Alarmist David Suzuki - a "complete know-nothing"

[siggie-reported-by-alarmists]

After watching Q & A  with David Suzuki....I am starting to  feel kind of sorry for Alarmists....

David Suzuki also had to admit  he was wrong..lol.

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s3841115.htm

"David Suzuki on the very first question is revealed as a complete know-nothing. His questioner tells him that the main climate

data sets show no real warming for some 15 years.

Suzuki asks for the references, which he should have known if he knew anything of the science.

His questioner then lists them: UAH, RSS, HadCrut and GISS - four of the most basic measurement systems of global

temperature.

Suzuki asks what they are.

Anyone interested in global warming should know right there that Suzuki has absolutely no understanding of what he is talking

about...

For Example - 

Challenged from the floor by Professor Stewart Franks, Suzuki admits he might have been mistaken in claiming global warming

was causing more cyclones, which he blamed for killing the Great Barrier Reef. He blames some Australian for “suggesting” it to

him. The truth, as I’ve noted before, is easily found on the Bureau of Meteorology website:.."

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/suzuki_revealed_as_comple...

Between Tim Flannery and David Suzuki, it must be very embarrassing time to be an Alarmist......lol.

[lakeland27]

uly, 2006

Spencer is listed as a "scientific advisor" for an organization called the "Interfaith Stewardship Alliance" (ISA). According to their website, the ISA is "a coalition of religious leaders, clergy, theologians, scientists, academics, and other policy experts committed to bringing a proper and balanced Biblical view of stewardship to the critical issues of environment and development."

In July 2006, Spencer co-authored an ISA report refuting the work of another religious organization called the Evangelical Climate Initiative. The ISA report was titled A Call to Truth, Prudence and Protection of the Poor: an Evangelical Response to Global Warming. Along with the report was a letter of endorsement signed by numerous representatives of various organizations, including six that have received a total of $2.32 million in donations from ExxonMobil over the last three years. [13]

The other authors of the ISA's report were Calvin Beisner, Paul Driessen, and Ross McKitrick.

April, 2006

Roy Spencer was one of the 60 "accredited experts" to sign a 2006 open letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper denying man-made climate change while urging the government avoid implementing climate policy. 

The letter states that "climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural 'noise.'"

August, 2005

According to an August 12, 2005 New York Times article, Spencer, along with another well-known "skeptic," John Christy, admitted they made a mistake in their satellite data research that they said demonstrated a cooling in the troposphere (the earth's lowest layer of atmosphere). It turned out that the exact opposite was occurring and the troposphere was getting warmer. [14]

"These papers should lay to rest once and for all the claims by John Christy and other global warming skeptics that a disagreement between tropospheric and surface temperature trends means that there are problems with surface temperature records or with climate models," said Alan Robock, a meteorologist at Rutgers University.

November 16, 2004

Spencer signed a 2004 open letter to John McCain refuting the findings by the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA). [15]

The letter concludes that any past warming that occurred in the arctic cannot be attributed to greenhouse gas concentrations.  It was signed by prominent climate change skeptics including Richard Lindzen, Tim Ball, David Legates, Pat Michaels, Gary D. Sharp, Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas.

1998

Spencer appeared as a "Featured Expert" in a video by the Greening Earth Society (a project of the Western Fuels Association) called The Greening of Planet Earth Continues. In the video, "expert scientists assert that CO2 is not a pollutant, but a nutrient to life on earth." [16]

[siggie-reported-by-alarmists]

So you don't like Nasa's graph Monman...... I'm sure they care....lol.

It would appear to be some what more relevant to this discussion however ... than your graph Monman...........as David Suzuki only

seemed to believe that the last 10 years were relevant.  Funny isn't he?

I've thrown in an few extra years....

[siggie-reported-by-alarmists]

Monman wrote- choose a period that at least supports your comments.

It appears that I did.

You however, fell 13 years short.

[monman12]

siggie-reported-by-alarmists : "You however, fell 13 years short." Really so explain, please.

You want NASA have the lot:, none of which show cooling  since 2000.

Do you not understand that global warming  in our time is well recorded over significant time,  and with a steady increase in CO2 atmospheric concentration,  it is extrapolated to do so into the future. Picking small time period variation from the long term average to suit a personal opinion is nonsense.

Long term trend siggie-reported-by-alarmists, significant average periods, that is good science.

nɥºɾ

[siggie-reported-by-alarmists]

You might want to refer to the op and watch the clip....that might help you understand what this thread is about....

You seem lost Monman.

[lakeland27]

---

@siggie-reported-by-alarmists wrote:

You might want to refer to the op and watch the clip....that might help you understand what this thread is about....

You seem lost Monman.

---

lost ? he doesn't seem lost to me. he has your measure well and truly. its called defeat.. now be gracious.

[poddster · Accepted solution]

And if we have a look at the last 10 years. It shows that the temperature has fallen in that period

[lakeland27]

---

@poddster wrote:

And if we have a look at the last 10 years. It shows that the temperature has fallen in that period

---

where is the rest ? snip snip make it fit my position.

[siggie-reported-by-alarmists]

---

@poddster wrote:

And if we have a look at the last 10 years. It shows that the temperature has fallen in that period

---

That just makes David Suzukis position even stranger, that he was only interested in the last 10 years, even though others where

questioning the last 15 years!

Alarmists are a very strange species......

[izabsmiling]

1. Regression To The Mean  2. Sampling Bias 3. Percentages

explained http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/08/14/fox-cant-do-the-math-on-climate-change/195403

 consistent inability to comprehend science, it's no wonder they can't "do the math."

UPDATE (8/15/2013): Skeptical Science has posted a graphic illustrating how ignoring regression to the mean makes it possible to claim that Arctic sea ice is "recovering" even as the long-term melting trend remains clear:

September Arctic sea ice extent data since 1980 from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (blue diamonds).  "Recovery" years, meaning years when the sea ice extent is greater than the previous year, are highlighted in red to mock the repeated cynical claims of climate change "skeptics" that global warming has somehow stopped.  Many factors affect the annual summer decrease in Arctic sea ice extent, and it is illogical at best to claim any "trend" by cherry-picking only brief periods of data.  The obvious true long-term trend in Arctic sea ice extent (red second-order polynomial curve fit) is that it is declining at an accelerating rate.