Gee where have we heard this?

[westwall]

The IAC's report on the IPCC finds it "troubling" that the head of the IPCC has so many of his fingers in so many pies! One of the MANY complaints you have heard on this forum.

IPCC report raises fresh questions over Dr Rajendra Pachauri's leadership - Telegraph

 

[konradv]

Got to go after the personalities, because you can't touch the science, eh?

 

[Intense]

Got to go after the personalities, because you can't touch the science, eh?

Or we could just apply the RICO Law to Carbon Credits, and just net you all in.

Like shooting fish in a barrel.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Got to go after the personalities, because you can't touch the science, eh?

You mean like you warmers have been doing since day one? Claiming any report was written by someone paid off by the Oil Companies? Claiming anyone that opposed your claim that man made global warming was a sure thing was not a REAL scientist? Like that?

 

[Si modo]

Got to go after the personalities, because you can't touch the science, eh?

Really? Can't touch the science? What 'science' is that exactly?

 

[westwall]

Got to go after the personalities, because you can't touch the science, eh?

Well....... considering there's no science to touch we might as well go after the perpetrators of the fraud...no?

 

[Old Rocks]

Got to go after the personalities, because you can't touch the science, eh?

Really? Can't touch the science? What 'science' is that exactly?

This kind of science, Dumbass;

A23A

H22A

C24A

Now let's see your science.

 

[Old Rocks]

Got to go after the personalities, because you can't touch the science, eh?

Well....... considering there's no science to touch we might as well go after the perpetrators of the fraud...no?

Two liars in a row

 

[westwall]

Got to go after the personalities, because you can't touch the science, eh?

Well....... considering there's no science to touch we might as well go after the perpetrators of the fraud...no?

Two liars in a row

How exactly is that there olfraud. WE are not the ones polluting our countryside and poisoning our neighbors...that is YOU who is doing that bucko. Man up to the fact that you are the exact cretinous buffoon you accuse the big oil people of being.

The only liar I see on this thread is YOU

 

[Old Rocks]

Can not argue with the science, can you, old boy. What a fraud you are, faux geologist.

 

[Old Rocks]

Real science from scientists

Global temperature change ? PNAS

Global temperature change
James Hansen * , † , ‡ , Makiko Sato * , † , Reto Ruedy * , § , Ken Lo * , § , David W. Lea ¶ , and Martin Medina-Elizade ¶
+ Author Affiliations

*National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Institute for Space Studies,
†Columbia University Earth Institute, and
§Sigma Space Partners, Inc., 2880 Broadway, New York, NY 10025; and
¶Department of Earth Science, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106
Contributed by James Hansen, July 31, 2006

Abstract
Global surface temperature has increased ≈0.2°C per decade in the past 30 years, similar to the warming rate predicted in the 1980s in initial global climate model simulations with transient greenhouse gas changes. Warming is larger in the Western Equatorial Pacific than in the Eastern Equatorial Pacific over the past century, and we suggest that the increased West–East temperature gradient may have increased the likelihood of strong El Niños, such as those of 1983 and 1998. Comparison of measured sea surface temperatures in the Western Pacific with paleoclimate data suggests that this critical ocean region, and probably the planet as a whole, is approximately as warm now as at the Holocene maximum and within ≈1°C of the maximum temperature of the past million years. We conclude that global warming of more than ≈1°C, relative to 2000, will constitute “dangerous” climate change as judged from likely effects on sea level and extermination of species.

 

[Old Rocks]

The reason that the deniars cannot argue science.

The Yale Forum on Climate Change & The Media Who’s In/Who’s Out on Climate Credibility?PNAS Study Sparks Support and Criticism

Is there a difference in scientific expertise between those who subscribe to the view that humans are significantly driving up the globe’s thermostat and those who are skeptical or incredulous?


Anderegg, who studies biology at Stanford University under well-known climate researcher Stephen Schneider, teamed up with researchers at Stanford, the University of Toronto, and The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation to find out. His results are certain not to please all parties in the contentious climate change arena, including among those who fall into the category of being “convinced” by the scientific evidence.

The research, published in the respected “Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,” PNAS, argues that the differences between the two groups are striking. The primary conclusions: climate researchers who have published the most and been cited the most are nearly unanimous in their agreement with the latest conclusions of the IPCC. Researchers who are most skeptical of the IPCC’s conclusions, on the other hand, have published little and have been cited much less often in the scientific literature.
The study, analyzing the work of more than 1,300 climate researchers and entitled “Expert credibility in climate change,” is available as a PDF.

 

[Old Rocks]

The Scientists DO Agree on Global Warming – Planetsave

The Stanford researchers also determined the top 100 climate researchers based on the number of climate related publications each had, which according to Anderegg produced an even more telling result.

“When you look at the leading scientists who have made any sort of statement about anthropogenic climate change, you find 97 percent of those top 100 surveyed scientists explicitly agreeing with or endorsing the IPCC’s assessment,” he said. That result has been borne out by several other published studies that used different methodology, as well as some that are due out later this summer, he said.

And not surprisingly the researchers are preparing for the doubters to take objection to their data

 

[westwall]

Can not argue with the science, can you, old boy. What a fraud you are, faux geologist.

The science presented has been proven suspect so why waste time with it olfraud. And as stated previously you are the fraud. You preach environmentalism while poisoning your neighbors...good for you, I hope you never get the opportunity to meet one of the parents whose children you're killing.

Scumbag.

 

[westwall]

The Scientists DO Agree on Global Warming – Planetsave

The Stanford researchers also determined the top 100 climate researchers based on the number of climate related publications each had, which according to Anderegg produced an even more telling result.

“When you look at the leading scientists who have made any sort of statement about anthropogenic climate change, you find 97 percent of those top 100 surveyed scientists explicitly agreeing with or endorsing the IPCC’s assessment,” he said. That result has been borne out by several other published studies that used different methodology, as well as some that are due out later this summer, he said.

And not surprisingly the researchers are preparing for the doubters to take objection to their data

Blah, blah, blah. We've allready proven that this is all a load of crap. I can allways tell when I've stung you as you allways trot this crap out to try and counter it.


Keep praying that this is actually real, faith is all you've got olfraud, faith is all you've got.

 

[Old Rocks]

Come on, Walleyes, post some science. All you have posted so far is unsupported yap-yap.

 

[westwall]

Come on, Walleyes, post some science. All you have posted so far is unsupported yap-yap.

Why bother. We've allready proven your crap is.....well crap! Once the money guys have left the game you've lost. You're just not quick enough to figure it out.

 

[Si modo]

Got to go after the personalities, because you can't touch the science, eh?

Really? Can't touch the science? What 'science' is that exactly?

This kind of science, Dumbass;

A23A

H22A

C24A

Now let's see your science.

You've seen it, liar. Over and over and over again.

Liar.

Psst...what do you actually think that science you posted says?

 

[Old Rocks]

Apparently the American Geophysical Union does. And I trust their judgement far more than that of an ananomous poster that cannot post science concerning science. A poster that claims to be a scientist but post only partisan political bullshit.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Apparently the American Geophysical Union does. And I trust their judgement far more than that of an ananomous poster that cannot post science concerning science. A poster that claims to be a scientist but post only partisan political bullshit.

So which one of your close friends was the whacko in Maryland? How many more you got waiting their turn?