Arctic ice melting at 'amazing' speed

[BlasterBates]

Who do you believe, Professor Judith Curry, a single esteemed climate scientist who has presented to the US congress, or every single UN Climate Change scientist political activist, peace nobel prize winners?I think everyone can make their own decision.

FTFY

IPCC scientists; the butcher the baker the candlestick maker « Cao2's Weblog

..and if you don´t believe them you can go to the IPCC and check the authors yourself and you will indeed find that a lot of them have pretty poor qualifications, and further more that some eminent scientists have walked out on the IPCC, claiming it to be politically motivated.


..and here is a summary of the IAC report about the IPCC

The IAC reported that IPCC lead authors fail to give "due consideration ... to properly documented alternative views" (p. 20), fail to "provide detailed written responses to the most significant review issues identified by the Review Editors" (p. 21), and are not "consider[ing] review comments carefully and document[ing] their responses" (p. 22). In plain English: the IPCC reports are not peer-reviewed.

The IAC found that "the IPCC has no formal process or criteria for selecting authors" and "the selection criteria seemed arbitrary to many respondents" (p. 18). Government officials appoint scientists from their countries and "do not always nominate the best scientists from among those who volunteer, either because they do not know who these scientists are or because political considerations are given more weight than scientific qualifications" (p. 18). In other words: authors are selected from a "club" of scientists and nonscientists who agree with the alarmist perspective favored by politicians.


Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/...#ixzz25s5uDM00

http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/

[Scoobos]

But blaster, thats just a webblog right ? that links off to a few journalist's opinions on things.

Anyone can write a webblog and journalists just write what somebody tells them.

What is it that you think motivates the U.N, just about every major country in the world and european politicians to lie or follow lies? I don't see a motive.

The IPCC review was funded and instigated by the U.N itself - if it was this dodgy entity why would it do that? Finally, did you even read it? I don't see a scathing attack on anything; its more self regulation - whats wrong with that?

If they had reviewed it and said everything is undesputable, fair enough.

The political considerations that you seem to highlight above mean people who are funded by private companies or have a conflict of interest, not that its some kind of political agenda.

[BlasterBates]

But blaster, thats just a webblog right ? that links off to a few journalist's opinions on things.

Anyone can write a webblog and journalists just write what somebody tells them.

What is it that you think motivates the U.N, just about every major country in the world and european politicians to lie or follow lies? I don't see a motive.

If you want you can just read the IAC report which was commissioned by the UN and come to your own conclusions.

On 10 March 2010, the Secretary-General of the United Nations and the IPCC Chairman requested IAC to undertake a review of the processes and procedures of the InterGovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

InterAcademy Council | Review of the IPCC | An Evaluation of the Procedures and Processes of the InterGovernmental Panel on Climate Change

When scientists such as Judith Curry and there are many others, she´s just prominent, criticise then you see there are two sides to this scientific debate. You see the IPCC is only presenting one side. The IAC report is pretty explicit with it´s criticism that alternative viewpoints are being ignored.

[Scoobos]

The IAC report is pretty explicit with it´s criticism that alternative viewpoints are being ignored.

It's the same link fella, but here's the most recent update:

"“On behalf of the InterAcademy Council and the IAC committee that authored the report reviewing the processes and procedures of the IPCC, we are pleased that so many of our report’s recommendations were adopted today by the IPCC in Abu Dhabi. We are grateful to the U.N. and IPCC for seeking an independent review by the IAC and for acting on our report. We hope our report will continue to inform management of the IPCC as it carries out its Fifth Assessment Report on climate change science.”"

I think that they said they were not exploring "alternative viewpoints" as they wasted resource, its down to others to disprove in their own science isnt it?

The overwhelming concensus in the scientific community is in support of doing something about the situation, and that man does contribute to warming. I am sceptical of a few renegades , so we sit on opposite sides of the debate.

I have read every link you've put up and seriously I dont see how you can keep using the IPCC report as any kind of evidence of "corruption or political motivation".

[EternalOptimist]

Scoobos you need to read the delinquent teenager by an ipcc insider, donna laframboise

she describes the perfect example of noble cause corruption. These people have gone into science to improve the lot of humanity. Anything they do is ok, making up data, fiddling the figures, telling porkies because they are saving us and our children

[sasguru]

Scoobos you need to read the delinquent teenager by an ipcc insider, donna laframboise

she describes the perfect example of noble cause corruption. These people have gone into science to improve the lot of humanity. Anything they do is ok, making up data, fiddling the figures, telling porkies because they are saving us and our children

Oh FFS you're really to stupid for words.

HTH, BIKIW.

[EternalOptimist]

Oh FFS you're really to stupid for words.

HTH, BIKIW.

hi pea-brain. How are you today ?

[Robinho]

Is he too stupid for grammar though?

[escapeUK]

Scoobos you need to read the delinquent teenager by an ipcc insider, donna laframboise

she describes the perfect example of noble cause corruption. These people have gone into science to improve the lot of humanity. Anything they do is ok, making up data, fiddling the figures, telling porkies because they are saving us and our children

If any of this warming nonsense was true, the answer would not be to save children but to prevent their birth. When the answer is to seriously reduce the population of the planet I will take it seriously, till then it is just a way to tax gullible sheep further.

[BlasterBates]

It's the same link fella, but here's the most recent update:


I think that they said they were not exploring "alternative viewpoints" as they wasted resource, its down to others to disprove in their own science isnt it?

So effectively persuing the route of non-science. Nothing has been proven about man made global warming. It is the opinion of some scientists that man is responsible and it is the opinion of other scientists that it isn´t, and it is the opinion of some scientists that there is too much uncertainty.

You´ll have to accept that some scientists reject the IPCC findings. If reputable scientists do reject them then it is perfectly acceptable for laymen for reject them to.

...and many of the authoirs of the IPCC reports aren´t climate scientists. That´s a fact. Members of Greenpeace and WWF have participated.

Lets not forget their statement on Himalayan Glaciers; that´s just the tip of the iceberg.

If the IPCC was truly scientific that would have never appeared.

Dr Chris Landsea outlines his reasons for leaving the IPCC

- Prometheus: Chris Landsea Leaves IPCC Archives

After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.

If it has become politicised, why should we accept it?