Actual Spending on Global Warming.

[gallantwarrior]

The solution to AGW issue is simple, and very inexpensive. Since CO2 is a normally occurring byproduct of human respiration, I challenge every proponent of AGW, every worshiper of the whole AGW myth, to cease all respiration, and ensure that anyone in your family joins you in you effort to diminish humanity's contribution to CO2 emissions.
C'mon, step up and show us how committed you are to saving the environment.

 

[flacaltenn]

The solution to AGW issue is simple, and very inexpensive. Since CO2 is a normally occurring byproduct of human respiration, I challenge every proponent of AGW, every worshiper of the whole AGW myth, to cease all respiration, and ensure that anyone in your family joins you in you effort to diminish humanity's contribution to CO2 emissions.
C'mon, step up and show us how committed you are to saving the environment.

As the govt says.. "Give a hoot, dont pollute"..
On second thought -- hold your hoot...

"If you want to save the Planet, Stop breathing dammit"

 

[itfitzme]

"costs" never matter to the climate crusading k00ks.


Reminds one of the classic saying....... "a conservative needs to see it to believe it......a liberal needs to believe it to see it."

Like what? Like this?





Cuz your looking at it right now and you still refuse to believe it.

Kind blows your beliefs right out of the water.

 

[daveman]

"costs" never matter to the climate crusading k00ks.


Reminds one of the classic saying....... "a conservative needs to see it to believe it......a liberal needs to believe it to see it."

Like what? Like this?





Cuz your looking at it right now and you still refuse to believe it.

Kind blows your beliefs right out of the water.

Images on Photobucket are not scientific evidence.

But, you believe it, so you see it -- thus proving Skooks right.

 

[Old Rocks]

"costs" never matter to the climate crusading k00ks.


Reminds one of the classic saying....... "a conservative needs to see it to believe it......a liberal needs to believe it to see it."

Like what? Like this?





Cuz your looking at it right now and you still refuse to believe it.

Kind blows your beliefs right out of the water.

Images on Photobucket are not scientific evidence.

But, you believe it, so you see it -- thus proving Skooks right.

That graph, and many more like it, has been produced from observations from scientists all over the world, in every nation of the world. So what you are stating is that there is a gigantic conspiracy involving millions of scientists from every nation in the world to fool poor little you. Tin foil hat material.

 

[polarbear]

Like what? Like this?





Cuz your looking at it right now and you still refuse to believe it.

Kind blows your beliefs right out of the water.

Images on Photobucket are not scientific evidence.

But, you believe it, so you see it -- thus proving Skooks right.

That graph, and many more like it, has been produced from observations from scientists all over the world, in every nation of the world. So what you are stating is that there is a gigantic conspiracy involving millions of scientists from every nation in the world to fool poor little you. Tin foil hat material.

Don`t you find it a bit strange that the red line in the graph on top, which simulates what the temp`s would have been without any CO2 almost matches what has been observed for the last 15 years?

And...:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2013/9

For the globe, ranks of individual years changed in some instances by a few positions, but global temperature trends changed no more than 0.01°C/century for any month since 1880.

which was the part "Mathew" chose not to mention in his post this morning.
That`s not a conspiracy, it`s just a childish attempt to bend the truth.
Again, if a bunch of activists masquerading as "scientists" and don`t even have a subject related diploma such as the 80% greenie activists that constitute the bulk of the IPCC review panel published nothing but utter nonsense for 25 years, that`s not a conspiracy.
It`s just a testament how many dumb people there are in all those countries which helped create an IPCC staffed with a bunch of clowns.
The IPCC is not the only example of UN incompetence either. Incompetence is the hallmark of the U.N. as much as the incompetence of "team Obama" is the hallmark of his entire administration. Both the IPCC and the current White House admin have become an international laughing stock.
Btw. Look it up what it takes for something to qualify as a conspiracy.
Are liberals too dumb to understand the difference between a conspiracy and plain old propaganda & exaggerations ?
Can`t any of you guys come up with anything better than the standard samo samo liberal insinuations which are at the same reflex level as the squeaks of preconditioned lab rats.

 

[flacaltenn]

Like what? Like this?





Cuz your looking at it right now and you still refuse to believe it.

Kind blows your beliefs right out of the water.

Images on Photobucket are not scientific evidence.

But, you believe it, so you see it -- thus proving Skooks right.

That graph, and many more like it, has been produced from observations from scientists all over the world, in every nation of the world. So what you are stating is that there is a gigantic conspiracy involving millions of scientists from every nation in the world to fool poor little you. Tin foil hat material.

The only thing worse than poor performing models, is attempting to describe the climate system with curve fitting exercises that completely LACK any modeling.. Warmers and skeptics alike are wasting time and energy on exercises like this..

There are many credible reasons why the output temperature curve SHOULD NOT be expected to match the SHAPE of the input forcings.. Systems theory tells us that based on our knowledge of what kind of math functions and observed behaviour are in the black box climate system..

 

[percysunshine]

Solar Power to the rescue!

BLM holds solar auction for Colorado public lands ? and no one shows - Denver Business Journal

The nation’s first federally run auction for a chance to develop solar power projects on public lands was a bust.

No bidders showed up for the auction by the federal Bureau of Land Management, which was held Thursday in Lakewood.

“We did not have any bidders come to the sale and we did not receive any sealed bids on the sale,” BLM spokeswoman Vanessa Lacayo said.

 

[daveman]

That graph, and many more like it, has been produced from observations from scientists all over the world, in every nation of the world. So what you are stating is that there is a gigantic conspiracy involving millions of scientists from every nation in the world to fool poor little you. Tin foil hat material.

No, I'm saying an unsourced graph is worthless.

Like I said: Skooks is right.

 

[polarbear]

The only thing worse than poor performing models, is attempting to describe the climate system with curve fitting exercises that completely LACK any modeling.. Warmers and skeptics alike are wasting time and energy on exercises like this..

There are many credible reasons why the output temperature curve SHOULD NOT be expected to match the SHAPE of the input forcings.. Systems theory tells us that based on our knowledge of what kind of math functions and observed behaviour are in the black box climate system..

We`ve been around that bend countless times. No matter the warmers imply that there is a linear relationship between CO2 and temperature whenever they show curves where both match up perfectly.
By now even the IPCC admits that for the last 15 years there was no match between these 2 components, the CO2 & observed temperatures.
That admission wasn`t voluntary either and were it not for "deniers" then to date there would not even be any admissions on any of the topics ranging from the glacier bungle to these modeled temperature projections.
However it`s a waste of time to discuss any of that with forum internet "scientists" such as PMZ etc.
It`s not a waste of time to examine the raw data yourself.
Even though the IPCC does not publish it in an open source format it`s all over the internet in pictorial form and tells an entirely different tale.
The best way to view pictures that on the surface create the impression that our planet is being "heated" at "alarming" rates is by viewing the pixel diagrams of the satellite pictures that have been published.

It`s just normal human perception to glance at all that red and conclude that most of the planet is hotter than it should be.
The color red invokes a stronger (instinctive) response than any other color. There are ~ 144000 pixels which are red to yellow, indicating an above 0 deg anomaly

And almost but not quite as many blue pixels which indicate the range from 0 to -4 deg anomaly.
That`s not even taking into account that the satellite view was from the equator which shrinks the areas near both poles.
The web pages and blogs that fancy using these images on the basis "a picture says more than a 1000 words" don`t bother to accompany any of these images with a quantitative analysis of the same picture but substitute with an evaluation from an entirely different source & data set.
Images such as these that appear to be red all over loose their sensational effect if you "waste" some time and examine them yourself.
It takes no more than a few mouse clicks. I "wasted" a bit of time with color coded satellite images whenever I had spare time to do so and the histograms of these images match up perfectly with what has been actually observed so far...a pronounced temperature stall.

 

[polarbear]

The only thing worse than poor performing models, is attempting to describe the climate system with curve fitting exercises that completely LACK any modeling.. Warmers and skeptics alike are wasting time and energy on exercises like this..

There are many credible reasons why the output temperature curve SHOULD NOT be expected to match the SHAPE of the input forcings.. Systems theory tells us that based on our knowledge of what kind of math functions and observed behaviour are in the black box climate system..

We`ve been around that bend countless times. No matter the warmers imply that there is a linear relationship between CO2 and temperature whenever they show curves where both match up perfectly.
By now even the IPCC admits that for the last 15 years there was no match between these 2 components, the CO2 & observed temperatures.
That admission wasn`t voluntary either and were it not for "deniers" then to date there would not even be any admissions on any of the topics ranging from the glacier bungle to these modeled temperature projections.
However it`s a waste of time to discuss any of that with forum internet "scientists" such as PMZ etc.
It`s not a waste of time to examine the raw data yourself.
Even though the IPCC does not publish it in an open source format it`s all over the internet in pictorial form and tells an entirely different tale.
The best way to view pictures that on the surface create the impression that our planet is being "heated" at "alarming" rates is by viewing the pixel diagrams of the satellite pictures that have been published.

It`s just normal human perception to glance at all that red and conclude that most of the planet is hotter than it should be.
The color red invokes a stronger (instinctive) response than any other color. There are ~ 144000 pixels which are red to yellow, indicating an above 0 deg anomaly

And almost but not quite as many blue pixels which indicate the range from 0 to -4 deg anomaly.
That`s not even taking into account that the satellite view was from the equator which shrinks the areas near both poles.
The web pages and blogs that fancy using these images on the basis "a picture says more than a 1000 words" don`t bother to accompany any of these images with a quantitative analysis of the same picture but substitute with an evaluation from an entirely different source & data set.
Images such as these that appear to be red all over loose their sensational effect if you "waste" some time and examine them yourself.
It takes no more than a few mouse clicks. I "wasted" a bit of time with color coded satellite images whenever I had spare time to do so and the histograms of these images match up perfectly with what has been actually observed so far...a pronounced temperature stall matching this graph almost exactly:

 

[flacaltenn]

PBear:

Nice...

The entire of idea of a "global average" forcing or a "global average" temperature or "global average" climate sensitity or a "global average" solar insolation ---- ALL of those HIDE and obscure the inner workings of the climate system.. Imagine that for decades now --- we are arguing about a SINGLE NUMBER. That's flat ass stupid..

And the jerks doing these mindless curve fits to "global averages" are actually PROVING my point. Because it's not that I don't believe that CO2 is a GreenHouse gas --- I DISBELIEVE the speculations about ACCELERATIONS of forcings due to feedbacks. And I'm convinced that CO2 has been exaggerated as a driver while other climate drivers have been purposely minimized.

So these beautifully fit curves say NOTHING about the VERY FEEDBACKS that are at the CRUX of disagreement on global Warming.. They ARE in operation are they not? If they are --- THEN BY DEFINITION --- the output temp curve SHOULD NOT match the measured input forcings..

 

[PoliticalChic]

Aside from the global warming issue, we're getting more independence from fossil fuels. Since fossil fuels and even nuclear fuels are finite, that's a necessary thing to do, unless you'd prefer to someday live without electricity. And no, invoking magic (fusion power) is not an option.

But then, maybe that's your hippie plan, to become a green treehugger type and hang out in a commune with some chick who doesn't shave.

"...we're getting more independence from fossil fuels. Since fossil fuels and even nuclear fuels are finite,..."

There is every reason to believe that we have far more energy reserves than the government estimates.

a. The 2008 USGS assessment estimated 3.0 to 4.3 billion barrels of undiscovered, technically recoverable oil in the U.S. portion of the Bakken Formation, elevating it to a “world-class” accumulation. The estimate had a mean value of 3.65 billion barrels. The USGS routinely conducts updates to oil and gas assessments when significant new information is available, such as new understanding of a resource basin’s geology or when advances in technology occur for drilling and production…. The 2008 USGS assessment showed a 25-fold increase in the amount of technically recoverable oil as compared to the agency's 1995 estimate of 151 million barrels of oil. Bakken Formation Oil Assessment in North Dakota, Montana will be updated by U.S. Geological Survey


b. Oil giant BP says it has made a "giant" new oil discovery in its fields in the Gulf of Mexico…. BP said the discovery, amounting to more than three billion barrels, would "support the continuing growth of our deepwater Gulf of Mexico business into the second half of the next decade". BBC NEWS | Business | BP in 'giant' new oil discovery


c. According to the US Geological Survey, the Arctic sea floor has 13% of the world's undiscovered "conventional" oil reserves and 30% of undiscovered natural-gas reserves. Oil-Drilling Trade-Offs: Keystone for Alaska

The Marcellus Shale [Pennsylvania, Oho, New York] could be one of the USA's most promising natural gas ...that the Marcellus might contain more than 500 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. ... Marcellus Shale Gas: New Research Results Surprise Geologists!

 

[flacaltenn]

"costs" never matter to the climate crusading k00ks.

And obviously from mammy's comments about "...global warming aside", neither does truth about your REASONS for spending.. As long as you get what you want.. Couldn't ask for more proof about the MOTIVATIONS behind AGW..

Fraud is acceptable if the cause is noble and just..

 

[polarbear]

PBear:

Nice...

The entire of idea of a "global average" forcing or a "global average" temperature or "global average" climate sensitity or a "global average" solar insolation ---- ALL of those HIDE and obscure the inner workings of the climate system.. Imagine that for decades now --- we are arguing about a SINGLE NUMBER. That's flat ass stupid..

And the jerks doing these mindless curve fits to "global averages" are actually PROVING my point. Because it's not that I don't believe that CO2 is a GreenHouse gas --- I DISBELIEVE the speculations about ACCELERATIONS of forcings due to feedbacks. And I'm convinced that CO2 has been exaggerated as a driver while other climate drivers have been purposely minimized.

So these beautifully fit curves say NOTHING about the VERY FEEDBACKS that are at the CRUX of disagreement on global Warming.. They ARE in operation are they not? If they are --- THEN BY DEFINITION --- the output temp curve SHOULD NOT match the measured input forcings..

That`s exactly the problem.
As far as the numbers for CO2 are concerned I go along with a value that has been measured by Heinz Hug:
The Climate Catastrophe - A Spectroscopic Artifact

[FONT=Arial, Geneva]Crucial is the relative increment of greenhouse effect . This is equal to the difference between the sum of slope integrals for 714 and 357 ppm, related to the total integral for 357 ppm. Considering the n[SIZE=-2]3[/SIZE] band alone (as IPCC does) we get[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva](9.79[SIZE=+1]*[/SIZE]10[SIZE=-2]-4[/SIZE] cm[SIZE=-2]-1[/SIZE] - 1.11[SIZE=+1]*[/SIZE]10[SIZE=-2]-4[/SIZE] cm[SIZE=-2]-1[/SIZE]) / 0.5171 cm[SIZE=-2]-1[/SIZE] = 0.17 %[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Geneva] Conclusions[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva]It is hardly to be expected that for CO[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE] doubling an increment of IR absorption at the 15 µm edges by 0.17% can cause any significant global warming or even a climate catastrophe.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Geneva]

The 15 [/FONT]µmband is not a "clear window" in the absence of CO2 either as long as there is water vapor present.
That`s why H.Hug did not exclude it in his measurements:

[FONT=Arial, Geneva]a microlitre syringe was used to add CO[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE] so that the concentration was 357 ppm (concentration in 1993). Moreover 2.6% water vapour was added.[/FONT]

That yields realistic values as you increase ppm CO2 and measure absorption.
If you do the same run without any moisture you get entirely different (larger) absorption increments as you up the ppm CO2 which does not slope off as quickly as it does when water vapor is present.
All the instruments the IPCC uses in the field use a cooling trap to condense all the moisture before the gas sample enters the measuring cuvette. It`s not as if they are cheating, it`s just way more difficult to measure a 10 ppm increment with their setup if they don`t freeze out the moisture because the absorption cure flattens too much in the range we currently are in. Which manifested itself in the temperature stall we have been since we hit that ppm CO2 level.
I`ld even go so far and suspect that the lower absolute moisture in the high arctic could explain why Ellesmere & Greenland did not follow suit, stalling as much as the more humid regions farther south during the same time period.

 

[Abraham3]

Here from the horse's mouth (or some other equine anatomy) is the latest estimate
on what's ACTUALLY BEING SPENT GLOBALLY every year on AGWarming...

World Is Spending $1 Billion Per Day To Tackle Global Warming | The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF)

Quality, objective source you've got there.

******
Global Warming Policy Foundation

The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) is a think tank in the United Kingdom, whose stated aims are to challenge "extremely damaging and harmful policies" envisaged by governments to mitigate anthropogenic global warming.[3][4]
Contents [show]
History[edit]

The foundation was established in November 2009, shortly after the start of the Climatic Research Unit email controversy, and its headquarters occupy a room at the Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining. Its director is the social anthropologist Benny Peiser,[5] and it is chaired by former Chancellor of the Exchequer Nigel Lawson.[6] GWPF states that it is "deeply concerned about the costs and other implications of many of the policies currently being advocated" to address climate change and that it aims to "bring reason, integrity and balance to a debate that has become seriously unbalanced, irrationally alarmist, and all too often depressingly intolerant".[4][7]
The GWPF website carries an array of articles skeptical of scientific findings of anthropogenic global warming.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming_Policy_Foundation

References:

1) GWPF, "Who We Are". Accessed: June 7, 2012.
2) GWPF, "Financial Statements Year Ended 31 July 2011". Accessed: June 7, 2012.
3) "Ed Miliband clashes with Lord Lawson on global warming". BBC News (news.bbc.co.uk). 6 December 2009. Retrieved 22 December 2009.
4) "Launched today!" (Press release). The Global Warming Policy Foundation. 23 November 2009. Retrieved 22 December 2009.
5) Davies, Caroline; Goldenberg, Suzanne (24 November 2009). "The voices of climate change sceptics : Environment". London: The Guardian. Retrieved 6 January 2012.
6) Judge, Peter (23 November 2009). "Climate Change Deniers Quote Hacked University Data". eWEEK Europe UK (techweekeurope.co.uk). Retrieved 2012–01-06.
7) Leake, Jonathan (29 November 2009). "The great climate change science scandal". The Sunday Times (London: timesonline.co.uk). Retrieved 22 December 2009.
******

Interestingly, despite harshly criticizing the UEA for their response to FOI requests, the GWPF has rejected and, in court, fought every FOI request brought to them concerning their funding and day to day operation. The court's so far, have ruled that they are not susceptible to such requests due to the "foundation's" insignificance.

 

[flacaltenn]

Here from the horse's mouth (or some other equine anatomy) is the latest estimate
on what's ACTUALLY BEING SPENT GLOBALLY every year on AGWarming...

World Is Spending $1 Billion Per Day To Tackle Global Warming | The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF)

Quality, objective source you've got there.

******
Global Warming Policy Foundation

The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) is a think tank in the United Kingdom, whose stated aims are to challenge "extremely damaging and harmful policies" envisaged by governments to mitigate anthropogenic global warming.[3][4]
Contents [show]
History[edit]

The foundation was established in November 2009, shortly after the start of the Climatic Research Unit email controversy, and its headquarters occupy a room at the Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining. Its director is the social anthropologist Benny Peiser,[5] and it is chaired by former Chancellor of the Exchequer Nigel Lawson.[6] GWPF states that it is "deeply concerned about the costs and other implications of many of the policies currently being advocated" to address climate change and that it aims to "bring reason, integrity and balance to a debate that has become seriously unbalanced, irrationally alarmist, and all too often depressingly intolerant".[4][7]
The GWPF website carries an array of articles skeptical of scientific findings of anthropogenic global warming.

Global Warming Policy Foundation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

References:

1) GWPF, "Who We Are". Accessed: June 7, 2012.
2) GWPF, "Financial Statements Year Ended 31 July 2011". Accessed: June 7, 2012.
3) "Ed Miliband clashes with Lord Lawson on global warming". BBC News (news.bbc.co.uk). 6 December 2009. Retrieved 22 December 2009.
4) "Launched today!" (Press release). The Global Warming Policy Foundation. 23 November 2009. Retrieved 22 December 2009.
5) Davies, Caroline; Goldenberg, Suzanne (24 November 2009). "The voices of climate change sceptics : Environment". London: The Guardian. Retrieved 6 January 2012.
6) Judge, Peter (23 November 2009). "Climate Change Deniers Quote Hacked University Data". eWEEK Europe UK (techweekeurope.co.uk). Retrieved 2012–01-06.
7) Leake, Jonathan (29 November 2009). "The great climate change science scandal". The Sunday Times (London: timesonline.co.uk). Retrieved 22 December 2009.
******

Interestingly, despite harshly criticizing the UEA for their response to FOI requests, the GWPF has rejected and, in court, fought every FOI request brought to them concerning their funding and day to day operation. The court's so far, have ruled that they are not susceptible to such requests due to the "foundation's" insignificance.

You're a piece of work.. I suppose if you start from the premise that NO ONE should be allowed to be concerned about this $Bill/day spending -- you might have a point. I have no problem with think tanks who analyze this public policy and determine HOW MUCH, WHERE IT GOES, HOW effective it is, and HOW it's become a tool of Global Social Justice.

Are they CORRECT? If they ARE CORRECT - must they STFU to please you? And when will you become more concerned about CONTENT AND QUALITY of the debate, rather than the bios of the folks involved?

 

[polarbear]

Interestingly, despite harshly criticizing the UEA for their response to FOI requests, the GWPF has rejected and, in court, fought every FOI request brought to them concerning their funding and day to day operation. The court's so far, have ruled that they are not susceptible to such requests due to the "foundation's" insignificance.

So what is that supposed to prove ? Conflict of interest ?
They are not legally obliged to make that information public, but do fully disclose it to the Exchequer, the British version of the IRS.
How many of the .orgs that you agree with make their financial records available to the general public?
It`s not as if the GWPF was a public corporation that has to answer to investors and sure as shit is not obliged to serve that info on a platter to a bunch of cheats like the current IPCC staff who wants to discredit them.
If the IPCC were a non biased organization based on scientific principles then why did they replace Sir Robert (Tony) Watson with Rajendra K. Pachauri?
In contrast to Pachuri Watson did have the proper credentials:

Sir Robert Tony Watson CMG (born March 21, 1948) is a British scientist who has worked on atmospheric science issues including ozone depletion, global warming and paleoclimatology since the 1980s.
Watson received a PhD in Chemistry from Queen Mary College, University of London in 1973. He has received awards for his contributions to science, including the NAS Award for Scientific Reviewing from the National Academy of Sciences in 1992,[1] the American Association for the Advancement of Science Award for Scientific Freedom and Responsibility in 1993 and the insignia of Honorary Companion of St Michael and St George from the British Government in 2003.
Watson was the Director of the Science Division and Chief Scientist for the Office of Mission to Planet Earth at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Watson then became Associate Director for Environment in the Office of the President of the United States in the White House.

And Pachuri:

Born in Nainital, India, Rajendra K. Pachauri was elected chief of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2002. the IPCC was stablished by WMO and UNEP to assess scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant for understanding climate change, its potential impacts, and options for adaptation and mitigation.

Pachauri also serves as the head of The Energy Research Institute, a developing-country institution devoted to sustainable development.

The Energy Research Institute, now there is a conflict of interest !
TERI - The Energy and Resources Institute

Going green is smart economics in a resource constrained world, as maintaining high environmental standards is now a prerequisite for achieving steady, long-term growth, writes
Dr R K Pachauri, Director-General, TERI, along with co-authors

Does he publicly disclose his financial ties and dealings he has with these "green energy" companies...? Of course not.
What he did is load up the IPCC "review panel" with his cronies and "co-authors" and uses the IPCC you and I have to support with mega taxes to shove what his "TERI" energy institute is trying to sell.

Watson had to go, because he did no longer fit the agenda:

"The mistakes all appear to have gone in the direction of making it seem like climate change is more serious by overstating the impact. That is worrying. The IPCC needs to look at this trend in the errors and ask why it happened." Adding "We should always be challenged by sceptics. The IPCC’s job is to weigh up the evidence. If it can’t be dismissed, it should be included in the report. Point out it’s in the minority and, if you can’t say why it’s wrong, just say it’s a different view

Strange how big government supporters like you don`t have any problems with Obama`s refusal to disclose facts you are entitled to know, but demand full public disclosure from everyone else you don`t like & disagree with.
That demand that the GWPF should make such a disclosure to the general public was just another lame deflection attempt to change the argument after the e-mail fiasco when the IPCC authors refused to make their raw data public...and deleted it instead.
It takes a bigger fool to be fooled by the fools who fooled you over and over again. Experiments have shown that not even chimps can`t be fooled as often with the same fake bananas.

 

[flacaltenn]

Well now PBear --- you've ruined it for old Abraham. Because if he's consistent -- the IPCC has just been exposed for "conflicts of interest".. AND promoting ideologues..

We could pretty much stop ANY DEBATE --- by wasting energy impeaching the sources..
That's pretty much American politics today anyway -- aint it??


Speaking of IPCC hiring practices.. This is from an older thread.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/312288-is-this-sop-at-the-ipcc.html#post7813901

In 1994, Kovats was one of only 21 people in the entire world selected to work on the first IPCC chapter that examined how climate change might affect human health. She was 25 years old. Her first academic paper wouldn’t be published for another three years. It would be six years before she’d even begin her doctoral studies and 16 years before she’d graduate

You don't suppose she and Pachuri are related -- do ya?

 

[Abraham3]

Interestingly, despite harshly criticizing the UEA for their response to FOI requests, the GWPF has rejected and, in court, fought every FOI request brought to them concerning their funding and day to day operation. The court's so far, have ruled that they are not susceptible to such requests due to the "foundation's" insignificance.

So what is that supposed to prove ? Conflict of interest ?

Noooo... (where do you get a conflict of interest out of that?). I was thinking more along the lines of hypocrisy.