IPCC Lies About Rainforest

[eagleseven]

CO2, the gas you exhale, is now a pollutant. Time to cap and trade your breathing.

 

[Old Rocks]

Science is one thing, deliberate fraud is another.

And for deliberate fraud, you have Monkton, Watts, and Rose. Your accusations of deliberate fraud on the part of the scientists are without foundation, and simply part of the attempt to deligitimize science.

 

[eagleseven]

Science is one thing, deliberate fraud is another.

And for deliberate fraud, you have Monkton, Watts, and Rose. Your accusations of deliberate fraud on the part of the scientists are without foundation, and simply part of the attempt to deligitimize science.

If you say it enough, someone might believe you.

Or not.

 

[Old Rocks]

CO2, the gas you exhale, is now a pollutant. Time to cap and trade your breathing.

Are you deliberately playing the part of an idiot?

CO2 is an effective GHG. Remove all of it from our atmosphere, and the oceans freeze clear down to the equator. It has happened before.

Do a very rapid increase in it and CH4, and you get an extinction event. That, also, has happened before.

The laws of physics does not care whether the rapid increase is caused by Trapp Volcanics, or a suicidal species burning fossil fuels.

 

[Annie]

While 'climate warming/change' is basically unarguable, the cause is certainly up for grabs. The 'movement' of global warming and the 'science' they claimed, is dead.

 

[Old Rocks]

Rosegate : Deltoid

Now he has a story on the error in the IPCC WG2 report about Himalayan glaciers, and has verballed another scientist. Rose wrote:

The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.

Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.

In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report's chapter on Asia, said: "It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action."

Joe Romm checked with Lal:

He said these were "the most vilest allegations" and denied that he ever made such assertions. He said "I didn't put it [the 2035 claim] in to impress policymakers... We reported the facts about science as we knew them and as was available in the literature."

That's not all that Rose got wrong:

For example, Hayley Fowler of Newcastle University, suggested that their draft did not mention that Himalayan glaciers in the Karakoram range are growing rapidly, citing a paper published in the influential journal Nature.

In their response, the IPCC authors said, bizarrely, that they were 'unable to get hold of the suggested references', but would 'consider' this in their final version. They failed to do so.

Look at what she actually wrote:

I am not sure that this is true for the very large Karakoram glaciers in the western Himalaya. Hewitt (2005) suggests from measurements that these are expanding - and this would certainly be explained by climatic change in precipitation and temperature trends seen in the Karakoram region (Fowler and Archer, J Climate in press; Archer and Fowler, 2004) You need to quote Barnett et al.'s 2005 Nature paper here - this seems very similar to what they said. (Hayley Fowler, Newcastle University)

 

[Baruch Menachem]

Science is one thing, deliberate fraud is another.

And for deliberate fraud, you have Monkton, Watts, and Rose. Your accusations of deliberate fraud on the part of the scientists are without foundation, and simply part of the attempt to deligitimize science.

It is the hysterics who have been caught with their thumbs on the scale, not the skeptics.


I am all for science, which is about looking at things and trying to discern the truth. the cause of science is not promoted by frauds and three card monte artists.

I mean, who is a bigger threat to religion, Elmer Gantry, Tartuffe and Jimmy Swaggart, or Darwin, Galaleio and Koch?

 

[Old Rocks]

While 'climate warming/change' is basically unarguable, the cause is certainly up for grabs. The 'movement' of global warming and the 'science' they claimed, is dead.

Totally completely wrong. If you are a teacher, and you teach drivel like that, you should be fired for incompetance. Here is what the American Institute of Physics states on the history of the study of greenhouse gases.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Now how can the science be dead, when every scientific society, every national academy of science, and every major university recognized that science? Do you know anything of how science is done? Or is being a Conservative more important to you than truth?

 

[Old Rocks]

Science is one thing, deliberate fraud is another.

And for deliberate fraud, you have Monkton, Watts, and Rose. Your accusations of deliberate fraud on the part of the scientists are without foundation, and simply part of the attempt to deligitimize science.

It is the hysterics who have been caught with their thumbs on the scale, not the skeptics.


I am all for science, which is about looking at things and trying to discern the truth. the cause of science is not promoted by frauds and three card monte artists.

I mean, who is a bigger threat to religion, Elmer Gantry, Tartuffe and Jimmy Swaggart, or Darwin, Galaleio and Koch?

OK, fellow, show me where all the scientific societies in the world are three card monte artists. Seems to me that title applies more to you, for you make this unsupported claim.

 

[code1211]

I love people who do not of degrees in science or anything close, questioning people who actually do.

It's nice to be loved.

 

[Old Rocks]

Gore calls for taxing everyone for the air they breath while he gets rich and Bush refuses to force this fiasco onto the general public of the world for Gore and his goon squad of cons can profiteer from it.


"Al Gore's carbon Crusade and the money behind it", by foundation watch
http://www.capitalresearch.org/pubs/pdf/v1185475433.pdf

Bush does what? Is he still President

I cannot believe the stupidity of the posters here.

Come on, take off your tinfoil hats and a look at reality.

 

[Old Rocks]

I love people who do not of degrees in science or anything close, questioning people who actually do.

It's nice to be loved.

Yes, one has to love the mentally handicapped, they try so hard.

 

[eagleseven]

CO2 creates a greenhouse effect...so what?
H2O creates a greenhouse effect...so what?
CH4 creates a greenhouse effect...so what?
O3 creates a greenhouse effect...so what?

Why are we obsessed with CO2, when CO2 isn't even the most prominent greenhouse gas?

 

[code1211]

I love people who do not of degrees in science or anything close, questioning people who actually do.

You are truly ignorant and blind even when it is presented before you by the experts that have been in the field longer than you have been on this earth. Feed that baby milk and don't worry about what is in it, feed him whatever you like because this fraudsters tell you it is good for him. That is your prerogative but you have no right whatsoever to tell another that they have to accept this shit you help push for their children.

What are you even talking about? You make no sense at all and you call me ignorant.

Do you really think that we have no effect on our envirnment? and that deforestation has no effect on our envirnment?
And also you have no idea how I feel about global warming, I just stated I think it is funny that people, meaning the people in this thread or the other threads like this one have no right when they do not have a degree to question a scientist. There is a reason why scientist's are PEER reviewed.

If peer review is of any value at all, then reviews that show that the claims about the Himilayan Glaciers and the Rain Forests to be wrong, then need to be further reviewed to see if the "wrongness" was a mistake or an intentional deception.

The fact that these items were included in the IPCC report AND that they were based on almost nothing beyond an uninformed opinion should demonstrate the bias of the IPCC. They were so anxious to prove their pre-drawn conclusion that the basis of and supporting "proof" was not questioned.

Peer review is exposing the fraud.

 

[code1211]

And for deliberate fraud, you have Monkton, Watts, and Rose. Your accusations of deliberate fraud on the part of the scientists are without foundation, and simply part of the attempt to deligitimize science.

It is the hysterics who have been caught with their thumbs on the scale, not the skeptics.


I am all for science, which is about looking at things and trying to discern the truth. the cause of science is not promoted by frauds and three card monte artists.

I mean, who is a bigger threat to religion, Elmer Gantry, Tartuffe and Jimmy Swaggart, or Darwin, Galaleio and Koch?

OK, fellow, show me where all the scientific societies in the world are three card monte artists. Seems to me that title applies more to you, for you make this unsupported claim.

Did any of these societies or organizations look at the data 30 years ago and make a prediction of the movement of temperature? Do you have a record of that prediction and how it matches up with actual performance of the climate?

The only such prediction that I'm aware of is the one by Hansen that is wrong.

If this is just some folks standing around guessing, which it seems to be, then broad generalized comments about impending warming are about all we could expect.

If these folks are really scientists and they have actual data and expertise, then acurate predictions are what we could expect.

What are we justified in expecting?

 

[code1211]

I love people who do not of degrees in science or anything close, questioning people who actually do.

It's nice to be loved.

Yes, one has to love the mentally handicapped, they try so hard.

My, my! We are snipy tonight, aren't we?

The great thing about questioning these guys is that there is no answer except that they are really, really smart.

They are also really, really wrong and really, really in love with a conclusion that is yet to be proven.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

one has to love the mentally handicapped, they try so hard.

Yes, you have tried VERY hard, to avoid this thread:

IPCC Took Glacier Info from Student Dissertation

I wonder why.

 

[Big Fitz]

Do you really think that we have no effect on our envirnment?

Yes. It's a proven fact we have localized effects on our environment. BUT, our immediate environment is not the global climate. There is no proof that mankind has been able to harm the globe or change it's weather across the entire planet.

The biggest thing I can think of we did was Acid Rain which was only a regional event at best. But did that change the weather? No. It precipitated weak sulfuric acid from the clouds as a response to dissolved Sulfur Dioxide sent into the atmosphere by unfiltered industrial power plants.

Beyond that, the best we've done is localized events.

Don't forget how BIG the world is. 72% of the globe is covered in water/ocean. Of the remaining 28% we are not everywhere, nor do we have such a population density as to dominate every aspect of weather.

We have not shown the ability to change the temperature, let alone cause rain except in even the most localized means if even that is true. Rainmaking has a long history of fraud and failure.

All this said, the one thing we've proven to be able to do: poison ourselves. Everything from Love Canal to PCBs in the Great Lakes and waterways to the Exxon Valdez. Does this affect climate? Not so much, but it sure wreaks merry havoc with living things.

And now to top it off, it's turning out the experts on global warming have been lying to push an agenda. The Hadley CRU hack apparently was the tip of the icecube. The British Press seems to be incensed and about every week a new whopper of a revelation at the amount of fraud and scientific malfeasance is popping up for all to see.

It is why everyone should be skeptical of claims of imminent catastrophe if we do not commit to radical political change to a totalitarian way of life.

 

[Big Fitz]

one has to love the mentally handicapped, they try so hard.

Yes, you have tried VERY hard, to avoid this thread:

IPCC Took Glacier Info from Student Dissertation

I wonder why.

Ack! It r has teh krypdummites!

 

[Big Fitz]

CO2, the gas you exhale, is now a pollutant. Time to cap and trade your breathing.

Are there two corks big enough for Ole Crocks? One for each end?