lol Robsterillo

If only this was just about winning on-line debates, and not about the planet turning into one big New Orleans, and not in a good way.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gU8J3xEhFmRPw87tPfwb-oXa5h9gD92QNA480

Oops…

Does that mean Luke will come back? Sigh.

“You cite the authorship of the IPCC AR4 Synthesis Report as evidence that the IPCC does not include scientific experts.”
That’s not what I said. Let me be clear to lessen the chances that you will misrepresent my words further. The authors listed on the front of the AR4 Synthesis Report are not qualified to make the executive level summaries that are contained within the report. There. Is that clear enough for a fraud like yourself?

“Thus, your complaint that the WG III Synthesis Report includes non-scientists reflects a misunderstanding of its assignment.”
That wasn’t my complaint (although it would be valid – there are a number of non-scientists in WG3). My complaint was that you are a liar and a fraud. You asserted that the indiviudals I named were not included in either Appendix 3 or Appendix 4 of the WG documents. A quick check shows that 2 of them are. A reasonable person would call that a lie, I think.

“The problem is, I don’t have a time machine..”
Sorry. Not good enough. You admit that you do not have proof, cannot obtain proof, and don’t see the need for proof — and we just have to take your word for it, is that it?

“You also seem to misunderstand the role of models.”
Not at all. Let’s examine the WMO’s own words on the subject (noted in my previous post):

1) “While some modest return of cooling is possible over the next few weeks” Interpretation: “We are clueless as to what is happening on a week to week basis – let alone 50 years into the future”. (The giveaway is the word ‘possible’).

2: “the main message from prediction models and expert interpretation..” Interpretation #1: The WMO thinks that their models speak to them. What sort of witch-doctor religion is this? Interpretation #2: The models are completely worthless and have to be “re-interpreted” on a regular basis. Not sure which Interpretation worries me most.

3: “near-neutral conditions should be considered the most likely outcome for mid-year or shortly thereafter.” Interpretation: “We haven’t got a frigging clue. We were completely blindsided by this one, but rest assured we are busy re-working the models.” Should + likely + shortly thereafter = bullshit. Look it up on Wiki.

“I shall not be responding to any future comments you write.”
Big deal. You misrepresent and duck all the main issues anyway. What’s to be missed?

Hard to say. Changes to sea level
are hard enough to properly assess today with modern satellite capabilities. But given the latest data which shows a flattening of sea level rise as sea surface temperatures have started cooling,

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/SeaLevel_TOPEX.jpg

there may have indeed been periods where it dropped within the longer term trend of increase.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/1/1d/Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png

However given trends as indicated, there is absolutely no evidence that increased CO2 levels are responsible for an increasing rate of rise in ocean levels.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Recent_Sea_Level_Rise_png

What if we just cut off all the funds? Its not like the world is going to end.

You cite the authorship of the IPCC AR4 Synthesis Report as evidence that the IPCC does not include scientific experts. You misunderstand the role of the various Working Groups. There are three Working Groups, flamboyantly labeled as Working Group I, Working Group II, and Working Group III. Working Group I has responsibility for assessing the physical basis of climate change. This is the science, analyzed and written by the scientists. I have relied exclusively upon their report for my contributions here.

Working Group II addresses climate change impacts, adaptation, and vulnerabilities. Their website says: “In its reports, Working Group II assesses the scientific, technical, environmental, economic and social aspects of the vulnerability (sensitivity and adaptability) to climate change of, and the negative and positive consequences for, ecological systems, socio-economic sectors and human health, with an emphasis on regional sectoral and cross-sectoral issues.”

Working Group III assesses the various mitigation strategies available to us. They write: “Working Group III is charged to assess available information on the science of climate change, in particular that arising from human activities. In performing its assessments the WGIII is concerned with the scientific, technical, environmental, and economic and social aspects of mitigation of climate change.”

Thus, your complaint that the WG III Synthesis Report includes non-scientists reflects a misunderstanding of its assignment.

You also seem to misunderstand the role of models. You require evidence in support of my claims regarding future temperatures. Then you object that I relied upon models for that evidence — you want actual data. The problem is, I don’t have a time machine that allows me to travel into the future to collect the data you demand. If we want to predict the future, we have to plug data from the past into a model to predict the future.

Barring some dramatic change on your part, I shall not be responding to any future comments you write.

Chris, you are a fraud – or is it just laziness? In addition to the Synthesis Report, check out: (www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg3/ar4-wg3-annex3.pdf)
- page 827 for Peter Bosch
- page 828 for Bill Hare