UN Climate Summit no longer about science!

[jc456]

Another link from IceAgeNow.com...

 

[boedicca]

Earth to OP: The UN Climate Summit was NEVER about Science.

 

[flacaltenn]

Others..

If you don t like it resign or don t get selected - globalwarmingquestions

Christopher Landsea
Landsea has worked on hurricanes for over 20 years and has over publications in the field. He took part in the second and third IPCC reports. He resigned from the IPCC in January 2005 over the issue of exaggerated claims of the influence of global warming on hurricanes, discussed previously. In his resignation letter, he stated "I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns." He added "All previous and current research in the area of hurricane variability has shown no reliable, long-term trend up in the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones, either in the Atlantic or any other basin....It is beyond me why my colleagues would utilize the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global warming." and concluded: "I personally 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."

Paul Reiter
Reiter is an expert in tropical diseases such as malaria. He was a contributing author to the WGII report of the TAR (2001) (chapter 9, dealing with impacts on human health). He found it impossible to work with lead authors who were not experts in the field, who were insisting on a link between climate change and diseases such as malaria, so he resigned from the IPCC process. He was interviewed for the Channel 4 programme, The Great Global Warming Swindle. He gave evidence to a US Senate Committee, launching a scathing attack on the IPCC: A galling aspect of the debate is that this spurious ‘science’ is endorsed in the public forum by influential panels of “experts.” I refer particularly to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Every five years, this UN-based organization publishes a ‘consensus of the world’s top scientists’ on all aspects of climate change. Quite apart from the dubious process by which these scientists are selected, such consensus is the stuff of politics, not of science. In a report to the House of Lords he wrote: "In my opinion, the IPCC has done a disservice to society by relying on "experts" who have little or no knowledge of the subject, and allowing them to make authoritative pronouncements that are not based on sound science. In truth, the principal determinants of transmission of malaria and many other mosquito-borne diseases are politics, economics and human activities."

Richard Lindzen
Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology at MIT, has over 200 publications in meteorology and climate. He was a lead author on Chapter 7 of the IPCC TAR, published in 2001. Subsequently, in May 2001, he was critical of the Summary for Policymakers, which he said "misrepresents what scientists say" and "Exaggerates scientific accuracy and certainty". He also said that the IPCC encourages misuse of the Summary, and that the Summary does not reflect the full document, and that the final version was modified from the draft in a way to exaggerate man-made warming (all of these comments refer to the 2001 TAR, but as we have seen on these pages, are equally applicable to the 2007 AR4). Lindzen played no part in the writing of AR4.

John T Everett
Everett is an expert in fisheries and the oceans. He worked for the IPCC until 2000. In a statement to the US House of Representatives in 2007 he called for "a reality check" and said that "Warming is not a big deal and is not a bad thing". He has written a web site climatechangefacts.info that is highly critical of the IPCC.

Tom Segalstad
Segalstad is a geologist and former IPCC expert reviewer. He also has a web site highly critical of the IPCC and climate alarmism.

 

[flacaltenn]

LaLAlaLAlaLaLAlaLAlaLaLAlaLAlaLaLAlaLAlaLaLAlaLAlaLaLAlaLAlaLaLAlaLAlaLaLAlaLAlaLaLAlaLAla

I didn't change the topic and given the complete lack of content in virtually ALL your posts, you were never on it.

Billy Bob made a claim concerning the scientific validity of the UN's IPCC assessment reports. He claimed that 71% of UN scientists had withdrawn their names from the documents. I asked for references. After days of haranguing, he gives us crap. Irrelevant, inapplicable crap.

That of course -- gives you FULL LICENSE to TOTALLY ignore everything else you are being told about the corrupt and manipulative IPCC/UN process.. LaLAlaLAlaLaLAlaLAlaLaLAlaLAlaLaLAlaLAlaLaLAlaLAlaLaLAlaLAlaLaLAlaLAlaLaLAlaLAlaLaLAlaLAlaLaLAlaLAlaLaLAlaLAla

No comments on the MULTITUDE of evidence that the IPCC is NOT a scientific body..

 

[skookerasbil]

Earth to OP: The UN Climate Summit was NEVER about Science.

LMAO......pwned myself!!!

 

[Crick]

The scientists whose names appear on those reports approved the versions we read.

And you missed the part about the actual research. The IPCC conducts no research. They use the research being done and published around the world. Your idea just doesn't hold water. Not a single drop.

You dont have a clue about how they work do you. Paid propagandist shill... Do you know why over 71% of scientists WITHDRAW their names from those papers? Because the political rewrite has no basis in science!

Still waiting for a source for this claim that "71% of scientists WITHDRAW their name from those papers".

And, applying context and the English language, I would have to say that Billy Bob's statement translates to 71% of ALL scientists involved withdraw their name from the IPCC's assessment reports. That should give us a better target to shoot for.

So, Bill (can I call you Bill?), just WHERE did you get 71%. Why don't we have a try searching Google for 71% and IPCC? Let's see what we get. Standby...

I searched Google for "71%, IPCC, scientists". The first hit (The Guardian) looked hopeful, but it turned out to just be: "Although six separate inquiries into the scandal exonerated researchers of wrongdoing, only 57 percent of Americans believed global warming was happening by the start of 2010, down from 71 percent in 2008, according to a Yale Project poll." So, that's not it

Next we have an article by AGW denier Bjorn Lomborg which says: "Compared to the actual temperature rise since 1980, the average of 32 top climate models (the so-called CMIP5) overestimates it by 71-159 percent".

This goes on. I was surprised at how many climate related posts used the number 71 for this or that. Usually a percent. I can see how a lot of climate-related reading might put the number 71% in your head. What it would not put in your head would be anyone suggesting that 71% of ANY group of scientists had withdrawn their names from the IPCC assessment reports. Time to fess up Billy Boy. You fibbed.


Here's one occurrence

 

[Crick]

I didn't change the topic and given the complete lack of content in virtually ALL your posts, you were never on it.

Billy Bob made a claim concerning the scientific validity of the UN's IPCC assessment reports. He claimed that 71% of UN scientists had withdrawn their names from the documents. I asked for references. After days of haranguing, he gives us crap. Irrelevant, inapplicable crap.

I'm not saying 71%, but here is a link that has names of those associated with the UN that withdrew their names. From the Climate Depot

Billy Bob posted this same link and I guess he made the same mistake YOU have made. This is not a list of people who have withdrawn their names from the AR. It is simply a list of people, some of them scientists, some lesser number of them people who have been involved with the IPCC at times past, who have made comments critical of the IPCC or the assessment reports.

 

[Crick]

Here's another..

UK professor refuses to put his name to apocalyptic UN climate change survey Mail Online

UK professor refuses to put his name to 'apocalyptic' UN climate change survey that he claims is exaggerating the effects
Prof Richard Tol said UN academics were exaggerating climate change
Comes as a blow to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Panel to publish its first update in seven years on the impacts of climate change


A climate scientist has accused the United Nations of being too alarmist over global warming – and demanded his name be removed from a crucial new report.
Professor Richard Tol, an economist at the University of Sussex, said fellow UN academics were exaggerating climate change and comparing it to the ‘apocalypse’.
His comments are a blow to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which on Monday will publish its first update in seven years on the impacts of climate change.

Economist Richard Tol's "resignation" from the IPCC was noted in four of the links Billy Bob provided.

 

[flacaltenn]

Here's another..

UK professor refuses to put his name to apocalyptic UN climate change survey Mail Online

UK professor refuses to put his name to 'apocalyptic' UN climate change survey that he claims is exaggerating the effects
Prof Richard Tol said UN academics were exaggerating climate change
Comes as a blow to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Panel to publish its first update in seven years on the impacts of climate change


A climate scientist has accused the United Nations of being too alarmist over global warming – and demanded his name be removed from a crucial new report.
Professor Richard Tol, an economist at the University of Sussex, said fellow UN academics were exaggerating climate change and comparing it to the ‘apocalypse’.
His comments are a blow to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which on Monday will publish its first update in seven years on the impacts of climate change.

Economist Richard Tol's "resignation" from the IPCC was noted in four of the links Billy Bob provided.

Only important bit is that YOU "noted" it.. As well as the pissed off hurricane specialist that told the truth about the IPCC propaganda products..

 

[Crick]

The important note is that our new poster Billy Bob claimed, with no documentation, that "71% of scientists" had withdrawn their names from IPCC assessment reports. After repeated requests for some reference material supporting or explaining that claim he puts up nine links. Four of the nine links describe the same individual, Richard Tol, resigning from the IPCC. The sum total of the rest of the links names 3 or 4 individuals who are said to have withdrawn their names. The rest are people who served only once and were not offered repeat work, who requested leadership positions but got huffy when they didn't get it and people who never served at all. Their only apparent qualification for being "noted" by Billy Bob was that they had made comments critical of the IPCC.

Then there was the comment by our old buddy Swim Expert that climate scientists grant money is only "sustained" due to political decisions. I've asked him twice for some clarification of that comment, but I don't think he comes around all that often as we've seen no response.

As for Billy Bob, I think even those of you on your side of this argument will have to admit that he has shown a strong tendency to make rather extraordinary claims without evidence. Not the best sort of behavior if you want your team to move forward.

 

[skookerasbil]

The important note is that our new poster Billy Bob claimed, with no documentation, that "71% of scientists" had withdrawn their names from IPCC assessment reports. After repeated requests for some reference material supporting or explaining that claim he puts up nine links. Four of the nine links describe the same individual, Richard Tol, resigning from the IPCC. The sum total of the rest of the links names 3 or 4 individuals who are said to have withdrawn their names. The rest are people who served only once and were not offered repeat work, who requested leadership positions but got huffy when they didn't get it and people who never served at all. Their only apparent qualification for being "noted" by Billy Bob was that they had made comments critical of the IPCC.

Then there was the comment by our old buddy Swim Expert that climate scientists grant money is only "sustained" due to political decisions. I've asked him twice for some clarification of that comment, but I don't think he comes around all that often as we've seen no response.

As for Billy Bob, I think even those of you on your side of this argument will have to admit that he has shown a strong tendency to make rather extraordinary claims without evidence. Not the best sort of behavior if you want your team to move forward.

s0n........the science still isn't mattering. Who's team is not winning?

 

[Crick]

Science comes from scientists, not from Billy Bob's imagination.

The science doesn't matter? Is that REALLY what you want to say?

The science says the world is getting warmer and the primary cause is human GHG emissions and deforestation.

You're still stupid enough to be a bigot.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Another link from IceAgeNow.com...

Real Scientists standing up to the AGWCult Jihad on science and the scientific method

Bravo!

"

Top Scientists say global warming is a lie ______________________________

10 Dec 08 – More than 650 international scientists are about to make them selves heard at this week's UN global warming conference in Poland. They are there to debunk claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore. Many current and former UN IPCC scientists have put out a report that debunks global warming. They say that it is all political hype, and point out that the earth may actually be cooling. The 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers. The U.S. Senate report is the latest evidence of the growing groundswell of scientific opposition rising to challenge the UN and Gore. Scientific meetings are now being dominated by a growing number of skeptical scientists. The prestigious International Geological Congress, dubbed the geologists' equivalent of the Olympic Games, was held in Norway in August 2008 and prominently featured the voices and views of scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears. [See Full report Here: & See: Skeptical scientists overwhelm conference: '2/3 of presenters and question-askers were hostile to, even dismissive of, the UN IPCC' ] A hint of what the upcoming report contains: “I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever. “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.” Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

 

[skookerasbil]

Science comes from scientists, not from Billy Bob's imagination.

The science doesn't matter? Is that REALLY what you want to say?

The science says the world is getting warmer and the primary cause is human GHG emissions and deforestation.

You're still stupid enough to be a bigot.

Its pseudo-science s0n, and everybody knows it except the true believers.........which is why the American public yawns whenever the topic comes up now = the science isn't mattering.

Who cares about this pseudo-science if it is having no impact in the real world???

I keep telling you s0n.....its an internet hobby. Its not even debatable anymore. And even on this site.....nobody cares about this shit. The AGW people have 3 or 4 members of the club and 3 or 4 more who come in for a cup of coffee every so often. Look at the post totals of the other forums s0n compared to this one........its a joke!! Talking about global warming in 2014 leaves about as much impression on people as me talking to my kids about roadside AT&T phones.

 

[Crick]

The viewpoint that AGW is a valid description of the behavior of the Earth's climate is accepted by close to 100% of active climate scientists, by better than 99% of their peer reviewed publications and an extremely large majority of scientists in general. Coverage of your viewpoint is being dropped by mass media outlets like a putrescent hot potato, finally becoming aware that they'd allowed their "fair and impartial" guidelines to give the FlatEarthers a podium they'd never earned. The world may not be evinced to care enough about the threat of global warming, but the number of educated human beings that take your point of view has descended into complete statistical irrelevancy.

 

[flacaltenn]

The viewpoint that AGW is a valid description of the behavior of the Earth's climate is accepted by close to 100% of active climate scientists, by better than 99% of their peer reviewed publications and an extremely large majority of scientists in general. Coverage of your viewpoint is being dropped by mass media outlets like a putrescent hot potato, finally becoming aware that they'd allowed their "fair and impartial" guidelines to give the FlatEarthers a podium they'd never earned. The world may not be evinced to care enough about the threat of global warming, but the number of educated human beings that take your point of view has descended into complete statistical irrelevancy.

No one on this forum comes close to your ability to mangle facts on "consensus" and ignore evidence in front of your face. 99% of peer reviewed publications SAY WHAT? And where the fuck do you get the silly idea that EVERY climate paper is a vote in some random poll??

Sounds like lunatic fringe stuff Bullwinky...

 

[skookerasbil]

The whole of the US seems in an ice age now!!! Frost all over the northeast tonight..........freaky s0ns!!!

 

[Crick]

On what do you base your belief that the common cold is caused by a rhinovirus?

On what do you base your belief that the sun operates by the fusion of hydrogen?

On what do you base your belief that the speed of light is the ultimate speed limit?

On what do you base your belief that homo sapiens evolved from more primitive hominids?

On what do you base your belief that Bose-Einstein condensates exist?

On what do you base your belief that the Higgs boson has been detected?

 

[jc456]

Science comes from scientists, not from Billy Bob's imagination.

The science doesn't matter? Is that REALLY what you want to say?

The science says the world is getting warmer and the primary cause is human GHG emissions and deforestation.

You're still stupid enough to be a bigot.

Nope the goofs are wrong and observatinal data is telling us that. Don't go away made varmit, just go away.

 

[jc456]

The whole of the US seems in an ice age now!!! Frost all over the northeast tonight..........freaky s0ns!!!

We had the fireplace on last night it was so cold. Wasn't going to the furnace just yet.