the IPCC had nothing to do with this... no matter how often and how hard you keep repeating that refrain.
the 'stunt' side, on occasion (as now) often takes away from the legitimate/meaningful work the organization does do.
Death knell for AGW
- Thread starter Walter
- Start date
the IPCC had nothing to do with this... no matter how often and how hard you keep repeating that refrain.
the 'stunt' side, on occasion (as now) often takes away from the legitimate/meaningful work the organization does do.
allrightee.... all your blustering about the IPCC being involved in this... that comes down to nothing more than you now claiming "it's a secret pact"! Excellent; you've outdone yourself!
the only thing I "got caught" doing was exposing your big LIE... even in the face of all the images posted to you, you're still ignorantly going to claim there are NO buses traveling to the site. there is NO road that exists that the buses travel on to get to the site. This is simply another case of you being exposed for the GreatPoser you are... admit it... you've never been to the site? How could you have... if you deny the existence of the buses, of the road?
Touchy Feely Science – one chart suggests there’s a ‘pHraud’ in omitting Ocean Acidification data in Congressional testimony | Watts Up With That?
Another fraud perpetuated by the climate change s̶c̶i̶e̶n̶t̶i̶s̶t̶s̶̶ activists. "Don't question our motives"
Mike Wallace is a hydrologist with nearly 30 years’ experience, who is now working on his Ph.D. in nanogeosciences at the University of New Mexico. In the course of his studies, he uncovered a startling data omission that he told me: “eclipses even the so-called climategate event.” Feely’s work is based on computer models that don’t line up with real-world data—which Feely acknowledged in email communications with Wallace (which I have read). And, as Wallace determined, there is real world data. Feely, and his coauthor Dr. Christopher L. Sabine, PMEL Director, omitted 80 years of data, which incorporate more than 2 million records of ocean pH levels.
...
Wallace sent Bard an email: “I’m looking in fact for the source references for the red curve in their plot which was labeled ‘Historical & Projected pH & Dissolved Co2.’ This plot is at the top of the second page. It covers the period of my interest.” Bard responded and suggested that Wallace communicate with Feely and Sabine—which he did over a period of several months. Wallace asked again for the “time series data (NOT MODELING) of ocean pH for 20th century.” Sabine responded by saying that it was inappropriate for Wallace to question their “motives or quality of our science,” adding that if he continued in this manner, “you will not last long in your career.” He then included a few links to websites that Wallace, after spending hours reviewing them, called “blind alleys.” Sabine concludes the email with: “I hope you will refrain from contacting me again.” But communications did continue for several more exchanges.
Reader Tips - Small Dead Animals
Another fraud perpetuated by the climate change s̶c̶i̶e̶n̶t̶i̶s̶t̶s̶̶ activists. "Don't question our motives"
Mike Wallace is a hydrologist with nearly 30 years’ experience, who is now working on his Ph.D. in nanogeosciences at the University of New Mexico. In the course of his studies, he uncovered a startling data omission that he told me: “eclipses even the so-called climategate event.” Feely’s work is based on computer models that don’t line up with real-world data—which Feely acknowledged in email communications with Wallace (which I have read). And, as Wallace determined, there is real world data. Feely, and his coauthor Dr. Christopher L. Sabine, PMEL Director, omitted 80 years of data, which incorporate more than 2 million records of ocean pH levels.
...
Wallace sent Bard an email: “I’m looking in fact for the source references for the red curve in their plot which was labeled ‘Historical & Projected pH & Dissolved Co2.’ This plot is at the top of the second page. It covers the period of my interest.” Bard responded and suggested that Wallace communicate with Feely and Sabine—which he did over a period of several months. Wallace asked again for the “time series data (NOT MODELING) of ocean pH for 20th century.” Sabine responded by saying that it was inappropriate for Wallace to question their “motives or quality of our science,” adding that if he continued in this manner, “you will not last long in your career.” He then included a few links to websites that Wallace, after spending hours reviewing them, called “blind alleys.” Sabine concludes the email with: “I hope you will refrain from contacting me again.” But communications did continue for several more exchanges.
Reader Tips - Small Dead Animals
I have been following this thread for some time now and am proud to announce that through description and illustration I am now a somewhat capable drywall guy...... eagerly looking forward to descriptions and illustrations about plumbing/electrical/hvac.
Thank God this winter is nice. Being colder than Mars in Saskatchewan last winter really sucked.
Bjorn Lomborg;
With the completion of the latest report by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), we can now see that this narrative is mostly wrong. The first installment of the IPCC report showed that there is indeed a climate problem - emissions of greenhouse gases, especially CO₂, lead to higher temperatures, which will eventually become a net problem for the world. This result was highly publicized.
But the report also showed that global warming has dramatically slowed or entirely stopped in the last decade and a half. Almost all climate models are running far too hot, meaning that the real challenge of global warming has been exaggerated. Germany and other governments called for the reference to the slowdown to be deleted.
The second IPCC installment showed that the temperature rise that we are expected to see sometime around 2055-2080 will create a net cost of 0.2-2% of GDP - the equivalent of less than one year of recession. So, while the IPCC clearly establishes that global warming is a problem, the cost is obviously much less than that of the twentieth century's two world wars and the Great Depression.
Again, not surprisingly, politicians tried to have this finding deleted.
We Don't Need No ... - Small Dead Animals
But the report also showed that global warming has dramatically slowed or entirely stopped in the last decade and a half. Almost all climate models are running far too hot, meaning that the real challenge of global warming has been exaggerated. Germany and other governments called for the reference to the slowdown to be deleted.
The second IPCC installment showed that the temperature rise that we are expected to see sometime around 2055-2080 will create a net cost of 0.2-2% of GDP - the equivalent of less than one year of recession. So, while the IPCC clearly establishes that global warming is a problem, the cost is obviously much less than that of the twentieth century's two world wars and the Great Depression.
Again, not surprisingly, politicians tried to have this finding deleted.
We Don't Need No ... - Small Dead Animals
Gee whiz. That already equals the UNDEP tax we already pay to the unelected dictatorship known as the UN.
Not trying to prove anything.
But damn, I am naturally skeptical of "scientists" that can not stomach any opposition, that juggle their data, that attempt to suppress any opposing ideas, that behave in an absolutely hypocritical manner, and that adopt any project they can to support their flimsy theses.......especially after their predictions have been wrong time after time.
An example:
Polar bears: Threatened species or political pawn? - Technology & Science - CBC News
Mr. Taylor, who studied polar bears and their population for 20 years, was suddenly out of a job because he disagreed with the GW alarmists and the effect on polar bears.
Turns out, he is right, at least so far.
Surprise, surprise.
what are you basing your "skeptical examples" on... what you've read in highly biased reviews/articles... or have you actually researched your examples yourself? As I said a short while back, even if your examples had real legitimacy, you're taking grand liberties by extending on the actions of a handful to effectively denigrate the whole.
citation requests on 2 levels: your CBC link does not align/support your statement about "Mr. Taylor... suddenly out of a job" and your summary assessment on the state of polar bear decline.
10,000 vacationing in sunny Lima Peru this year and Paris next is hardly "the actions of a handful"
The Great Guru Gore selling out to Qatar while spreading idiotic predictions of polar cap melt and sea rise is hardly "the actions of a handful", considering he is the leader of the GW alarmists, and won a Nobel Peace Prize and the idiot movie about him won an Academy Award.
Leonardo DiCaprio arriving at the Rio soccer games in the fifth largest yacht in the world (owned by an oil sheikh, no less) and jetting in 35 of his closest friends to party with him is not "the actions of a handful" , considering he is the UN ambassador tasked to promote GW alarmism.
Seems to me there are very few influential GW alarmists that are not hypocrites.
clearly, all you have is bullshyte trivialization and the ever present, when challenged, "go fetch". Apparently you guys revel in simply stating whatever the hell you feel like without providing any substantiation!
on one hand you talk of being skeptical of scientists (for your unsubstantiated qualifiers)... and you're equating that to "some number" of delegates to the Lima COP! Hey Colpy, just who is it you think are COP delegates? This is a clear-cut example of you blowing it out your ****!
again, what does the singular Gore person have to do with your "skeptical rant" against a small number of scientists... even if you could legitimately tag them with your unsubstantiated claims?
again, what does the singular DiCaprio person have to do with your "skeptical rant" against a small number of scientists... even if you could legitimately tag them with your unsubstantiated claims?
you truly can't even begin to separate science/scientists from the actions of so-called communicators. And you profess to be a "skeptic" of the science!!! :mrgreen: