Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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.
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.
I don't care who is at fault. The fact is, hacks like Al Gore are using this "settled science" bit to claim there is no longer a debate about global warming it's "settled."
The fact is, as conservatives has said for more than 20 years, nothing is settled and it's pretty obvious there are huge gaping holes in global warming "science."
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?
Let's see here, this is the program for 2009............
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.
I don't care who is at fault. The fact is, hacks like Al Gore are using this "settled science" bit to claim there is no longer a debate about global warming it's "settled."
The fact is, as conservatives has said for more than 20 years, nothing is settled and it's pretty obvious there are huge gaping holes in global warming "science."
Ok, Wimp, point them out.
I don't care who is at fault. The fact is, hacks like Al Gore are using this "settled science" bit to claim there is no longer a debate about global warming it's "settled."
The fact is, as conservatives has said for more than 20 years, nothing is settled and it's pretty obvious there are huge gaping holes in global warming "science."
Ok, Wimp, point them out.
With pleasure!
Satellites screwed up data sets for last ten years in doubt
Climate Change Dispatch - Official: Satellite Failure Means Decade of Global Warming Data Doubtful
What was that about a consensus?
Kyoto is costing Russia too much - Telegraph
The IPCC just got the crap slapped out of it....
Pachauri Defrocked NoFrakkingConsensus
CCX is on the outs...
Chicago Climate Exchange drops 50%, new record low | Watts Up With That?
I could go on and on!
You're trying too hard.
You're trying too hard.
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!
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!
You can stamp your feet and wail to the moon all you want...but the bottom line is that a MAJOR talking point that folk with your mindset on the subject SWORE was a death blow to the the whole issue of climate change and global warming WAS PROVEN TO BE WRONG. PERIOD.
And you just can't deal with that, so you throw everything and the kitchen sink in order to avoid a simple admission of fact and history.
Wow, whatever it is that you're smoking must be real powerful 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!
You can stamp your feet and wail to the moon all you want...but the bottom line is that a MAJOR talking point that folk with your mindset on the subject SWORE was a death blow to the the whole issue of climate change and global warming WAS PROVEN TO BE WRONG. PERIOD.
And you just can't deal with that, so you throw everything and the kitchen sink in order to avoid a simple admission of fact and history.
You can stamp your feet and wail to the moon all you want...but the bottom line is that a MAJOR talking point that folk with your mindset on the subject SWORE was a death blow to the the whole issue of climate change and global warming WAS PROVEN TO BE WRONG. PERIOD.
And you just can't deal with that, so you throw everything and the kitchen sink in order to avoid a simple admission of fact and history.
And there you have it, folks.....intellectually bankrupt cowards like Westie just can't handle the truth when it proves them wrong. They'll say anything to avoid admitting/acknowledging a simple fact that disproves one of their beliefs....which is so much more to pity them.
And there you have it, folks.....intellectually bankrupt cowards like Westie just can't handle the truth when it proves them wrong. They'll say anything to avoid admitting/acknowledging a simple fact that disproves one of their beliefs....which is so much more to pity them.
Proving yet again how deluded tackylib is. Pre Climategate it was looking pretty grim for the free peoples of the world. Post Climategate and the alarmists are in retreat all around the globe.
This is the low level to which they have fallen. They are trying to promote the regulation of cow farts and belches to control GHG's
Penn State Live - Unusual feed supplement could ease greenhouse gassy cows
And yet you stil cannot be adult enough or intellectually honest enough to admit when you're wrong. Dodge all you want, but you can't escape a matter of fact and history....instead you present yourself as a prime example of what the following article is all about
Newspapers Retract 'Climategate' Claims, but Damage Still Done - Newsweek
Laugh that one off, chuckles.
Committee member Graham Stringer MP said this went against what the university had said at the time.
"We were told very clearly both by press releases and by Acton when he came [before the committee] that this was going to be an investigation into the science. Oxburgh made it very clear that it was an investigation into the integrity of the scientists," he said.
"I don't think it's reasonable to expect that inquiry to repeat a peer review analysis of the papers themselves," he said.
"That is the responsibility of the journals that published them. I think the science community is satisfied and therefore parliament should be as well that the scientific reputations of the individuals and the unit remain intact."
Oxburgh defended the inquiry from MPs' suggestions that the nine-page report which took less than a month to complete was superficial or rushed.
Through FOI requests, we have obtained the actual schedule of the Oxburgh panel online here.
Here is the actual schedule for the panel hearings in Norwich on April 7-8.
9:30 a.m. 9.45 a.m. Taxi to CRU (drop off Zicer Layby) Met by Acting Director, CRU Prof Peter Liss and Jacqui Churchill, VCO Coffee and Tour round CRU
9.45 a.m. 10.45 a.m. Meeting with Phil Jones, Tim Osborn and team in CRU Library 30 minute presentation by Phil Jones followed by questions
10.45-11.00 am Coffee served in CRU library
11.00-12:30 pm Discussion CRU Library
12:30-1:30 pm LUNCH for panel members room number 00.2 CRU
1:30-3:30 pm Discussion CRU Library
3.30-4.30 pm If needed: follow-up meeting with Phil Jones and Peter Liss
4.30-5.30 pm Panel private meeting
5.30 pm Peter Liss to chaperone Panel to Zicer Layby for taxis to hotel
7.00 p.m. Working Dinner at Caistor Hall
Thursday 8 April
8.45am- 9.00 a.m. Taxi to CRU (drop off Zicer Layby). Met by Acting Director, CRU Prof Peter Liss Coffee in CRU
9.15 a.m. 10.45 a.m. Meeting with Phil Jones, Tim Osborn and team in CRU Library
10.45-11.00 am Coffee served in CRU library
11.00-12:30 pm Discussion CRU Library
12:30-1:30 pm LUNCH for panel members Sainsbury Centre, Garden Restaurant Jacqui to collect and escort
1.30 p.m. 3.00 p.m. Final Meeting
3.00 p.m. 3.30 p.m. Coffee + Depart in taxis from Zicer Layby
Travel arrangements (obtained through FOI) show that this schedule was adhered to. Oxburgh arrived in Norwich at 6:30 pm on the evening of April 6 and had a train reservation back to Cambridge at 3.40 pm on April 8.
and the ending paragraph-Stringer says Anglia appointee Muir Russell (a civil servant and former Vice Chancellor of Glasgow University), failed in three significant areas.
"Why did they delete emails? The key question was what reason they had for doing this, but this was never addressed; not getting to the central motivation was a major failing both of our report and Muir Russell."
Graham Stringer
Stringer also says that it was unacceptable for Russell (who is not a scientist) to conclude that CRU's work was reproducible, when the data needed was not available. He goes further:
"The fact that you can make up your own experiments and get similar results doesn't mean that you're doing what's scientifically expected of you. You need to follow the same methodology of the process."
"I was surprised at Phil Jones' answers to the questions I asked him [in Parliament]. The work was never replicable," says Stringer.
In 2004 Jones had declined to give out data that would have permitted independent scrutiny of their work, explaining that "We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it."
This policy is confirmed several times in the emails, with Jones also advising colleagues to destroy evidence helpful to people wishing to reproduce the team's results.
Climategate may finally be living up to its name. If you recall, it wasn't the burglary or use of funding that led to the impeachment of Nixon, but the cover-up. Now, ominously, three inquiries into affair have raised more questions than there were before.
OK, Ian, you don't like what the scientists all over the world are reporting. We understand that. But it changes the evidence not one whit.
It is not just the people in England, or Mann, or Dr. Hansen. It is people in all fields of science. Physicists, chemists, geologists, biologists, ect. that are stating the AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. Even the agriculteral community is pointing out the changes in growing seasons and weather variability.
Go ahead and sing in the chorus of denial. Won't change what is happening.
LOL. Really, Walleyes! OK, where are the scientific societies that are revolting and changing their policy statements to reflect evidence that AGW is not a fact? Are you stating that all the Scientific Societies in the world, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities are in on a huge conspriracy? Got you little aluminum foil hat on?
Come on, dingbat, show a scientific society, even from Outer Slobovia, that claims that AGW is not real. In spite of all the differant political societies that these Scientific Societies exist in, you cannot do that, can you.
