Wildcat Posted February 4, 2010 Share Posted February 4, 2010 Really? http://mclean.ch/climate/docs/IPCC_numbers.pdf Why don't you do your own research, before peddling rubbish? http://www.desmogblog.com/nrsp-peddling-deceptive-statistics-about-ipcc Yawn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted February 4, 2010 Share Posted February 4, 2010 Let's stop looking for ways to stop it changing, and ways to tax joe public; and look for ways to help people live with the consequences of the changes. Why should we ignore the causes of the problem? Dealing with causes is the cheapest solution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted February 4, 2010 Share Posted February 4, 2010 George Monbiot would be inclined to disagree with you. These scandals have done tremendous damage. This is not because they threaten the canon of climate science – that would require similar exposés of tens of thousands of scientific papers – but because they create an atmosphere of opacity and evasion. Rajendra Pachauri's initial dismissal of questions over the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Himalayan glacier date suggests a failure to listen, which is inimical to scientific discourse. I am also amazed to learn that the IPCC doesn't pay its chairman, obliging him to work elsewhere, which has caused the other scandal in which he's embroiled. Anyone would think that running the organisation was a full-time job. This isn't a task for amateurs. Throughout the hacked emails scandal, the University of East Anglia has failed to engage with public concerns or to offer convincing explanations. Its latest statement fails to address any of the major points made in the Guardian's report. The attempts by Phil Jones to block or delete material subject to a freedom of information request are indefensible: if your data isn't public and contestable, it's not scientific. Science cannot be allowed to proceed like some kind of masonic conspiracy. It is part of the common treasury of humankind and should belong to everyone from conception to publication. All data, and the statistical tools used to analyse them, should be produced at the time of publication, and I hope that one of the outcomes of this scandal is that this becomes routine. Never again should people have to use FoI requests to find out what scientists have been up to, let alone have them refused. I didn't say they hadn't done damage. What I am saying is the damage they have done is unjustified, and I agree with Monbiot the Scientific community has not engaged with the public as well as they could have done. However that is not their job, and blaming them for faults outside their control is a bit bizarre. It is not Scientists that have prevented the release of data it is the policies of Governments like France that copywright their data so it can only be used by researchers not released because ownership remains with Govt agencies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockjaw Posted February 4, 2010 Share Posted February 4, 2010 Why don't you do your own research, before peddling rubbish? http://www.desmogblog.com/nrsp-peddling-deceptive-statistics-about-ipcc Yawn. Hi Wildcat Sorry if I'm being dim here but could you point out to me where, in that article, the claim regarding the numbers of reviewers is refuted? Cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
convert Posted February 4, 2010 Share Posted February 4, 2010 (edited) Why don't you do your own research, before peddling rubbish? http://www.desmogblog.com/nrsp-peddling-deceptive-statistics-about-ipcc Yawn. Yet again you quote from a blatantly pro AGW site. From desmogblog's own site Kevin Grandia has been trained by Al Gore as part of The Climate Project, an initiative designed to educate the public about climate change. So as we can see one of the main driving forces behind the site you link to has been 'trained' by Al (inconvenient truth my ass) Gore. However Joe Public is waking up to the scam that is AGW. I just hope that your pension fund isn't invested in this rubbish. Edited February 4, 2010 by convert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
convert Posted February 4, 2010 Share Posted February 4, 2010 Why should we ignore the causes of the problem? Dealing with causes is the cheapest solution. When the largest proportion of the causes are natural, then we shouldn't try to interfere. Prove to me that it's cheaper. Prove to me that the measures taken so far (carbon trading) are having any effect. Don't even think of qouting anything by Lorn Stern though, because we all know how accurate his figures have proved to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
convert Posted February 4, 2010 Share Posted February 4, 2010 Hi Wildcat Sorry if I'm being dim here but could you point out to me where, in that article, the claim regarding the numbers of reviewers is refuted? Cheers. I agree, I also can't see it. All I can see is a 'circle jerk' of warmists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted February 4, 2010 Share Posted February 4, 2010 Yet again you quote from a blatantly pro AGW site. However Joe Public is waking up to the scam that is AGW. I just hope that your pension fund isn't invested in this rubbish. Perhaps if instead of just looking for links from people so easily refuted by looking in to their histories and how they are funded to come up with the rubbish they publish, it might be worth my time looking a little deeper in to the arguments. As it is, a gas lobbiest with a qualification in architecture doesn't and shouldn't bear any more attention from anyone who is actually interested in the truth. http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/12/john_mclean_and_the_nrsp.php Any evidence for an AGW scam? I asked for some evidence before. You still havent managed it. Questioning numbers, or criticisms of the IPCC and peer review process are details scratching the surface of an issue too important to deal with by propoganda that doesn't address the question. So I ask again, do you have any evidence for an AGW scam? Do you have an alternative theory for global warming that is consistent with the evidence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted February 4, 2010 Share Posted February 4, 2010 (edited) Why don't you do your own research, before peddling rubbish? http://www.desmogblog.com/nrsp-peddling-deceptive-statistics-about-ipcc Yawn. ..................... Edited February 4, 2010 by truman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted February 4, 2010 Share Posted February 4, 2010 . Questioning numbers, or criticisms of the IPCC and peer review process are details scratching the surface of an issue too important to deal with by propoganda that doesn't address the question. You're the one who champions peer review and made a big deal of the "4000" (which could now be as low as 60). I haven't seen a link from you from an impartial source... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now