I'm curious. Do RWs think AGW is a fraud simply because republicans told them it is?

[Billy_Bob]

Your questions are not "reasonable" silly person. You will always resort to logic fails to say "see I told you so" when you are telling no one nothing but what a silly person you are. As I said, your just another in a long line of useless drones.

So, I guess that means you have no idea who the mythical people are who are supposed to be supporting climate change for some nefarious reason, or why they might be doing it, but you know it's true anyway. Just another conspiracy theory nut.

It's been laid out for you in this very thread, go read.

No it hasn't. The best you came up with was there are only 79 climate scientists in the world, and the US government will fire 74 of them if they say differently. That's nuts.

What, you didn't bother to read the IPCC link I gave you? What is the saying whenever nefarious affairs are being investigated... what is that saying again? Oh yeah FOLLOW THE MONEY! The IPCC link I gave you showed you the motive for all of this....76 TRILLION dollars. Yep, there's no possible way that shitty scientists would collude with corrupt politicians and big business to cook the books to ensure they get their cut of that.

Hmm mmm. Nope, no way. 76 TRILLION dollars isn't enough,... What a buffoon.

So thousands of unpaid scientists are in collusion with 120 different governments to defraud the public.
here is a quote from this link Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Thousands of scientists and other experts contribute (on a voluntary basis, without payment from the IPCC)[8] to writing and reviewing reports, which are then reviewed by governments. IPCC reports contain a "Summary for Policymakers", which is subject to line-by-line approval by delegates from all participating governments. Typically this involves the governments of more than 120 countries.[9]

This has to be at least as big as than Bigfoot.

WIKI is NOT a reliable source for anything... Follow the dam money you fool!

 

[BULLDOG]

They NEVER address facts!

Climategate should have ended the Cult, but they carry on as if it was never revealed that they alter data to fit their theory.

They've never once addressed any facts and never can and never will

There's too much money to be had and too much power to be collected in the hands of the politicians for them to give up. They will lose in the end thanks to the internet because now every time they say something it can be reviewed and summarily destroyed. I love the comments sections of the magazines and papers (those that still allow them that is) the responses are overwhelmingly against the AGW fraudsters. Prior to Climategate it was 60 40 against them, now it is over 90 percent against them.

It is a joy to behold!

The increase is because fox stirred up the nutbags. They all have that one magical chart that disproves all the work that legitimate climate scientists have produced over the last several years. At least they think they do.

Nope... Its called empirical evidence not failed models..

Below are two rates of warming from the Hadcrut3 lower troposphere. One is from the period 1900 through 1950 and the the other is 1951 through 2000. Below each is the rate of warming.

The trend for the period 1900-1950 is 0.51 deg C or 0.103/decade

This trend occurred before CO2 became a rapidly increasing according to the IPCC and is near or is the Natural Variational rate.

The trend for 1951-2000 is 0.50 deg C or 0.100 deg C/decade.

Now wait... this means that the two rates of warming are statistically insignificant DESPITE the rapid rise in CO2 and equal to NATURAL VARIATION..

So by simple observation we can see the problem with the hypothesis of runaway temp caused by CO2. During the time they claim runway rise it was nothing of the sort and even given the rise in CO2 there was no discernible increase in that natural rise.

Good old Earth has shown the left wing nutbags liars..

And when did you become such an advanced expert on climatology? About the time fox started to whine about it?

Well, a lowly statistician destroyed the last major climatology paper in a couple of days, so he is clearly a better expert on climatology than they are....

That's still not an answer to the question I asked BillyBob.

 

[westwall]

Your questions are not "reasonable" silly person. You will always resort to logic fails to say "see I told you so" when you are telling no one nothing but what a silly person you are. As I said, your just another in a long line of useless drones.

So, I guess that means you have no idea who the mythical people are who are supposed to be supporting climate change for some nefarious reason, or why they might be doing it, but you know it's true anyway. Just another conspiracy theory nut.

It's been laid out for you in this very thread, go read.

No it hasn't. The best you came up with was there are only 79 climate scientists in the world, and the US government will fire 74 of them if they say differently. That's nuts.

What, you didn't bother to read the IPCC link I gave you? What is the saying whenever nefarious affairs are being investigated... what is that saying again? Oh yeah FOLLOW THE MONEY! The IPCC link I gave you showed you the motive for all of this....76 TRILLION dollars. Yep, there's no possible way that shitty scientists would collude with corrupt politicians and big business to cook the books to ensure they get their cut of that.

Hmm mmm. Nope, no way. 76 TRILLION dollars isn't enough,... What a buffoon.

So thousands of unpaid scientists are in collusion with 120 different governments to defraud the public.
here is a quote from this link Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Thousands of scientists and other experts contribute (on a voluntary basis, without payment from the IPCC)[8] to writing and reviewing reports, which are then reviewed by governments. IPCC reports contain a "Summary for Policymakers", which is subject to line-by-line approval by delegates from all participating governments. Typically this involves the governments of more than 120 countries.[9]

This has to be at least as big as than Bigfoot.

What unpaid scientists are you speaking of? Show me one please. So far they have received collectively over 120 BILLION dollars in the last 20 years. What exactly has all that money gotten us? For a gauge it took nuclear physicists three years and 32 BILLION (in equivalent dollars) to create an atomic weapon and the foundation for nuclear power, and....... oh yeah......end WWII. In 20 years and for the paltry sum of 120 BILLION dollars climatologists have given us nothing but "maybe".

Let us know when you pull your head out of rectal defilade and you actually want to learn something.

 

[BULLDOG]

So, I guess that means you have no idea who the mythical people are who are supposed to be supporting climate change for some nefarious reason, or why they might be doing it, but you know it's true anyway. Just another conspiracy theory nut.

It's been laid out for you in this very thread, go read.

No it hasn't. The best you came up with was there are only 79 climate scientists in the world, and the US government will fire 74 of them if they say differently. That's nuts.

Have you read the Obama EO on scientific integrity? it outright states he will fire people for "not believing" or "showing any negative work".. Obama hides the science because it can not be defended in the real world. No conspiracy here just plain old facts.. In the words of the EPA chief "dissent of global warming will not be tolerated". Its 100% political agenda.

Quit being so silly. I know it's hard for you to believe, but the thousands of scientists around the world, as well as every major scientific organization in the world don't all work for Obama dumbass. He can't fire them even if he wanted to. Yours is just another crazy conspiracy theory like bigfoot and the manufactured Benghazi scandal.

AH yes... The appeal to authority when facts say the authorities are DEAD WRONG!

The only dumbass is you.. pull your head out of your ass and realize this scam has been in the works for over 60 years. It began as "Sustainable Development or UN Agenda 21. IT's always been about the destruction of the US and it Constitution. They just got a bunch of left wit morons to believe the lies.. Its changed its name over the years but its still the same.. now quit being a fucktard..

Agenda 21? We're in full conspiracy theory mode now, aren't we.

 

[westwall]

There's too much money to be had and too much power to be collected in the hands of the politicians for them to give up. They will lose in the end thanks to the internet because now every time they say something it can be reviewed and summarily destroyed. I love the comments sections of the magazines and papers (those that still allow them that is) the responses are overwhelmingly against the AGW fraudsters. Prior to Climategate it was 60 40 against them, now it is over 90 percent against them.

It is a joy to behold!

The increase is because fox stirred up the nutbags. They all have that one magical chart that disproves all the work that legitimate climate scientists have produced over the last several years. At least they think they do.

Nope... Its called empirical evidence not failed models..

Below are two rates of warming from the Hadcrut3 lower troposphere. One is from the period 1900 through 1950 and the the other is 1951 through 2000. Below each is the rate of warming.

The trend for the period 1900-1950 is 0.51 deg C or 0.103/decade

This trend occurred before CO2 became a rapidly increasing according to the IPCC and is near or is the Natural Variational rate.

The trend for 1951-2000 is 0.50 deg C or 0.100 deg C/decade.

Now wait... this means that the two rates of warming are statistically insignificant DESPITE the rapid rise in CO2 and equal to NATURAL VARIATION..

So by simple observation we can see the problem with the hypothesis of runaway temp caused by CO2. During the time they claim runway rise it was nothing of the sort and even given the rise in CO2 there was no discernible increase in that natural rise.

Good old Earth has shown the left wing nutbags liars..

And when did you become such an advanced expert on climatology? About the time fox started to whine about it?

Well, a lowly statistician destroyed the last major climatology paper in a couple of days, so he is clearly a better expert on climatology than they are....

That's still not an answer to the question I asked BillyBob.

No, it demonstrates that your question to Billy Bob was as pointless as you are.

 

[elektra]

well first, in the true scientific method, there is something called an experiment to prove a hypothesis. Ask one of these gents/ladies for the experiment that proves adding 120 PPM of CO2 actually does anything to temperatures. You won't get one. There was one done in 1901 by a scientist named Herr Koch. he proved it didn't. Now, having that, do you supposed someone would prove that wrong in order to make the claim today? ahhhhh, no, they haven't. In fact, in order for any observed data to match the supposed models that are being used as the experiment, they have to adjust the raw data to make the observed data fit the models. Really!!!

For about the millionth time. I'm not interested in charts, graphs, or some experiment that happened more than a century ago. I, like most people, am not educated enough in that field to look at a few charts and declare every major scientific organization from around the world who has made a statement on climate change is wrong. Only an imbecile would do something like that. I have a few simple, reasonable questions as to why I should not believe the vast majority of scientists in the field. It's about their earned credibility as opposed to their distractors. Not their methods. If you can help me with that, then great. Otherwise, you are only wasting my time and yours. My request is not unreasonable.

OK, in a nutshell. IR radiation is supposed to warm the planet by being re radiated to Earth. The problem with the theory is the oceans are the heat sinks of the world. It has taken BILLIONS of years for the UV radiation from the Sun (capable of penetrating approximately 200 meters) to warm the oceans to their current level.

The oceans are what maintain the temperature of the planet. The theory of IR back radiation fails its first test when it is shown that IR radiation can only penetrate MICRONS deep into the oceans. That's it. I don't care how much CO2 you put into the atmosphere, the atmosphere is not the engine that maintains the global temperature. It is the oceans, which is why Kevin Trenberths email

"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."

Is so telling. The AGW crowd have spent the last 5 years trying to rationalize that simple statement away. That is the ultimate failure of AGW science. All the rest has been your supposedly "credible" sources obfuscating, and burying, any and all questions that pertain to that simple statement in direct violation of the scientific method.

It's as simple as that. They are not credible.

Again, NOT INTERESTED IN BECOMING A CLIMATE SCIENTIST. If you have some information on who is doing it, or why all those thousands of scientists are being either forced or bribed to support information that obviously most would know to be false, I could be easily convinced. I was very clear on that point from the start.

It's not THOUSANDS of climate scientists. That's the point! It's a small minority that are driving this shit and they've been called the "climate mafia" for years. You are witnessing the collapse of their world and they are fighting tooth and nail to prevent it. They RELY on the fact that you think you can't understand, when anyone with a brain can figure it out.

Good day.

Ok. That is finally getting to the point of the questions I asked at first and have continued to ask throughout our conversation. Here is a list of scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists, individual scientists, universities, and laboratories which contribute to the overall scientific opinion. They all say global climate change is real, and man is affecting it
Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
That is a pretty impressive list. and the organizations do collectively represent thousands. I can't find a similar list that is nearly as impressive or that represents nearly as many accredited scientists for the opposition. Why is that?

Yet, there is not one name of scientist in your link? How come?

 

[BULLDOG]

So, I guess that means you have no idea who the mythical people are who are supposed to be supporting climate change for some nefarious reason, or why they might be doing it, but you know it's true anyway. Just another conspiracy theory nut.

It's been laid out for you in this very thread, go read.

No it hasn't. The best you came up with was there are only 79 climate scientists in the world, and the US government will fire 74 of them if they say differently. That's nuts.

What, you didn't bother to read the IPCC link I gave you? What is the saying whenever nefarious affairs are being investigated... what is that saying again? Oh yeah FOLLOW THE MONEY! The IPCC link I gave you showed you the motive for all of this....76 TRILLION dollars. Yep, there's no possible way that shitty scientists would collude with corrupt politicians and big business to cook the books to ensure they get their cut of that.

Hmm mmm. Nope, no way. 76 TRILLION dollars isn't enough,... What a buffoon.

So thousands of unpaid scientists are in collusion with 120 different governments to defraud the public.
here is a quote from this link Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Thousands of scientists and other experts contribute (on a voluntary basis, without payment from the IPCC)[8] to writing and reviewing reports, which are then reviewed by governments. IPCC reports contain a "Summary for Policymakers", which is subject to line-by-line approval by delegates from all participating governments. Typically this involves the governments of more than 120 countries.[9]

This has to be at least as big as than Bigfoot.

What unpaid scientists are you speaking of? Show me one please. So far they have received collectively over 120 BILLION dollars in the last 20 years. What exactly has all that money gotten us? For a gauge it took nuclear physicists three years and 32 BILLION (in equivalent dollars) to create an atomic weapon and the foundation for nuclear power, and....... oh yeah......end WWII. In 20 years and for the paltry sum of 120 BILLION dollars climatologists have given us nothing but "maybe".

Let us know when you pull your head out of rectal defilade and you actually want to learn something.

Don't care what the IPCC received. They don't conduct any research, and they don't pay for any reports they receive from thousands of researchers..

 

[BULLDOG]

The increase is because fox stirred up the nutbags. They all have that one magical chart that disproves all the work that legitimate climate scientists have produced over the last several years. At least they think they do.

Nope... Its called empirical evidence not failed models..

Below are two rates of warming from the Hadcrut3 lower troposphere. One is from the period 1900 through 1950 and the the other is 1951 through 2000. Below each is the rate of warming.

The trend for the period 1900-1950 is 0.51 deg C or 0.103/decade

This trend occurred before CO2 became a rapidly increasing according to the IPCC and is near or is the Natural Variational rate.

The trend for 1951-2000 is 0.50 deg C or 0.100 deg C/decade.

Now wait... this means that the two rates of warming are statistically insignificant DESPITE the rapid rise in CO2 and equal to NATURAL VARIATION..

So by simple observation we can see the problem with the hypothesis of runaway temp caused by CO2. During the time they claim runway rise it was nothing of the sort and even given the rise in CO2 there was no discernible increase in that natural rise.

Good old Earth has shown the left wing nutbags liars..

And when did you become such an advanced expert on climatology? About the time fox started to whine about it?

Well, a lowly statistician destroyed the last major climatology paper in a couple of days, so he is clearly a better expert on climatology than they are....

That's still not an answer to the question I asked BillyBob.

No, it demonstrates that your question to Billy Bob was as pointless as you are.

Well, it could be that, or perhaps billybob didn't want to admit that he was one of the nutbags that fox stirred up so he went and found a couple of charts so he could pretend he knew what he was talking about, or it could be that you are just so spiteful till you wanted to jump in on my conversation with him.

 

[westwall]

It's been laid out for you in this very thread, go read.

No it hasn't. The best you came up with was there are only 79 climate scientists in the world, and the US government will fire 74 of them if they say differently. That's nuts.

What, you didn't bother to read the IPCC link I gave you? What is the saying whenever nefarious affairs are being investigated... what is that saying again? Oh yeah FOLLOW THE MONEY! The IPCC link I gave you showed you the motive for all of this....76 TRILLION dollars. Yep, there's no possible way that shitty scientists would collude with corrupt politicians and big business to cook the books to ensure they get their cut of that.

Hmm mmm. Nope, no way. 76 TRILLION dollars isn't enough,... What a buffoon.

So thousands of unpaid scientists are in collusion with 120 different governments to defraud the public.
here is a quote from this link Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Thousands of scientists and other experts contribute (on a voluntary basis, without payment from the IPCC)[8] to writing and reviewing reports, which are then reviewed by governments. IPCC reports contain a "Summary for Policymakers", which is subject to line-by-line approval by delegates from all participating governments. Typically this involves the governments of more than 120 countries.[9]

This has to be at least as big as than Bigfoot.

What unpaid scientists are you speaking of? Show me one please. So far they have received collectively over 120 BILLION dollars in the last 20 years. What exactly has all that money gotten us? For a gauge it took nuclear physicists three years and 32 BILLION (in equivalent dollars) to create an atomic weapon and the foundation for nuclear power, and....... oh yeah......end WWII. In 20 years and for the paltry sum of 120 BILLION dollars climatologists have given us nothing but "maybe".

Let us know when you pull your head out of rectal defilade and you actually want to learn something.

Don't care what the IPCC received. They don't conduct any research, and they don't pay for any reports they receive from thousands of researchers..

They don't? Really? Wow, you really don't know anything do you. You're dismissed.

 

[BULLDOG]

For about the millionth time. I'm not interested in charts, graphs, or some experiment that happened more than a century ago. I, like most people, am not educated enough in that field to look at a few charts and declare every major scientific organization from around the world who has made a statement on climate change is wrong. Only an imbecile would do something like that. I have a few simple, reasonable questions as to why I should not believe the vast majority of scientists in the field. It's about their earned credibility as opposed to their distractors. Not their methods. If you can help me with that, then great. Otherwise, you are only wasting my time and yours. My request is not unreasonable.

OK, in a nutshell. IR radiation is supposed to warm the planet by being re radiated to Earth. The problem with the theory is the oceans are the heat sinks of the world. It has taken BILLIONS of years for the UV radiation from the Sun (capable of penetrating approximately 200 meters) to warm the oceans to their current level.

The oceans are what maintain the temperature of the planet. The theory of IR back radiation fails its first test when it is shown that IR radiation can only penetrate MICRONS deep into the oceans. That's it. I don't care how much CO2 you put into the atmosphere, the atmosphere is not the engine that maintains the global temperature. It is the oceans, which is why Kevin Trenberths email

"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."

Is so telling. The AGW crowd have spent the last 5 years trying to rationalize that simple statement away. That is the ultimate failure of AGW science. All the rest has been your supposedly "credible" sources obfuscating, and burying, any and all questions that pertain to that simple statement in direct violation of the scientific method.

It's as simple as that. They are not credible.

Again, NOT INTERESTED IN BECOMING A CLIMATE SCIENTIST. If you have some information on who is doing it, or why all those thousands of scientists are being either forced or bribed to support information that obviously most would know to be false, I could be easily convinced. I was very clear on that point from the start.

It's not THOUSANDS of climate scientists. That's the point! It's a small minority that are driving this shit and they've been called the "climate mafia" for years. You are witnessing the collapse of their world and they are fighting tooth and nail to prevent it. They RELY on the fact that you think you can't understand, when anyone with a brain can figure it out.

Good day.

Ok. That is finally getting to the point of the questions I asked at first and have continued to ask throughout our conversation. Here is a list of scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists, individual scientists, universities, and laboratories which contribute to the overall scientific opinion. They all say global climate change is real, and man is affecting it
Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
That is a pretty impressive list. and the organizations do collectively represent thousands. I can't find a similar list that is nearly as impressive or that represents nearly as many accredited scientists for the opposition. Why is that?

Yet, there is not one name of scientist in your link? How come?

I didn't write the article. I just posted a link to it. Are you implying that the organizations listed are just fake names, and they don't represent real people? Generally scientific organizations have actual people they represent. Is this something you doubt?

 

[BULLDOG]

No it hasn't. The best you came up with was there are only 79 climate scientists in the world, and the US government will fire 74 of them if they say differently. That's nuts.

What, you didn't bother to read the IPCC link I gave you? What is the saying whenever nefarious affairs are being investigated... what is that saying again? Oh yeah FOLLOW THE MONEY! The IPCC link I gave you showed you the motive for all of this....76 TRILLION dollars. Yep, there's no possible way that shitty scientists would collude with corrupt politicians and big business to cook the books to ensure they get their cut of that.

Hmm mmm. Nope, no way. 76 TRILLION dollars isn't enough,... What a buffoon.

So thousands of unpaid scientists are in collusion with 120 different governments to defraud the public.
here is a quote from this link Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Thousands of scientists and other experts contribute (on a voluntary basis, without payment from the IPCC)[8] to writing and reviewing reports, which are then reviewed by governments. IPCC reports contain a "Summary for Policymakers", which is subject to line-by-line approval by delegates from all participating governments. Typically this involves the governments of more than 120 countries.[9]

This has to be at least as big as than Bigfoot.

What unpaid scientists are you speaking of? Show me one please. So far they have received collectively over 120 BILLION dollars in the last 20 years. What exactly has all that money gotten us? For a gauge it took nuclear physicists three years and 32 BILLION (in equivalent dollars) to create an atomic weapon and the foundation for nuclear power, and....... oh yeah......end WWII. In 20 years and for the paltry sum of 120 BILLION dollars climatologists have given us nothing but "maybe".

Let us know when you pull your head out of rectal defilade and you actually want to learn something.

Don't care what the IPCC received. They don't conduct any research, and they don't pay for any reports they receive from thousands of researchers..

They don't? Really? Wow, you really don't know anything do you. You're dismissed.

Now this is the kind of thing I was asking questions to find out. The IPCC website says they do no research and all the papers they use are donated.
IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
If you have proof of them conducting research or paying for reports, that would be a reason to mistrust their claims. You got any of that?

 

[elektra]

OK, in a nutshell. IR radiation is supposed to warm the planet by being re radiated to Earth. The problem with the theory is the oceans are the heat sinks of the world. It has taken BILLIONS of years for the UV radiation from the Sun (capable of penetrating approximately 200 meters) to warm the oceans to their current level.

The oceans are what maintain the temperature of the planet. The theory of IR back radiation fails its first test when it is shown that IR radiation can only penetrate MICRONS deep into the oceans. That's it. I don't care how much CO2 you put into the atmosphere, the atmosphere is not the engine that maintains the global temperature. It is the oceans, which is why Kevin Trenberths email

"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."

Is so telling. The AGW crowd have spent the last 5 years trying to rationalize that simple statement away. That is the ultimate failure of AGW science. All the rest has been your supposedly "credible" sources obfuscating, and burying, any and all questions that pertain to that simple statement in direct violation of the scientific method.

It's as simple as that. They are not credible.

Again, NOT INTERESTED IN BECOMING A CLIMATE SCIENTIST. If you have some information on who is doing it, or why all those thousands of scientists are being either forced or bribed to support information that obviously most would know to be false, I could be easily convinced. I was very clear on that point from the start.

It's not THOUSANDS of climate scientists. That's the point! It's a small minority that are driving this shit and they've been called the "climate mafia" for years. You are witnessing the collapse of their world and they are fighting tooth and nail to prevent it. They RELY on the fact that you think you can't understand, when anyone with a brain can figure it out.

Good day.

Ok. That is finally getting to the point of the questions I asked at first and have continued to ask throughout our conversation. Here is a list of scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists, individual scientists, universities, and laboratories which contribute to the overall scientific opinion. They all say global climate change is real, and man is affecting it
Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
That is a pretty impressive list. and the organizations do collectively represent thousands. I can't find a similar list that is nearly as impressive or that represents nearly as many accredited scientists for the opposition. Why is that?

Yet, there is not one name of scientist in your link? How come?

I didn't write the article. I just posted a link to it. Are you implying that the organizations listed are just fake names, and they don't represent real people? Generally scientific organizations have actual people they represent. Is this something you doubt?

No, I am implying you are another idiot who can not produce names of real scientists who claim man is causing global warming.

Further you can not even prove your "list", is of scientific organizations.

I should change my user name to "Scientist Ekektra".

Just to impress you.

 

[westwall]

He's trolling now. Remember the rules...

 

[BULLDOG]

Again, NOT INTERESTED IN BECOMING A CLIMATE SCIENTIST. If you have some information on who is doing it, or why all those thousands of scientists are being either forced or bribed to support information that obviously most would know to be false, I could be easily convinced. I was very clear on that point from the start.

It's not THOUSANDS of climate scientists. That's the point! It's a small minority that are driving this shit and they've been called the "climate mafia" for years. You are witnessing the collapse of their world and they are fighting tooth and nail to prevent it. They RELY on the fact that you think you can't understand, when anyone with a brain can figure it out.

Good day.

Ok. That is finally getting to the point of the questions I asked at first and have continued to ask throughout our conversation. Here is a list of scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists, individual scientists, universities, and laboratories which contribute to the overall scientific opinion. They all say global climate change is real, and man is affecting it
Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
That is a pretty impressive list. and the organizations do collectively represent thousands. I can't find a similar list that is nearly as impressive or that represents nearly as many accredited scientists for the opposition. Why is that?

Yet, there is not one name of scientist in your link? How come?

I didn't write the article. I just posted a link to it. Are you implying that the organizations listed are just fake names, and they don't represent real people? Generally scientific organizations have actual people they represent. Is this something you doubt?

No, I am implying you are another idiot who can not produce names of real scientists who claim man is causing global warming.

Further you can not even prove your "list", is of scientific organizations.

I should change my user name to "Scientist Ekektra".

Just to impress you.

Well no, I didn't visit each of the organizations on the list to see what was going on there, and I didn't get a list of their members, but they all sounded sciency. I just found the link. Are you saying there is a conspiracy to make up fake organizations that support climate change? This thing is worse than I thought. If I did go to the trouble to find a list of individual people's names, I suspect you would claim they were made up names.

 

[elektra]

It's not THOUSANDS of climate scientists. That's the point! It's a small minority that are driving this shit and they've been called the "climate mafia" for years. You are witnessing the collapse of their world and they are fighting tooth and nail to prevent it. They RELY on the fact that you think you can't understand, when anyone with a brain can figure it out.

Good day.

Ok. That is finally getting to the point of the questions I asked at first and have continued to ask throughout our conversation. Here is a list of scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists, individual scientists, universities, and laboratories which contribute to the overall scientific opinion. They all say global climate change is real, and man is affecting it
Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
That is a pretty impressive list. and the organizations do collectively represent thousands. I can't find a similar list that is nearly as impressive or that represents nearly as many accredited scientists for the opposition. Why is that?

Yet, there is not one name of scientist in your link? How come?

I didn't write the article. I just posted a link to it. Are you implying that the organizations listed are just fake names, and they don't represent real people? Generally scientific organizations have actual people they represent. Is this something you doubt?

No, I am implying you are another idiot who can not produce names of real scientists who claim man is causing global warming.

Further you can not even prove your "list", is of scientific organizations.

I should change my user name to "Scientist Ekektra".

Just to impress you.

Well no, I didn't visit each of the organizations on the list to see what was going on there, and I didn't get a list of their members, but they all sounded sciency. I just found the link. Are you saying there is a conspiracy to make up fake organizations that support climate change? This thing is worse than I thought. If I did go to the trouble to find a list of individual people's names, I suspect you would claim they were made up names.

You won't post names cause I will say you made them up?

Call me Elektra Science, get the point, just cause I call myself a mouse, that don't make me a mouse.

Do all those organizations conduct science?

You do not know but you post the link as if they are valid scientists.

I bet the first in the list has zero scientists, just a hunch.

I may look tomorrow, today I would bet my life that the first in the list has zero people doing science.

 

[BULLDOG]

Ok. That is finally getting to the point of the questions I asked at first and have continued to ask throughout our conversation. Here is a list of scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists, individual scientists, universities, and laboratories which contribute to the overall scientific opinion. They all say global climate change is real, and man is affecting it
Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
That is a pretty impressive list. and the organizations do collectively represent thousands. I can't find a similar list that is nearly as impressive or that represents nearly as many accredited scientists for the opposition. Why is that?

Yet, there is not one name of scientist in your link? How come?

I didn't write the article. I just posted a link to it. Are you implying that the organizations listed are just fake names, and they don't represent real people? Generally scientific organizations have actual people they represent. Is this something you doubt?

No, I am implying you are another idiot who can not produce names of real scientists who claim man is causing global warming.

Further you can not even prove your "list", is of scientific organizations.

I should change my user name to "Scientist Ekektra".

Just to impress you.

Well no, I didn't visit each of the organizations on the list to see what was going on there, and I didn't get a list of their members, but they all sounded sciency. I just found the link. Are you saying there is a conspiracy to make up fake organizations that support climate change? This thing is worse than I thought. If I did go to the trouble to find a list of individual people's names, I suspect you would claim they were made up names.

You won't post names cause I will say you made them up?

Call me Elektra Science, get the point, just cause I call myself a mouse, that don't make me a mouse.

Do all those organizations conduct science?

You do not know but you post the link as if they are valid scientists.

I bet the first in the list has zero scientists, just a hunch.

I may look tomorrow, today I would bet my life that the first in the list has zero people doing science.

Ok. You looked at the list and saw IPCC was the first one. Big deal. Are you trying to say that isn't a list of credible sources?

 

[westwall]

What, you didn't bother to read the IPCC link I gave you? What is the saying whenever nefarious affairs are being investigated... what is that saying again? Oh yeah FOLLOW THE MONEY! The IPCC link I gave you showed you the motive for all of this....76 TRILLION dollars. Yep, there's no possible way that shitty scientists would collude with corrupt politicians and big business to cook the books to ensure they get their cut of that.

Hmm mmm. Nope, no way. 76 TRILLION dollars isn't enough,... What a buffoon.

So thousands of unpaid scientists are in collusion with 120 different governments to defraud the public.
here is a quote from this link Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Thousands of scientists and other experts contribute (on a voluntary basis, without payment from the IPCC)[8] to writing and reviewing reports, which are then reviewed by governments. IPCC reports contain a "Summary for Policymakers", which is subject to line-by-line approval by delegates from all participating governments. Typically this involves the governments of more than 120 countries.[9]

This has to be at least as big as than Bigfoot.

What unpaid scientists are you speaking of? Show me one please. So far they have received collectively over 120 BILLION dollars in the last 20 years. What exactly has all that money gotten us? For a gauge it took nuclear physicists three years and 32 BILLION (in equivalent dollars) to create an atomic weapon and the foundation for nuclear power, and....... oh yeah......end WWII. In 20 years and for the paltry sum of 120 BILLION dollars climatologists have given us nothing but "maybe".

Let us know when you pull your head out of rectal defilade and you actually want to learn something.

Don't care what the IPCC received. They don't conduct any research, and they don't pay for any reports they receive from thousands of researchers..

They don't? Really? Wow, you really don't know anything do you. You're dismissed.

Now this is the kind of thing I was asking questions to find out. The IPCC website says they do no research and all the papers they use are donated.
IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
If you have proof of them conducting research or paying for reports, that would be a reason to mistrust their claims. You got any of that?

Knock yourself out..... This is what the IPCC passes for science.... They're a joke.


UN climate change panel based claims on student dissertation and magazine article
The United Nations' expert panel on climate change based claims about ice disappearing from the world's mountain tops on a student's dissertation and an article in a mountaineering magazine.


UN climate change panel based claims on student dissertation and magazine article - Telegraph


The scandal deepens – IPCC AR4 riddled with non peer reviewed WWF papers

A small selection of the opinion pieces used in the "report".

• Hansen, L.J., J.L. Biringer and J.R. Hoffmann, 2003: Buying Time: A User’s Manual for Building Resistance and Resilience to Climate Change in Natural Systems. WWF Climate Change Program, Berlin, 246 pp.

• http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/what_we_do/climate_change/our_solutions/business_industry/climate_savers/ index.cfm

• Lechtenbohmer, S., V. Grimm, D. Mitze, S. Thomas, M. Wissner, 2005: Target 2020: Policies and measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the EU. WWF European Policy Office, Wuppertal

• Malcolm, J.R., C. Liu, L. Miller, T. Allnut and L. Hansen, Eds., 2002a: Habitats at Risk: Global Warming and Species Loss in Globally Significant Terrestrial Ecosystems. WWF World Wide Fund for Nature, Gland, 40 pp.

• Rowell, A. and P.F. Moore, 2000: Global Review of Forest Fires. WWF/IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, 66 pp. http://www.iucn.org/themes/fcp/publications /files/global_review_forest_fires.pdf

• WWF, 2004: Deforestation threatens the cradle of reef diversity. World Wide Fund for Nature, 2 December 2004. http://www.wwf.org/
• WWF, 2004: Living Planet Report 2004. WWF- World Wide Fund for Nature (formerly World Wildlife Fund), Gland, Switzerland, 44 pp.
• WWF (World Wildlife Fund), 2005: An overview of glaciers, glacier retreat, and subsequent impacts in Nepal, India and China. World Wildlife Fund, Nepal Programme, 79 pp.

• Zarsky, L. and K. Gallagher, 2003: Searching for the Holy Grail? Making FDI Work for Sustainable Development. Analytical Paper, World Wildlife Fund (WWF), Switzerland

Finally, there are these authoritative sources cited by the IPCC – publications with names such as Leisure and Event Management:

• Jones, B. and D. Scott, 2007: Implications of climate change to Ontario’s provincial parks. Leisure, (in press)
• Jones, B., D. Scott and H. Abi Khaled, 2006: Implications of climate change for outdoor event planning: a case study of three special events in Canada’s National Capital region. Event Management, 10, 63-76

The scandal deepens 8211 IPCC AR4 riddled with non peer reviewed WWF papers Watts Up With That


This week, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is releasing its latest report, the “Working Group II Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report.” Like its past reports, this one predicts apocalyptic consequences if mankind fails to give the UN the power to tax and regulate fossil fuels and subsidize and mandate the use of alternative fuels. But happily, an international group of scientists I have been privileged to work with has conducted an independent review of IPCC’s past and new reports, along with the climate science they deliberately exclude or misrepresent.

Our group, called the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), was founded in 2003 by a distinguished atmospheric physicist, S. Fred Singer, and has produced five hefty reports to date, the latest being released today (March 31).

So how do the IPCC and NIPCC reports differ? The final draft of the IPCC’s Summary for Policymakers identifies eight “reasons for concern” which media reports say will remain the focus of the final report. The NIPCC reports address each point too, also summarizing their authors’ positions in Summaries for Policymakers. This provides a convenient way to compare and contrast the reports’ findings.

Here’s what the reports say:

IPCC: “Risk of death, injury, and disrupted livelihoods in low-lying coastal zones and small island developing states, due to sea-level rise, coastal flooding, and storm surges.”

NIPCC: “Flood frequency and severity in many areas of the world were higher historically during the Little Ice Age and other cool eras than during the twentieth century. Climate change ranks well below other contributors, such as dikes and levee construction, to increased flooding.”

IPCC: “Risk of food insecurity linked to warming, drought, and precipitation variability, particularly for poorer populations.”

NIPCC: “There is little or no risk of increasing food insecurity due to global warming or rising atmospheric CO2 levels. Farmers and others who depend on rural livelihoods for income are benefitting from rising agricultural productivity throughout the world, including in parts of Asia and Africa where the need for increased food supplies is most critical. Rising temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels play a key role in the realization of such benefits.

IPCC: “Risk of severe harm for large urban populations due to inland flooding.”

NIPCC: “No changes in precipitation patterns, snow, monsoons, or river flows that might be considered harmful to human well-being or plants or wildlife have been observed that could be attributed to rising CO2 levels. What changes have been observed tend to be beneficial.”

IPCC: “Risk of loss of rural livelihoods and income due to insufficient access to drinking and irrigation water and reduced agricultural productivity, particularly for farmers and pastoralists with minimal capital in semi-arid regions.”

NIPCC: “Higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations benefit plant growth-promoting microorganisms that help land plants overcome drought conditions, a potentially negative aspect of future climate change. Continued atmospheric CO2 enrichment should prove to be a huge benefit to plants by directly enhancing their growth rates and water use efficiencies.”

The IPCC s Latest Report Deliberately Excludes And Misrepresents Important Climate Science - Forbes

U.S. GAO - International Climate Change Assessments Federal Agencies Should Improve Reporting and Oversight of U.S. Funding

 

[BULLDOG]

So thousands of unpaid scientists are in collusion with 120 different governments to defraud the public.
here is a quote from this link Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Thousands of scientists and other experts contribute (on a voluntary basis, without payment from the IPCC)[8] to writing and reviewing reports, which are then reviewed by governments. IPCC reports contain a "Summary for Policymakers", which is subject to line-by-line approval by delegates from all participating governments. Typically this involves the governments of more than 120 countries.[9]

This has to be at least as big as than Bigfoot.

What unpaid scientists are you speaking of? Show me one please. So far they have received collectively over 120 BILLION dollars in the last 20 years. What exactly has all that money gotten us? For a gauge it took nuclear physicists three years and 32 BILLION (in equivalent dollars) to create an atomic weapon and the foundation for nuclear power, and....... oh yeah......end WWII. In 20 years and for the paltry sum of 120 BILLION dollars climatologists have given us nothing but "maybe".

Let us know when you pull your head out of rectal defilade and you actually want to learn something.

Don't care what the IPCC received. They don't conduct any research, and they don't pay for any reports they receive from thousands of researchers..

They don't? Really? Wow, you really don't know anything do you. You're dismissed.

Now this is the kind of thing I was asking questions to find out. The IPCC website says they do no research and all the papers they use are donated.
IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
If you have proof of them conducting research or paying for reports, that would be a reason to mistrust their claims. You got any of that?

Knock yourself out..... This is what the IPCC passes for science.... They're a joke.


UN climate change panel based claims on student dissertation and magazine article
The United Nations' expert panel on climate change based claims about ice disappearing from the world's mountain tops on a student's dissertation and an article in a mountaineering magazine.


UN climate change panel based claims on student dissertation and magazine article - Telegraph


The scandal deepens – IPCC AR4 riddled with non peer reviewed WWF papers

A small selection of the opinion pieces used in the "report".

• 
  
  
  • Hansen, L.J., J.L. Biringer and J.R. Hoffmann, 2003: Buying Time: A User’s Manual for Building Resistance and Resilience to Climate Change in Natural Systems. WWF Climate Change Program, Berlin, 246 pp.

• 
  
  
  • http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/what_we_do/climate_change/our_solutions/business_industry/climate_savers/ index.cfm

• 
  
  
  • Lechtenbohmer, S., V. Grimm, D. Mitze, S. Thomas, M. Wissner, 2005: Target 2020: Policies and measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the EU. WWF European Policy Office, Wuppertal

• 
  
  
  • Malcolm, J.R., C. Liu, L. Miller, T. Allnut and L. Hansen, Eds., 2002a: Habitats at Risk: Global Warming and Species Loss in Globally Significant Terrestrial Ecosystems. WWF World Wide Fund for Nature, Gland, 40 pp.

• 
  
  
  • Rowell, A. and P.F. Moore, 2000: Global Review of Forest Fires. WWF/IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, 66 pp. http://www.iucn.org/themes/fcp/publications /files/global_review_forest_fires.pdf

• 
  
  
  • WWF, 2004: Deforestation threatens the cradle of reef diversity. World Wide Fund for Nature, 2 December 2004. http://www.wwf.org/
  • WWF, 2004: Living Planet Report 2004. WWF- World Wide Fund for Nature (formerly World Wildlife Fund), Gland, Switzerland, 44 pp.
  • WWF (World Wildlife Fund), 2005: An overview of glaciers, glacier retreat, and subsequent impacts in Nepal, India and China. World Wildlife Fund, Nepal Programme, 79 pp.

• 
  
  
  • Zarsky, L. and K. Gallagher, 2003: Searching for the Holy Grail? Making FDI Work for Sustainable Development. Analytical Paper, World Wildlife Fund (WWF), Switzerland

Finally, there are these authoritative sources cited by the IPCC – publications with names such as Leisure and Event Management:

• 
  
  
  • Jones, B. and D. Scott, 2007: Implications of climate change to Ontario’s provincial parks. Leisure, (in press)
  • Jones, B., D. Scott and H. Abi Khaled, 2006: Implications of climate change for outdoor event planning: a case study of three special events in Canada’s National Capital region. Event Management, 10, 63-76

The scandal deepens 8211 IPCC AR4 riddled with non peer reviewed WWF papers Watts Up With That


This week, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is releasing its latest report, the “Working Group II Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report.” Like its past reports, this one predicts apocalyptic consequences if mankind fails to give the UN the power to tax and regulate fossil fuels and subsidize and mandate the use of alternative fuels. But happily, an international group of scientists I have been privileged to work with has conducted an independent review of IPCC’s past and new reports, along with the climate science they deliberately exclude or misrepresent.

Our group, called the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), was founded in 2003 by a distinguished atmospheric physicist, S. Fred Singer, and has produced five hefty reports to date, the latest being released today (March 31).

So how do the IPCC and NIPCC reports differ? The final draft of the IPCC’s Summary for Policymakers identifies eight “reasons for concern” which media reports say will remain the focus of the final report. The NIPCC reports address each point too, also summarizing their authors’ positions in Summaries for Policymakers. This provides a convenient way to compare and contrast the reports’ findings.

Here’s what the reports say:

IPCC: “Risk of death, injury, and disrupted livelihoods in low-lying coastal zones and small island developing states, due to sea-level rise, coastal flooding, and storm surges.”

NIPCC: “Flood frequency and severity in many areas of the world were higher historically during the Little Ice Age and other cool eras than during the twentieth century. Climate change ranks well below other contributors, such as dikes and levee construction, to increased flooding.”

IPCC: “Risk of food insecurity linked to warming, drought, and precipitation variability, particularly for poorer populations.”

NIPCC: “There is little or no risk of increasing food insecurity due to global warming or rising atmospheric CO2 levels. Farmers and others who depend on rural livelihoods for income are benefitting from rising agricultural productivity throughout the world, including in parts of Asia and Africa where the need for increased food supplies is most critical. Rising temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels play a key role in the realization of such benefits.

IPCC: “Risk of severe harm for large urban populations due to inland flooding.”

NIPCC: “No changes in precipitation patterns, snow, monsoons, or river flows that might be considered harmful to human well-being or plants or wildlife have been observed that could be attributed to rising CO2 levels. What changes have been observed tend to be beneficial.”

IPCC: “Risk of loss of rural livelihoods and income due to insufficient access to drinking and irrigation water and reduced agricultural productivity, particularly for farmers and pastoralists with minimal capital in semi-arid regions.”

NIPCC: “Higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations benefit plant growth-promoting microorganisms that help land plants overcome drought conditions, a potentially negative aspect of future climate change. Continued atmospheric CO2 enrichment should prove to be a huge benefit to plants by directly enhancing their growth rates and water use efficiencies.”

The IPCC s Latest Report Deliberately Excludes And Misrepresents Important Climate Science - Forbes

U.S. GAO - International Climate Change Assessments Federal Agencies Should Improve Reporting and Oversight of U.S. Funding

This is an answer to the some of questions I had before. I'm not sure why you got so nasty for a while, but I will respond in the same manner I am addressed. It's late, but I'll look at what you have tomorrow.

 

[Kosh]

What unpaid scientists are you speaking of? Show me one please. So far they have received collectively over 120 BILLION dollars in the last 20 years. What exactly has all that money gotten us? For a gauge it took nuclear physicists three years and 32 BILLION (in equivalent dollars) to create an atomic weapon and the foundation for nuclear power, and....... oh yeah......end WWII. In 20 years and for the paltry sum of 120 BILLION dollars climatologists have given us nothing but "maybe".

Let us know when you pull your head out of rectal defilade and you actually want to learn something.

Don't care what the IPCC received. They don't conduct any research, and they don't pay for any reports they receive from thousands of researchers..

They don't? Really? Wow, you really don't know anything do you. You're dismissed.

Now this is the kind of thing I was asking questions to find out. The IPCC website says they do no research and all the papers they use are donated.
IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
If you have proof of them conducting research or paying for reports, that would be a reason to mistrust their claims. You got any of that?

Knock yourself out..... This is what the IPCC passes for science.... They're a joke.


UN climate change panel based claims on student dissertation and magazine article
The United Nations' expert panel on climate change based claims about ice disappearing from the world's mountain tops on a student's dissertation and an article in a mountaineering magazine.


UN climate change panel based claims on student dissertation and magazine article - Telegraph


The scandal deepens – IPCC AR4 riddled with non peer reviewed WWF papers

A small selection of the opinion pieces used in the "report".

• 
  
  
  • Hansen, L.J., J.L. Biringer and J.R. Hoffmann, 2003: Buying Time: A User’s Manual for Building Resistance and Resilience to Climate Change in Natural Systems. WWF Climate Change Program, Berlin, 246 pp.

• 
  
  
  • http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/what_we_do/climate_change/our_solutions/business_industry/climate_savers/ index.cfm

• 
  
  
  • Lechtenbohmer, S., V. Grimm, D. Mitze, S. Thomas, M. Wissner, 2005: Target 2020: Policies and measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the EU. WWF European Policy Office, Wuppertal

• 
  
  
  • Malcolm, J.R., C. Liu, L. Miller, T. Allnut and L. Hansen, Eds., 2002a: Habitats at Risk: Global Warming and Species Loss in Globally Significant Terrestrial Ecosystems. WWF World Wide Fund for Nature, Gland, 40 pp.

• 
  
  
  • Rowell, A. and P.F. Moore, 2000: Global Review of Forest Fires. WWF/IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, 66 pp. http://www.iucn.org/themes/fcp/publications /files/global_review_forest_fires.pdf

• 
  
  
  • WWF, 2004: Deforestation threatens the cradle of reef diversity. World Wide Fund for Nature, 2 December 2004. http://www.wwf.org/
  • WWF, 2004: Living Planet Report 2004. WWF- World Wide Fund for Nature (formerly World Wildlife Fund), Gland, Switzerland, 44 pp.
  • WWF (World Wildlife Fund), 2005: An overview of glaciers, glacier retreat, and subsequent impacts in Nepal, India and China. World Wildlife Fund, Nepal Programme, 79 pp.

• 
  
  
  • Zarsky, L. and K. Gallagher, 2003: Searching for the Holy Grail? Making FDI Work for Sustainable Development. Analytical Paper, World Wildlife Fund (WWF), Switzerland

Finally, there are these authoritative sources cited by the IPCC – publications with names such as Leisure and Event Management:

• 
  
  
  • Jones, B. and D. Scott, 2007: Implications of climate change to Ontario’s provincial parks. Leisure, (in press)
  • Jones, B., D. Scott and H. Abi Khaled, 2006: Implications of climate change for outdoor event planning: a case study of three special events in Canada’s National Capital region. Event Management, 10, 63-76

The scandal deepens 8211 IPCC AR4 riddled with non peer reviewed WWF papers Watts Up With That


This week, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is releasing its latest report, the “Working Group II Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report.” Like its past reports, this one predicts apocalyptic consequences if mankind fails to give the UN the power to tax and regulate fossil fuels and subsidize and mandate the use of alternative fuels. But happily, an international group of scientists I have been privileged to work with has conducted an independent review of IPCC’s past and new reports, along with the climate science they deliberately exclude or misrepresent.

Our group, called the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), was founded in 2003 by a distinguished atmospheric physicist, S. Fred Singer, and has produced five hefty reports to date, the latest being released today (March 31).

So how do the IPCC and NIPCC reports differ? The final draft of the IPCC’s Summary for Policymakers identifies eight “reasons for concern” which media reports say will remain the focus of the final report. The NIPCC reports address each point too, also summarizing their authors’ positions in Summaries for Policymakers. This provides a convenient way to compare and contrast the reports’ findings.

Here’s what the reports say:

IPCC: “Risk of death, injury, and disrupted livelihoods in low-lying coastal zones and small island developing states, due to sea-level rise, coastal flooding, and storm surges.”

NIPCC: “Flood frequency and severity in many areas of the world were higher historically during the Little Ice Age and other cool eras than during the twentieth century. Climate change ranks well below other contributors, such as dikes and levee construction, to increased flooding.”

IPCC: “Risk of food insecurity linked to warming, drought, and precipitation variability, particularly for poorer populations.”

NIPCC: “There is little or no risk of increasing food insecurity due to global warming or rising atmospheric CO2 levels. Farmers and others who depend on rural livelihoods for income are benefitting from rising agricultural productivity throughout the world, including in parts of Asia and Africa where the need for increased food supplies is most critical. Rising temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels play a key role in the realization of such benefits.

IPCC: “Risk of severe harm for large urban populations due to inland flooding.”

NIPCC: “No changes in precipitation patterns, snow, monsoons, or river flows that might be considered harmful to human well-being or plants or wildlife have been observed that could be attributed to rising CO2 levels. What changes have been observed tend to be beneficial.”

IPCC: “Risk of loss of rural livelihoods and income due to insufficient access to drinking and irrigation water and reduced agricultural productivity, particularly for farmers and pastoralists with minimal capital in semi-arid regions.”

NIPCC: “Higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations benefit plant growth-promoting microorganisms that help land plants overcome drought conditions, a potentially negative aspect of future climate change. Continued atmospheric CO2 enrichment should prove to be a huge benefit to plants by directly enhancing their growth rates and water use efficiencies.”

The IPCC s Latest Report Deliberately Excludes And Misrepresents Important Climate Science - Forbes

U.S. GAO - International Climate Change Assessments Federal Agencies Should Improve Reporting and Oversight of U.S. Funding

This is an answer to the some of questions I had before. I'm not sure why you got so nasty for a while, but I will respond in the same manner I am addressed. It's late, but I'll look at what you have tomorrow.

Yes we know the AGW cult like the far left cult must adhere to religious scripture and they would much rather watch the world burn than admit they are wrong!

 

[IanC]

Bulldog- I assume you never checked out 'cargo cult'. here is a video of it being spoken, unfortunately not in a Far Rockaway accent.


clip of a Feynman lecture on the scientific principals-


and and part of an interview he did before passing away. here he tries to express how difficult it is to answer questions to someone without the commensurate scientific knowledge and culture to understand the explanation. hahahaha, the same way I feel when Crick cannot grok the reason why you cannot simply append instrumental data onto a proxy series.