Global Warming - Six Grave Scientific Errors and the history of an absurd idea

I am bemused to see an actual scientist that has been involved in this for a long time call out the BS.

David Kear, former Director-General of NZ Scientific Research, says global warming is a non-existent threat

http://www.climaterealists.org.nz/sites/climaterealists.org.nz/files/KearGW2.pdf

 

WOW!! The alarmists have inexplicably avoided comment...so far.

 

So how about them 3%'ers?

 

Can you find a source for the estimate that "seas around New Zealand will rise by up to 1.4 m in the next 40 years”? Because he did give one and I can't find it anywhere.

 

Global Warming Dawns Subsequently, I attended many international science
conferences representing DSIR, NZ or Pacific Nations. I noted the words “Global
Warming” appearing increasingly in paper titles, and sensed a growing number of
adherents. Those latter arranged a first-ever “Conference on Global Warming” in
Vienna in 1985. Unlike most such meetings, where a communiqué summarising
achievements was released on the final day, the full results of this one were delayed
for over 2 years.

When they did appear (front page, NZ Herald, two days before Christmas 1987) a
World Declaration included “Overseas scientists have estimated that the seas around
New Zealand will rise by up to 1.4 m in the next 40 years”. That article concentrated
on the massive consequent problems, caused by our carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions,
but gave no adequate supporting science.

It apparently went the way of the Benghazi emails..."two year later they showed up on the front page of the New Zealand Herald on December 23, 1987". Maybe you can communicate with that newspaper and ask for details.

 

Maybe you can educate yourself on where the burden of proof lies. The only Vienna Conference in 1985 that I can find was about ozone depletion, not global warming. I would be surprised if they issued anything about sea level rise. The IPCC First Assessment report from 1990 doesn't make any reference to any such estimate either, calling into question the second grave error in Kear's article.

 

I didn't write the article pal. If you really have a problem, contact Mr. Kear, who said he attended the first conference ever in Vienna and it took him two years to see and read a synopsis of the findings in his local newspaper. Maybe you can contact Al Gore and protest. Or maybe you can contact the Vienna, Austria people and obtain a record of the conferences held there in 1985. Or maybe, or or or...

 

The fact that the article is fatally flawed shoots the vehicle out from under your little escapade into junk science.

 

Read on kernel...

The Link: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&ved=0CFMQFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ipu.org%2Fconf-e%2F120%2F2Cmt-dr-res.doc&ei=yZJpU4jdOZCMyATwzIFg&usg=AFQjCNHbn0bQVqKoMRA8atW0VjhH8x2i9A&sig2=omIpBRSn43QlsJidydGWSw



According to this doc. "the hole in the ozone" conference actually turned into a global warming meeting. Any more dumb remarks?

 

No, you didn't write it, and apparently you didn't research it before jumping in to defend it either. It's not my problem that an article presented to refute global warming is so full of holes. David Kear may be a scientist, but what he presents here is anything but science. Here are some examples for you to compare with.

http://academics.eckerd.edu/instructor/hastindw/MS1410-001_FA08/handouts/2008SLRSustain.pdf

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/12/04/0907765106.full.pdf

http://kaares.ulapland.fi/home/hkunta/jmoore/pdfs/jev_moore_grin_Glob_Ch_2012.pdf

 

Repeating the same nonsense that Kear points out is not a refutation.

 

I don't see how you get "turned into" from "raised this issue". Still not seeing any communiqué or report stating that "the seas around New Zealand will rise by up to 1.4 m in the next 40 years” either.

 

So you think using science to support a scientific argument is nonsense? Interesting.

 

So you think nonsense science is support?

 

You have yet to show that it's nonsense. Your first attempt failed miserably.

 

Sorry you can't keep up.

 

So we have David Kear, a guy nobody has ever heard of, who at one time headed a now-disbanded government agency in New Zealand with the primary job of promoting research into agriculture and botany (in other words he was a bureaucrat, not a highly active scientist), who thinks his PhD fieldwork from 1963 proves global warming is a hoax, because later research contradicts his findings.

His booklet starts out with this statement:

"However, no one originally thought seriously that man could change the basic influences to our climate -- our Sun, our Earth’s rotation, the total quantity of our Planet’s water, and the rest. Mother Nature is able to change all such things (and has been doing so for some 3,000,000,000 years), but we are not."


Which displays a TOTAL misunderstanding of climate science, since no climate scientist has ever claimed that man can change those things.

He later makes this statement:


One announcement (that surely originated from NIWA) was very important to me and all citizens, and was a credit to NIWA itself. At the close of 2007, it stated that the decade just finishing was the warmest since New Zealand records began. The announcement added that, of those 10 years, 1998 was the warmest ever since records began. I was grateful to NIWA, and concluded that 2007 was no warmer than 1998, and probably cooler.
I could assume therefore that warming at our 125 rate finished in 1998.


Where he commits the basic scientific sin of looking at a measure with high short-term variability (mean global temperature) and choosing to focus on the short-term noise instead of the long-term trend. In other words, he points to an extreme peak (199, notes that subsequent years have not matched that peak, and thus concludes that warming has ended -- ignoring the clear long-term trend (for instance, all the years following 1998 are warmer than the average of the years before 199.

Great source you have there, OP.

 

What it all boils down to according to the liberal alarmists is..."YOUR SCIENTIFIC PEOPLE ARE QUACKS". Our scientific people are smart. They create phony graphs and charts to "prove" to the non-believers that GLOBAL WARMING...also now known as CLIMATE CHANGE...because NOTHING they predicted has changed, is REAL. And it is REAL...REALLY PHONY. These are the same people that keep insisting that 98% of all scientists are ALARMED. B.S.

Time to use my chart...

View attachment 27114

 

Your "scientific people" generally *are* quacks. They either aren't peer-reviewed, or they have no climate-science qualifications. They're like this guy -- a bureaucrat who thinks his 50-year-old research is somehow more valid than more recent and comprehensive studies, and makes basic logical and scientific mistakes in his pamphlet.

There are a handful of serious climate scientists who think AGW is overblown. But then you have to answer two questions:

1. Why do you focus on that tiny handful instead of the thousands of studies that show otherwise?

2. Why is it that those scientists, when they actually publish peer-reviewed papers, turn out to merely be nibbling at the edges of AGW, not actually refuting it? Their papers generally say things like "our study suggests we don't fully understand cloud formation" or "our estimates suggest that total warming will be 1.0 degrees by 2100, instead of the 1.1 degrees in the IPCC consensus." In other words, they're arguing over the sort of details scientists always argue over. It's fine-tuning, not the sort of thing that contradicts the basic fact of AGW -- that the earth is warming, humans are helping to cause it, and the long-term effects will be catastrophic.

 

Still very much in existence.

http://www.sciencenewzealand.org/

 

It's "fine tuning" your quackery. Whatever drives the liberal lies (money) is driving this HOAX. No matter how smart you think you are you will NEVER overcome Mother Nature. That would be GOD. When and IF MN wants to end this earth it will happen and there isn't a damned thing you and your fellow quacks can do about it.

 

Ah, I see, he is not a scientist anymore because he has not jumped on the bandwagon. Got it.

 

That's the successor to the DSIP. It's the result of New Zealand merging DSIP with several other organizations.

 

A spam-OP thread. Got it.

 

Yes, I see. Forget the overwhelming scientific evidence. You take it as an article of faith that humans aren't capable of altering the climate, so anything that shows otherwise must be a hoax.

You aren't to be taken seriously.

- - - Updated - - -

You can do better than that. Troll harder.