Lastest IIPC report released - most comprehensive proof yet

[Saigon]

A landmark report says scientists are 95% certain that humans are the "dominant cause" of global warming since the 1950s.

The report by the UN's climate panel details the physical evidence behind climate change.

On the ground, in the air, in the oceans, global warming is "unequivocal", it explained.

It adds that a pause in warming over the past 15 years is too short to reflect long-term trends.

The panel warns that continued emissions of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and changes in all aspects of the climate system.

To contain these changes will require "substantial and sustained reductions of greenhouse gas emissions".

After a week of intense negotiations in the Swedish capital, the summary for policymakers on the physical science of global warming has finally been released.

The first part of an IPCC trilogy, due over the next 12 months, this dense, 36-page document is considered the most comprehensive statement on our understanding of the mechanics of a warming planet.

It states baldly that, since the 1950s, many of the observed changes in the climate system are "unprecedented over decades to millennia".

BBC News - IPCC climate report: humans 'dominant cause' of warming

 

[S.J.]

A report by the same people who were caught fudging the data several times. We're supposed to take their word for anything?

 

[Saigon]

A report by the same people who were caught fudging the data several times. We're supposed to take their word for anything?

Yes, you are.

There are around 200 key authors to this report, and more than 1,000 pieces of research.

If you think any of those authors have been caught fudging data, let's see the names.

 

[S.J.]

A report by the same people who were caught fudging the data several times. We're supposed to take their word for anything?

Yes, you are.

There are around 200 key authors to this report, and more than 1,000 pieces of research.

If you think any of those authors have been caught fudging data, let's see the names.

I don't need their names and I don't have to prove anything. They already blew their credibility, it's an organization with a willingness to misinform the public in order to advance their agenda and continue to receive government funding.

 

[Saigon]

S.J.

For the second time on two threads - please READ the material BEFORE posting.

 

[S.J.]

A lot of predictions of doom and gloom, based on speculation about activities that have yet to be proven to affect our climate. The thing is, Saigon, that we don't know how much of what they are reporting is true and how much isn't. Once you've been caught lying, everything you say after that is suspect.

 

[bripat9643]

A report by the same people who were caught fudging the data several times. We're supposed to take their word for anything?

Yes, you are.

There are around 200 key authors to this report, and more than 1,000 pieces of research.

If you think any of those authors have been caught fudging data, let's see the names.

Michael Mann
Kevin Trenberth
Phil Jones

To name a few

 

[Saigon]

BriPat -

Where in the report do you see those names? Can you provide us with the page number?

Again - there are around 200 key authors in this report, and so far not a single allegation against even one of them.

 

[Abraham3]

A report by the same people who were caught fudging the data several times. We're supposed to take their word for anything?

Yes, you are.

There are around 200 key authors to this report, and more than 1,000 pieces of research.

If you think any of those authors have been caught fudging data, let's see the names.

I don't need their names and I don't have to prove anything. They already blew their credibility, it's an organization with a willingness to misinform the public in order to advance their agenda and continue to receive government funding.

I'm terribly sorry to be the messenger of harsh reality, but if you have any interest in evincing your OWN credibility or following the fundamental precepts of your own society, you do. You really do.

 

[Abraham3]

A report by the same people who were caught fudging the data several times. We're supposed to take their word for anything?

Yes, you are.

There are around 200 key authors to this report, and more than 1,000 pieces of research.

If you think any of those authors have been caught fudging data, let's see the names.

Michael Mann
Kevin Trenberth
Phil Jones

To name a few

Drafting Authors: Lisa Alexander (Australia), Simon Allen (Switzerland/New Zealand), Nathaniel
L. Bindoff (Australia), François-Marie Bréon (France), John Church (Australia), Ulrich Cubasch
(Germany), Seita Emori (Japan), Piers Forster (UK), Pierre Friedlingstein (UK/Belgium), Nathan
Gillett (Canada), Jonathan Gregory (UK), Dennis Hartmann (USA), Eystein Jansen (Norway), Ben
Kirtman (USA), Reto Knutti (Switzerland), Krishna Kumar Kanikicharla (India), Peter Lemke
(Germany), Jochem Marotzke (Germany), Valérie Masson-Delmotte (France), Gerald Meehl
(USA), Igor Mokhov (Russia), Shilong Piao (China), Gian-Kasper Plattner (Switzerland), Qin Dahe
(China), Venkatachalam Ramaswamy (USA), David Randall (USA), Monika Rhein (Germany),
Maisa Rojas (Chile), Christopher Sabine (USA), Drew Shindell (USA), Thomas F. Stocker
(Switzerland), Lynne Talley (USA), David Vaughan (UK), Shang-Ping Xie (USA)
Draft Contributing Authors: Myles Allen (UK), Olivier Boucher (France), Don Chambers (USA),
Jens Hesselbjerg Christensen (Denmark), Philippe Ciais (France), Peter Clark (USA), Matthew
Collins (UK), Josefino Comiso (USA), Viviane Vasconcellos de Menezes (Australia/Brazil), Richard
Feely (USA), Thierry Fichefet (Belgium), Arlene Fiore (USA), Gregory Flato (Canada), Jan
Fuglestvedt (Norway), Gabriele Hegerl (UK/Germany), Paul Hezel (Belgium/USA), Gregory
Johnson (USA), Georg Kaser (Austria/Italy), Vladimir Kattsov (Russia), John Kennedy (UK), Albert
Klein Tank (Netherlands), Corinne Le Quéré (UK/France), , Gunnar Myhre (Norway), Tim Osborn
(UK), Antony Payne (UK), Judith Perlwitz (USA/Germany), Scott Power (Australia), Michael
Prather (USA), Stephen Rintoul (Australia), Joeri Rogelj (Switzerland), Matilde Rusticucci
(Argentina), Michael Schulz (Germany), Jan Sedlácek (Switzerland), Peter Stott (UK), Rowan
Sutton (UK), Peter Thorne (USA/Norway/UK), Donald Wuebbles (USA)

Feel free to do your own search, but I find that neither Mann, Jones nor Trenberth appear.

Those wouldn't happen to just be the three names you could remember would they Patrick?

 

[Abraham3]

But, while we're here, why don't you give us a little detail on the actual accusations you have against these three men and the convictions or even just the evidence you have to substantiate such charges? Please don't forget to explain, in plain English, precisely what you mean by "fudging data".

 

[skookerasbil]

Its volume 4 of the ruse!!

Check out the rigged process that they use to come up with their predictions and conclusions >>>

Donna Laframboise: Warming Up for Another Climate-Change Report - WSJ.com


Like putting a bunch of pedophiles in charge of making child protection laws!!!

 

[bripat9643]

Yes, you are.

There are around 200 key authors to this report, and more than 1,000 pieces of research.

If you think any of those authors have been caught fudging data, let's see the names.

I don't need their names and I don't have to prove anything. They already blew their credibility, it's an organization with a willingness to misinform the public in order to advance their agenda and continue to receive government funding.

I'm terribly sorry to be the messenger of harsh reality, but if you have any interest in evincing your OWN credibility or following the fundamental precepts of your own society, you do. You really do.

Wrong, he doesn't. They IPCC has demonstrated repeatedly that it doesn't care about the facts. It has an agenda to push, and any data it gathers is massaged into a form that supports that agenda. Any data that doesn't support the agenda is ignored.

The IPCC is a gang of politicians ornamented with a few actual scientists to give it respectability. Real science isn't done by such organizations. The only function they have is propaganda.

 

[Saigon]

BriPat-

Have you read the study, or are you going to judge it first?

 

[editec]

A bit of advice...

Never try to discuss or explain anything to someone who is obviously determined NOT to understand what you are saying.

That is basically what happens in every climate related thread on this board.

Assertions are made, then denied...and in both case the claimant and the denier are neither of them qualified to advance the debate.

In both case they are (at best) relying on the judgement of "experts"

 

[S.J.]

Yes, you are.

There are around 200 key authors to this report, and more than 1,000 pieces of research.

If you think any of those authors have been caught fudging data, let's see the names.

I don't need their names and I don't have to prove anything. They already blew their credibility, it's an organization with a willingness to misinform the public in order to advance their agenda and continue to receive government funding.

I'm terribly sorry to be the messenger of harsh reality, but if you have any interest in evincing your OWN credibility or following the fundamental precepts of your own society, you do. You really do.

I have, I really have, in other threads. Saigon periodically posts this same recycled crap, thinking sooner or later it's gonna stick. The debate is over, the IPCC has no credibility. Would you trust Bernie Madoff to handle your investments, after stealing billions from his clients?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

A landmark report says scientists are 95% certain that humans are the "dominant cause" of global warming since the 1950s.

The report by the UN's climate panel details the physical evidence behind climate change.

On the ground, in the air, in the oceans, global warming is "unequivocal", it explained.

It adds that a pause in warming over the past 15 years is too short to reflect long-term trends.

The panel warns that continued emissions of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and changes in all aspects of the climate system.

To contain these changes will require "substantial and sustained reductions of greenhouse gas emissions".

After a week of intense negotiations in the Swedish capital, the summary for policymakers on the physical science of global warming has finally been released.

The first part of an IPCC trilogy, due over the next 12 months, this dense, 36-page document is considered the most comprehensive statement on our understanding of the mechanics of a warming planet.

It states baldly that, since the 1950s, many of the observed changes in the climate system are "unprecedented over decades to millennia".

BBC News - IPCC climate report: humans 'dominant cause' of warming

You didn't even read the report, and you are declaring that it is the end of the debate.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

A report by the same people who were caught fudging the data several times. We're supposed to take their word for anything?

Yes, you are.

There are around 200 key authors to this report, and more than 1,000 pieces of research.

If you think any of those authors have been caught fudging data, let's see the names.

Did you see the part where they cannot explain the lull over the last few years? Or are you still going to claim that we are making that up?

If a scientist had stood up 20 years ago and predicted that the oceans would absorb the heat from the atmosphere, but not show any indication of a temperature increase as a result, they would have been the object of scorn and derision, now scientists want me to believe it simply because they cannot explain the difference between their predictions and the real world.

 

[skookerasbil]

Its volume 4 of the ruse!!

Check out the rigged process that they use to come up with their predictions and conclusions >>>

Donna Laframboise: Warming Up for Another Climate-Change Report - WSJ.com


Like putting a bunch of pedophiles in charge of making child protection laws!!!

 

[Saigon]

A bit of advice...

Never try to discuss or explain anything to someone who is obviously determined NOT to understand what you are saying.

That is basically what happens in every climate related thread on this board.

Assertions are made, then denied...and in both case the claimant and the denier are neither of them qualified to advance the debate.

In both case they are (at best) relying on the judgement of "experts"

True, but given the choice between relying on experts and relying on non-experts, I'll take the experts every time.

One interesting thing here is seeing posters line up to refuse to read the report - that doesn't seem like the most intelligent way to evaluate what scientists are claiming.