UN wrongly linked global warming to natural disasters

[SpidermanTuba]

=SpidermanTuba;1936714]

What a bunch of idiots. They aren't very good world conspirators if they admit to their mistakes.

Hey cobwebs for brains, the authors were laying out the theory global warming was responsible for natural disasters. Another UN related group which you so dearly like to tout as respected scientists capable of peer review. You reveal your true nature by stating you shouldn't admit mistakes.

Do you think you could try not to write in sentence fragments?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

. In fact, their talking points over the past decade was always back to 'peer reviewed',

Actually, ALL science is published in peer reviewed journals. Not just climate science.

which thanks to the hacked emails, it's become that only pro-man made 'scientists' were allowed to publish in...

Interesting point, except you forgot the fact it isn't actually true. Did you make it up yourself or copy it from a blog?

 

[Oddball]

Did you make it up yourself or copy it from a blog?

It's in Michael Mann's own words.

I guess the cult has a pretty good censor working of them.

 

[saveliberty]

=SpidermanTuba;1936714]

Hey cobwebs for brains, the authors were laying out the theory global warming was responsible for natural disasters. Another UN related group which you so dearly like to tout as respected scientists capable of peer review. You reveal your true nature by stating you shouldn't admit mistakes.

Do you think you could try not to write in sentence fragments?

Can you keep your fiction out of the non-fiction section?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Did you make it up yourself or copy it from a blog?

It's in Michael Mann's own words.

No it isn't.

 

[saveliberty]

Did you make it up yourself or copy it from a blog?

It's in Michael Mann's own words.

No it isn't.

Wow! Five minutes to do a complete reference check. That the climatologist standard?

 

[Annie]

THE United Nations climate science panel faces new controversy for wrongly linking global warming to an increase in the number and severity of natural disasters such as hurricanes and floods.

It based the claims on an unpublished report that had not been subjected to routine scientific scrutiny — and ignored warnings from scientific advisers that the evidence supporting the link too weak. The report's own authors later withdrew the claim because they felt the evidence was not strong enough.

The claim by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), that global warming is already affecting the severity and frequency of global disasters, has since become embedded in political and public debate. It was central to discussions at last month's Copenhagen climate summit, including a demand by developing countries for compensation of $100 billion (£62 billion) from the rich nations blamed for creating the most emissions.

<snip>


Despite this change the IPCC did not issue a clarification ahead of the Copenhagen climate summit last month. It has also emerged that at least two scientific reviewers who checked drafts of the IPCC report urged greater caution in proposing a link between climate change and disaster impacts — but were ignored.

UN wrongly linked global warming to natural disasters - Times Online

Europe is following this, the MSM in US is continuing the whitewash:

Findings - Corporate Money to Pay for Scientific Research? Get Over It - NYTimes.com

The above article ignores the salaries received which were published by UK newspapers. This is serious stuff. Take a look at the NYT piece:

...I can’t defend that entire sentiment, because you obviously can attack some of the science in the I.P.C.C. report, not to mention other dire warnings in Dr. Pachauri’s speeches. acknowledgment of 'science' problem

But the 'but': never mind your lying eyes or factsI do agree with his basic insight: Conflict-of-interest accusations have become the simplest strategy for avoiding a substantive debate. The growing obsession with following the money too often leads to nothing but cheap ad hominem attacks.

Sure, money matters to everyone; the more fears that Dr. Pachauri and Mr. Gore stoke about climate change, the more money is liable to flow to them and the companies and institutions they are affiliated with. Given all the accusations they have made about the financial motives of climate change “deniers,” there is a certain justice in having their own finances investigated. ya think? Never mind history or common sense.

But I don’t doubt that Mr. Gore and Dr. Pachauri would be preaching against fossil fuels even if there were no money in it for them, just as I don’t doubt that skeptics would be opposing them for no pay. Why are journalists and ethics boards so quick to assume that money, particularly corporate money, is the first factor to look at when evaluating someone’s work?...

Not one reason other than 'belief' to back the author up.

 

[Oddball]

Here are some winners......


Michael Mann discusses how to destroy a journal that has published sceptic papers.(1047388489)

Mann thinks he will contact BBC's Richard Black to find out why another BBC journalist was allowed to publish a vaguely sceptical article.(1255352257)

Tom Wigley says that von Storch is partly to blame for sceptic papers getting published at Climate Research. Says he encourages the publication of crap science. Says they should tell publisher that the journal is being used for misinformation. Says that whether this is true or not doesn't matter. Says they need to get editorial board to resign. Says they need to get rid of von Storch too. (1051190249)

# Reaction to McIntyre's 2005 paper in GRL. Mann has challenged GRL editor-in-chief over the publication. Mann is concerned about the connections of the paper's editor James Saiers with U Virginia [does he mean Pat Michaels?]. Tom Wigley says that if Saiers is a sceptic they should go through official GRL channels to get him ousted. (1106322460) [Note to readers - Saiers was subsequently ousted]
# Later on Mann refers to the leak at GRL being plugged.

- Bishop Hill blog - Climate cuttings33

 

[Oddball]

THE United Nations climate science panel faces new controversy for wrongly linking global warming to an increase in the number and severity of natural disasters such as hurricanes and floods.

It based the claims on an unpublished report that had not been subjected to routine scientific scrutiny — and ignored warnings from scientific advisers that the evidence supporting the link too weak. The report's own authors later withdrew the claim because they felt the evidence was not strong enough.

The claim by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), that global warming is already affecting the severity and frequency of global disasters, has since become embedded in political and public debate. It was central to discussions at last month's Copenhagen climate summit, including a demand by developing countries for compensation of $100 billion (£62 billion) from the rich nations blamed for creating the most emissions.

<snip>


Despite this change the IPCC did not issue a clarification ahead of the Copenhagen climate summit last month. It has also emerged that at least two scientific reviewers who checked drafts of the IPCC report urged greater caution in proposing a link between climate change and disaster impacts — but were ignored.

UN wrongly linked global warming to natural disasters - Times Online

Europe is following this, the MSM in US is continuing the whitewash:

Findings - Corporate Money to Pay for Scientific Research? Get Over It - NYTimes.com

The above article ignores the salaries received which were published by UK newspapers. This is serious stuff. Take a look at the NYT piece:

...I can’t defend that entire sentiment, because you obviously can attack some of the science in the I.P.C.C. report, not to mention other dire warnings in Dr. Pachauri’s speeches. acknowledgment of 'science' problem

But the 'but': never mind your lying eyes or factsI do agree with his basic insight: Conflict-of-interest accusations have become the simplest strategy for avoiding a substantive debate. The growing obsession with following the money too often leads to nothing but cheap ad hominem attacks.

Sure, money matters to everyone; the more fears that Dr. Pachauri and Mr. Gore stoke about climate change, the more money is liable to flow to them and the companies and institutions they are affiliated with. Given all the accusations they have made about the financial motives of climate change “deniers,” there is a certain justice in having their own finances investigated. ya think? Never mind history or common sense.

But I don’t doubt that Mr. Gore and Dr. Pachauri would be preaching against fossil fuels even if there were no money in it for them, just as I don’t doubt that skeptics would be opposing them for no pay. Why are journalists and ethics boards so quick to assume that money, particularly corporate money, is the first factor to look at when evaluating someone’s work?...

Not one reason other than 'belief' to back the author up.

Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?

 

[Annie]

UN wrongly linked global warming to natural disasters - Times Online

Europe is following this, the MSM in US is continuing the whitewash:

Findings - Corporate Money to Pay for Scientific Research? Get Over It - NYTimes.com

The above article ignores the salaries received which were published by UK newspapers. This is serious stuff. Take a look at the NYT piece:

...I can’t defend that entire sentiment, because you obviously can attack some of the science in the I.P.C.C. report, not to mention other dire warnings in Dr. Pachauri’s speeches. acknowledgment of 'science' problem

But the 'but': never mind your lying eyes or factsI do agree with his basic insight: Conflict-of-interest accusations have become the simplest strategy for avoiding a substantive debate. The growing obsession with following the money too often leads to nothing but cheap ad hominem attacks.

Sure, money matters to everyone; the more fears that Dr. Pachauri and Mr. Gore stoke about climate change, the more money is liable to flow to them and the companies and institutions they are affiliated with. Given all the accusations they have made about the financial motives of climate change “deniers,” there is a certain justice in having their own finances investigated. ya think? Never mind history or common sense.

But I don’t doubt that Mr. Gore and Dr. Pachauri would be preaching against fossil fuels even if there were no money in it for them, just as I don’t doubt that skeptics would be opposing them for no pay. Why are journalists and ethics boards so quick to assume that money, particularly corporate money, is the first factor to look at when evaluating someone’s work?...

Not one reason other than 'belief' to back the author up.

Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?

Oh, I'll go with the 'scientists' every time. They told me they are smart.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

It's in Michael Mann's own words.

No it isn't.

Wow! Five minutes to do a complete reference check. That the climatologist standard?

Its not up to me to find where he said it, its up to the person who claimed he said it.

Are you stupid?

 

[Oddball]

Ooops.....It wasn't Mann but Phil Jones:

"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report," Jones writes. "Kevin and I will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

In the trenches on climate change, hostility among foes - washingtonpost.com

Mighty "scientific" of them, huh?

 

[Annie]

. In fact, their talking points over the past decade was always back to 'peer reviewed',

Actually, ALL science is published in peer reviewed journals. Not just climate science.

which thanks to the hacked emails, it's become that only pro-man made 'scientists' were allowed to publish in...

Interesting point, except you forgot the fact it isn't actually true. Did you make it up yourself or copy it from a blog?

Asking me to prove a negative, no thanks. You disprove what you think I was saying, then I'll respond. Face it Spidey, it sucks to be of your ilk right now. We're not on the defensive, Mr. "Show me the peer reviewed articles..." You are.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Ooops.....It wasn't Mann but Phil Jones:

"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report," Jones writes. "Kevin and I will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

In the trenches on climate change, hostility among foes - washingtonpost.com

Mighty "scientific" of them, huh?

"In fact, their talking points over the past decade was always back to 'peer reviewed', which thanks to the hacked emails, it's become that only pro-man made 'scientists' were allowed to publish in"



You are aware the IPCC is only one of dozens if not hundreds of climate related journals? I guess its a big conspiracy between all of them.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

. In fact, their talking points over the past decade was always back to 'peer reviewed',

Actually, ALL science is published in peer reviewed journals. Not just climate science.

which thanks to the hacked emails, it's become that only pro-man made 'scientists' were allowed to publish in...

Interesting point, except you forgot the fact it isn't actually true. Did you make it up yourself or copy it from a blog?

Asking me to prove a negative, no thanks. You disprove what you think I was saying, then I'll respond. Face it Spidey, it sucks to be of your ilk right now. We're not on the defensive, Mr. "Show me the peer reviewed articles..." You are.

Here's a list of peer reviewed journal articles skeptical of AGW right here:



Pete'sPlace: Peer-Reviewed Articles Skeptical Of Man-Caused Global Warming

 

[Oddball]

Ooops.....It wasn't Mann but Phil Jones:

"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report," Jones writes. "Kevin and I will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

In the trenches on climate change, hostility among foes - washingtonpost.com

Mighty "scientific" of them, huh?

"In fact, their talking points over the past decade was always back to 'peer reviewed', which thanks to the hacked emails, it's become that only pro-man made 'scientists' were allowed to publish in"

While quite flimsy, at least you made an attempt at making an excuse.

You are aware the IPCC is only one of dozens if not hundreds of climate related journals? I guess its a big conspiracy between all of them.

You are aware that CRU, Penn State, et al are the leading AGW hoaxers, from whence most of the subsequent data is worked, which takes the fromer as gospel, don't you?

Also, you do know that academe is as political a place as there is, where "peer review" means telling the "peers" what they already "know" in order get that vaunted status of being "reviewed", don't you?

 

[saveliberty]

No it isn't.

Wow! Five minutes to do a complete reference check. That the climatologist standard?

Its not up to me to find where he said it, its up to the person who claimed he said it.

Are you stupid?

Another mantra of the climatologist? You made a definitive claim within five minutes. Are you a liar? I think not, but you certainly jumped to a conclusion without basis. Do you really think making statements like, "are you stupid", help your factless opinions? The icons of global warming have been held up to review in their emails, data collection manipulation and flawed methodologies. They are not trustworthy.

 

[Annie]

Ooops.....It wasn't Mann but Phil Jones:

"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report," Jones writes. "Kevin and I will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

In the trenches on climate change, hostility among foes - washingtonpost.com

Mighty "scientific" of them, huh?

"In fact, their talking points over the past decade was always back to 'peer reviewed', which thanks to the hacked emails, it's become that only pro-man made 'scientists' were allowed to publish in"

While quite flimsy, at least you made an attempt at making an excuse.

You are aware the IPCC is only one of dozens if not hundreds of climate related journals? I guess its a big conspiracy between all of them.

You are aware that CRU, Penn State, et al are the leading AGW hoaxers, from whence most of the subsequent data is worked, which takes the fromer as gospel, don't you?

Also, you do know that academe is as political a place as there is, where "peer review" means telling the "peers" what they already "know" in order get that vaunted status of being "reviewed", don't you?

With this I'll ask Spidey to acknowledge that his sources and heroes have been less than honest. I know I'd be devastated, but would indeed speak out on how I'd been advocating for science, while not being allowed into the inner sanctum. Truth is, these gods of 'green jobs/, 'punish the corporations', etc., have perpetrated wrongful data and conclusions submitted as fact, based upon the credentials assumed. They've apologized, while not admitting collusion, though it's obvious that has been happening.

With that as the basis of my trying to distance myself from money makers, I believe SOMETHING needs to be done. It doesn't matter that the science isn't there yet, it's obvious to me and a whole bunch more. It's a shame the data doesn't support this yet, but we all know it's true.

 

[Big Fitz]

UN wrongly linked global warming to natural disasters - Times Online

Europe is following this, the MSM in US is continuing the whitewash:

Findings - Corporate Money to Pay for Scientific Research? Get Over It - NYTimes.com

The above article ignores the salaries received which were published by UK newspapers. This is serious stuff. Take a look at the NYT piece:

...I can’t defend that entire sentiment, because you obviously can attack some of the science in the I.P.C.C. report, not to mention other dire warnings in Dr. Pachauri’s speeches. acknowledgment of 'science' problem

But the 'but': never mind your lying eyes or factsI do agree with his basic insight: Conflict-of-interest accusations have become the simplest strategy for avoiding a substantive debate. The growing obsession with following the money too often leads to nothing but cheap ad hominem attacks.

Sure, money matters to everyone; the more fears that Dr. Pachauri and Mr. Gore stoke about climate change, the more money is liable to flow to them and the companies and institutions they are affiliated with. Given all the accusations they have made about the financial motives of climate change “deniers,” there is a certain justice in having their own finances investigated. ya think? Never mind history or common sense.

But I don’t doubt that Mr. Gore and Dr. Pachauri would be preaching against fossil fuels even if there were no money in it for them, just as I don’t doubt that skeptics would be opposing them for no pay. Why are journalists and ethics boards so quick to assume that money, particularly corporate money, is the first factor to look at when evaluating someone’s work?...

Not one reason other than 'belief' to back the author up.

Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?

His right eye is his lying eye.