Reply With Quote
Maybe it is, finally.I'm shocked.
The IPCC consensus on climate change was phoney, says IPCC insider
Is this ing nonsense dead yet?
Many of us have known for some time that only a handful controlled the data and IPCC.
I'm shocked.
The IPCC consensus on climate change was phoney, says IPCC insider
Is this ing nonsense dead yet?The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change misled the press and public into believing that thousands of scientists backed its claims on manmade global warming, according to Mike Hulme, a prominent climate scientist and IPCC insider. The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was “only a few dozen experts,” he states in a paper for Progress in Physical Geography, co-authored with student Martin Mahony.
Maybe it is, finally.I'm shocked.
The IPCC consensus on climate change was phoney, says IPCC insider
Is this ing nonsense dead yet?
Many of us have known for some time that only a handful controlled the data and IPCC.
As long as they (libs) can make money and get votes, this fairy tale will never end.
The more people like you lie about the issue, the worse your criticisms look.I'm shocked.
The IPCC consensus on climate change was phoney, says IPCC insider
Is this ing nonsense dead yet?
Because when you parrot misrepresentations about what people say, it seems like you will say anything to make your case about your pet conspiracy theory.
Why did you lie about what the guy said, Yoni?“Without a careful explanation about what [consensus] means, this drive for consensus can leave the IPCC vulnerable to outside criticism. Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous. That particular consensus judgement, as are many others in the IPCC reports, is reached by only a few dozen experts in the specific field of detection and attribution studies; other IPCC authors are experts in other fields. But consensus-making can also lead to criticism for being too conservative, as Hansen (2007) has most visibly argued.”
Three things should be clear from this. First, I did not say the ‘IPCC misleads’ anyone – it is claims that are made by other commentators, such as the caricatured claim I offer in the paper, that have the potential to mislead. Second, they have a potential to mislead if they give the impression that every statement in IPCC reports is ‘signed off’ by every IPCC author and reviewer. Patently they are not, and cannot. Third, it is the chapter lead authors – say 10 to 20 experts - on detection and attribution who craft the sentence about detection and attribution, which is then scrutinised and vetted by reviewers and government officials. Similarly, statements about what may happen to the meridional overturning circulation (MOC) of the ocean are crafted by those expert in ocean science, statements about future sea-level rise by sea-level experts, and so on.
The point of this bit of our article was to draw attention to the need for a more nuanced understanding of what an IPCC ‘consensus’ is – as I say: “Without a careful explanation about what it means, this drive for consensus can leave the IPCC vulnerable to outside criticism.” The IPCC consensus does not mean – clearly cannot possibly mean – that every scientist involved in the IPCC process agrees with every single statement in the IPCC! Some scientists involved in the IPCC did not agree with the IPCC’s projections of future sea-level. Giving the impression that the IPCC consensus means everyone agrees with everyone else – as I think some well-meaning but uninformed commentaries do (or have a tendency to do) – is unhelpful; it doesn’t reflect the uncertain, exploratory and sometimes contested nature of scientific knowledge.
Mike Hulme, Norwich
15 June 2010
Conservatives and rightwing dumb s have nothing to say except lies, misrepresentations, slander, total bull .
eg, Bachmann recently said Imam Magic Negro supports Hamas against Israel.
Pressurized Concensus
anthropogenic global warming:
Air traffic to become major source of global warming
http://www.smartplanet.com/people/bl...-warming/3908/
You DO know it's "climate change", not global warming? That way, no matter which way global temperature anomaly trends, the climate changers can declare victory.
Maybe you can tell me why Yoni and the other conspiracy theorists lied about what this guy said?
I wouldn't say Yoni lied. Read the paper. Some things have to be carefully worded to avoid lawsuits.
Of course *you* wouldn't say he lied, because this particular lie fits in with your personally held narrative. You believe the lie, so to you it isn't a lie.
What do you call it when Mr. Hume directly comes out and says "these commentators are misprepresting what I said and taking my remarks out of context?"
I'd call that a lie.. that's just me though.
OK, I thought this was the forum that the paper was linked to, not just the article. May want to read it, not just a journalists opinion:
Climate Change: what do we know about the IPCC?
Mike Hulme and Martin Mahony
You did not answer my question, you merely changed the subject.
I posted a direct link and excerpt from Mr. Hulme where he stated rather unequivacobly that his remarks were mischaractorized and distorted.
Is that, or is that not a lie?
Yoni and WC slapped with their own lies. hyuk hyuk, great fun!
I couldn't say for sure. I do know that if you aren't careful in your wording on this topic, there are agenda driven forces that will attempt to destroy people. Deniers lose their jobs.
Like I said, things must be carefully worded. Read the paper and decide for yourself.
where's yoni? shouldn't he have to defend his thread?
I didn't have to read the paper. I think I can take the word of the guy who wrote it, when he says that other were lying about what he meant.
Quit being a weasel, man up, and answer the question. Either it is a lie, or it isn't. Either you take the man at his word, or you don't. Which is it?
You and Yoni were perfectly willing to take him at his word when you thought he was saying something you agreed with. What changed?
Hmmmmm....Consensus...
I still think it's funny people talk about countering nefarious "agenda-driven forces" for green energy as though petro-companies couldn't buy every university in the world (if all scientists want is research grants), and politicians aren't terrified of making energy more expensive for their voters by going green.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
