{BS} 1700 Scientists can't be wrong...can they?
in [Toyota]
|
Prev: Antifreeze
Next: Warmists sought Big Oil cash
From: Tegger on 10 Dec 2009 21:11 dr_jeff <utz(a)msu.edu> wrote in news:Keudnd0yCq_DPbzWnZ2dnUVZ_h-dnZ2d(a)giganews.com: > Tegger wrote: >> >> Excerpt: >> >> "The 53 authors and seven favourable reviewers represent >> a total of 60 people, leading McLean to conclude: 'There >> is only evidence that about 60 people explicitly supported >> the claim' made by the IPCC that global warming represents >> a threat to the planet. Sixty scientists among the 130-plus >> countries that the IPCC cites amounts to one scientist >> for every two countries." > > How misleading can you be? They are talking about 60 people who > contributed to or commented about a particular chapter. That one chapter (#9) is the ONLY one that deals with global warming and its cause. The others all deal with entirely different matters. That has > nothing to do with whether the other 2830 scientists at the meeting > agreed with the statement. Well, yes. That's the very point. The warmists all claim that anywhere from 2,500 to 4,000 scientists support the idea of man-made global warming. John McLean has convincingly shown quite otherwise. > > And disagreement about a chapter in a publication about global warming > is different disagreeing global warming. > > Get a clue, man. You should try actually reading that publication. It's pretty wide-ranging -- and boringly opaque. The /only/ chapter that deals with global warming and its cause is Chapter 9. And in case you're interested, the reviewers also tended to find it boring and opaque. Two examples: 1) Reviewer David Sexton: "section # 9.6 I think reads pretty well for the bits I understand". 2) Reviewer Fons Baede: "Chapter 9 SOD has improved considerably and is very readable and informative." -- Tegger
From: Tegger on 10 Dec 2009 21:24 dr_jeff <utz(a)msu.edu> wrote in news:WZKdneub24fhA7zWnZ2dnUVZ_gNi4p2d(a)giganews.com: > Hachiroku wrote: >> 1700 scientists have signed a petition in the UK saying, based on the >> observational evidence, global warming is man-made. >> >> >> OK. Key word...observational. > > Yet, global warming is based on far more than just observational > evidence. > The theory of global warming is based on a lot of guesswork, and on raw data that has been concealed from inquiring researchers. And on a certain amount of evidence that is now destroyed, according to the authors of the Climategate emails... <http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/11/27/358722.aspx> Excerpts: "Their first step was to assemble a database of temperature measurements and plot temperature charts. To do that, they needed raw temperature measurements that had not been averaged or adjusted in any way. Courtillot asked Phil Jones, the scientist who runs the CRU database, for his raw data, telling him (according to one of the �Climategate� emails that surfaced following the recent hacking of CRU�s computer systems) 'there may be some quite important information in the daily values which is likely lost on monthly averaging.' "Jones refused Courtillot�s request for data, saying that CRU had 'signed agreements with national meteorological services saying they would not pass the raw data onto third parties.' (Interestingly, in another of the CRU emails, Jones said something very different: 'I took a decision not to release our [meteorological] station data, mainly because of McIntyre,' referring to Canadian Steve McIntyre, who helped uncover the flaws in the hockey stick graph.)" More... "The decision to consider the 1961-1990 period as �normal� was CRUs. Had CRU chosen a different period under consideration, the IPCC graph would have shown less warming, as discussed in one of the Climategate emails, from David Parker of the UK meteorological office. In it, Parker advised Jones not to select a different period, saying 'anomalies will seem less positive than before if we change to newer normals, so the impression of global warming will be muted.'" Jeff, you've been had. You've been hoodwinked, ripped, off, played for a rube, and made a fool of. Aren't you the slightest bit angry at the warmists? You ought to be. -- Tegger
From: Tegger on 10 Dec 2009 21:45
dr_jeff <utz(a)msu.edu> wrote in news:doadncWR8PqFNbzWnZ2dnUVZ_gminZ2d(a)giganews.com: > Hachiroku ハチロク wrote: >> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 20:21:00 -0500, dr_jeff wrote: >> >>> Hachiroku wrote: >>>> 1700 scientists have signed a petition in the UK saying, based on >>>> the observational evidence, global warming is man-made. >>>> >>>> >>>> OK. Key word...observational. >>> Yet, global warming is based on far more than just observational >>> evidence. >>> >>> Jeff >> >> That's not what these scientists said. >> >> Try to prove your statement. > > Read the full report from the actual conference. It's available for > free here: http://www.ipcc.ch/ > And robust rebuttals, also free: <http://www.nipccreport.org/> and <http://climategate.tv/> -- Tegger |