Now then, about this climate scientist consensus
Discussion
Surely the IPCC/government/Moonbat aren't trying to pull the wool over our eyes...?
http://mclean.ch/climate/docs/IPCC_numbers.pdf
http://mclean.ch/climate/docs/IPCC_numbers.pdf
Mclean said:
How many times have you heard or read words to the effect that 4000 scientists from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change (IPCC) supported the claims about a significant human influence on climate? I think I've seen it on television, radio and the Internet and I know that politicians at national levels have quoted such figures. There's no question whatsoever. It's utterly wrong.
In fact, once the duplicated names are removed that number falls below 2,900 and if we only want those who
explicitly supported the claims it falls to only about 60. So how does 4,000 become 60? Let's take a closer look
at the real numbers.......
In fact, once the duplicated names are removed that number falls below 2,900 and if we only want those who
explicitly supported the claims it falls to only about 60. So how does 4,000 become 60? Let's take a closer look
at the real numbers.......
mybrainhurts said:
Surely the IPCC/government/Moonbat aren't trying to pull the wool over our eyes...?
http://mclean.ch/climate/docs/IPCC_numbers.pdf
Just posted that link on the BBC website for Richard Black to digest http://mclean.ch/climate/docs/IPCC_numbers.pdf
Mclean said:
How many times have you heard or read words to the effect that 4000 scientists from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change (IPCC) supported the claims about a significant human influence on climate? I think I've seen it on television, radio and the Internet and I know that politicians at national levels have quoted such figures. There's no question whatsoever. It's utterly wrong.
In fact, once the duplicated names are removed that number falls below 2,900 and if we only want those who
explicitly supported the claims it falls to only about 60. So how does 4,000 become 60? Let's take a closer look
at the real numbers.......
In fact, once the duplicated names are removed that number falls below 2,900 and if we only want those who
explicitly supported the claims it falls to only about 60. So how does 4,000 become 60? Let's take a closer look
at the real numbers.......
mybrainhurts said:
RedLeicester said:
Oh MBH, don't..... this is really beginning to hurt.
One day the globally warmed tide will come in, and then they'll just find another huggy tree stick to beat us with....
I'm just digging in...kerplunk, nigerfr and gang will be along to beat me up any time now One day the globally warmed tide will come in, and then they'll just find another huggy tree stick to beat us with....
mybrainhurts said:
Surely the IPCC/government/Moonbat aren't trying to pull the wool over our eyes...?
http://mclean.ch/climate/docs/IPCC_numbers.pdf
If this is accurate, then the MMGW / IPCC lie is well and truly exposed http://mclean.ch/climate/docs/IPCC_numbers.pdf
Mclean said:
How many times have you heard or read words to the effect that 4000 scientists from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change (IPCC) supported the claims about a significant human influence on climate? I think I've seen it on television, radio and the Internet and I know that politicians at national levels have quoted such figures. There's no question whatsoever. It's utterly wrong.
In fact, once the duplicated names are removed that number falls below 2,900 and if we only want those who
explicitly supported the claims it falls to only about 60. So how does 4,000 become 60? Let's take a closer look
at the real numbers.......
In fact, once the duplicated names are removed that number falls below 2,900 and if we only want those who
explicitly supported the claims it falls to only about 60. So how does 4,000 become 60? Let's take a closer look
at the real numbers.......
Edited by FarleyRusk on Monday 5th January 22:43
And has anybody checked the 60 to see how many are researching 'independently' of their national meterological / climate organisations, and are not political appointees? Some may have p/t civil service type roles in their country of origin; the best folk money can buy, I'm sure. Having debunked lists like the IPCC SPM authorship on here several times already you will have to forgive me for not looking to go through it again, the déja vu meets Groundhog Day feeling would be too much. If you don't forgive me it won't make any difference and I don't really give a sh*t but it's only polite to ask
HRG said:
Einion Yrth said:
HRG said:
For all those who "believe" 
what do you make of this?
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
To play devil's wossname. A lack of concensus doesn't disprove the theory any more than a concensus would prove it. The biggest problem with AGW was always the total lack of any evidence. what do you make of this?http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
Why would they need to embellish the numbers if the facts supported their case?
IPCC Expert Reviewer Prof A Kellow said:
I was a referee for Chapter 19 in the Report on 'Key Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment', and made in essence the criticism...that the whole exercise fails to take account of the increases in wealth that give rise to the emissions that drive the climate models, that drive the impact models.
It is nonsensical to suggest that vulnerabilities will be as they would be if the projected climates impacted upon present developing countries. The Report persists in this nonsense in the face of at least this reviewer drawing it to their attention, so the persistence is quite wilful.
It is, of course, such a fundamental criticism that it virtually renders the whole report invalid, so it was not likely to be well-received. I also added that the chapter exaggerated the hazards of climate change and almost totally ignored any benefits. I put it that the First Order Draft read as if (in a warmer, and therefore wetter, world) no rain would fall in any form that would be in any way useful to anyone: there would be only floods and droughts.
The Second Order Draft included some language to the effect that this was because the Committee had decided that it should be so, to which I responded that they should not then represent their analysis as a risk assessment, since any sensible risk assessment must include benefits as well as costs. I'm not holding my breath for this criticism to be taken on board either, which underscores a fault in the whole peer review process for the IPCC: there is no chance of a Chapter ever being rejected for publication, no matter how flawed it might be.
But then I'll be counted as one of the 2,500 experts who agree with this nonsense!
Next!It is nonsensical to suggest that vulnerabilities will be as they would be if the projected climates impacted upon present developing countries. The Report persists in this nonsense in the face of at least this reviewer drawing it to their attention, so the persistence is quite wilful.
It is, of course, such a fundamental criticism that it virtually renders the whole report invalid, so it was not likely to be well-received. I also added that the chapter exaggerated the hazards of climate change and almost totally ignored any benefits. I put it that the First Order Draft read as if (in a warmer, and therefore wetter, world) no rain would fall in any form that would be in any way useful to anyone: there would be only floods and droughts.
The Second Order Draft included some language to the effect that this was because the Committee had decided that it should be so, to which I responded that they should not then represent their analysis as a risk assessment, since any sensible risk assessment must include benefits as well as costs. I'm not holding my breath for this criticism to be taken on board either, which underscores a fault in the whole peer review process for the IPCC: there is no chance of a Chapter ever being rejected for publication, no matter how flawed it might be.
But then I'll be counted as one of the 2,500 experts who agree with this nonsense!
Dr Paul Reiter said:
I am a specialist in diseases transmitted by mosquitoes. So let's talk malaria. For 12 years, my colleagues and I have protested against the unsubstantiated claims that climate change is causing the disease to spread. We have failed miserably.
I wondered how many had taken anti-malaria tablets because they had seen Al Gore's film, ‘An Inconvenient Truth’, which claims that Nairobi was established in a healthy place ‘above the mosquito line’ but is now infested with mosquitoes — naturally, because of global warming.
Gore's claim is deceitful on four counts. Nairobi was dangerously infested when it was founded; it was founded for a railway, not for health reasons; it is now fairly clear of malaria; and it has not become warmer.
We have to hope that the new ‘Malaria No More’ campaign is based on sound science, unlike the UN's catastrophic current ‘Roll Back Malaria’ scheme, which has presided over a marked increase in victims since 1998.
Pseudoscience will damage your health and your wealth just as surely as malaria
I wondered how many had taken anti-malaria tablets because they had seen Al Gore's film, ‘An Inconvenient Truth’, which claims that Nairobi was established in a healthy place ‘above the mosquito line’ but is now infested with mosquitoes — naturally, because of global warming.
Gore's claim is deceitful on four counts. Nairobi was dangerously infested when it was founded; it was founded for a railway, not for health reasons; it is now fairly clear of malaria; and it has not become warmer.
We have to hope that the new ‘Malaria No More’ campaign is based on sound science, unlike the UN's catastrophic current ‘Roll Back Malaria’ scheme, which has presided over a marked increase in victims since 1998.
Pseudoscience will damage your health and your wealth just as surely as malaria
at the claimed consensus blown apart at IPCC tens and thousands shenanigans laid bare at True Believers' increasing desperationDo you think that this fantasy is really an excuse to control the populations? If so, why can’t they be honest and say “there are many places that are way too overpopulated for the resources/environment to handle, so we need to control population growth from hereon in – in the meantime, if we try to cut down on energy, we’ll try to figure out new sources of energy for the future – in the meantime, PLEASE stop producing children we cannot afford to sustain, both financially and environmentally.”
But, they’re way too scared to say that, and many see it as a personal money making exercise, which won’t stop anytime soon.
But, they’re way too scared to say that, and many see it as a personal money making exercise, which won’t stop anytime soon.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff