253 replies to this topic

[Frog79]

Duquesne Frog, on 13 February 2012 - 02:25 PM, said:

Have you signed the petition?  You can.  Here it is: http://www.petitionp...W_Petition.pdf.

How many different papers were referenced in the IPCC.  How many scientists wrote the individual sections or contributed substantially?  How many then edited and reviewed each section cumulatively?

Something like 52 scientists participated in the writing and it is filled with errors and nonscientific journalistic propaganda which they attempted to pass off as "peer reviewed" research.  Does that not trouble you?

[gohornedfrogs]

NewfoundlandFrog, on 13 February 2012 - 02:07 PM, said:

That darn conspiracy. Amazingly successful though. Makes Lenin/Trotsky/etc. look like pikers.

Yes! Another great British colloquialism.

[NewfoundlandFrog]

gohornedfrogs, on 13 February 2012 - 02:30 PM, said:

Yes! Another great British colloquialism.

Bollocks...You're right!

[Frog79]

Here's how your 'consensus' IPCC report did:

Quote

Errors, distortions and exaggerations in the WGI Report

• How the IPCC invented a new calculus.  The IPCC authors invented a new way of measuring the slope of a graph,  in order to create the false impression that global warming is  accelerating.
• The table that didn't add up.  The WG1 SPM was approved by the IPCC even though it contained a table  with arithmetic errors. The table was quietly corrected with no  admission of the error.
• False statement about Antarctic sea ice.  The IPCC claims that there is no significant trend in Antarctic sea  ice. In fact several papers (ignored by the IPCC) show a significant  positive trend.
• Misleading claims about sea level rise.   AR4 gives the misleading impression that the rate of sea level rise is  increasing, using the trick of switching from one measurement system  (tide gauges) to another (satellites).
• Incorrect calculation of an average.   An arithmetic error was made in the calculation of an average of a  contribution to radiative forcing. Hence four diagrams in AR4 are wrong  and misleading.
• False claims about Antarctic ice sheet.  The IPCC claims that the Antarctic ice sheet is melting and that this  is contributing to sea level rise, but recent research papers show that  in fact the ice sheet is thickening.
• Dubious claims about Greenland ice sheet.  The IPCC claims that the Greenland ice sheet is melting and causing sea  level to rise - ignoring or misrepresenting research that shows the  opposite.
• Erroneous claims about snow cover. The IPCC makes the false claim that snow cover is decreasing in both hemispheres.
• Exaggerated claims about water vapour.  The IPCC summary claims that water vapour has increased. In fact  studies show no significant trend or in some cases a decrease.
• Misleading claims on increased tropical cyclone activity.  The IPCC states that tropical cyclones have increased, by  cherry-picking start dates, but their own data shows no evidence of  this.
• The IPCC contradicts itself over the medieval warm period.  The IPCC's own data shows clear evidence that the medieval warm period  was as warm as the late 20th century, but the text states the opposite.
• False statement about paleoclimate studies.  The IPCC claims that there is increased confidence in proxy temperature  reconstructions, but in fact the opposite is the case.
• Proxies that aren't proxies.  The IPCC makes use of 'proxy' data such as tree rings to justify their  claim that current temperatures are unusual - but this data doesn't  match measured temperature.
• Downplaying the urban heat island effect.  The IPCC significantly underestimates the influence of the fact that  many temperature measurement sites are located in cities.
• The UN misquotes its own report.  A UN press release coinciding with the release of AR4 blatantly  misquoted the report, incorrectly claiming that man-made global warming  was unequivocal.
• Underestimating past variation in carbon dioxide.  The IPCC claims that past variation of carbon dioxide levels in the  atmosphere was very low, ignoring published research that shows much  greater variation.
• Biased reporting of the literature.  One of many examples where the IPCC ignores or disparages research that  does not support its agenda, in the area of past solar activity.
• Where's the beef?  The crucial step of the argument for global warming - how carbon  dioxide causes heating - is barely mentioned and the numbers  not  justified by the IPCC.
• Hypothetical positive feedback. The alarming predictions of the IPCC rely on the assumption of a strong positive feedback, for which there is no evidence.
• The lost continent of Antarctica. A world map of 'global warming' in the SPM omits Antarctica, where there has been no warming.
• Misleading claims about increased greenhouse effect.   The IPCC claims that observations show an increase in the greenhouse  effect, referring to one paper but ignoring a more recent one that casts  doubt on these results.
• Misleading statement about ocean heat. The IPCC SPM says that ocean heat content is increasing, without mentioning a paper that shows recent ocean cooling.
• Ignoring research that does not fit the agenda.   Work of a Finnish research team with 34 publications in the field of  tree ring temperature reconstructions is completely ignored by the IPCC.
• Inconsistent statement about wind strength. The IPCC SPM claims that the strength of westerly winds has increased - but if true this would be evidence for cooling of the atmosphere.
• Error regarding total radiative forcing. The 'total net anthropogenic radiative forcing' given by the IPCC is incorrect, according to climate scientist Roger Pielke.
• Unfair citation of criticism.  IPCC author Kevin Trenberth cites his own criticism of the work of  other authors, but does not mention those authors' response to his  criticism.
• Ignoring criticism of the surface temperature record.   Many papers have been written raising questions about the accuracy and  bias of surface temperature measurements, but these are ignored by the  IPCC.
• No explanation for mid-century cooling. The IPCC has no consistent or valid explanation for a period of cooling from 1940-1970.
• False statements about tropospheric warming.  The IPCC claims that the troposphere (lower atmosphere) has warmed more  than the surface, but the IPCC's own graphs show that this is not true.
• Unsubstantiated claims of human influence. The IPCC makes confident claims about man's influence on the climate but provides no evidence to support these claims.
• Misleading temperature trends (1).  The IPCC claims that the trend from 1906-2005 is larger than that from  1901-2000 due to recent warm years, but in fact this is due to a sharp  drop in temperatures from 1901-1906.
• Misleading temperature trends (2). The IPCC compares chalk with cheese in order to convey the false impression that temperature trends are increasing.
• False claim of warming since the TAR. The IPCC's claim that temperatures have increased since its 2001 Third Assessment Report is demonstrably false.
• More false statements on temperature trends.  The IPCC significantly underestimates temperature trends in the early part of the 20th century.
• False claims about hurricanes.  The IPCC makes unsustainable claims about increasing hurricane activity  and a link with global warming, ignoring key papers that find no link;  this lead to one expert resigning from the IPCC.
• If you don't like it, resign.  Some scientists who do not support the IPCC agenda find they have no alternative but to resign from the IPCC process.
• Reviewer comments ignored.   The IPCC reports undergo a process of review by scientists and  goverments. But many valid comments and criticisms of the IPCC view are  simply ignored.
• Exaggerated claims of increased precipitation.   The IPCC summary greatly exaggerates the claims from its main report  about an alleged very slight increase in heavy rainfall events.
• Trying to suppress work that doesn't support the agenda.   IPCC authors try to keep a paper by McKitrick and Michaels out of AR4,  "even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is".
• Hiding the decline - in the number of storms.    IPCC authors insert a line about increasing wind strength into the  final version of the SPM. They discuss (by email) evidence for declining  number of storms but decide not to mention this.
• Hiding inconvenient proxy data.   The IPCC refuses to show proxy ice core data showing a warm medieval  period in the Southern Hemisphere, despite acknowledging a shortage of  such data and despite reviewer comments.
• False confidence in man-made warming.   The IPCC SPM claims "very high confidence" regarding the quantification  of man-made global warming, but the main body of the report is much  more cautious.
• Spinning the literature on cloud feedback.  IPCC authors regurgitate chunks of their own papers on clouds, but cut back sections that refer to negative cloud feedback.
• Cherry-picking solar irradiance reconstructions.  The IPCC selects outdated estimates of past solar radiance (to try to  'explain' early 20th century warming) while ignoring more recent  research that shows very little variation.
• False confidence in long-term climate predictions.   The IPCC makes the ridiculous claim that predicting the climate 50  years ahead is much easier than predicting the weather a few weeks  ahead.
• Exaggerating climate sensitivity results from satellite data.   The IPCC distorts published research on the sensitivity of the climate  to doubling of CO2, in such a way as to exaggerate the climate  sensitivity.
• Underestimating uncertainty in aerosol forcing.   The uncertainty range in the value of aerosol forcing proposed by the  IPCC is lower than that proposed by experts in the field.
• Refusing to acknowledge an error.  When the arithmetic error describe in point 5 was formally reported,  the IPCC denied there was any error, falsely claiming that the text  explained the reasoning adequately.

Errors, distortions and exaggerations in the WGII Report

• Incorrect claim about Himalayan glaciers.   The IPCC incorrectly said that Himalayan glaciers could melt to one  fifth of their current area by 2035. This is probably a misreading of  2350.
• False claims about disaster losses.  The IPCC claims a link between disaster losses and climate, by relying on a single cherry-picked non-peer-reviewed paper.
• Unsubstantiated claim about loss of Amazon rainforest.   Chapter 13 of WGII claimed that 40% of the Amazon rainforest could  'react drastically' to a change in climate. The source for this was a  WWF report that does not even support the claim. See also BBC report and The Telegraph.
• Error about the Netherlands and sea level.   Chapter 12 of WGII claims that 55% of The Netherlands is below sea  level. In fact  the figure is about 26%.  See also reports here and here.
• Unsubstantiated claims about Africa.   A claim repeatedly made by the IPCC that agricultural yields in some  African countries could fall by 50% as soon as 2020 has no basis.
• False claims about wildfires and climate.   The IPCC claims that wildfires influence tourism, relying on newspaper  reports and ignoring three expert reviewers who identify problems with  this claim.

Errors, distortions and exaggerations in the <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/i...ts/ar4-wg3.htm" rel="nofollow">WGIII Report
The report of Working Group III of the IPCC is concerned with "Mitigation of Climate Change".


Richard Tol, Professor of Economics, has investigated WGIII and reported his results at Roger Pielke Jr.'s blog. In his overall summary, he writes that the IPCC "substantially and knowingly misrepresents the state of the art in our understanding of the costs of emission reduction. It leads the reader to the conclusion that emission reduction is much cheaper and easier than it will be in real life."  He also writes that "all errors point in one direction: alarmism about climate change", and  refers to the "inability of the IPCC to constructively engage with valid criticism". His specific criticisms are as follows:

Part I.  Claims by the IPCC in WGIII chapter 11 that climate policy would  stimulate growth and create jobs are biased and not based on  peer-reviewed literature.


Part II.  Again in Chapter 11, the IPCC highlights work that supports the view  that costs of emission reduction are low, while ignoring or misquoting  studies that find such costs are high.


Part III.  In the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) in WGIII, the IPCC underestimates  the costs of emissions reduction,  failing to correct its estimates for  selection bias.


Part IV. In Chapter 3, the IPCC misrepresents a paper (Fisher et al 2006), ignoring complaints about this by reviewers.


Part V.  In Chapter 3 and in the SPM, the IPCC incorrectly claims that exchange  rates are immaterial, and misrepresents the literature.  Several  reviewer comments on this are ignored.


Part VI.  In the SPM, Table SPM1 underestimates the cost of reducing emissions,  by a misleading process of "double counting". The errors were pointed  out by reviewers, but ignored by the IPCC.


See also Tol's Guest Post at the Klimazwiebel blog, where he ends by saying that tables in the WGIII SPM are misleading and cherry-picked.

http://sites.google....gquestions/ipcc

Here's how the vaunted IPCC 'scientific consensus' does business:

Quote

The Sunday Mail’s David Rose reached Murari Lal, the  coordinating lead author of the 2007 IPCC report’s chapter on Asia. Lal  told Rose that he knew there were no solid data to support the report’s  claim that Himalayan glaciers – the source of drinking and irrigation  water for downstream areas throughout Asia – could dry up by 2035.  Said Lal: “We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact  policy makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete  action.” In other words, Rose says, Lal “last night admitted [the scary  figure] was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.”

http://www.usnews.co...ake-no-accident

[NewfoundlandFrog]

I think we can safely say we have just gone over into the fn zone!

Frog79, on 13 February 2012 - 02:34 PM, said:

Here's how your 'consensus' IPCC report did:

Quote

Errors, distortions and exaggerations in the WGI Report

• How the IPCC invented a new calculus.   The IPCC authors invented a new way of measuring the slope of a graph,   in order to create the false impression that global warming is   accelerating.
• The table that didn't add up.  The WG1 SPM was  approved by the IPCC even though it contained a table  with arithmetic  errors. The table was quietly corrected with no  admission of the error.
• False  statement about Antarctic sea ice.  The IPCC claims that there is no  significant trend in Antarctic sea  ice. In fact several papers (ignored  by the IPCC) show a significant  positive trend.
• Misleading  claims about sea level rise.   AR4 gives the misleading impression that  the rate of sea level rise is  increasing, using the trick of switching  from one measurement system  (tide gauges) to another (satellites).
• Incorrect  calculation of an average.   An arithmetic error was made in the  calculation of an average of a  contribution to radiative forcing. Hence  four diagrams in AR4 are wrong  and misleading.
• False claims  about Antarctic ice sheet.  The IPCC claims that the Antarctic ice sheet  is melting and that this  is contributing to sea level rise, but recent  research papers show that  in fact the ice sheet is thickening.
• Dubious  claims about Greenland ice sheet.  The IPCC claims that the Greenland  ice sheet is melting and causing sea  level to rise - ignoring or  misrepresenting research that shows the  opposite.
• Erroneous claims about snow cover. The IPCC makes the false claim that snow cover is decreasing in both hemispheres.
• Exaggerated  claims about water vapour.  The IPCC summary claims that water vapour  has increased. In fact  studies show no significant trend or in some  cases a decrease.
• Misleading claims on increased tropical  cyclone activity.  The IPCC states that tropical cyclones have  increased, by  cherry-picking start dates, but their own data shows no  evidence of  this.
• The IPCC contradicts itself over the medieval  warm period.  The IPCC's own data shows clear evidence that the  medieval warm period  was as warm as the late 20th century, but the text  states the opposite.
• False statement about paleoclimate  studies.  The IPCC claims that there is increased confidence in proxy  temperature  reconstructions, but in fact the opposite is the case.
• Proxies  that aren't proxies.  The IPCC makes use of 'proxy' data such as tree  rings to justify their  claim that current temperatures are unusual -  but this data doesn't  match measured temperature.
• Downplaying  the urban heat island effect.  The IPCC significantly underestimates the  influence of the fact that  many temperature measurement sites are  located in cities.
• The UN misquotes its own report.  A UN press  release coinciding with the release of AR4 blatantly  misquoted the  report, incorrectly claiming that man-made global warming  was  unequivocal.
• Underestimating past variation in carbon dioxide.   The IPCC claims that past variation of carbon dioxide levels in the   atmosphere was very low, ignoring published research that shows much   greater variation.
• Biased reporting of the literature.  One of  many examples where the IPCC ignores or disparages research that  does  not support its agenda, in the area of past solar activity.
• Where's  the beef?  The crucial step of the argument for global warming - how  carbon  dioxide causes heating - is barely mentioned and the numbers   not  justified by the IPCC.
• Hypothetical positive feedback. The  alarming predictions of the IPCC rely on the assumption of a strong  positive feedback, for which there is no evidence.
• The lost continent of Antarctica. A world map of 'global warming' in the SPM omits Antarctica, where there has been no warming.
• Misleading  claims about increased greenhouse effect.   The IPCC claims that  observations show an increase in the greenhouse  effect, referring to  one paper but ignoring a more recent one that casts  doubt on these  results.
• Misleading statement about ocean heat. The IPCC SPM  says that ocean heat content is increasing, without mentioning a paper  that shows recent ocean cooling.
• Ignoring research that does not  fit the agenda.   Work of a Finnish research team with 34 publications  in the field of  tree ring temperature reconstructions is completely  ignored by the IPCC.
• Inconsistent statement about wind strength.  The IPCC SPM claims that the strength of westerly winds has increased -  but if true this would be evidence for cooling of the atmosphere.
• Error  regarding total radiative forcing. The 'total net anthropogenic  radiative forcing' given by the IPCC is incorrect, according to climate  scientist Roger Pielke.
• Unfair citation of criticism.  IPCC  author Kevin Trenberth cites his own criticism of the work of  other  authors, but does not mention those authors' response to his  criticism.
• Ignoring  criticism of the surface temperature record.   Many papers have been  written raising questions about the accuracy and  bias of surface  temperature measurements, but these are ignored by the  IPCC.
• No explanation for mid-century cooling. The IPCC has no consistent or valid explanation for a period of cooling from 1940-1970.
• False  statements about tropospheric warming.  The IPCC claims that the  troposphere (lower atmosphere) has warmed more  than the surface, but  the IPCC's own graphs show that this is not true.
• Unsubstantiated  claims of human influence. The IPCC makes confident claims about man's  influence on the climate but provides no evidence to support these  claims.
• Misleading temperature trends (1).  The IPCC claims that  the trend from 1906-2005 is larger than that from  1901-2000 due to  recent warm years, but in fact this is due to a sharp  drop in  temperatures from 1901-1906.
• Misleading temperature trends (2).  The IPCC compares chalk with cheese in order to convey the false  impression that temperature trends are increasing.
• False claim  of warming since the TAR. The IPCC's claim that temperatures have  increased since its 2001 Third Assessment Report is demonstrably false.
• More  false statements on temperature trends.  The IPCC significantly  underestimates temperature trends in the early part of the 20th century.
• False  claims about hurricanes.  The IPCC makes unsustainable claims about  increasing hurricane activity  and a link with global warming, ignoring  key papers that find no link;  this lead to one expert resigning from  the IPCC.
• If you don't like it, resign.  Some scientists who do  not support the IPCC agenda find they have no alternative but to resign  from the IPCC process.
• Reviewer comments ignored.   The IPCC  reports undergo a process of review by scientists and  goverments. But  many valid comments and criticisms of the IPCC view are  simply ignored.
• Exaggerated  claims of increased precipitation.   The IPCC summary greatly  exaggerates the claims from its main report  about an alleged very  slight increase in heavy rainfall events.
• Trying to suppress  work that doesn't support the agenda.   IPCC authors try to keep a paper  by McKitrick and Michaels out of AR4,  "even if we have to redefine  what the peer-review literature is".
• Hiding the decline - in the  number of storms.    IPCC authors insert a line about increasing wind  strength into the  final version of the SPM. They discuss (by email)  evidence for declining  number of storms but decide not to mention this.
• Hiding  inconvenient proxy data.   The IPCC refuses to show proxy ice core data  showing a warm medieval  period in the Southern Hemisphere, despite  acknowledging a shortage of  such data and despite reviewer comments.
• False  confidence in man-made warming.   The IPCC SPM claims "very high  confidence" regarding the quantification  of man-made global warming,  but the main body of the report is much  more cautious.
• Spinning  the literature on cloud feedback.  IPCC authors regurgitate chunks of  their own papers on clouds, but cut back sections that refer to negative  cloud feedback.
• Cherry-picking solar irradiance  reconstructions.  The IPCC selects outdated estimates of past solar  radiance (to try to  'explain' early 20th century warming) while  ignoring more recent  research that shows very little variation.
• False  confidence in long-term climate predictions.   The IPCC makes the  ridiculous claim that predicting the climate 50  years ahead is much  easier than predicting the weather a few weeks  ahead.
• Exaggerating  climate sensitivity results from satellite data.   The IPCC distorts  published research on the sensitivity of the climate  to doubling of  CO2, in such a way as to exaggerate the climate  sensitivity.
• Underestimating  uncertainty in aerosol forcing.   The uncertainty range in the value of  aerosol forcing proposed by the  IPCC is lower than that proposed by  experts in the field.
• Refusing  to acknowledge an error.  When the arithmetic error describe in point 5  was formally reported,  the IPCC denied there was any error, falsely  claiming that the text  explained the reasoning adequately.

Errors, distortions and exaggerations in the WGII Report

• Incorrect claim about Himalayan glaciers.    The IPCC incorrectly said that Himalayan glaciers could melt to one   fifth of their current area by 2035. This is probably a misreading of   2350.
• False claims about disaster losses.  The IPCC claims a  link between disaster losses and climate, by relying on a single  cherry-picked non-peer-reviewed paper.
• Unsubstantiated claim  about loss of Amazon rainforest.   Chapter 13 of WGII claimed that 40%  of the Amazon rainforest could  'react drastically' to a change in  climate. The source for this was a  WWF report that does not even  support the claim. See also BBC report and The Telegraph.
• Error  about the Netherlands and sea level.   Chapter 12 of WGII claims that  55% of The Netherlands is below sea  level. In fact  the figure is about  26%.  See also reports here and here.
• Unsubstantiated claims  about Africa.   A claim repeatedly made by the IPCC that agricultural  yields in some  African countries could fall by 50% as soon as 2020 has  no basis.
• False  claims about wildfires and climate.   The IPCC claims that wildfires  influence tourism, relying on newspaper  reports and ignoring three  expert reviewers who identify problems with  this claim.

Errors, distortions and  exaggerations in the <a  href="http://www.ipcc.ch/i...nofollow">WGIII Report
The report of Working Group III of the IPCC is concerned with "Mitigation of Climate Change".


Richard Tol, Professor of Economics, has investigated WGIII and reported his results at Roger Pielke Jr.'s blog. In his overall summary, he writes that the IPCC "substantially  and knowingly misrepresents the state of the art in our understanding  of the costs of emission reduction. It leads the reader to the  conclusion that emission reduction is much cheaper and easier than it  will be in real life."  He also writes that "all errors point in one direction: alarmism about climate change", and  refers to the "inability of the IPCC to constructively engage with valid criticism". His specific criticisms are as follows:

Part I.   Claims by the IPCC in WGIII chapter 11 that climate policy would   stimulate growth and create jobs are biased and not based on   peer-reviewed literature.


Part II.   Again in Chapter 11, the IPCC highlights work that supports the view   that costs of emission reduction are low, while ignoring or misquoting   studies that find such costs are high.


Part III.   In the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) in WGIII, the IPCC  underestimates  the costs of emissions reduction,  failing to correct  its estimates for  selection bias.


Part IV. In Chapter 3, the IPCC misrepresents a paper (Fisher et al 2006), ignoring complaints about this by reviewers.


Part V.   In Chapter 3 and in the SPM, the IPCC incorrectly claims that exchange   rates are immaterial, and misrepresents the literature.  Several   reviewer comments on this are ignored.


Part VI.   In the SPM, Table SPM1 underestimates the cost of reducing emissions,   by a misleading process of "double counting". The errors were pointed   out by reviewers, but ignored by the IPCC.


See also Tol's Guest Post at the Klimazwiebel blog, where he ends by saying that tables in the WGIII SPM are misleading and cherry-picked.


[/b][/b]

http://sites.google....gquestions/ipcc

[Duquesne Frog]

Frog79, on 13 February 2012 - 02:29 PM, said:

Something like 52 scientists participated in the writing and it is filled with errors and nonscientific journalistic propaganda which they attempted to pass off as "peer reviewed" research.  Does that not trouble you?

I assume that you arrived at the number '52' in much the same way you arrived at the upper and lower limits earlier.  The 2007 report ALONE had 620 authors.  That's not to mention the 4 other massive reports and various other supplemental reports.  The number of people who contributed to the IPCC reports is north of 2000.

[Duquesne Frog]

NewfoundlandFrog, on 13 February 2012 - 02:42 PM, said:

I think we can safely say we have just gone over into the fn zone!

But by God, that OISM petition thing is the exemplar of rigor ...

[RSF]

Duquesne Frog, on 13 February 2012 - 02:44 PM, said:

But by God, that OISM petition thing is the exemplar of rigor ...

Like Groucho said, any petition that would accept me as a signatory......or something like that....

[Frog79]

Duquesne Frog, on 13 February 2012 - 02:42 PM, said:

I assume that you arrived at the number '52' in much the same way you arrived at the upper and lower limits earlier.  The 2007 report ALONE had 620 authors.  That's not to mention the 4 other massive reports and various other supplemental reports.  The number of people who contributed to the IPCC reports is north of 2000.

Once again you [Craig James]/ume wrong and show your stupidity.  There were 52 authors of the Policy Summary, which is the part of the report that gets passed around to the press and politicians and is passed off as a 'consensus'.  There other contributors but they don't write the report and often disagree with the final version.  Some have quit the IPCC in protest.  Anyway, as I show above, one of the authors admits throwing a little propaganda here and there while trying to pass it off as valid scientific research.  But you have no problem with that?  Nah, I thought not.

[Whisky Dude]

EDIT

[Frog79]

RSF, on 13 February 2012 - 02:48 PM, said:

Like Groucho said, any petition that would accept me as a signatory......or something like that....

At least all 31K are scientists, unlike the IPCC 'consensus' which includes journalists as scientific experts in its reports. Maybe they can use some Hollywood celebs as experts in the next report.

[NewfoundlandFrog]

Frog79, on 13 February 2012 - 02:51 PM, said:

... one of the authors admits throwing a little propaganda here and there while trying to pass it off as valid scientific research.  But you have no problem with that?...

I love irony^©.

[RSF]

Frog79, on 13 February 2012 - 02:51 PM, said:

Once again you show your stupidity.

$5.....

[Whisky Dude]

[RSF]

Frog79, on 13 February 2012 - 02:52 PM, said:

At least all 31K are scientists...

debatable.

[NewfoundlandFrog]

RSF, on 13 February 2012 - 02:54 PM, said:

debatable.

Actually not.

[Frog79]

NewfoundlandFrog, on 13 February 2012 - 02:54 PM, said:

Actually not.

Well then prove it.  Or did you just pull it out of your arse like all your other nonsense?  I asked you before to find 10 bogus signatures and of course you could not.  However, it is easy to find journalists passed off as scientific experts in the IPCC report.

[RSF]

NewfoundlandFrog, on 13 February 2012 - 02:54 PM, said:

Actually not.

I qualify to sign that petition.



Need a pretty loose definition to call me a 'scientist'.


So, yes, it is debatable.

[Whisky Dude]

[Frog79]

NewfoundlandFrog, on 13 February 2012 - 02:53 PM, said:

I love irony^©.

Especially when the pseudoscience is documented in the very report you take as the climate Bible, lol.