Quote:

The 2013 IPCC AR5 Report: Facts -vs- Fictions Guest essay by Dr. Don J. Easterbrook, Professor of Geology, Western Washington University Mark Twain popularized the saying “There are liars, damn liars, and statisticians.” After reading the recently-released [IPCC AR5] report, we can now add, ‘there are liars, damn liars, and IPCC.” When compared to the also recently published NIPCC (Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change) 1000+-page volume of data on climate change with thousands of peer-reviewed references, the inescapable conclusion is that the IPCC report must be considered the grossest misrepresentation of data ever published. As MIT climate scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen stated, “The latest IPCC report has truly sunk to the level of hilarious incoherence—it is quite amazing to see the contortions the IPCC has to go through in order to keep the international climate agenda going.” From the IPCC 2013 Report

http://i44.tinypic.com/2hd45sh.jpg


Quote:

After all these years, IPCC still doesn’t get it—we’ve been thawing out from the Little Ice Age for several hundred years but still are not yet back to pre-Little Ice Age temperatures that prevailed for 90% of the past 10,000 years. Warming and cooling has been going on for millions of years, long before CO2 could have had anything to do with it, so warming in itself certainly doesn’t prove that it was caused by CO2. Their misrepresentation of data is ridiculous. In Fig. 1, the IPCC report purports to show warming of 0.5°C (0.9°F) since 1980, yet surface temperature measurements indicate no warming over the past 17 years (Fig. 2) and satellite temperature data shows the August 13 temperature only 0.12°C (0.21°F) above the 1908 temperature (Spencer, 2013). IPCC shows a decadal warming of 0.6°C (1°F) since 1980 but the temperature over the past decade has actually cooled, not warmed. Read the rest here http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/03/the-2013-ipcc-ar5-report-facts-vs-fictions/

Yikes, who would have thought this article would have already been written?

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/28/ipcc-climate-change-deniers


Just a snippet form the link, cause it seems for some clicking on links is a bit of a technical challenge....

"It happens every six years or so: the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) publishes its assessment of the current state of scientific understanding regarding human-caused climate change. That assessment is based on contributions from thousands of experts around the world through an exhaustive review of the peer-reviewed scientific literature and a rigorous, several-years-long review process.

Meanwhile, in the lead-up to publication, fossil-fuel industry front groups and their paid advocates gear up to attack and malign the report, and to mislead and confuse the public about its sobering message. So, in the weeks leading up to the release of the IPCC Fifth Assessment scientific report, professional climate change deniers and their willing abettors and enablers have done their best to distort what the report actually says about the genuine scientific evidence and the reality of the climate change threat."

Phemanderac wrote on Oct 10^th, 2013 at 6:42am:

Yikes, who would have thought this article would have already been written? http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/28/ipcc-climate-change-deniers Just a snippet form the link, cause it seems for some clicking on links is a bit of a technical challenge.... "It happens every six years or so: the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) publishes its assessment of the current state of scientific understanding regarding human-caused climate change. That assessment is based on contributions from thousands of experts around the world through an exhaustive review of the peer-reviewed scientific literature and a rigorous, several-years-long review process. Meanwhile, in the lead-up to publication, fossil-fuel industry front groups and their paid advocates gear up to attack and malign the report, and to mislead and confuse the public about its sobering message. So, in the weeks leading up to the release of the IPCC Fifth Assessment scientific report, professional climate change deniers and their willing abettors and enablers have done their best to distort what the report actually says about the genuine scientific evidence and the reality of the climate change threat."

Your asking us to trust Michael Mann.........?????

A scientist who deliberately left out the medieval warm period and the mini ice age to form his hockey stick.

And will not allow sceptical scientists access to the program that gave him that hockey stick.......??????

Recon his hiding snake oil in there somewhere...???


Quote:

Michael Mann wrote: The fifth IPCC report express confidence that climate change is causing various forms of extreme weather. Photograph: Jason Reeve/Demotix/Corbis

This is what the AR5 paper had to say about extreme weather

Very unlikely

Low confidence

Possible

Science at its best ehhh, makes you want to pay billions in carbon taxes those statements do................??????

Source: AR5-Chapter 12. Table 12.4 page 78
http://i39.tinypic.com/2lsjsqc.gif

Quote:

Table 12.4: Components in the Earth system that have been proposed in the literature as potentially being susceptible to abrupt or irreversible change. Column 2 defines whether or not a potential change can be considered to be abrupt under the AR5 definition. Column 3 states whether or not the process is irreversible in the context of abrupt change, and also gives the typical recovery time scales. Column 4 provides an assessment, if possible, of the likelihood of occurrence of abrupt change in the 21st century for the respective components or phenomena within the Earth system, for the scenarios considered in this chapter.

http://joannenova.com.au/


Are you sure it wasn't millions of scientists around the world.......????

Lets see....................!!!.....undergraduates and graduates also count.......................????

That's unpaid of course cause it would be a privilege to work for the IPCC.

http://joannenova.com.au/2013/03/unpaid-students-to-review-ar5-this-is-rigorous-expert-science-right/

Ajax wrote on Oct 10^th, 2013 at 7:29am:

Phemanderac wrote on Oct 10th, 2013 at 6:42am: Yikes, who would have thought this article would have already been written? http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/28/ipcc-climate-change-deniers Just a snippet form the link, cause it seems for some clicking on links is a bit of a technical challenge.... "It happens every six years or so: the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) publishes its assessment of the current state of scientific understanding regarding human-caused climate change. That assessment is based on contributions from thousands of experts around the world through an exhaustive review of the peer-reviewed scientific literature and a rigorous, several-years-long review process. Meanwhile, in the lead-up to publication, fossil-fuel industry front groups and their paid advocates gear up to attack and malign the report, and to mislead and confuse the public about its sobering message. So, in the weeks leading up to the release of the IPCC Fifth Assessment scientific report, professional climate change deniers and their willing abettors and enablers have done their best to distort what the report actually says about the genuine scientific evidence and the reality of the climate change threat." Your asking us to trust Michael Mann.........????? A scientist who deliberately left out the medieval warm period and the mini ice age to form his hockey stick. And will not allow sceptical scientists access to the program that gave him that hockey stick.......?????? Recon his hiding snake oil in there somewhere...??? Quote: Michael Mann wrote: The fifth IPCC report express confidence that climate change is causing various forms of extreme weather. Photograph: Jason Reeve/Demotix/Corbis This is what the AR5 paper had to say about extreme weather Very unlikely Low confidence Possible Science at its best ehhh, makes you want to pay billions in carbon taxes those statements do................?????? Source: AR5-Chapter 12. Table 12.4 page 78 http://i39.tinypic.com/2lsjsqc.gif [quote]Table 12.4: Components in the Earth system that have been proposed in the literature as potentially being susceptible to abrupt or irreversible change. Column 2 defines whether or not a potential change can be considered to be abrupt under the AR5 definition. Column 3 states whether or not the process is irreversible in the context of abrupt change, and also gives the typical recovery time scales. Column 4 provides an assessment, if possible, of the likelihood of occurrence of abrupt change in the 21st century for the respective components or phenomena within the Earth system, for the scenarios considered in this chapter.

http://joannenova.com.au/


Are you sure it wasn't millions of scientists around the world.......????

Lets see....................!!!.....undergraduates and graduates also count.......................????

That's unpaid of course cause it would be a privilege to work for the IPCC.

http://joannenova.com.au/2013/03/unpaid-students-to-review-ar5-this-is-rigorous-expert-science-right/[/quote]


Well there is a surprise, of course the link that challenges your belief would be unbelievable.

Like seriously? I never saw that coming...

Don't leave the light on when you leave, or let the door hit you on the way out.

Phemanderac wrote on Oct 10^th, 2013 at 7:43am:

Well there is a surprise, of course the link that challenges your belief would be unbelievable. Like seriously? I never saw that coming... Don't leave the light on when you leave, or let the door hit you on the way out.

You aint got a leg to stand..............?????

Climate gate, Michael Mann, fraudulent data....???

Who are you kidding..........................?????

Why wont he let other scientists look at his program that produces the hockey stick......?????

Common sense.............!!!!!!.......tells me......its snake oil....and most data entered into that program will produce a hockey stick......!!!

Ajax wrote on Oct 10^th, 2013 at 7:47am:

Phemanderac wrote on Oct 10th, 2013 at 7:43am: Well there is a surprise, of course the link that challenges your belief would be unbelievable. Like seriously? I never saw that coming... Don't leave the light on when you leave, or let the door hit you on the way out. You aint got a leg to stand..............????? Climate gate, Michael Mann, fraudulent data....??? Who are you kidding..........................????? Why wont he let other scientists look at his program that produces the hockey stick......????? Common sense.............!!!!!!.......tells me......its snake oil....and most data entered into that program will produce a hockey stick......!!!

Fraudulent?

Oh you mean this

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2013/07/19/dc-court-affirms-michael-manns-right-to-proceed-in-defamation-lawsuit/

And then this,

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2013/08/30/judge-denies-national-reviews-motion-to-reconsider-in-mann-defamation-case/

They what you refer to?

I have two very good legs to stand on presently. Your case however, could do with some prosthetic support I suspect.

All you have produced is poor research, typical denier lines, and unsubstantiated crap.

If you are gonna pretend at research at least read some conflicting stuff and try to be critical in your thinking.

Pfft, I don't have a leg to stand on, that was just too freakin funny....

You're really awesome.   :D :D :D :D :D :D

It is a curious thing to defame someone....

You may want to rethink your comment, just in case he wins his case eh?

Phemanderac wrote on Oct 10^th, 2013 at 7:56am:

Fraudulent? Oh you mean this http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2013/07/19/dc-court-affirms-michael-manns-right-to-proceed-in-defamation-lawsuit/ And then this, http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2013/08/30/judge-denies-national-reviews-motion-to-reconsider-in-mann-defamation-case/ They what you refer to?

Hey this is good it will make his program for the hockey stick public.....then we can all see how he forgot the medieval warm period and the mini ice age.


Quote:

I have two very good legs to stand on presently. Your case however, could do with some prosthetic support I suspect.

Your defending someone who presented a fraudulent graph and you think you have very good legs to stand on....somewhere along this line you have lost me...??


Quote:

All you have produced is poor research, typical denier lines, and unsubstantiated crap.

The research unfortunately isn't mine, believe or not it comes from scientists that disagree with the AGW hypothesis.


Quote:

If you are gonna pretend at research at least read some conflicting stuff and try to be critical in your thinking.

Bring it on dude......????

What do you want to debate.......!!!!!!!!

Phemanderac wrote on Oct 10^th, 2013 at 7:43am:

Well there is a surprise, of course the link that challenges your belief would be unbelievable. Like seriously? I never saw that coming... Don't leave the light on when you leave, or let the door hit you on the way out.

How can you believe a science where most of there statements start with,

Very unlikely

Low confidence

Possible

Ajax wrote on Oct 10^th, 2013 at 3:33pm:

Phemanderac wrote on Oct 10th, 2013 at 7:43am: Well there is a surprise, of course the link that challenges your belief would be unbelievable. Like seriously? I never saw that coming... Don't leave the light on when you leave, or let the door hit you on the way out. How can you believe a science where most of there statements start with, Very unlikely Low confidence Possible

You forget ... will they believe this idiotic f#ckin horseshit? ... highly likely   ;D

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 10^th, 2013 at 3:38pm:

Ajax wrote on Oct 10th, 2013 at 3:33pm: Phemanderac wrote on Oct 10th, 2013 at 7:43am: Well there is a surprise, of course the link that challenges your belief would be unbelievable. Like seriously? I never saw that coming... Don't leave the light on when you leave, or let the door hit you on the way out. How can you believe a science where most of there statements start with, Very unlikely Low confidence Possible You forget ... will they believe this idiotic f#ckin horseshit? ... highly likely   ;D

It's an "undeniable fact of nature".