IPCC Bungling Twerps

[original PM]

now you're just teasing me!

[BlasterBates]

ad-hominem
HTH, BIRDI.

You've just thrown this word in because you see pjcarke use it.

If I were you I wouldn't use "big words", that you obviously don't understand, Just stick with what you know best like "cretin": You know that word really suits you.

[DodgyAgent]

James Delingpole is an English graduate who has made a living writing contentious, non-evidence based, articles for the benefit of the half-educated.
That you quote him says more about you than climate science.

As you have trashed him it should not then be too difficult to counter argue the points he has made should it? Or do you judge every argument according to the agenda of the individual making it? If that was a reasonable tactic then climate change scientists would be the first to be written off. You are not getting away with that.

[DodgyAgent]

You're a cretin if you believe an op-ed article in the Telegraph constitutes respectable scientific evidence.
That's a fact not an ad-hominem attack.
HTH, BIRDI.

He/The telegraph is using IPCCs own evidence to make his point.

[sasguru]

You've just thrown this word in because you see pjcarke use it.

If I were you I wouldn't use "big words", that you obviously don't understand, Just stick with what you know best like "cretin": You know that word really suits you.

Here's a word you should understand: "science". Come back when you know what it means.
Because at the moment you're making an arse of yourself without knowing it.

[sasguru]

As you have trashed him it should not then be too difficult to counter argue the points he has made should it? Or do you judge every argument according to the agenda of the individual making it? If that was a reasonable tactic then climate change scientists would be the first to be written off. You are not getting away with that.

Fair enough. When he stops the ranting and generalisations that sell newspapers and makes specific points I may be able to counter them.

[pjclarke]

Climate sensitivity is a measure of how much the global temperature will change in response to a given energy flux imbalance. We know the size of the energy imbalance that the increase in GHGs has produced to pretty good accuracy, there is of course, uncertainty around the magnitude of the sensitivity. The last IPCC report stated that a doubling of CO2 would produce a global temperature rise

likely to be in the range 2 to 4.5 °C with a best estimate of about 3 °C, and is very unlikely to be less than 1.5 °C. Values substantially higher than 4.5 °C cannot be excluded, but agreement of models with observations is not as good for those values

Climate models are one way of estimating the sensitivity, another is to look at how the planet responded to previous imbalances, e.g. glacial/interglacial periods triggered by eccentricities in the planet's orbit.

Judith Curry has long been a critic of the IPCC's estimates of uncertainty, what the inactivists who gleefully jump on her words seem to fail to grasp is that uncertainty is not their friend - if the IPCC has understated the uncertainties, then it has understated the risks, sensitivity might be higher, in fact the probability distribution is asymmetrical ...



Delingpole makes a lot of unsubstantiated claims, I guess he is referring to Lindzen and Spencer, who have argued for low sensitivity, but their arguments have been considered and largely found wanting. Its not clear if Delingpole knows this, as by his own admission he does not use the primary sources:

It is not my job to sit down and read peer-reviewed papers because I simply haven't got the time . . . I am an interpreter of interpretations."

More usually a wilful misinterpreter.

Must-see Delingpole meltdown on BBC: "It is not my job to sit down and read peer-reviewed papers because I simply haven't got the time.... I am an interpreter of interpretations." | ThinkProgress

[amcdonald]

Here's a word you should understand: "science". Come back when the IPCC know what it means.
Because at the moment they're making an arse of it without knowing it.

FTFY

[DodgyAgent]

Climate sensitivity is a measure of how much the global temperature will change in response to a given energy flux imbalance. We know the size of the energy imbalance that the increase in GHGs has produced to pretty good accuracy, there is of course, uncertainty around the magnitude of the sensitivity. The last IPCC report stated that a doubling of CO2 would produce a global temperature rise



Climate models are one way of estimating the sensitivity, another is to look at how the planet responded to previous imbalances, e.g. glacial/interglacial periods triggered by eccentricities in the planet's orbit.

Judith Curry has long been a critic of the IPCC's estimates of uncertainty, what the inactivists who gleefully jump on her words seem to fail to grasp is that uncertainty is not their friend - if the IPCC has understated the uncertainties, then it has understated the risks, sensitivity might be higher, in fact the probability distribution is asymmetrical ...



Delingpole makes a lot of unsubstantiated claims, I guess he is referring to Lindzen and Spencer, who have argued for low sensitivity, but their arguments have been considered and largely found wanting. Its not clear if Delingpole knows this, as by his own admission he does not use the primary sources:



More usually a wilful misinterpreter.

Must-see Delingpole meltdown on BBC: "It is not my job to sit down and read peer-reviewed papers because I simply haven't got the time.... I am an interpreter of interpretations." | ThinkProgress

In other words you are saying that there are a great deal of uncertainties?

if the IPCC has understated the uncertainties, then it has understated the risks, sensitivity might be higher, in fact the probability distribution is asymmetrical ...


There is a lot of words such as "uncertainty" and "might" and "probably" thrown into the argument by you and your ilk

Delingpole merely looks at climate change like the rest of us do. Instead of people like you who try to baffle us with science and then implying that because we are stupid and do not understand that you are right and that we should therefore submit power and money to you and your organisations.

What for instance are his unsubstantiated claims?

[wurzel]

Either way, the applications are popping up everywhere round here from greedy farmers who can rake in huge sums from having a 100 metre wind turbine in one of their fields.

And the way it all unfolds is this:

1) locals turn up with pitchforks to public consultation
2) parish council rejects plan
3) district council rejects application
4) applicant appeals rejection
5)someone from the planning inspectorate rubber stamps the application.

(Somewhere in between all this I will write a letter to my local MP who will respond by saying that all communities have an obligation to participate in the generation of renewable sources of energy. Or words to that effect.)

Democracy in action...