LOL WHUT?

it was 'changed' and they 'hoped' you didn't notice

No doubt. Hyping shiat does not help the political situation.

what the hell does that say?

Pielke, as I recall, is the least odious of the climate change denialists but he's still little more than a shill for Republicans.

Paging Jon Snow . . .

5h4wn: what the hell does that say?

Well the article says that the latest Climate Change Report resorts to so much hype that it undermines it's own cedibility. Important to note, however, that while the scientist quoted called the report out on the BS hype, he pointedly did not deny that climate change was occurring, just pointed out that BS fearmongering doesn't help.

Oh, now they're worried about over-hyping non-peer reviewed research?

Argh2: 5h4wn: what the hell does that say?

Well the article says that the latest Climate Change Report resorts to so much hype that it undermines it's own cedibility. Important to note, however, that while the scientist quoted called the report out on the BS hype, he pointedly did not deny that climate change was occurring, just pointed out that BS fearmongering doesn't help.

Take away the BS fearmongering and where is the global warming climate change movement?

WhileAmericaBurns: Take away the BS fearmongering and where is the global warming climate change movement?

Doing field science. They're busy. If you don't see them in action it's because you're busy too. kinda like dentists and engineers and janitors and other jobs. You know they're out there, but if all you see of them are reports on tv and interviews with news anchors and the occasional commercial, do you go around calling them liars?

/you probably don't believe in santa either =(

WhileAmericaBurns: Take away the BS fearmongering and where is the global warming climate change movement?

Stuck with thousands of peer-reviewed, journal published research articles, while the denialists have press releases and conspiracy theories?

OH NOES! The climate is CHANGING! Everybody panic pass massive government regulations!!!

WhileAmericaBurns: OH NOES! The climate is CHANGING! Everybody panic pass massive government regulations!!!

We're still animals, idiot, we require a functioning ecosystem. You cannot buy one on the free market.

WhileAmericaBurns: OH NOES! The climate is CHANGING! Everybody panic pass massive government regulations!!!

AgentOrangeDrink: WhileAmericaBurns: OH NOES! The climate is CHANGING! Everybody panic pass massive government regulations!!!

We're still animals, idiot, we require a functioning ecosystem. You cannot buy one on the free market.

Technically speaking, you could. If you weren't a penniless hippy, that is.

Ok who let Sarah Palin get a green light? That sounds like some of her gobbledy gook.

WhileAmericaBurns: OH NOES! The climate is CHANGING! Everybody panic pass massive government regulations!!!

This is what global warming denial is really about. Not science, not facts, but protecting the holy free market from the big bad market.

FTA: The new federal report on climate change gets a withering critique from Roger Pielke Jr., who says that it misrepresents his own research ...

There's a lot of that going around.

The last WH censored science, and it seems the new WH is, too.

But let's not entertain the notion that scientific findings are politically motivated.

hourheroyes: This is what global warming denial is really about. Not science, not facts ...

Soooo, if a scientist says "we're all doomed" it's "science" and "fact", but when another scientist says "hang on, that's a gross misrepresentation of the reported data," it's "denial"?

hourheroyes: WhileAmericaBurns: OH NOES! The climate is CHANGING! Everybody panic pass massive government regulations!!!

This is what global warming denial acceptance is really about. Not science, not facts, but protecting destroying the holy free market from the big bad market freedom.

FTFY

WhileAmericaBurns: hourheroyes: WhileAmericaBurns: OH NOES! The climate is CHANGING! Everybody panic pass massive government regulations!!!

This is what global warming denial acceptance is really about. Not science, not facts, but protecting destroying the holy free market from the big bad market freedom.

FTFY

Global warming is a ploy to destroy FREEDOM?

Really? Really?

Wow, I know it's Saturday night, but you should just back away from the crack pipe.

SynthLord: Soooo, if a scientist says "we're all doomed" it's "science" and "fact", but when another scientist says "hang on, that's a gross misrepresentation of the reported data," it's "denial"?

Roger Pielke, Jr. is not a climatologist, he's a political scientist. None of his published research to date has been about the nature of physical changes to the atmosphere, but instead about how society will or should react to it. Despite that, he is frequently quoted in press releases from denialist groups like the Heritage Foundation as a climate scientist who has evidence to undermine the scientific basis for greenhouse warming.

When such statements are released, you should judge them for what they truly are: the opinions of a right-wing political analyst, with precisely zero actual scientific data to support them.

It's a shame smart people never become politicians. Then again, what smart person would voluntarily surround themselves with such jackasses?

SurahAhriman: AgentOrangeDrink: WhileAmericaBurns: OH NOES! The climate is CHANGING! Everybody panic pass massive government regulations!!!

We're still animals, idiot, we require a functioning ecosystem. You cannot buy one on the free market.

Technically speaking, you could. If you weren't a penniless hippy, that is.

Hey, that's not fair. I have several pennies.

hyperspacemonkey: WhileAmericaBurns: Take away the BS fearmongering and where is the global warming climate change movement?

Doing field science. They're busy. If you don't see them in action it's because you're busy too. kinda like dentists and engineers and janitors and other jobs. You know they're out there, but if all you see of them are reports on tv and interviews with news anchors and the occasional commercial, do you go around calling them liars?

/you probably don't believe in santa either =(

Nah, the actual scientists aren't generally part of the movement, as such. Those are the bookkeepers with an agenda like the IPCC types and the spinners like Gore.

Kind of like there are very few environmental scientists in the environmentalism movement. It's one of the main draws of science, actually, that it doesn't give a damn about your petty political bullshiat either way.

All I know is that there is climate change. I don't know if there is man made climate change but I do know there is too much money on both sides of the debate.

As a result getting unbiased information to draw a conclusion seems virtually impossible if you ask me.

True science at it's best.
Create a theory
Include all studies that support that theory
Reject any evidence that contradicts that theory
Create 100% consensus by including dissenters in that consensus
Cut off funding to dissenting scientists
Theory is proven
Theory is Fact!
Receive ma$$ive grant money for more research.
Profit.

Works for evolution, stem cell research. Why not climate change.

I don't think a 0/10 troll rating is attainable, so I give you 6.63x10^-34 /10

Wolf_Blitzer Roger Pielke, Jr. is not a climatologist, he's a political scientist. None of his published research to date has been about the nature of physical changes to the atmosphere

which make the White House even more stupid for quoting him as a source, don't you think?

As for the peer-reviewed studies on the direct link between human causation and "global warming" - show them to me.

There is, however, plenty of evidence that the average global temperature has declined over the last 9 years.

/and today I read that the largest cause of greenhouse gas will be exempted from legislation - livestock.

Munchausen's Proxy: As for the peer-reviewed studies on the direct link between human causation and "global warming" - show them to me.

From the journal Science:

"In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations"...
The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change".

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect."

There. Not so hard.

Munchausen's Proxy: There is, however, plenty of evidence that the average global temperature has declined over the last 9 years.


That's the trend you see here? (Data courtesy of NOAA.)

chimp_ninja
Thank you, you proved both my points. Kudos to you.

I asked for evidence and fact, and you give me
scientific opinion

And you graphs clearly show a drop in global temp.

Good job.

Munchausen's Proxy: And you graphs clearly show a drop in global temp.

The trend is upward you nittering naboob. Any statistician worth their salt would have your guts for garters if they saw that you were focusing on the downward slope of a known cyclical movement without seeing how it rates in comparison to similar points in cycles that have already past.