Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Nickbat]

I don't post much about global warming these days, but I just HAD to post this:

The IPCC consensus on climate change was phoney, says IPCC insider

The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change misled the press and public into believing that thousands of scientists backed its claims on manmade global warming, according to Mike Hulme, a prominent climate scientist and IPCC insider.  The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was “only a few dozen experts,” he states in a paper for Progress in Physical Geography, co-authored with student Martin Mahony.

“Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous


http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/06/13/the-ipcc-consensus-on-climate-change-was-phoney-says-ipcc-insider/

Told you so.. 

[splott]

Governments will ignore this and keep intoducing greenhouse taxes on all types of fossil fuel usage. It's mana from heaven to increase taxes, to balance the books. Nothing else. Most governments have known its a load of rubbish but obviously avoid informing joe public. A political rip off!!!!

[Dishevelled Den]

I said this many threads ago

Sun shines and it's warm and bright.

Sun doesn't shine and it's cold and dark.

Any external body exerting that amount of influence over life on this planet can certainly alter climatic conditions.


Solar scientists are finally overcoming their fears and going public about the Sun-climate connection


Read more: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/05/21/its-the-sun-stupid/#ixzz0qrUCm0Z3
The National Post is now on Facebook. Join our fan community today.

This fact does not exempt us from the responsible stewardship of this planet and its remaining resources however.

[Lazydocker]

Told you so.. 

Nah, nah, nah nah, naaaah

[Dishevelled Den]

Told you so.. 

Nah, nah, nah nah, naaaah

Nah, it goes like this P;


[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IV4sB7O97ro&feature=related[/media]



This is not representative of Nick's justifiable riposte to the avalanche of criticism concerning this matter he has received over the recent past, I must add.

[Nickbat]

Thanks for your latest comment, Zulu! 

[cem_devecioglu]

back to old subjects :-?

I thought I have given enough links..

seems not adequate

[Banjax]

seriously? this still? 

i think you need a new roll of baco-foil for that hat nick

[Dishevelled Den]

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDYxgDO5bCI&feature=related[/media]

[Banjax]

the full quote Nick....I've read the report - please continue the quote from the word disingenuous or shall I?

as usual right wing climate sceptics taking valid and exhaustive examination of scientific methods, throwing everything away to be left with a quote they can use - I would suggest anyone bothering with this increasingly paranoid line of reasoning actually read the report, and not the edited highlights from some right wing website - please, Nickbat - you may be able to fool some(including Zulu, bizarrely), but I had time on my hands today - you thought no one read this drivel didn't you 

http://www.probeinternational.org/Hulme-Mahony-PiPG%5B1%5D.pdf

now, about that full quote - I'll post it for you if you can't find it - bottom of page 10, top of page 11 

I've got all day (well, until Portugal play  )

[Dishevelled Den]

the full quote Nick....I've read the report - please continue the quote from the word disingenuous or shall I?

as usual right wing climate sceptics taking valid and exhaustive examination of scientific methods, throwing everything away to be left with a quote they can use - I would suggest anyone bothering with this increasingly paranoid line of reasoning actually read the report, and not the edited highlights from some right wing website - please, Nickbat - you may be able to fool some(including Zulu, bizarrely), but I had time on my hands today - you thought no one read this drivel didn't you 

http://www.probeinternational.org/Hulme-Mahony-PiPG%5B1%5D.pdf

now, about that full quote - I'll post it for you if you can't find it - bottom of page 10, top of page 11 

I've got all day (well, until Portugal play  )

I'm so pleased that you're looking out for my welfare BJ

[Banjax]

glad to be of service 

[Dishevelled Den]

the full quote Nick....I've read the report - please continue the quote from the word disingenuous or shall I?

as usual right wing climate sceptics taking valid and exhaustive examination of scientific methods, throwing everything away to be left with a quote they can use - I would suggest anyone bothering with this increasingly paranoid line of reasoning actually read the report, and not the edited highlights from some right wing website - please, Nickbat - you may be able to fool some(including Zulu, bizarrely), but I had time on my hands today - you thought no one read this drivel didn't you 

http://www.probeinternational.org/Hulme-Mahony-PiPG%5B1%5D.pdf

now, about that full quote - I'll post it for you if you can't find it - bottom of page 10, top of page 11 

I've got all day (well, until Portugal play  )

I'll post it for you if you can't find it - bottom of page 10, top of page 11

What is your interpretation of this bomb-shell BJ?

[Banjax]

glad you asked Zulu 

the report that was quoted states:

"Without a careful explanation about what it means, this drive for consensus can leave the IPCC vulnerable to outside criticism.  Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence
on the climate’ are disingenuous.  That particular consensus judgement, as are many others
in the IPCC reports, is reached by only a few dozen experts in the specific field of detection
and attribution studies; other IPCC authors are experts in other fields.  But consensus-making can also lead to criticism for being too conservative, as Hansen (2007) has most
visibly argued.  Was the IPCC AR4 too conservative in reaching its consensus about future
sea-level rise?  Many glaciologists and oceanographers think they were (Kerr, 2007;
Rahmstorf, 2010), leading to what Hansen attacks as ‘scientific reticence’.....

IPCC fault here was in not being clear on the numbers of scientists who were experts in different fields, in this case 12 of them were scientists involved in detection and attribution, the other 2038 leading scientists drew the same conclusion - now reading the article Nickbat kindly posted would appear to be showing a leading climate scientist saying that only 12 scientists in the world agree there is a problem.........wouldn't i be right in saying thats maybe a bit disengenuous - the problem of course is taking quotes from respected scientists out of context - i'm sure the website in question didn't mean to


I'm not going round in circles on this, there are some who refuse to believe or hear anything other than what fits with their "guesswork" and political leanings - if the world's foremost scientists can't do it I'll certainly never convince Nickbat or other staunch climate change sceptics, and nor should I - he'll just have to learn the truth eventually 

[Nickbat]

- if the world's foremost scientists can't do it I'll certainly never convince Nickbat or other staunch climate change sceptics, and nor should I - he'll just have to learn the truth eventually 

 

"The data negate increase in CO2 in the atmosphere as a hypothetical cause for the apparently observed global warming. A hypothesis of significant positive feedback by water vapor effect on atmospheric infrared absorption is also negated by the observed measurements."

Ferenc Miskolczi, former Nasa physicist, in Energy & Envrionment, June 2010.

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/06/new-miskolczi-paper-co2-not-cause-of.html

Also:

"I would like to start by saying that I am not deaf to those who do not agree with the scientific consensus on man-made climate change.

Nor, indeed, to those who do not agree with the findings - or, in some cases, the existence - of the IPCC.

The IPCC and the scientific community at large should welcome the development of a vigorous debate on the science of climate change." 

IPCC chairman R K Pachauri

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8740049.stm

If Pachauri can change his mind and welcome vigorous debate, the question is.....can Banjax?