Triple OUCH! Meltdown of the climate 'consensus'

[teapartysamurai]

Ooooo, the liberal global warming Ox is getting, ahem . . . Gored!

If this keeps up, no one's going to trust any scientists.
The global-warming establishment took a body blow this week, as the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change received a stunning rebuke from a top-notch independent investigation. ​

But the prestigious InterAcademy Council, an independent association of "the best scientists and engineers worldwide" (as the group's own Web site puts it) formed in 2000 to give "high-quality advice to international bodies," has finished a thorough review of IPCC practices -- and found them badly wanting.

For example, the IPCC's much-vaunted Fourth Assessment Report claimed in 2007 that Himalayan glaciers were rapidly melting, and would possibly be gone by the year 2035. The claim was actually false -- yet the IPCC cited it as proof of man-made global warming.

Some IPCC practices can only be called shoddy. As The Wall Street Journal reported, "Some scientists invited by the IPCC to review the 2007 report before it was published questioned the Himalayan claim. But those challenges 'were not adequately considered,' the InterAcademy Council's investigation said, and the projection was included in the final report."

Yet the Himalayan claim wasn't based on peer-reviewed scientific data, or on any data -- but on spec ulation in a phone interview by a single scientist. ​

​

​

​

Read all here:
Meltdown of the climate 'consensus' - NYPOST.com​

Now this is NO SURPRISE to conservatives. We have been waying for two decades that global warming was a hoax and based on shoddy science.​

YET, liberals have insisted on "consensus" science as their "moral authority" for global warming.​

But, since the emails were released showing the shoddy and somtimes FRADULENT efforts made to "prove" global warming, that "consensus" is falling apart.​

Scientists are no longer afraid to be called a "global warming denier" (like some holocaust denier, so ridiculous) and are finding the voice to speak up.​

Global warming is not about "saving the planet," but about far left radicals who want to take CONTROL of the planet and force their radical ideas on YOU and I.​

Like Al Gore, they want us to practically live in grass huts to "reduce our carbon footprint" while THEY live the lives of jet setters.​

Watching this lie, finally fall apart is wonderful to see.​

Remember this when you vote in November. The Democrats are all for this and wanted to force CAP AND TRADE on you, BASED ON A COMPLETE LIE. ​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

[Ravi]

You're trying too hard.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You're trying too hard.

That's all you got?

 

[Old Rocks]

First, the year 2035 was a typo, it was supposed to read 2350. It should have been caught in the proof reading.

Second, the rest of Teabagger Wimp's drivel is just that, drivel.

As far as the scientific consensus on AGW and it's dangers, read the policy statements of Scientific Societies, especially those that deal with physics, chemistry, geology, or biology. Then try to find any scientific society, anywhere in the world, that states differantly.

What we have here is the Conservative attempt to denigrate science and scientists because they don't like to have to face up to reality.

 

[teapartysamurai]

You're trying too hard.

That's all you got?

Actually it's the liberals who are trying too hard to shut up anyone who challenges their lies.

Yes, that is all they have. It's funny to watch their dreams of power melt before their eyes.

 

[teapartysamurai]

First, the year 2035 was a typo, it was supposed to read 2350. It should have been caught in the proof reading.

Second, the rest of Teabagger Wimp's drivel is just that, drivel.

As far as the scientific consensus on AGW and it's dangers, read the policy statements of Scientific Societies, especially those that deal with physics, chemistry, geology, or biology. Then try to find any scientific society, anywhere in the world, that states differantly.

What we have here is the Conservative attempt to denigrate science and scientists because they don't like to have to face up to reality.

What we have here is the typical Al Gore style screed of "consensus" science and how DARE anyone question that.

You don't cite any facts to refute, you just scream.

Too funny.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

First, the year 2035 was a typo, it was supposed to read 2350. It should have been caught in the proof reading.

Second, the rest of Teabagger Wimp's drivel is just that, drivel.

As far as the scientific consensus on AGW and it's dangers, read the policy statements of Scientific Societies, especially those that deal with physics, chemistry, geology, or biology. Then try to find any scientific society, anywhere in the world, that states differantly.

What we have here is the Conservative attempt to denigrate science and scientists because they don't like to have to face up to reality.

Sure, 2350, that sounds right.

Maybe they were talking about the Van Halen album and they meant 5150?

Either way, there's no science at all backing the claim.

 

[IanC]

The criticisms of the IPCC are about the upper management, not the majority of scientists working in the background. It is not the scientists fault that their research has been twisted into 'declaring the science settled' , when in fact it is not.

Quite a few have bitterly complained when the information that they provided and signed their name to, was morphed into something else with the uncertainties removed by the time the IPCC reports were published.

 

[westwall]

First, the year 2035 was a typo, it was supposed to read 2350. It should have been caught in the proof reading.

Second, the rest of Teabagger Wimp's drivel is just that, drivel.

As far as the scientific consensus on AGW and it's dangers, read the policy statements of Scientific Societies, especially those that deal with physics, chemistry, geology, or biology. Then try to find any scientific society, anywhere in the world, that states differantly.

What we have here is the Conservative attempt to denigrate science and scientists because they don't like to have to face up to reality.

Second off Pachauri was informed TWO months before the publication and did nothing about it...now it's fraud buckwheat. Who cares what political societies have to say. They derive their funding from supporting the fraud.

Reaching a scientific consensus is an ongoing process that involves multiple datasets, lines of evidence, and repeated criticism and refinement of hypotheses. None of which the AGW alarmists engage in. They actively subvert criticism thereby corrupting the process at its beginning.

They have reduced "scientific consensus" to a survey. That is a joke.

 

[Old Rocks]

Come on, Walleyes. Scientific consensus, as in the vast majority of scientists that have looked at the evidence accept the theory that AGW is real and a clear and present danger. Why else would all the Scientific Societies in the world, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities state that in their policy statements?

Surely, if the scientific consensus did not exist, you could find a scientific society in Outer Slobovia that would agree with your viewpoint.

 

[Sunshine]

When glaciers start disappearing, I really don't think there is any argument that the weather patterns are changing. I think the argument is about the importance of it. Or whether, if caused by man, it can be turned back the other way by man. Or perhpas whether the earth herself has a way to deal with it. That last one would be my guess. But I doubt I'll live long enough to know.

 

[blu]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw&feature=related]YouTube - George Carlin - Saving the Planet[/ame]

george carlin destroying the global warming movement

 

[Zoom-boing]

YouTube - George Carlin - Saving the Planet

george carlin destroying the global warming movement

"Two hundred years vs. four and a half billion years". Carlin nails it.

 

[Old Rocks]

When glaciers start disappearing, I really don't think there is any argument that the weather patterns are changing. I think the argument is about the importance of it. Or whether, if caused by man, it can be turned back the other way by man. Or perhpas whether the earth herself has a way to deal with it. That last one would be my guess. But I doubt I'll live long enough to know.

Had you asked me in 1990 whether I would be alive to see the changes that we are seeing right now, I would have said "No way". But here we are, only twenty years later, with changes that involve melting glaciers, and changing weather patterns impacting agriculture in a major way, not even mentioning what we are seeing in the Arctic.

Yes, the Earth does have a way to deal with it. But it is not in the human time frame, nor does it consider what is neccessary for the existance of seven billion humans or more.

 

[blu]

First, the year 2035 was a typo, it was supposed to read 2350. It should have been caught in the proof reading.

Second, the rest of Teabagger Wimp's drivel is just that, drivel.

As far as the scientific consensus on AGW and it's dangers, read the policy statements of Scientific Societies, especially those that deal with physics, chemistry, geology, or biology. Then try to find any scientific society, anywhere in the world, that states differantly.

What we have here is the Conservative attempt to denigrate science and scientists because they don't like to have to face up to reality.

tea bagged sam wouldn't even understand the abstracts in such publications

 

[westwall]

Come on, Walleyes. Scientific consensus, as in the vast majority of scientists that have looked at the evidence accept the theory that AGW is real and a clear and present danger. Why else would all the Scientific Societies in the world, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities state that in their policy statements?

Surely, if the scientific consensus did not exist, you could find a scientific society in Outer Slobovia that would agree with your viewpoint.

Look up the real meaning of and the difficult methodology required to reach scientific consensus sometime olfraud. It will surprise you just how difficult it is to obtain. It does not consist of some person sending out a questionnaire asking "do you believe in AGW?!"

 

[taichiliberal]

First, the year 2035 was a typo, it was supposed to read 2350. It should have been caught in the proof reading.

Second, the rest of Teabagger Wimp's drivel is just that, drivel.

As far as the scientific consensus on AGW and it's dangers, read the policy statements of Scientific Societies, especially those that deal with physics, chemistry, geology, or biology. Then try to find any scientific society, anywhere in the world, that states differantly.

What we have here is the Conservative attempt to denigrate science and scientists because they don't like to have to face up to reality.

Bottom line: the deniers were handed a devastating blow when "climategate" backfired royally on them....so this is all they have left.

Newspapers Retract 'Climategate' Claims, but Damage Still Done - Newsweek

 

[westwall]

First, the year 2035 was a typo, it was supposed to read 2350. It should have been caught in the proof reading.

Second, the rest of Teabagger Wimp's drivel is just that, drivel.

As far as the scientific consensus on AGW and it's dangers, read the policy statements of Scientific Societies, especially those that deal with physics, chemistry, geology, or biology. Then try to find any scientific society, anywhere in the world, that states differantly.

What we have here is the Conservative attempt to denigrate science and scientists because they don't like to have to face up to reality.

Bottom line: the deniers were handed a devastating blow when "climategate" backfired royally on them....so this is all they have left.

Newspapers Retract 'Climategate' Claims, but Damage Still Done - Newsweek

Oh yes CLIMATEGATE backfired so bad that worldwide the concern about GW has dropped to all time lows, cap and tax is dead in the US congress, the EU has abandoned any pretense of passing carbon regulations, CCX has begun laying off employee's, and the list goes on and on.

You really are out of touch aren't you!

 

[Old Rocks]

At an all time low because of the present economic situation. However, the events in Pakistan and Russia is definately putting the issue up front again.

 

[Old Rocks]

Come on, Walleyes. Scientific consensus, as in the vast majority of scientists that have looked at the evidence accept the theory that AGW is real and a clear and present danger. Why else would all the Scientific Societies in the world, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities state that in their policy statements?

Surely, if the scientific consensus did not exist, you could find a scientific society in Outer Slobovia that would agree with your viewpoint.

Look up the real meaning of and the difficult methodology required to reach scientific consensus sometime olfraud. It will surprise you just how difficult it is to obtain. It does not consist of some person sending out a questionnaire asking "do you believe in AGW?!"

Same twaddle that the creationists use to discount the consensus on evolution. And about as revelant. Care to show us a major scientific organization that states that AGW is not happening?