Three Big Supporters Throw Climate Hoaxers Overboard

[CMike]

Here is another report:

According to the World Climate Report, several errors have been found in the fourth assessment Report (AR4) of the IPCC, which include setbacks with African agriculture, Himalayan glaciers, attribution of damages from extreme weather events and the significant increase in sea ice. Majority of the errors come from the non peer-reviewed sources.

IPCC underestimated Antarctic sea ice increase by 50%

However, they still want your money.

From your link

Peer-reviewed literature shows that there has been an increase in the sea ice around Antarctica since the late 1970s when the first satellite observations were published, reports Climate Research News. However, the AR4 established the evidence and concluded the increase was only half the rate established in peer-reviewed studies and that it was, statistically speaking, insignificant as well. Therefore, the rise in sea ice in Antarctica was ignored in order to highlight the decline in sea ice in the Arctic, states the WCR.
In 2001, the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) was released and in the executive summary it stated, “Satellite data indicate that after a possible initial decrease in the mid-1970s, Antarctic sea-ice extent has stayed almost stable or even increased since 1978.”

Say it ain't so Joe?

You mean that they would fudge data so that they can draw the conclusions they want to draw?

 

[Ame®icano]

Here is another report:

According to the World Climate Report, several errors have been found in the fourth assessment Report (AR4) of the IPCC, which include setbacks with African agriculture, Himalayan glaciers, attribution of damages from extreme weather events and the significant increase in sea ice. Majority of the errors come from the non peer-reviewed sources.

IPCC underestimated Antarctic sea ice increase by 50%

However, they still want your money.

From your link

Peer-reviewed literature shows that there has been an increase in the sea ice around Antarctica since the late 1970s when the first satellite observations were published, reports Climate Research News. However, the AR4 established the evidence and concluded the increase was only half the rate established in peer-reviewed studies and that it was, statistically speaking, insignificant as well. Therefore, the rise in sea ice in Antarctica was ignored in order to highlight the decline in sea ice in the Arctic, states the WCR.
In 2001, the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) was released and in the executive summary it stated, “Satellite data indicate that after a possible initial decrease in the mid-1970s, Antarctic sea-ice extent has stayed almost stable or even increased since 1978.”

Say it ain't so Joe?

You mean that they would fudge data so that they can draw the conclusions they want to draw?

We should ask Al Gore perhaps.

 

[Ame®icano]

Here is what British are saying about it:

The legal challenges and splits in the US climate consensus follow revelations of major flaws in the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, which declared that global warming was no longer scientifically contestable.

Critics of America's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are now mounting a series of legal challenges to its so-called "endangerment finding" that greenhouse gases are a threat to human health.

Barack Obama's climate change policy in crisis

And he still wants to shove it down our throats. Insane.

 

[Ame®icano]

Oops, here is another one.

Scientists have been forced to withdraw a study on projected sea level rise due to global warming after finding mistakes that undermined the findings.

The study, published in 2009 in Nature Geoscience, one of the top journals in its field, confirmed the conclusions of the 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It used data over the last 22,000 years to predict that sea level would rise by between 7cm and 82cm by the end of the century.

Climate scientists withdraw journal claims of rising sea levels.

And Dems are still debating about cap & trade.

In the other news, Gore is getting ready to "show by example" and return undeserved Nobel prize.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

It's a government report.

If you want to check it then check it.

That's awesome, I think you're probably a little retarded, so I'll try this again more slowly.

The pamphlet you showed me, here:
http://www.freedomworks.org/reports/env-acidrain.pdf
was written by the right wing think tank "Citizens for a Sound Economy"

The entire factual basis of the pamphlet is based on a single source, namely, the National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program's report from the year 1990 (dated 1990, actually published 1991). This report is 520 pages long. No page numbers are cited in the pamphlet, nor are any direct quotations made.

Now, I don't mean to get your self esteem down, because I know that sort of thing is important to special people like yourself - but a link to the 2005 report by the same group does not help anyone verify the source actually used in the pamphlet you linked to. It was a very nice try, and you should be encouraged by your mental progress - but its not going to help anyone.


What we actually need is the page numbers from that 1990 report which the Citizens for a Sound Economy actually used. The Citizens for a Sound Economy failed to provide these page numbers.

Do you understand, or do we need to try this again?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Here is another report:

According to the World Climate Report, several errors have been found in the fourth assessment Report (AR4) of the IPCC, which include setbacks with African agriculture, Himalayan glaciers, attribution of damages from extreme weather events and the significant increase in sea ice. Majority of the errors come from the non peer-reviewed sources.

The World Climate Report is published by a PR firm

New Hope Environmental Services - SourceWatch


So I fail to see why they matter.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Peer-reviewed literature shows that there has been an increase in the sea ice around Antarctica since the late 1970s when the first satellite observations were published, reports Climate Research News

Funny how instead of citing the actual peer reviewed literature, they cite another right wing think tank who says it exists.




Do you guys actually get any of your science from scientific papers?

 

[Oddball]

Kevin and I will keep them (skeptical research papers) out (of the IPCC) somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !”

~Phil Jones, CRU

 

[SpidermanTuba]

I anxiously await you actually making any sort of argument at all about anything.

 

[Oddball]

Don't need to...The fraudulent façade of your "science" is crumbling by the day, on its own accord.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Don't need to...The fraudulent façade of your "science" is crumbling by the day, on its own accord.

You have absolutely nothing at all to bring to this discussion, do you? Why do you waste so much time saying absolutely nothing, over and over again?

 

[Oddball]

There's no evidence that you'd accept to prove your science fiction wrong, short of Phil Jones and Michel Mann coming out and saying "APRIL FOOOOLS!"....And I'd give long odds that you wouldn't even accept that.

So, what's the point?

 

[oreo]

So Gore got his Nobel Prize based on unsubstantiated facts that he said were substantiated and Obama got his based on speculation and promises that he has yet to keep.

Seems the liberal Americans are doing great stuff enhancing our image on the world stage.

Good one---

 

[CMike]

Peer-reviewed literature shows that there has been an increase in the sea ice around Antarctica since the late 1970s when the first satellite observations were published, reports Climate Research News

Funny how instead of citing the actual peer reviewed literature, they cite another right wing think tank who says it exists.




Do you guys actually get any of your science from scientific papers?

Still waiting for you to post scientific papers.

So far all you try and do is shoot down the facts that other's post.

 

[CMike]

Don't need to...The fraudulent façade of your "science" is crumbling by the day, on its own accord.

You have absolutely nothing at all to bring to this discussion, do you? Why do you waste so much time saying absolutely nothing, over and over again?

Why do you?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Still waiting for you to post scientific papers.

Here's a few. Check out google scholar for more.

http://www.pik-potsdam.de/research/...ysis/projects/integration/objectives/rg99.pdf


http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~plattner/papers/joos99sci.pdf

https://www.gfdl.gov/bibliography/related_files/jls9601.pdf

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.140.7788&rep=rep1&type=pdf

 

[CMike]

And what page and paragraph numbers are you referring too?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

And what page and paragraph numbers are you referring too?

That depends on what you're looking for.

 

[CMike]

And what page and paragraph numbers are you referring too?

That depends on what you're looking for.

It depends on the point that you want to make.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

And what page and paragraph numbers are you referring too?

That depends on what you're looking for.

It depends on the point that you want to make.

I'm not trying to make one.