Random ramblings and rants (the 3Rs)

Gleaned mostly from troll baiting on the net.  Trolls are a fascinating source of the most skewed thought patterns out there.

From the “humans did this department”:

“It is extremely likely {95%+ certainty} that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. ”

Note that only half the increase is due to CO2, according to the IPCC.  Don’t see that much in the news.  Humans have not done that much it seems.


“It’s just a few boo-boos”

“The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) is a report on climate change created with the help of a large number of contributors, both scientists and governmental representatives. There has been considerable political controversy over a small number of errors found in the report, and there have been calls for review of the …”
This is like saying the doctor amputated the wrong leg, but it was a small, understandable mistake. Saying the Himalayan glaciers were going to be gone, when even the “gray literature” used (forget peer-reviewed as long as the paper says what is needed to be said the IPCC is okay with it) did not say gone, but vastly reduced, is not a “small mistake”. There may be only three or four mistakes, but if some of the mistakes are HUGE and a result of politics, then there is no reason to trust the IPCC to present actual science. Come on, a HUGE mistake tends negates trust in any correctness of the rest of the report. This is a report that is reviewed, commented on, and supposedly accurate. It obviously is not that.

Saying this is no big deal—back to the doctor that amputates the wrong leg. If the doctor gets it right 95% of the time (the IPCC likes 95% and 97%, so use either one), then 5 people out of a hundred lose the wrong leg. It’s not a big deal??? Really, I think it would be if these warmists were the one with the wrong leg removed. There is a constant questioning of “do you trust your doctor?” and if 95 doctors agreed….What if your doctor was right 95% of the time and you are one of the 5%? Suddenly, medical errors become a BIG deal. Why are climate science HUGE errors not a big deal? Why make excuses for bad, very, very bad, science ?

The scientists encouraged the media and the public to not get bogged down on the Himalayan glacier error and to look at the bigger picture of the warming planet instead. (from insideclimatenews.org)
Yes, if you are one of the 5% who lose the wrong leg, look at the bigger picture of the 95% who were saved by this doctor. Stop sweating the small stuff and complaining about tiny little mistakes. Nitpickers……

“Every sentence in these summaries is discussed and argued about and finally agreed by consensus — not a vote — by scientists and representatives from more than 130 governments,” said Nicholls. “Many of these government representatives are also scientists.”
(from insideclimatenews.org)

NOT a vote????? Do none of these people speak or understand English? Consensus IS a vote. It cannot be anything else. If you don’t go around and ask each scientist if they do or do not agree with the findings, how do you judge consensus?  Raised hands?  Still a vote.  You just declare it, without any empirical evidence? Is that what they are saying here? We just decided to stop discussing the topic and took whatever was said last and declared consensus? That’s worse than voting—consensus by random chance of what was going on when someone said “stop”. No matter how hard these people try, either they vote for scientific truth or randomly choose one. There aren’t many other conclusions available from what they are claiming is going on. Throwing darts at a dart board is the only other one I can come up with.