Talk-Polywell.org

“Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the IPCC 5th Assessment Report – Changes to the Underlying Scientific/Technical Assessment” to ensure consistency with the approved Summary for Policymakers"

So they are changing the data to back their policy? Political science at its best.

We have a genius who is a frequent visitor here who thinks this sort of manipulation is spot on. I do believe he is too smart by half.

MSimon wrote:

“Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the IPCC 5th Assessment Report – Changes to the Underlying Scientific/Technical Assessment” to ensure consistency with the approved Summary for Policymakers"

So they are changing the data to back their policy? Political science at its best.

We have a genius who is a frequent visitor here who thinks this sort of manipulation is spot on. I do believe he is too smart by half.

Where did you cherry-pick this from, now?

I'm gonna be frank I think you've taken this out of context and distorted its meaning with definitions of the words in it that the authors never considered, much less intended.

Is this a political document or an actual scientific document?

Roger wrote:Is this a political document or an actual scientific document?

Good question.

RE Roger, from the depths of presumably the DU (or OFA, or some other such cesspool of thievery and murder) the asymptote of the sinister rears his head again.

You know, if sunspot activity doesn't pick up again pretty soon, you AGW nutjobs who wanted hundreds millions to die sooner rather than later are going to look pretty unavoidably silly at best.

And for the worst, there's Nuremberg as a precedent.

If I were the Gorical, I'd plan on making sure that sometime after 2020 or 2025 or oi, that I never entered American airspace or territory.

TDPerk wrote:You know, if sunspot activity doesn't pick up again pretty soon, you AGW nutjobs who wanted hundreds millions to die sooner rather than later are going to look pretty unavoidably silly at best.

If it doesn't it will be unprecedented in over 200 years, 23 solar cycles. It will also overset our entire understanding of stellar mechanics, as well.

I kinda doubt that. Just sayin'.

So MSimon, you gonna answer Roger's question? I have no idea where you got your quote; I don't pay attention to people who don't provide links to their "proof."

Sorry, I'm not going to search a huge document for your quote. In the unlikely event that I actually have to refer to a book during this conversation, I'll provide more than a sentence or two. Like, you know, page numbers and stuff.

RE Roger, Its a political document masquerading as a scientific document.

hanelyp wrote:RE Roger, Its a political document masquerading as a scientific document.

How do you know? I can't even make out what document you're talking about.

If you're talking about AR5 you're lying outrageously.

MSimon wrote:

“Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the IPCC 5th Assessment Report – Changes to the Underlying Scientific/Technical Assessment” to ensure consistency with the approved Summary for Policymakers"

So they are changing the data to back their policy? Political science at its best.

We have a genius who is a frequent visitor here who thinks this sort of manipulation is spot on. I do believe he is too smart by half.

Actually it sounds more like they modified the Summary for Policymakers, bringing it up to date with current knowledge, and then modified the scientific/technical assessment by bringing it up to date the same way.

The same committee.

Looks like you're making stuff up again.

And you still haven't provided anything but a naked quote; I'm completely trusting your word it's from the AR5. So if that turns out not to be the case everyone can see who lied.

Let me clarify this.

AR5 is not a scientific paper nor is it expected to be. The research is all documented in papers that were written long before any part of AR5 existed. Alleging that the science was somehow massaged is an anachronism. Therefore, it's a lie: no one can tell the future.

Unless you can show that AR5 disagrees with its source papers, which were published before it was started, you have proven nothing. There's no point in "disagreeing with" AR5; it doesn't contain any original research. Disagree all you like; the facts are still the facts, in the source papers, which have already been peer reviewed and published in the scholarly literature.

Oh, and it occurs to me to wonder whether someone who does not even know what AR5 actually is (it's not a scientific paper) has actually read it.

Are we done here?

Roger wrote:Is this a political document or an actual scientific document?

The IPCC's AR5 SPM is a political document - the "Summary for Policy Makers" - its purpose is essentially self-explanatory.

IPCC is saying it will revise the underlying scientific documents to ensure "consistency" with the SPM, not vice-versa. That's all that needs to be known. That isn't science.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/12/t ... h-the-spm/

djolds1 wrote:IPCC is saying it will revise the underlying scientific documents to ensure "consistency" with the SPM, not vice-versa. That's all that needs to be known. That isn't science.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/12/t ... h-the-spm/

What?! You DARE to mention a Climate Denier site when referring to the Holy Book of Settled Science IPCC AR5? Heretic!

/Sarc

If the numbers going in don't give you the output you expect from your model, you don't change the numbers, dammit! And you don't put a fudge factor into the model to get what you expect!

That's one of the things that's never set well. They took the 'raw' data, then adjusted it. Some years were up, some years were down... then when FOIA requests came through, they 'lost' the database of adjustments they were using.

One they started messing with the raw data, the results went from science to 'science fiction' real fast.

JLawson wrote:Once they started messing with the raw data, the results went from science to 'science fiction' real fast.

Yes, but the important thing is their funding is now secure.

djolds1 wrote:

Roger wrote:Is this a political document or an actual scientific document?

The IPCC's AR5 SPM is a political document - the "Summary for Policy Makers" - its purpose is essentially self-explanatory.

IPCC is saying it will revise the underlying scientific documents to ensure "consistency" with the SPM, not vice-versa. That's all that needs to be known. That isn't science.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/12/t ... h-the-spm/

Of course it's not science. The science is all in the scientific papers it's derived from. It's not like they can go back and change them.

You're lying again.

JLawson wrote:

djolds1 wrote:IPCC is saying it will revise the underlying scientific documents to ensure "consistency" with the SPM, not vice-versa. That's all that needs to be known. That isn't science.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/12/t ... h-the-spm/

What?! You DARE to mention a Climate Denier site when referring to the Holy Book of Settled Science IPCC AR5? Heretic!

/Sarc

Watt is another climate denier. He studied electrical engineering and meteorology at Purdue and will not say whether he graduated. He's a television personality; he's not even a certified meteorologist. He has a discontinued American Meteorology Society "certificate of approval," which used to be given to those who don't have any degrees.

http://www.desmogblog.com/anthony-watts

Who's next, Billo the Clown? Joe from down at the corner bar? How about a couple geologists, they know lots about climate, don't they?

JLawson wrote:If the numbers going in don't give you the output you expect from your model, you don't change the numbers, dammit! And you don't put a fudge factor into the model to get what you expect!

That's one of the things that's never set well. They took the 'raw' data, then adjusted it. Some years were up, some years were down... then when FOIA requests came through, they 'lost' the database of adjustments they were using.

One they started messing with the raw data, the results went from science to 'science fiction' real fast.

You'll need some of that pesky evidence stuff; until you present some this is all lies.