What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Critics Give U.N. Climate Researchers an 'F'

chanel

Silver Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2009
Messages
12,098
Reaction score
3,198
Points
98
Location
People's Republic of NJ
A group of 40 auditors -- including scientists and public policy experts from across the globe -- have released a shocking report card on the U.N.'s landmark climate-change research report. And they gave 21 of the report's 44 chapters a grade of "F."

The team, recruited by the climate-change skeptics behind the website NoConsensus.org, found that 5,600 of the 18,500 sources in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) Nobel Prize-winning 2007 report were not peer reviewed

According to Lafromboise, much of the scientific research published by the U.N. cited press releases, newspaper and magazine clippings, student theses, newsletters, discussion papers, and literature published by green advocacy groups. Such material is often called "gray literature," she said, and it stands in stark contrast to the U.N.'s claims about the study's sources..
FOXNews.com - Last in Class: Critics Give U.N. Climate Researchers an 'F'
 

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
59,656
Reaction score
7,436
Points
1,840
Location
Portland, Ore.
Faux news, Heartland Institute. What more need be said. Also note, no names for the "experts". I give this post an F-.
 
Joined
Feb 28, 2009
Messages
12,404
Reaction score
1,936
Points
0
Science using press releases, newspaper and magazine clippings, student theses, newsletters, discussion papers, and literature published by green advocacy groups is okay with hacks such as OldCrocks so long as those agree with the AGW religion.

Actual science need not apply in that world.
 

jillian

Princess
Joined
Apr 4, 2006
Messages
84,959
Reaction score
17,034
Points
2,220
Location
The Other Side of Paradise
A group of 40 auditors -- including scientists and public policy experts from across the globe -- have released a shocking report card on the U.N.'s landmark climate-change research report. And they gave 21 of the report's 44 chapters a grade of "F."

The team, recruited by the climate-change skeptics behind the website NoConsensus.org, found that 5,600 of the 18,500 sources in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) Nobel Prize-winning 2007 report were not peer reviewed

According to Lafromboise, much of the scientific research published by the U.N. cited press releases, newspaper and magazine clippings, student theses, newsletters, discussion papers, and literature published by green advocacy groups. Such material is often called "gray literature," she said, and it stands in stark contrast to the U.N.'s claims about the study's sources..
FOXNews.com - Last in Class: Critics Give U.N. Climate Researchers an 'F'

the same LaFramboise of LaFramboise well drilling systems?
 
Last edited:

konradv

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
30,382
Reaction score
6,391
Points
1,130
Location
Baltimore
Of course the deniers would say that. They're trying to keep the attention from their own research, which can't get over the hurdle of, if CO2 and other gases keep going up, warming is inevitable. It's a simple application of the Laws of Chemistry and Physics, which the deniers cannot assail, forcing them to take to the political arena. They have lost the scientific fight and can only pick at the margins.
 

Oddball

Unobtanium Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
71,507
Reaction score
38,117
Points
2,615
Location
Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
Even a true believer can see that the IPCC's function is primarily political, not scientific...
Over the years, the IPCC has changed from a scientific institution that tries to be policy relevant to a political institution that pretends to be scientific. I regret that. There are already more than enough climate activists, while there are too few solid and neutral bodies that make down-to-earth and well-founded statements about climate change and climate policy.

<snip>

Working Groups 2 and 3 of the AR4 violated all IPCC procedures. The conclusions are partly scientifically unfounded, and even partly copied from the environmental movement....

<snip>

# As a result, AR4 contains crude errors, only some of which are public knowledge. These errors can be found in the chapters, the technical summaries, the summaries for policy makers, and the synthesis report. The errors are not random. Working Group 2 systematically portrays climate change as a bigger problem than is scientifically acceptable. Working Group 3 systematically portrays climate policy as easier and cheaper than can be responsibly concluded based on academic research.

<snip>

The reputation of climate research has been severely damaged by the IPCC. The IPCC should therefore be drastically and publicly reformed.

No Frakking Consensus: A Seasoned Veteran's View of the IPCC

Looks like he gives them an F, too.
 

gslack

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2010
Messages
4,527
Reaction score
351
Points
48

gslack

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2010
Messages
4,527
Reaction score
351
Points
48
A group of 40 auditors -- including scientists and public policy experts from across the globe -- have released a shocking report card on the U.N.'s landmark climate-change research report. And they gave 21 of the report's 44 chapters a grade of "F."

The team, recruited by the climate-change skeptics behind the website NoConsensus.org, found that 5,600 of the 18,500 sources in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) Nobel Prize-winning 2007 report were not peer reviewed

According to Lafromboise, much of the scientific research published by the U.N. cited press releases, newspaper and magazine clippings, student theses, newsletters, discussion papers, and literature published by green advocacy groups. Such material is often called "gray literature," she said, and it stands in stark contrast to the U.N.'s claims about the study's sources..
FOXNews.com - Last in Class: Critics Give U.N. Climate Researchers an 'F'

the same LaFramboise of LaFramboise well drilling systems?

SO what if it is? You expect the world to accept whatever comes out of people with a vested financial interest in AGW at face value. If we are expected to just accept what your side tells us than whats the difference?

And even besides that, attacking the messenger and ignoring the message is what your question is all about. SO what if it comes from someone who works for a well drilling company. Maurice Strong made it rich off of oil, and is the president of Chicago Carbon Exchange, and until recently head of the UN environmental program. But you expect us to take him at his word...
 
Joined
Feb 28, 2009
Messages
12,404
Reaction score
1,936
Points
0
Even a true believer can see that the IPCC's function is primarily political, not scientific...
Over the years, the IPCC has changed from a scientific institution that tries to be policy relevant to a political institution that pretends to be scientific. I regret that. There are already more than enough climate activists, while there are too few solid and neutral bodies that make down-to-earth and well-founded statements about climate change and climate policy.

<snip>

Working Groups 2 and 3 of the AR4 violated all IPCC procedures. The conclusions are partly scientifically unfounded, and even partly copied from the environmental movement....

<snip>

# As a result, AR4 contains crude errors, only some of which are public knowledge. These errors can be found in the chapters, the technical summaries, the summaries for policy makers, and the synthesis report. The errors are not random. Working Group 2 systematically portrays climate change as a bigger problem than is scientifically acceptable. Working Group 3 systematically portrays climate policy as easier and cheaper than can be responsibly concluded based on academic research.

<snip>

The reputation of climate research has been severely damaged by the IPCC. The IPCC should therefore be drastically and publicly reformed.
No Frakking Consensus: A Seasoned Veteran's View of the IPCC

Looks like he gives them an F, too.
One of the dirty little secrets of the environazi movement: it's never been about saving the planet.

And hacks such as OldCrocks are fully aware of that fact.
 

gslack

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2010
Messages
4,527
Reaction score
351
Points
48
How would you know?

OLdsocks, You are a known and proven liar, who has tried to misrepresent the actual science you claim to follow and base your opinions on.... You are the kind of person he is talking about and the fact you had to respond to it when you were not mentioned specifically, gives testament to this.

Anyone who claims science is their reason or basis, and misrepresents or lies about the findings and data of that science, is NOT about science but selling an agenda.... You're a propagandist and nothing more...
 

uscitizen

Senior Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
45,940
Reaction score
4,912
Points
48
Location
My Shack
Umm seems to me Critics always speak critically of whatever they are critical of.
 

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
59,656
Reaction score
7,436
Points
1,840
Location
Portland, Ore.
Really? And every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University in the world, agrees with my propaganda? Damn, I am good!!!!

Global warming controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Consensus
Main articles: Scientific opinion on climate change, Climate change consensus, and Climate change denial
The finding that the climate has warmed in recent decades and that human activities are already contributing adversely to global climate change has been endorsed by every national science academy that has issued a statement on climate change, including the science academies of all of the major industrialized countries.[27] With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007[28], no remaining scientific society is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.[29]

Environmental groups, many governmental reports, and the media in all countries but the United States often state that there is virtually unanimous agreement in the scientific community in support of human-caused global warming. Opponents either maintain that most scientists consider global warming "unproved," dismiss it altogether, or highlight the dangers of focusing on only one viewpoint in the context of what they say is unsettled science, or point out that science is based on facts and not on opinion polls.[30][31][32]

On April 29, 2008, environmental journalist Richard Littlemore revealed that a list of "500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares"[33] distributed by the Heartland Institute included at least 45 scientists who neither knew of their inclusion as "coauthors" of the article, nor agreed with its contents.[34] Many of the scientists asked the Heartland Institute to remove their names from the list. The institute refused these requests, stating that the scientists "have no right - legally or ethically - to demand that their names be removed."[35]

And there is the level of honesty practiced by the Heartland Institute, a Rovian institute for lying to protect corperate greed.
 

gslack

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2010
Messages
4,527
Reaction score
351
Points
48
Really? And every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University in the world, agrees with my propaganda? Damn, I am good!!!!

Global warming controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Consensus
Main articles: Scientific opinion on climate change, Climate change consensus, and Climate change denial
The finding that the climate has warmed in recent decades and that human activities are already contributing adversely to global climate change has been endorsed by every national science academy that has issued a statement on climate change, including the science academies of all of the major industrialized countries.[27] With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007[28], no remaining scientific society is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.[29]

Environmental groups, many governmental reports, and the media in all countries but the United States often state that there is virtually unanimous agreement in the scientific community in support of human-caused global warming. Opponents either maintain that most scientists consider global warming "unproved," dismiss it altogether, or highlight the dangers of focusing on only one viewpoint in the context of what they say is unsettled science, or point out that science is based on facts and not on opinion polls.[30][31][32]

On April 29, 2008, environmental journalist Richard Littlemore revealed that a list of "500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares"[33] distributed by the Heartland Institute included at least 45 scientists who neither knew of their inclusion as "coauthors" of the article, nor agreed with its contents.[34] Many of the scientists asked the Heartland Institute to remove their names from the list. The institute refused these requests, stating that the scientists "have no right - legally or ethically - to demand that their names be removed."[35]

And there is the level of honesty practiced by the Heartland Institute, a Rovian institute for lying to protect corperate greed.

I think you like punishing yourself.... I will once again show you are lying.... You asked for it... you said the following...

"Really? And every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University in the world, agrees with my propaganda? "

Yet you lied just recently about what those scientific bodies said and or claimed. You hve done this repeatedly, and without any apology or reason given. You just run away and start again, pretending you didn't just get caught and the whole thing never happened...

My evidence... Your post in another thread...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/2225343-post32.html

oldrocks said:
Strange that you are so damned ignorant.

The ice core record, from the Antarctic, go back accurately, about 650,000 years. There are cores being studied right now that will extend this a bit further. However, at no time in that period has the CO2 been above 300 ppm, nor CH4 above 1000 ppb. We are above 385 ppm of CO2 right now, with 1800 ppb of CH4. On top of that we have introduced many millions of tons of industrial GHGs, some of which are 10,000 to 20,000 times as effective GHGs as CO2.

We are past the equivelant of 450 ppm of CO2.

Science: CO2 levels haven’t been this high for 15 million years, when it was 5° to 10°F warmer and seas were 75 to 120 feet higher — “We have shown that this dramatic rise in sea level is associated with an increase in CO2 levels

You would have to go back at least 15 million years to find carbon dioxide levels on Earth as high as they are today, a UCLA scientist and colleagues report Oct. 8 in the online edition of the journal Science.

“The last time carbon dioxide levels were apparently as high as they are today — and were sustained at those levels — global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today, the sea level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher than today, there was no permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic and very little ice on Antarctica and Greenland,” said the paper’s lead author, Aradhna Tripati, a UCLA assistant professor in the department of Earth and space sciences and the department of atmospheric and oceanic sciences.

I enlarged and bolded the important and telling part... You claimed and portrayed the link you supplied made this statement or point of fact...

We are past the equivelant of 450 ppm of CO2.

When we go to the link you supplied we find it did not say that at all... it actually said this....

"So we need to keep atmospheric concentrations of CO2 as low as possible — and if we do go above 450 ppm, we need to get back to under 350 ppm as rapidly as possible, preferably by century’s end, though that would be no easy feat."

And so we can plainly see that your propaganda does not represent the findings, claims, and or data of the real scientific bodies you claim by any measure.....

You sir are a liar! categorically, factually, and undeniably a liar and a complete unethical propagandist. You cannot establish yourself using science and or scientific bodies supporting your claims, when in fact you lie, misrepresent, and give false accounts of the findings of said scientific bodies..... This was no error, nor was it a one time occurrence with you. I have caught you several times doing this in the short time I have been here.

And what did you do when confronted on this by me? You ran and tried to pretend it never happened..... my post to you on this still goes with no response from you after 2 days now. ANd here we see you trying to claim you represent science and they agree with your claims.....

You are an unbelievable person to say the least, and not a supporter of science. Just one more propagandist trying to push an agenda....
 

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
59,656
Reaction score
7,436
Points
1,840
Location
Portland, Ore.
Lordy, lordy. Gslack, do work on your reading comprehension.

Present CO2 level. 387 ppm.
Present CH4 level, 1800 ppb.

The present level of CH4 represents an increase of over 1 ppm. That is the equivelent of 21 ppm of CO2, and counting the fact that it oxidizes into CO2, then it is the equivelant of 40 to 70 ppm of CO2. Using the lower figure, 387 plus 40 gives you the equivelant of 427 ppm of CO2.

Now, you add in the effect of all the industrial GHGs, and you will get an equivelant of over 450 ppm of CO2.

global warming potential
 

gslack

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2010
Messages
4,527
Reaction score
351
Points
48
Lordy, lordy. Gslack, do work on your reading comprehension.

Present CO2 level. 387 ppm.
Present CH4 level, 1800 ppb.

The present level of CH4 represents an increase of over 1 ppm. That is the equivelent of 21 ppm of CO2, and counting the fact that it oxidizes into CO2, then it is the equivelant of 40 to 70 ppm of CO2. Using the lower figure, 387 plus 40 gives you the equivelant of 427 ppm of CO2.

Now, you add in the effect of all the industrial GHGs, and you will get an equivelant of over 450 ppm of CO2.

global warming potential

LIAR!

That was not your claim, and that is not mentioned ANYWHERE in the article like that. AND it took you 2 days to finally address it, and this is the best excuse you can come up with???

Really?

Some bullshit song and dance irrelevant math that was not part of your claim and not part of the article you cited as source?

UNFREAKINGBELEIVABLE!!!

Seriously you are pathetic now.......
 

Shorebreak

Active Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Messages
395
Reaction score
102
Points
28
Oh, come on, Gslack. Why can't you get with the program? All these folks are trying to do is hide the decline. :)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAlMomLvu_4]YouTube - Climategate: Hide The Decline - the video[/ame]
 

konradv

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
30,382
Reaction score
6,391
Points
1,130
Location
Baltimore
Why wouldn't you want to hide the decline? If the decline is due to natural forces, then you HAVE to hide it in order to parse out the contribution of man. To not hide it is like trying to measure out a liquid outside during a rain storm. If you don't "hide" the liquid you're measuring, you're going to be including a lot of rain.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$350.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top