for this "dispassionate Richard Tol, what a crock that one is >:-(
Monday, March 4, 2013 {#11b}LaFramboise The Delinquent Author - Dr. Tol http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2013/03/11b-dlaframboise-delinquent-author.htmlBut some rather believe an airy fairy economist rather than serious Earth scientists… after all everyone knows how great economists have been at projecting into the future... don't we … :lol: Tell, me Gary why do you think you can trust Tol, or the way he adjusts his data?
Sorry can’t resist. One for the road, with an attached challenge 
PS Welcome to the new normal Strongest Storm Yet for 2014 Headed for Australia Landfall By Eric Holthaus http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/04/10/tropical_cyclone_ita_strongest_storm_of_2014_headed_for_australia_landfall.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/10618637/Storms-batter-Britain-live.html {OK that one's "old" news, way back in February.}http://www.theguardian.com/environment/datablog/ng-interactive/2014/feb/25/interactive-map-january-2014-extreme-weather-worldwide http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/severeweather/extremes.html Maybe by the time Monday rolls around and I've got time for this stuff again, someone will have taken the time to defend Yokohama's mind-funk in the April 5th 2014 Economist. I'd just love to share a detailed look at this article. :vampire: You got three days to put it together… if any "climate science skeptics" out there are up to it. Let's look into that cute rhetoric Yokohama's indulges in, I'll be curious to see if anyone's willing to actually defend 'em with evidence. But, I suspect nothing will happen since those that deal in doubt, couldn't care less about actually learning, or teaching, or anything constructive like that. PS for more on Tol's various misconceptions over the years check out the search results at http://www.skepticalscience.com/search.php?Search=Richard+Tol&x=-203&y=-227
interesting + 60 views no nibbles.
Science denialists SUCK
and they are a bunch of wienies… too boot >:(
interesting + 60 views no nibbles. Science denialists SUCK and they are a bunch of wienies... too boot >:(Well, THAT should set them back on their heels!
The following is the Economists report on the second volume of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report. http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21600080-new-report-ipcc-implies-climate-exceptionalism-notion"… Richard Tol of Sussex University, in Britain, disparagingly appraised the report’s conclusions as “the four horsemen of the apocalypse". The final version appears to have been fought over paragraph and comma between those (such as Dr Tol) who want to describe dispassionately what they think is happening and those who want to scare the world into taking action. …" Oh boy the crazy makers are ratcheting it into high gear, aren't they. As for this "dispassionate Richard Tol, what a crock that one is >:-(
Monday, March 4, 2013 {#11b}LaFramboise The Delinquent Author - Dr. Tol http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2013/03/11b-dlaframboise-delinquent-author.htmlBut some rather believe an airy fairy economist rather than serious Earth scientists… after all everyone knows how great economists have been at projecting into the future... don't we … :lol: Tell, me Gary why do you think you can trust Tol, or the way he adjusts his data? Who says I trust Tol: IMO The Economist was just showing the other side of the argument to meet its requirement to be "objective" and show that there was debate over the results. This seems to show the reports main thrust:
It argues that climate change is having an impact on every ecosystem from the equator to the poles. It suggests that although there are some benefits to a warmer climate, most effects are negative and will get worse.
Science denialists SUCK >:(I think we must distinguish between Science and SCIENTISTS and then deal with the extent to which SCIENTISTS are obligated to make themselves understood. Science does not talk. Only scientists do that. People who worship SCIENCE that they do not understand are pseudo-intellectual nitwits. psik
The following is the Economists report on the second volume of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report. http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21600080-new-report-ipcc-implies-climate-exceptionalism-notion"… Richard Tol of Sussex University, in Britain, disparagingly appraised the report’s conclusions as “the four horsemen of the apocalypse". The final version appears to have been fought over paragraph and comma between those (such as Dr Tol) who want to describe dispassionately what they think is happening and those who want to scare the world into taking action. …" Oh boy the crazy makers are ratcheting it into high gear, aren't they. As for this "dispassionate Richard Tol, what a crock that one is >:-(
Monday, March 4, 2013 {#11b}LaFramboise The Delinquent Author - Dr. Tol http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2013/03/11b-dlaframboise-delinquent-author.htmlBut some rather believe an airy fairy economist rather than serious Earth scientists… after all everyone knows how great economists have been at projecting into the future... don't we … :lol: Tell, me Gary why do you think you can trust Tol, or the way he adjusts his data? <span style="color:red]Who says I trust Tol"> Not when what he is spewing is absolute bull crap ! But, you are more than happy to uncritically pass around garbage that lies and misleads… {what you think a little byline about fair and balance and not all agree makes it all better?} Yea right the neo-Republican Media Machine demands that every side deserves a voice, even the malicious liars >:-( And some folks wonder why I have such deep contempt ……….. Gary, you are not interesting in learning about the other side or you would examine it…. or at least not so uncritically pass around indefensible poop… Dang straight is say that…. I sure have noticed no has managed the slightest defense of the "economist" and his pipe dreams, er indefensible poop…
But, that’s OK, no hard feelings. I didn’t actually expect anyone would actually defend the substance of Tol’s blabbing.
Just another example of the utter intellectual bankruptcy that is the climate science denialist (and fans) stock and trade.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Science denialists SUCK >:(I think we must distinguish between Science and SCIENTISTS and then deal with the extent to which SCIENTISTS are obligated to make themselves understood. Science does not talk. Only scientists do that. People who worship SCIENCE that they do not understand are pseudo-intellectual nitwits. psik Psik, when I say climate science denial - "SCIENCE" is exactly what I am talking about ! The denialist are not talking about denying the work of any specific scientists ! …though they are great at conjuring unsubstantiated & undefended slanderous claims against any target du jour. They disregard the entire frame work of climate observations and learning that has been established by the scientific process over the past century. In fact, they also reveal a deep contempt for the rational learning process, as this thread underscores. I like you, but I'm not too hopeful of you understanding - considering you still can't wrap your head around the incredible mass that was sitting on top of those severed World Trade Center buildings… {and somehow can't imagine gravity and simple floor connectors weren't enough to explain the final minutes of those buildings.} :smirk:
This seems to show the reports main thrust:I quite disagree, This was the main thrust of their storyIt argues that climate change is having an impact on every ecosystem from the equator to the poles. It suggests that although there are some benefits to a warmer climate, most effects are negative and will get worse.
The third category lies somewhere in between. It requires measures that should be undertaken anyway, but need to be tweaked because of the climate. Farmers are always trying out new crop varieties, but increasingly those varieties will have to be drought-resistant. That may mean choosing between different aims, for there is often a trade-off between drought resistance and yield.and it's utter crap, but the slippery b@$*^$ds will never submit to a rational, systematic dissection of those assumptions - I BET YOU WON'T EITHER. :smirk: SOWING DOUBT IS THEIR PRODUCT SUCKER
I like you, but I'm not too hopeful of you understanding - considering you still can't wrap your head around the incredible mass that was sitting on top of those severed World Trade Center buildings… {and somehow can't imagine gravity and simple floor connectors weren't enough to explain the final minutes of those buildings.} :smirk:You just can't deal with the fact that there isn't just mass on top. The lesser mass had to move a greater mass. So how do millions of cubic miles of atmosphere get simulated and a measly skyscraper does not. But a physical model of a bridge gets constructed in 4 months in 1940 but none of a skyscraper in TWELVE YEARS? Science has become such a joke these days. psik
apsSo how do millions of cubic miles of atmosphere get simulated and a measly skyscraper does not. psikPerhaps the one was a mystery to be thoroughly understood and the other is easily explained without the needs for extreme modeling. :long: A funny lyric and sentiment just came to mind http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9Y1UiVvS3A&t=3m20s
But a physical model of a bridge gets constructed in 4 months in 1940 but none of a skyscraper in TWELVE YEARS? psikPlease don't derail this threat. I made an invitation for a grudge match with any CLIMATE SCIENCE denialist type who possesses the cahones to defend what they so freely spew. :exclaim:
I just read the article Gary linked, and cannot fathom how the writer did not get dizzy applying that amount of spin on the IPCC report. This is an especially egregious example of cherry picking one or two data points and ignoring the larger picture. You’d think economists would look at the big picture when trying to predict how economic trends, but as CC pointed out, as a whole economists have been very poor at their jobs. Almost seems like most of them are right-wing conservatives who prefer making their own reality than living in the real world.
Please don't derail this threat.Yeah right! When can we know that we get questionable data to work with? Satellite climate record in error http://www.nature.com/news/1998/980820/full/news980820-1.html It is not like we can build physical climate models in our homes. psikI like you, but I’m not too hopeful of you understanding - considering you still can’t wrap your head around the incredible mass that was sitting on top of those severed World Trade Center buildings… {and somehow can’t imagine gravity and simple floor connectors weren’t enough to explain the final minutes of those buildings.} smirk
Let’s get this straight. Climate change is happening. No doubt about it. The problem is how do we control and adopt to it. This is a political problem. To just run around screaming that "the world is ending’ isn’t going to get the job done. People, real people not just statistics have other much more immediate problems to deal with, from the cost of college education, reduced real wages in the US, to maintaining an adequate amount of food to eat today, not in the future for their children and themselves in much of the third world, etc. For most people today’s survival trumps any concern with what’s going to happen 50 to 100 years down the line.
Of course as with any major change required by society there are going to be groups who find it in their self-interest to oppose the necessary changes… This mornings Buffalo News carried a NEW York Times article on the third section of the IPCC report issued yesterday. Some of the problems that it found with the report. “Some developing countries insisted on stripping charts from the executive summary that could have been read as requiring greater effort from them, while rich countries -including the United States- struck out language that might have been seen as implying that they need to write big checks to the developing countries.” Not to mention all the different private interests that have stakes involved.
If we keep insisting that we all go back to being hunter-gatherers, which is how we appear to many, we will never succeed in controlling climate change. IMO, what we need to do much more of, is to emphasize how climate change impacts individuals, advise people not to establish their homes in deserts then complain about a lack of water, not to build in low lying regions such as Miami and Long Island, show how this can have negative economic consequences for the individual as well as the general society. Encourage more investment and research into alternative energy sources. I think the television program last week was an excellent start in this direction.
If we want to be politically successful with this we must get a hell of a lot more practical about finding and implementing the solutions and how to deal with the effects and distortions they are going to have on all of society.
Basically we need to change the mind set of our industrial civilization and you can’t do this by merely running around screaming Apocalypse Apocalypse Apocalypse We need practical solutions that many can support.
Let's get this straight. Climate change is happening. No doubt about it. The problem is how do we control and adopt to it. This is a political problem. To just run around screaming that "the world is ending' isn't going to get the job done. People, real people not just statistics have other much more immediate problems to deal with, from the cost of college education, reduced real wages in the US, to maintaining an adequate amount of food to eat today, not in the future for their children and themselves in much of the third world, etc. For most people today's survival trumps any concern with what's going to happen 50 to 100 years down the line. Of course as with any major change required by society there are going to be groups who find it in their self-interest to oppose the necessary changes.. This mornings Buffalo News carried a NEW York Times article on the third section of the IPCC report issued yesterday. Some of the problems that it found with the report. "Some developing countries insisted on stripping charts from the executive summary that could have been read as requiring greater effort from them, while rich countries -including the United States- struck out language that might have been seen as implying that they need to write big checks to the developing countries." Not to mention all the different private interests that have stakes involved. If we keep insisting that we all go back to being hunter-gatherers, which is how we appear to many, we will never succeed in controlling climate change. IMO, what we need to do much more of, is to emphasize how climate change impacts individuals, advise people not to establish their homes in deserts then complain about a lack of water, not to build in low lying regions such as Miami and Long Island, show how this can have negative economic consequences for the individual as well as the general society. Encourage more investment and research into alternative energy sources. I think the television program last week was an excellent start in this direction. If we want to be politically successful with this we must get a hell of a lot more practical about finding and implementing the solutions and how to deal with the effects and distortions they are going to have on all of society. Basically we need to change the mind set of our industrial civilization and you can't do this by merely running around screaming Apocalypse Apocalypse Apocalypse We need practical solutions that many can support.Who the hell insisted that we go back to hunter-gatherers ?!? - another right wing propaganda bludgeon! I'm scared of losing our nice modern life style - on the other hand, we have the right wing crowd who totally take it for granted, and demand to ignore the incredibly dangerous game of chicken we are playing with Earth natural processes, the ones that keep us alive and all that. - which is why I've tried to raise awareness on this issue. WE GOT TO GET REAL ABOUT WHAT INJECTING MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF CO2 INTO OUR ATMOSPHERE IS DOING TO OUR PLANET'S CLIMATE SYSTEM but, right wingers continues doing everything in their power to ignore that basic facts - until that is grasped nothing changes and you bet we are beginning to head towards that Apocalypse and if you can't see that writing on the wall YOU ARE NOT PAYING ATTENTION. BUT LETS BE CLEAR - I CHALLENGED ANYONE TO DEFEND TOL'S CLAIMS OR TO DEFEND ANYTHING SPECIFIC IN THAT ARTICLE… instead I get silly scatter shot. You have engaged in arm waving, plus you've tried to grossly misrepresent where I'm coming from, but that's what the Right-wing victory strategy has been all about - misrepresent what scientist and opponents are actually saying. Excuse me Gary for being a little feisty, but you did such a classic job of crazy-making bringing up that indefensible article that I gotta call it out.
Please don't derail this threat.Yeah right! When can we know that we get questionable data to work with? Satellite climate record in error http://www.nature.com/news/1998/980820/full/news980820-1.html It is not like we can build physical climate models in our homes. psik Yep, that's an impressive article… I'm curious is there anything specific in there worth paying attention to???I like you, but I’m not too hopeful of you understanding - considering you still can’t wrap your head around the incredible mass that was sitting on top of those severed World Trade Center buildings… {and somehow can’t imagine gravity and simple floor connectors weren’t enough to explain the final minutes of those buildings.} smirk
Published online 20 August 1998 | Nature | doi:10.1038/news980820-1 News Satellite climate record in errorAre you really ready to get into the Christy/Spencer satellite errors, the errors that they tried hiding and even after admitting to them and making appropriate adjustments, they continued brushing it under the table (by not correcting wrong claims on the internet) because their's was the favored temp set of their right-wing pals. Of course as climatologists have learned how to adjust for physical things like satellite orbital decay, or lapse time shifts, {and getting the math right which Spencer/Christy certainly didn't do.} *1 they get hammered by the crazy-denialist set for "adjusting" the data - 'we want raw data…' :lol: Sincerely yours, CC April 2014 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ PS Psik, Why do you believe climate models have to be perfect, to be useful? Can you show me one example of a climatologist claiming that their model is totally accurate? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ *1 Here are some great learning resources, for a more authoritative explanation of what I'm alluding to. Here are search results at http://www.skepticalscience.com, each is title to an article explaining various geophysical aspects of our climate system. PS Gary, What I hate is the hysteria distractions of the likes of Tol, when we should start with understanding the science of what's happening. Lordie I wish the frightened right wing masses would realize guns ain't going to save them, that the real enemy we are facing needs a totally new approach.Instead Reaganomic types have guaranteeing that our kids will be faced with survival in a hideously changed world - one of unfriendly crazy weather like this planet hasn't known in many eons. It's here, promising much more, and they still play stupid… but i digress
Skeptic arguments matching the search Spencer: http://www.skepticalscience.com/search.php?Search=spencer&x=-203&y=-227 Climate sensitivity is low Clouds provide negative feedback Dropped stations introduce warming bias IPCC is alarmist It's only a few degrees Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity Loehle and Scafetta find a 60 year cycle causing global warming Murry Salby finds CO2 rise is natural No long tail means climate sensitivity is low Record snowfall disproves global warming Roy Spencer finds negative feedback Satellites show no warming in the troposphere
Skeptic arguments matching the search Christy: http://www.skepticalscience.com/search.php?Search=Christy&x=-203&y=-227 Arctic sea ice extent was lower in the past Arctic sea ice loss in the 1940s was similar to today's Climate science peer review is pal review Satellites show no warming in the troposphere There's no tropospheric hot spot
Yep, that's an impressive article… I'm curious is there anything specific in there worth paying attention to???The issue is not the article, the issue is that all of the information that most people get about climate change is second and third hand. They must judge on the basis of what they are told. They can be told things that are incorrect just as easily as they can be told things that are correct. And then they are supposed to accept results from computer simulations as being meaningful. psik
The issue is not the article, the issue is that all of the information that most people get about climate change is second and third hand. They must judge on the basis of what they are told. They can be told things that are incorrect just as easily as they can be told things that are correct. And then they are supposed to accept results from computer simulations as being meaningful. psikWhat an asinine statement, are we supposed to individually begin our own global monitoring programs to detect the signal of human driven climate change. The amount of data that has been collected in the last half century is massive and it almost universally supports AGW. This includes the temperature record, the atmospheric temperature profile, thermal expansion of the oceans, changes in the timing of season, migration of isotherms, impacts on biotas, loses in the cryosphere, etc...and it all supports AGW, the errors in satellite measurements were due to using a new technology to remotely determine physical properties, all the other data didn't simply disappear once there was some inconsistencies. The only people who are "puzzled" by the changes now currently under way are intentionally creating this "substantial" uncertainty. In scientific terms the uncertainty of AGW has largely disappeared since the mid 1990s when the signal rose above the noise. That is the data became clear that it wasn't natural forcings like changes in solar output or volcanism that were driving the changes in climate being seen.