AGW skeptic reassesses

[konradv]

Your thesis is false on the face of it. To say there's no evidence at all isn't true. It's just that you don't accept it. The fact that you deal in absolutes illustrates the depth of your foolishness.

And I can't help but note that you didn't bring what you believe to be observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence from the link....why might that be?...embarassed to actually let us see what passes for such evidence in your mind? If such evidence existed, you, and your warmer buds would be posting it everywhere all the time...there would be no place on earth to go to get away from it...and yet...nothing. I am afraid that it is you who is behaving foolishly...claiming a thing exists and is readily available to the public which you simply can not produce.

It is posted everywhere all the time. What about "rise in CO2 levels" don't you understand?

 

[mamooth]

You're so full of shit --- 5 more bilge pumps wont stop you filling to your eyeballs.

You confuse the IPCC with Science.

No, you're confusing journalism with science. You rely entirely on such wild cherrypicking.

The IPCC and it's panels are 2/3 policy wonk/global redistributionists

There we go. That's what I was aiming for, to get you to publicly abandon reason completely, and instead let your kook-right-fringe conspiracy cult freak flag fly. That's now been accomplished, so everyone knows not to take you seriously.

 

[SSDD]

It is posted everywhere all the time. What about "rise in CO2 levels" don't you understand?

And you believe that a rise in CO2 levels equals man made global warming how? Ice core data show us that increasing temperatures result in increasing CO2...that would be because warmer water doesn't hold as much CO2 as colder water...can you tell me how much the natural variation in the earth's own CO2 producing "machinery" is from year to year...and compare that amount to the amount that man produces?...and while you are gathering the data regarding the natural variation...see if you can find an accurate number for CO2 emitted by under sea volcanic activity?...

Sorry guy...but rising CO2 numbers simply don't make the case for man made global warming. Do try again if you like.

 

[SSDD]

You're so full of shit --- 5 more bilge pumps wont stop you filling to your eyeballs.

You confuse the IPCC with Science.

No, you're confusing journalism with science. You rely entirely on such wild cherrypicking.

The IPCC and it's panels are 2/3 policy wonk/global redistributionists

There we go. That's what I was aiming for, to get you to publicly abandon reason completely, and instead let your kook-right-fringe conspiracy cult freak flag fly. That's now been accomplished, so everyone knows not to take you seriously.

You actually believe that the IPCC is a scientific body? Is that really what you are saying?

 

[Crick]

They do no research - aside from assessing the literature. But they are most certainly an organization of scientists. What definition of "scientific body" are you using?

 

[SSDD]

They do no research - aside from assessing the literature. But they are most certainly an organization of scientists. What definition of "scientific body" are you using?

No...they don't...they hire researchers...and then discard whatever research doesn't mesh with their stated goal of wealth redistribution.

 

[Crick]

HAH!

As usual, you do not know WHAT the **** you are talking about. The IPCC conducts NO climate research.

After all these years arguing over this shit, you still have misunderstandings as basic as that? Incredible.

 

[SSDD]

HAH!

As usual, you do not know WHAT the **** you are talking about. The IPCC conducts NO climate research.

After all these years arguing over this shit, you still have misunderstandings as basic as that? Incredible.

So your claim is that no researcher receives money from the IPCC? Is that what you are saying?

 

[flacaltenn]

HAH!

As usual, you do not know WHAT the **** you are talking about. The IPCC conducts NO climate research.

After all these years arguing over this shit, you still have misunderstandings as basic as that? Incredible.

The folks that call the shots and write the Climate Agreements are 2/3s of the IPCC. THEY determine what "science" they want to present. Political hacks and basket case countries looking for handouts. THAT's who runs the IPCC..

We've been over this before.. You learned NOTHING. You see nothing, remember nothing that contradicts your weak grasp of what the **** is going on with the "leadership" of the GW movement.

 

[Crick]

The IPCC neither conducts nor pays for the conduct of research. Period. Read their ******* charter. If you think otherwise, show us some.

 

[SSDD]

The IPCC neither conducts nor pays for the conduct of research. Period. Read their ******* charter. If you think otherwise, show us some.

And yet once again..you prove that you are either a liar or buried so deeply in ignorance that you may never climb out... Here are just a couple of sources that say otherwise...and they are from your side of the argument...not mine.

From the Union of Concerned Scientists (what a joke)

The IPCC: Who Are They and Why Do Their Climate Reports Matter?

Authors, Contributors, and Reviewers
The technical support units, co-chairs, and bureaus of each working group together assemble a list of proposed authors for its assessment, but the lead authors are selected by the entire working group. Governments and non-governmental organizations around the world are invited to nominate potential authors.

A government nomination does not imply that the scientist’s views are endorsed by that government, or that the scientist is expected to represent his or her government’s view. It maymean that a government has provided a scientist with financial support, but many scientists receive no financial support at all and others are merely reimbursed for travel expenses. Experts from developing nations who have received no financial support from their government are supported through the IPCC trust fund.

From these nominations, the full working group membership confirms 5 to 10 lead and coordinating lead authors, as well as two review editors, for each chapter of its assessment; every chapter must have at least one lead author from a developing country. In general, the appointed scientists are widely recognized experts who represent a broad range of expertise and opinion; they may come from academia, research facilities, industry, government, and non-government organizations (NGOs). A complete list of the lead authors is available at the IPCC website (www.ipcc.ch).

Here...from Mother Jones

Climate Change Bags Mount Everest

The Everest research is partly funded by the IPCC, which is trying to make amends for an embarrassing mistake. In 2010, the U.N. organization retracted a forecast that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035. The IPCC said the forecast, made in its 2007 assessment report, was unfounded and based on an error.

 

[Crick]

From YOUR article, SID:

IPCC History and Mission
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established in 1988 under the auspices of the United Nations Environment Programme and the World Meteorological Organization for the purpose of assessing “the scientific, technical and socioeconomic information relevant for the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change. It does not carry out new research nor does it monitor climate-related data. It bases its assessment mainly on published and peer reviewed scientific technical literature.” [1] The goal of these assessments is to inform international policy and negotiations on climate-related issues.

To have gotten to the parts your quoted, you had to read past this. Good ******* god are you stupid.

 

[SSDD]

And then it goes on to say that it supports scientists...and the next article states explicitly that it is providing funding for the everest study....what a denier you are....and a f'ing lying piece of shit.

 

[Crick]

Fool

http://www.ipcc.ch/apps/eventmanage...1026-p40_doc2_trust_fund_programme_Budget.pdf

Go to Table 3 (IPCC Trust Fund, Statement of Expenditures) and find us one penny spent on the conduct of research.

 

[SSDD]

And you believe the accounting practices of the IPCC?...any governmental body?...and you call me a fool?

 

[Crick]

Yes, I believe their accounting practices. And their charter. Certainly more than an offhand remark in a Mother Jones article.

 

[SSDD]

Yes, I believe their accounting practices. And their charter. Certainly more than an offhand remark in a Mother Jones article.

Like I said..you are an idiot of the first order....the more you talk..the more you confirm.

 

[Crick]

So, you've got nothing.

The IPCC neither conducts nor pays for the conduct of climate research. Their job is to simply assess the research performed by the world's climate science in attempt to clarify man's role in climate change.

Feel free to disagree, but until you actually have some convincing evidence, don't bother asking others to go with you.