The UN Climate Change Numbers Hoax (Devastating)

http://canadafreepress.com ^ | Friday, December 14, 2007 | Tom Harris: John McLean

[Para-Ord.45]

The UN Climate Change Numbers Hoax

It’s an assertion repeated by politicians and climate campaigners the world over – ‘2,500 scientists of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) agree that humans are causing a climate crisis’.

But it’s not true. And, for the first time ever, the public can now see the extent to which they have been misled. As lies go, it’s a whopper. Here’s the real situation...

For the first time ever, the UN has released on the Web the comments of reviewers who assessed the drafts of the WG I report and the IPCC editors’ responses. This release was almost certainly a result of intense pressure applied by “hockey-stick” co-debunker Steve McIntyre of Toronto and his allies. Unlike the other IPCC working groups, WG I is based in the U.S. and McIntyre had used the robust Freedom of Information legislation to request certain details when the full comments were released...

A total of 308 reviewers commented on the SOR, but only 32 reviewers commented on more than three chapters and only five reviewers commented on all 11 chapters of the report. Only about half the reviewers commented more than one chapter...

Compounding this is the fact that IPCC editors could, and often did, ignore reviewers’ comments. Some editor responses were banal and others showed inconsistencies with other comments...

In total, only 62 scientists reviewed the chapter in which this statement appears, the critical chapter 9, “Understanding and Attributing Climate Change”. Of the comments received from the 62 reviewers of this critical chapter, almost 60% of them were rejected by IPCC editors. And of the 62 expert reviewers of this chapter, 55 had serious vested interest, leaving only seven expert reviewers who appear impartial...

[Jo Nuvark]

Two good climate change sites.

http://www.icecap.us/

http://www.kusi.com/home/11131801.html

***************************************

For even though they knew God, they did not honor
Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile
in their speculations, and their foolish heart was
darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools,
and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for
an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds
and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.
(Romans 1:21-23)

[Das Outsider]

I'm already familiar with them, Jo. "Climate change" is more philosophy and ideology than science. The current literature at the fore of climatology and related disciplines is not outside of debate when it comes to the notion of man-made global warming. Let me give you an example:

The so-called Little Ice Age was a North Atlantic phenomenon, but not a peculiar one. It was related to the Northern Hemisphere. The Arctic ice caps are melting, but, pray tell, what is happening down on the Southern Hemisphere--particularly Antarctica? Answer: Refreezing, as one would expect when talking about regional climate change, as we've experienced in centuries past. Check out the great geographer, Harm de Blij, on this one.

[melstew]

I like Bob Carter, but he really doesn’t debunk anything. He argues that there may be other explanations on what is going on climate wise, and that we should continue to apply the scientific method. He points out that the current consensus has stopped listening to anything which does not support anthrogenic climate change. One of my points is that many people on this thread do the same thing—i.e. focus only on the science which supports a pre-set POV.

[CodeMasterPhilzar]

LISTEN UP PEOPLE. If the media promotes it, it is probably a lie and will eventually cost you either your life, your liberty or your sanity.

A big, big AMEN! To that!

[Das Outsider]

I like Bob Carter, but he really doesn’t debunk anything. He argues that there may be other explanations on what is going on climate wise, and that we should continue to apply the scientific method. He points out that the current consensus has stopped listening to anything which does not support anthrogenic climate change. One of my points is that many people on this thread do the same thing—i.e. focus only on the science which supports a pre-set POV.

That is a good attitude to adopt. I could readily accept that perceived climate change is occurring because of human activity with no difficulty--call it my belief in original sin, the fallen man, his capability to destroy any and every thing he touches, or what have you. The question is still this: What is really going on? I find, through my own research, and a grateful helping from others, that the situation isn't quite as dire as the entertainment media suggests. In fact, there really is some dissension among the ranks in the admittedly boring realm of actual scientific research.

[Jo Nuvark]

I think where the media and soothe sayers are
getting traction is that we can now actually
watch our weather in real time. Massively
destructive and historic weather events are
nothing new, it’s just that these young pseudo
science “punks” think that history began the
year they were born. Climate change is an easy
deception for koolaid drinkers and academic
elitists. Personal research isn’t required if
you promote the agenda. Observable, factual
data that contradicts the agenda is ignored.
They get past the Oracle of Delphi by regurgi-
tating the current pc voodoo.... doodoo.

The perverse hippie revisionist revolution has
come back to bite us - big time.

[Jo Nuvark]

The next time you become outraged over a
headline, calm down. It probably isn’t true.

[Das Outsider]

The next time you become outraged over a headline, calm down. It probably isn’t true.

Jo, you're speaking to the choirmaster! ;)

[Das Outsider]

I think where the media and soothe sayers are getting traction is that we can now actually watch our weather in real time. Massively destructive and historic weather events are nothing new, it’s just that these young pseudo science “punks” think that history began the year they were born. Climate change is an easy deception for koolaid drinkers and academic elitists. Personal research isn’t required if you promote the agenda. Observable, factual data that contradicts the agenda is ignored. They get past the Oracle of Delphi by regurgi- tating the current pc voodoo.... doodoo.

The perverse hippie revisionist revolution has come back to bite us - big time.

Sorry to bother you again, Pelham, but what do you think? It's got everything: science, politics, psychology, philosophy...You're the guru, as it were.

[Jo Nuvark]

Just as practice makes perfect so does repeating the obvious.

(Dropping jaw, clearing throat. Taking breath from
diaphram - inhale - and singing in the key of C)

La(1) La(3) La(5) La(8) La(5) La(3) La(1)

[Das Outsider]

I happen to sing best in the key of C and A.

[Jo Nuvark]

So you are probably a baritone.
My favorite key is D. However,
I’m a coloratura. Even on the
worst days I can hit a E++.

[CodeMasterPhilzar]

Are you kidding me? If the MSM said the sun would come up tomorrow, I’d wait for dawn before believing them...

[Jo Nuvark]

[... If the MSM said the sun would come up tomorrow,
I’d wait for dawn before believing them...]

LOL! If only we could train the lemmings to do the same.

[Das Outsider]

So you are probably a baritone. My favorite key is D. However, I’m a coloratura. Even on the worst days I can hit a E++.

My "D" would be a basso "D," though I can do baritone, too. If I wanted to, I might try contra-alto, but that's a bit high!

[Jo Nuvark]

Might be fun to have a little vocal jazz FReeptet.
Hmmmmm. How to accomplish this young glosshoppah?

[Chaguito]

The declaration in your link is a weasel-worded text. Perhaps that is too strong; better might be "exceedingly carefully worded." If you read it carefully, it does not ascribe warming to anthropogenic sources, rather says we shouldn't add to the risk of increasing the climate change. It also doesn't propose to attack climate change by reducing human emissions, rather to attack the levels of greenhouse gases by reducing human emissions.

The fact that one has to read it so carefully to parse these things out makes the whole declaration suspect to me (maybe not to you).

Maybe these groups do feel there is a consensus. But first, no group really speaks for an individual scientist or team, generating its own studies. Second, for example, there was a consensus that Galen had it right in the medical field. Galen was wrong.

[Blennos]

I like Bob Carter, but he really doesn’t debunk anything. He argues that there may be other explanations on what is going on climate wise, and that we should continue to apply the scientific method. He points out that the current consensus has stopped listening to anything which does not support anthrogenic climate change. One of my points is that many people on this thread do the same thing—i.e. focus only on the science which supports a pre-set POV.

What he does debunk is the notion that there is a scientific basis and consensus for the Global Warming arguments put forth by the media and the UN bureaucrats. He argues as a scientist that there is no valid science to support their claims. Might their suppositions be true. Sure. It is logically impossible to prove the non-existence of something and inductively very difficult. But the claims being made today are that the GW notions have a solid and widespread scientific foundation. This Carter debunks to my satisfaction.

[PA Engineer]

The majority of scientists, outside of the UN, believe anthropogenic global warming is probably occurring.

[melstew]

I think if you substitute “definitely” for “probably”—as the media has done, my statement would be BS. As demonstrated in post 39, however, the statement is accurate. I agree that the media is manipulative, liberal, and completely untrustworthy. But if you can’t face the truth on there being a scientific consensus that human emmissions are probably contributing to climate change—then you are no more intellectually honest than Dan Rather or Bill Maher.