Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3
Discussion
Gandahar said:
PRTVR said:
Gandahar said:
It's very shaky ground to quote WUWT as the Gospel or Steve Goddard as gospel when they have a biased viewpoint to start off with. Not exactly peer reviewed are they? Same can be said for AGW pro web sites as well, surprised so many people on here put their faith in them.
This thread is not a political debate though, it's a soapbox for people to spout off on their own bias. Bias pumped by US websites. The mere fact most skeptic sites are US gives a clue in itself.
For Turbobloke it's a full fledged hobby. Shame that he has not spent as much effort on all these posts writing a scientific paper. We might be a bit better off if that was the case ....
Keep on. All these pages and Vol 3 and AGW is a scam and yet you have still not proved it to be false. Guess why?
It's not our place to prove it wrong, AGW is littered with possibly maybe and probably, nothing concrete, not an ideal scenario to base an energy policy on.This thread is not a political debate though, it's a soapbox for people to spout off on their own bias. Bias pumped by US websites. The mere fact most skeptic sites are US gives a clue in itself.
For Turbobloke it's a full fledged hobby. Shame that he has not spent as much effort on all these posts writing a scientific paper. We might be a bit better off if that was the case ....
Keep on. All these pages and Vol 3 and AGW is a scam and yet you have still not proved it to be false. Guess why?
Gandahar said:
turbobloke said:
Gandahar said:
turbobloke said:
BIG SNIP
We (I) must be getting on for 35 peer-reviewed papers cited by me
All cherry picked I am sure. I could probably do 36 cited that show the opposite, none of which people on here would read. I'm not sure you have even read them, just got them as a "resource"We (I) must be getting on for 35 peer-reviewed papers cited by me
Edited by turbobloke on Wednesday 4th May 14:26
I also cited two papers which I disagree with and have posted reasoned explanations on PH these were Sloan and Wolfendale and Karl et al. There have been many more over time.
The cherry pick comment is hilarious. People like durbster drop in with soundbite one-liners to the effect that it's all blogs (you unwisely took that nonsense up in your earlier post) and where's the peer-reviewed science blah blah. So the point is precisely to supply this science in terms of relevant peer-reviewed papers, which I do. Go figure.
Also, typically I will have explained and shown my working as to exactly why I disagree with rentapapers that support AGW, and why (also with reasons) I agree with other papers I cite.
Your line on this shows a lack of any grip on what happens in the thread, what happens in the literature, and regardless of anything else you say the aim is to attack me and others who disagree with AGW - which happens precisely because it fails the data test and because climate models built on AGW junkscience fail to reproduce multi-dimensnional reality.
I'm citing relevant papers because sundry believers claim they don't exist.
This is because, like you, they have scant or zero knowledge of the climate science literature.
Someone on the other side isn't the point as nobody argues that papers on the other side exist. I've posted about them and dismantled them.
turbobloke said:
Gandahar said:
turbobloke said:
Gandahar said:
turbobloke said:
BIG SNIP
We (I) must be getting on for 35 peer-reviewed papers cited by me
All cherry picked I am sure. I could probably do 36 cited that show the opposite, none of which people on here would read. I'm not sure you have even read them, just got them as a "resource"We (I) must be getting on for 35 peer-reviewed papers cited by me
Edited by turbobloke on Wednesday 4th May 14:26
I also cited two papers which I disagree with and have posted reasoned explanations on PH these were Sloan and Wolfendale and Karl et al. There have been many more over time.
The cherry pick comment is hilarious. People like durbster drop in with soundbite one-liners to the effect that it's all blogs (you unwisely took that nonsense up in your earlier post) and where's the peer-reviewed science blah blah. So the point is precisely to supply this science in terms of relevant peer-reviewed papers, which I do. Go figure.
Also, typically I will have explained and shown my working as to exactly why I disagree with rentapapers that support AGW, and why (also with reasons) I agree with other papers I cite.
Your line on this shows a lack of any grip on what happens in the thread, what happens in the literature, and regardless of anything else you say the aim is to attack me and others who disagree with AGW - which happens precisely because it fails the data test and because climate models built on AGW junkscience fail to reproduce multi-dimensnional reality.
I'm citing relevant papers because sundry believers claim they don't exist.
This is because, like you, they have scant or zero knowledge of the climate science literature.
Someone on the other side isn't the point as nobody argues that papers on the other side exist. I've posted about them and dismantled them.
"and regardless of anything else you say the aim is to attack me and others who disagree with AGW "
When you and others have been attacking the one person, Durbster, who is putting the other viewpoint across for the last few pages.
Hmmm
PRTVR said:
Gandahar said:
PRTVR said:
Gandahar said:
It's very shaky ground to quote WUWT as the Gospel or Steve Goddard as gospel when they have a biased viewpoint to start off with. Not exactly peer reviewed are they? Same can be said for AGW pro web sites as well, surprised so many people on here put their faith in them.
This thread is not a political debate though, it's a soapbox for people to spout off on their own bias. Bias pumped by US websites. The mere fact most skeptic sites are US gives a clue in itself.
For Turbobloke it's a full fledged hobby. Shame that he has not spent as much effort on all these posts writing a scientific paper. We might be a bit better off if that was the case ....
Keep on. All these pages and Vol 3 and AGW is a scam and yet you have still not proved it to be false. Guess why?
It's not our place to prove it wrong, AGW is littered with possibly maybe and probably, nothing concrete, not an ideal scenario to base an energy policy on.This thread is not a political debate though, it's a soapbox for people to spout off on their own bias. Bias pumped by US websites. The mere fact most skeptic sites are US gives a clue in itself.
For Turbobloke it's a full fledged hobby. Shame that he has not spent as much effort on all these posts writing a scientific paper. We might be a bit better off if that was the case ....
Keep on. All these pages and Vol 3 and AGW is a scam and yet you have still not proved it to be false. Guess why?
AGW causes warming (but where) and it causes cooling.
AGW causes more hurricanes, and fewer hurricanes.
AGW causes less snow, and more snow.
Even where believers trumpet stiff around floods, they fail to realise how silly it is from the AGW side. Manmade global warming as modelled was meant to cause the northern jet stream to weaken and drift towards the pole. I've posted about this research on PH. Precisely the opposite happened, also posted on PH, but ignorant opportunists still claimed it was flooding linked to AGW.
AGW has so many fails it's difficult to know where to begin, but when as above it is claimed to lead to pretty much everything and anything including diametric opposites it has become unfalsifiable nonscience.
Fortunarely there are so many fails with model gigo and other fails e.g. jet stream that it still fails.
Einion Yrth said:
Gandahar said:
Le TVR said:
Gandahar said:
Actually he wouldn't know, he is the mechanic, it's the scientists who would put the information gathered and make sense of it.
It's the data rather than the source.
I'll pass the message that he's just a mechanic. It's the data rather than the source.
The system designer knows more about the metrology limitations of his system than any data gatherer. You do realise what that means surely??
Go tell him.
Gandahar said:
You make me laugh when you say
"and regardless of anything else you say the aim is to attack me and others who disagree with AGW "
When you and others have been attacking the one person, Durbster, who is putting the other viewpoint across for the last few pages.
I've attacked the nonsense durbster posts, they are welcome to keep posting it as far as I'm concerned as in fact they have nothing to offer and their posts represent repeated opportunities to demonstrate how AGW fails."and regardless of anything else you say the aim is to attack me and others who disagree with AGW "
When you and others have been attacking the one person, Durbster, who is putting the other viewpoint across for the last few pages.
Like your posts do. If I say that you and durbster present as having no grip on the climate science literature, it's evidence based. You've both had ample opportunity to demonstrate otherwise, why 'fake bad'?
Edited by turbobloke on Wednesday 4th May 22:03
PRTVR said:
Gandahar said:
PRTVR said:
Gandahar said:
It's very shaky ground to quote WUWT as the Gospel or Steve Goddard as gospel when they have a biased viewpoint to start off with. Not exactly peer reviewed are they? Same can be said for AGW pro web sites as well, surprised so many people on here put their faith in them.
This thread is not a political debate though, it's a soapbox for people to spout off on their own bias. Bias pumped by US websites. The mere fact most skeptic sites are US gives a clue in itself.
For Turbobloke it's a full fledged hobby. Shame that he has not spent as much effort on all these posts writing a scientific paper. We might be a bit better off if that was the case ....
Keep on. All these pages and Vol 3 and AGW is a scam and yet you have still not proved it to be false. Guess why?
It's not our place to prove it wrong, AGW is littered with possibly maybe and probably, nothing concrete, not an ideal scenario to base an energy policy on.This thread is not a political debate though, it's a soapbox for people to spout off on their own bias. Bias pumped by US websites. The mere fact most skeptic sites are US gives a clue in itself.
For Turbobloke it's a full fledged hobby. Shame that he has not spent as much effort on all these posts writing a scientific paper. We might be a bit better off if that was the case ....
Keep on. All these pages and Vol 3 and AGW is a scam and yet you have still not proved it to be false. Guess why?
http://realclimatescience.com/2016/05/trumps-posit...
Apparently the Chinese are paying scientists if you look at one of those tweets!
turbobloke said:
Gandahar said:
You make me laugh when you say
"and regardless of anything else you say the aim is to attack me and others who disagree with AGW "
When you and others have been attacking the one person, Durbster, who is putting the other viewpoint across for the last few pages.
I've attached the nonsense durbster posts, he's welcome to keep posting it as far as I'm concerned as in fact he has nothing to offer and his posts represent repeated opportunities to demonstrate how AGW fails."and regardless of anything else you say the aim is to attack me and others who disagree with AGW "
When you and others have been attacking the one person, Durbster, who is putting the other viewpoint across for the last few pages.
Like your posts do. If I say that you and durbster present as having no grip on the climate science literature, it's evidence based. You've both had ample opportunity to demonstrate otherwise, why 'fake bad'?
Which I still thankfully do not have. AGW, case not proven.
And on that bombshell ... off to bed.
The UK government has no funding available for scientists looking to attack AGW as per Hansard. The opposite is true for believer scientists who can get funds for the most pointless of studies if climate or AGW is mentioned in the proposal. PH threads have given many examples over the years.
Gandahar said:
turbobloke said:
Gandahar said:
You make me laugh when you say
"and regardless of anything else you say the aim is to attack me and others who disagree with AGW "
When you and others have been attacking the one person, Durbster, who is putting the other viewpoint across for the last few pages.
I've attached the nonsense durbster posts, he's welcome to keep posting it as far as I'm concerned as in fact he has nothing to offer and his posts represent repeated opportunities to demonstrate how AGW fails."and regardless of anything else you say the aim is to attack me and others who disagree with AGW "
When you and others have been attacking the one person, Durbster, who is putting the other viewpoint across for the last few pages.
Like your posts do. If I say that you and durbster present as having no grip on the climate science literature, it's evidence based. You've both had ample opportunity to demonstrate otherwise, why 'fake bad'?
I present evidence to show what durbster posts is nonsense. It's easy.
My position isn't based on bias it's based on what unmolested data and sound science say is happening, and not happening.
If the data changes, my view will change, all the while applying sound science. That's how things work in every other branch of science except the believer section of climate science.
As an engineering, not a 'climate scientist', I read the literature posted, and referenced, but must admit I understand very little of it. It's pretty obvious though that the mechanism of the planets climate has so many variables that it's impossible to claim that it's the humans that are doing it. As an engineer, I do like theoeries pretty well nailed down and prooven before I believe them. And it seems to me that Global Warming fails on that point alone (and numerous outhers). I alos have quite few 'commonsense' thoughts that CC claimers have so failed to answer. Here's one. If, by some miricle, we do manage to reverse the planets temp rise, how do we then stop it do the opposite of what it's suppose to be doing now, and start cooling us down?
The planet's climate system is chaotic, and therefore unpredictable in terms of future climate states; neither can it be micromanaged by politicians via taxes.
Even within the realms of the faithful and their junkscience, it's known but was kept quiet for some time that all forms of geoengineering are "pointless" becuase "we (believer IPCC scientists) can not account for what is happening in the climate system" and "we are no where close to knowing where energy is going".
The above words from High Priest Trenberth tell us what we already knew but it's good to see it coming from the horse's mouth.
Even within the realms of the faithful and their junkscience, it's known but was kept quiet for some time that all forms of geoengineering are "pointless" becuase "we (believer IPCC scientists) can not account for what is happening in the climate system" and "we are no where close to knowing where energy is going".
The above words from High Priest Trenberth tell us what we already knew but it's good to see it coming from the horse's mouth.
Seeing as we're looping I'll throw an oar in; the cheerleading dept of FotE Scotland are whooping the house down(and the dead tree press is reproducing it in print uncritically) about the whirligigs producing an average of 971MW in April, as it was quite windy. There's ~5.4GW of whirligigs installed in Scotland and they cost ~£7.4bn to produce in a good month an average of 1GW give or take change; that's an appalling 18.5% capacity factor. Hinkley C will produce 1GW for about £7.5bn if you follow the anti-nuclear tinfoilers' reasoning(£24bn=£18bn plus finance costs), or if you don't it's about £5.6bn. Nuclear power stations don't have intermittency, but the intermittency is not discussed in polite circles, nor is the cost of filling the intermittency holes with spinning reserve, and nor are the emmissions produced by the spinning reserve as they don't count, nor read or write either.
Naturally none of this gets a mention, it's just sunshine and bunnies in the wonderful wind-powered lala-land of SNP f
kwittery.
Naturally none of this gets a mention, it's just sunshine and bunnies in the wonderful wind-powered lala-land of SNP f
kwittery.Anybody watch Horizon last night?
Stunning scenery as Peter Gibbs went back to the UK Antarctic base onboard the Ernest Shackleton, and learned even more about global warming climate change.
There was much reference to ice calving, some spectacular images of same, and news that the base station might have to move because of massive ice sheet changes - none of which was specifically attributed to AGW but helpfully mentioned in and around the same subject. What he didn't explain was why the last ice sheet change - it's happened before - did it's thing before we warmed the planet.
Later we saw them release weather balloons which feed back all that warming data - and learned there are another 40 monitoring sites across that continent. A continent twice the size of Australia. But all the data helps with the 'models'.
Stunning scenery as Peter Gibbs went back to the UK Antarctic base onboard the Ernest Shackleton, and learned even more about global warming climate change.
There was much reference to ice calving, some spectacular images of same, and news that the base station might have to move because of massive ice sheet changes - none of which was specifically attributed to AGW but helpfully mentioned in and around the same subject. What he didn't explain was why the last ice sheet change - it's happened before - did it's thing before we warmed the planet.
Later we saw them release weather balloons which feed back all that warming data - and learned there are another 40 monitoring sites across that continent. A continent twice the size of Australia. But all the data helps with the 'models'.
TheExcession said:
Are you a fking retard?
No.king retard?TheExcession said:
NO I READ THE EMAILS - THOUSANDS OF THEM OVER A PERIOD OF MONTHS.
I was referring to the Harry thing. I thought that was found independent of the emails.TheExcession said:
Would you like to post that statement in the computer forum and try to get some 'consensus' for what a commit really means?
What ever mickey mouse programming you are involved with there is no way the Harry.txt is a commit log.
Fair enough; it wasn't a very good parallel. I just happened to be committing some files when I wrote my reply and hastily drew a bit of a wobbly link between what I remembered about the Harry file.What ever mickey mouse programming you are involved with there is no way the Harry.txt is a commit log.
0000 said:
Relax, I think it's normal after years of flash "programming".
TheExcession said:
Yeah but he knows xml... and stuff
Einion Yrth said:
Oh... dear...
I see, so we've moved from general insults to personal ones, and now on to cyber-stalking and weird and rather weak attempts at smearing me.Very classy. What's next, doxxing?
turbobloke said:
We (I) must be getting on for 35 peer-reviewed papers cited by me and with nothing back from durbster, who doesn't need to rely on blogs presumably due to ready access to the peer-reviewed literature...zilch.
Well, some pretty strong evidence that you are paid to post here. Who bothers documenting this bks? Also strong evidence that PH has quite a large character limit for posts.
Anyway, since you respond without the aggression I get from others, I will respectfully have a look at the list when I get some free time. I think I see 16 papers (sorry but I'm not bothering with Heartland or Koch brothers related stuff for reasons stated earlier).
The caveat is that there will always be some papers that run contrary to the wider held view (if there weren't I'd be extremely suspicious) so, as ever, this means it boils down to a simple matter of who's conclusions do you trust. I'll read whatever papers I can find but I'm not so arrogant to think that I'm informed enought to draw my own conclusions from them. I'd still rather trust somebody who is better informed.
durbster said:
I see, so we've moved from general insults to personal ones, and now on to cyber-stalking and weird and rather weak attempts at smearing me.
Quite. We could do without the personal attacks chaps - Durbs may well be wrong but he's entitled to argue his point without a lynch mob type reaction and personal abuse. We're better than this aren't we?In any case without any 'opposition' this thread would be a bit lame...
DibblyDobbler said:
durbster said:
I see, so we've moved from general insults to personal ones, and now on to cyber-stalking and weird and rather weak attempts at smearing me.
Quite. We could do without the personal attacks chaps - Durbs may well be wrong but he's entitled to argue his point without a lynch mob type reaction and personal abuse. We're better than this aren't we?In any case without any 'opposition' this thread would be a bit lame...
DibblyDobbler said:
durbster said:
I see, so we've moved from general insults to personal ones, and now on to cyber-stalking and weird and rather weak attempts at smearing me.
Quite. We could do without the personal attacks chaps - Durbs may well be wrong but he's entitled to argue his point without a lynch mob type reaction and personal abuse. We're better than this aren't we?In any case without any 'opposition' this thread would be a bit lame...
The aim of the thread was for people to comment on the political angle in the media etc. WITHOUT dissolving into argument.
People are sick and tired of Durbster ruining the thread. He's a hypocritical inconsistent moron who just pops in with an arrogant snide 'pitty the ignorant fools'
attitude to stir s
t. He dismisses all contrary evidence. What else is there left to say - Durbster doesn't want a discussion, he wants suppression of alternative views. It is blindingly obvious that dangerous AGW is a political movement first and a scientific one fifth - key players have even said that is the case. It is blindingly obvious that just about every set of data has been 'adjusted' to match the sham.
Sea level/acidification - no long term trend acceleration or real world issue.
Land surface temps - no problem in long term stations records in the unadjusted data, but insufficient data (& quality) to make any judgement especially in S.Hemisphere and Arctic.
Sea temps - insufficient data, insignificant warming shown by very short term Argo system, now some 'record' cold readings showing over large areas/depths.
Troposphere temps - essentially no warming in entire record, until adjusted.
Wild fires/Droughts/flood & other extreme weather, worse historically especially c.1930.
The same scare stories just keep getting repeated over and over and failing, and then the evidence of the predictions is erased.
The latest example is that the Glacier National Park would lose all it's glaciers, by 2020, 2030, take your pick, evidence of the failed prediction has just been
removed, only the foresight of sceptics saving the pages exposes the fact. The same failed lie was run in the 50s too.
Old DMI charts show that the official historic Arctic ice level story is wrong, and that the Arctic does undergo fast loss and recovery. The chart record is incomplete but strongly suggests ice levels did not drop below summer 1938 levels until 2006, and it has been stable since then anyway!
The climate we have today is nothing that couldn't happen entirely naturally.
AGW is about power acquisition and wealth redistribution.
Of course the people that want that, or see some advantage in it for them, will behave just like Durbster.
"It is about power. There is an elite in politics, in the police, in the legal system, in the media too, that colludes to exercise power over ordinary people." - Andy Burnham isn't your typical conspiracy theorist is he, but his experience of the multi-decade multi-institutional Hillsborough cover-up convinced him otherwise.
Comments from people who contributed to the IPCC process.
Dr Robert Balling: "The IPCC notes that "No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected." This did not appear in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers.
Dr John Christy: "Little known to the public is the fact that most of the scientists involved with the IPCC do not agree that global warming is occurring. Its findings have been consistently misrepresented and/or politicized with each succeeding report."
Dr Rosa Compagnucci: "Humans have only contributed a few tenths of a degree to warming on Earth."
Dr Richard Courtney: "The empirical evidence strongly indicates that the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is wrong."
Dr Judith Curry: "I'm not going to just spout off and endorse the IPCC because I don't have confidence in the process."
Dr Robert Davis: "Global temperatures have not been changing as state of the art climate models predicted they would. Not a single mention of satellite temperature observations appears in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers."
Dr Willem de Lange: "In 1996 the IPCC listed me as one of approximately 3000 "scientists" who agreed that there was a discernible human influence on climate. I didn't. There is no evidence to support the hypothesis that runaway catastrophic climate change is due to human activities."
Dr Chris de Freitas: "Government decision-makers should have heard by now that the basis for the longstanding claim that carbon dioxide is a major driver of global climate is being questioned; along with it the hitherto assumed need for costly measures to restrict carbon dioxide emissions. If they have not heard, it is because of the din of global warming hysteria that relies on the logical fallacy of 'argument from ignorance' and predictions of computer models."
Dr John Everett: "It is time for a reality check. The oceans and coastal zones have been far warmer and colder than is projected in the present scenarios of climate change. I have reviewed the IPCC and more recent scientific literature and believe that there is not a problem with increased acidification, even up to the unlikely levels in the most-used IPCC scenarios."
Dr Eigil Friis-Christensen: "The IPCC refused to consider the sun's effect on the Earth's climate as a topic worthy of investigation. The IPCC conceived its task only as investigating potential human causes of climate change."
Dr Lee Gerhard: "I never fully accepted or denied the anthropogenic global warming concept until the furore started after NASA's James Hansen's wild claims in the late 1980s. I went to the [scientific] literature to study the basis of the claim, starting with first principles. My studies then led me to believe that the claims were false."
Dr Indur Goklany: "Climate change is unlikely to be the world's most important environmental problem of the 21st century. There is no signal in the mortality data to indicate increases in the overall frequencies or severities of extreme weather events, despite large increases in the population at risk."
Dr Vincent Gray: "The [IPCC] climate change statement is an orchestrated litany of lies."
Dr Mike Hulme: "Claims such as '2500 of the world's leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate' are disingenuous ... The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was only a few dozen."
Dr Kiminori Itoh: "There are many factors which cause climate change. Considering only greenhouse gases is nonsense and harmful."
Dr Yuri Izrael: "There is no proven link between human activity and global warming. I think the panic over global warming is totally unjustified. There is no serious threat to the climate."
Dr Steven Japar: "Temperature measurements show that the climate model-predicted mid-troposphere hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them."
Dr Georg Kaser: "This number [of receding glaciers reported by the IPCC] is not just a little bit wrong, it is far out by any order of magnitude ... It is so wrong that it is not even worth discussing."
Dr Aynsley Kellow: "I'm not holding my breath for criticism to be taken on board, which underscores a fault in the whole peer review process for the IPCC: there is no chance of a chapter [of the IPCC report] ever being rejected for publication, no matter how flawed it might be."
Dr Madhav Khandekar: "I have carefully analysed adverse impacts of climate change as projected by the IPCC and have discounted these claims as exaggerated and lacking any supporting evidence."
Dr Hans Labohm: "The alarmist passages in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers have been skewed through an elaborate and sophisticated process of spin-doctoring."
Dr Andrew Lacis: "There is no scientific merit to be found in the Executive Summary. The presentation sounds like something put together by Greenpeace activists and their legal department."
Dr Chris Landsea: "I cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound."
Dr Richard Lindzen: "The IPCC process is driven by politics rather than science. It uses summaries to misrepresent what scientists say and exploits public ignorance."
Dr Harry Lins: "Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decade now. The case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated."
Dr Philip Lloyd: "I am doing a detailed assessment of the IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science. I have found examples of a summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said."
Dr Martin Manning: "Some government delegates influencing the IPCC Summary for Policymakers misrepresent or contradict the lead authors."
Dr Stephen McIntyre: "The many references in the popular media to a 'consensus of thousands of scientists' are both a great exaggeration and also misleading."
Dr Patrick Michaels: "The rates of warming, on multiple time scales, have now invalidated the suite of IPCC climate models. No, the science is not settled."
Dr Johannes Oerlemans: "The IPCC has become too political. Many scientists have not been able to resist the siren call of fame, research funding and meetings in exotic places that awaits them if they are willing to compromise scientific principles and integrity in support of the man-made global-warming doctrine."
Dr Roger Pielke: "All of my comments were ignored without even a rebuttal. At that point, I concluded that the IPCC Reports were actually intended to be advocacy documents designed to produce particular policy actions, but not a true and honest assessment of the understanding of the climate system."
Dr Paul Reiter: "As far as the science being 'settled,' I think that is an obscenity. The fact is the science is being distorted by people who are not scientists."
Dr Murray Salby: "I have an involuntary gag reflex whenever someone says the science is settled. Anyone who thinks the science is settled on this topic is in fantasia."
Dr Tom Segalstad: "The IPCC global warming model is not supported by the scientific data."
Dr Fred Singer: "Isn't it remarkable that the Policymakers Summary of the IPCC report avoids mentioning the satellite data altogether, or even the existence of satellites -- probably because the data show a slight cooling over the last 18 years, in direct contradiction of the calculations from climate models?"
Dr Hajo Smit: "There is clear cut solar-climate coupling and a very strong natural variability of climate on all historical time scales. Currently I hardly believe anymore that there is any relevant relationship between human CO2 emissions and climate change."
Dr Richard Tol: "The IPCC attracted more people with political rather than academic motives. In AR4, green activists held key positions in the IPCC and they succeeded in excluding or neutralising opposite voices."
Dr Tom Tripp: "There is so much of a natural variability in weather it makes it difficult to come to a scientifically valid conclusion that global warming is man made."
Dr Gerd-Rainer Weber: "Most of the extremist views about climate change have little or no scientific basis."
Dr David Wojick: "The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates."
Dr Miklos Zagoni: "I am positively convinced that the anthropogenic global warming theory is wrong."
Dr Eduardo Zorita: "Editors, reviewers and authors of alternative studies, analysis, interpretations, even based on the same data we have at our disposal, have been bullied and subtly blackmailed."
Edited by Mr GrimNasty on Friday 6th May 10:46
Mr GrimNasty said:
People are sick and tired of Durbster ruining the thread.
I would ask for evidence but previous requests for you to back up your assertions have been consistently met with silence.Mr GrimNasty said:
He's a hypocritical inconsistent moron who just pops in with an arrogant snide 'pitty the ignorant fools'
attitude to stir st.
I can see why you'd say that.attitude to stir s
t.Mr GrimNasty said:
He dismisses all contrary evidence.
Can you give me an example of one thing you have changed your mind on in this discussion?
Mr GrimNasty said:
What else is there left to say - Durbster doesn't want a discussion, he wants suppression of alternative views.
You're the guy who has repeatedly asked me to leave the thread for presenting an opposing opinion, right?Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff