If this keeps up, no one's going to trust any scientists

[luckytxn 2,265]

From what I read they said it was successful alright but in a bad way. They were pretty good at cherry picking false data and distorting ambiguous data and making it seem it was a done deal and no more debate needed to be done. They then when on and blasted the agency for its pretty much getting caught red handed and destroying a once promising theory that was almost a real science. Now that they are totally at odds with reality it will be hard for this agency to have any credence in the future.

The best thing is that we can now have scientists bring forth the real data and we can all see and discuss on the merits. If the global warming was a real science then there would have been no need for deceit in the first place and suppressing of any scientists and data. It looks like the Federal government was in cahoots with them and spread everyones hard earned taxes to enrich their friends and political contributors. The moronic Socialists are still trying to push this bunk on the world.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Go read the actual report that was referred to in the OP from this independent agency. Then get back with me when you find where they said the IPCC "told outright lies and total distortions." In the meantime, continue ignoring the conclusion of this independent agency which found the IPCC report to be successful and important with regard to climate change. Reading is fundamental.

Ok, so you can't read then. Let me help you.

For example, the IPCC's much-vaunted Fourth Assessment Report claimed in 2007 that Himalayan glaciers were rapidly melting, and would possibly be gone by the year 2035. The claim was actually false -- yet the IPCC cited it as proof of man-made global warming.

Then there's the IPCC's earlier prediction in 2007 -- which it claimed to have "high confidence" in -- that global warming could lead to a 50 percent reduction in the rain-fed agricultural capacity of Africa.

Such a dramatic decrease in food production in an already poor continent would be a terrifying prospect, and undoubtedly lead to the starvation of millions. But the InterAcademy Council investigation found that this IPCC claim was also based on weak evidence.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Ok, so you can't read then. Let me help you.

Quote from the report...not Rupert Murdoch's yellow journalism.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Quote from the report...not Rupert Murdoch's yellow journalism.

Like thus?

The Summary for Policy Makers primarily uses the confidence scale in Table 3.2, which is

intended to be used when there is “high agreement, much evidence” in the literature. However,

many of the conclusions in the “Current Knowledge about Future Impacts” section of the

Working Group II Summary for Policy Makers are based on unpublished or non-peer-reviewed

literature. For example, the following conclusions, each of which was based on a small number

of unpublished studies, have been questioned (e.g., PBL, 2010):

Towards the end of the 21st century, projected sea-level rise will affect low-lying coastal areas with

large populations. The cost of adaptation could amount to at least 5-10% of GDP. (High confidence;

IPCC, 2007b, p. 13)

Agricultural production, including access to food, in many African countries and regions is projected

to be severely compromised by climate variability and change. The area suitable for agriculture, the

length of growing seasons and yield potential, particularly along the margins of semi-arid and arid

areas, are expected to decrease. This would further adversely affect food security and exacerbate

malnutrition in the continent. In some countries, yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by

up to 50% by 2020. (High confidence; IPCC, 2007b, p. 13)

http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/report/Chapter%203%20-%20IPCC’s%20Evaluation%20of%20Evidence%20and%20Treatment%20of%20Unc

That's science talk for bold face lies.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Yeah, it's too bad you selectively put the wrong part in bold:

The Summary for Policy Makers primarily uses the confidence scale in Table 3.2, which is

intended to be used when there is “high agreement, much evidence” in the literature. However,

many of the conclusions in the “Current Knowledge about Future Impacts” section of the

Working Group II Summary for Policy Makers are based on unpublished or non-peer-reviewed

literature. For example, the following conclusions, each of which was based on a small number

of unpublished studies, have been questioned (e.g., PBL, 2010):

Towards the end of the 21st century, projected sea-level rise will affect low-lying coastal areas with

large populations. The cost of adaptation could amount to at least 5-10% of GDP. (High confidence;

IPCC, 2007b, p. 13)

Agricultural production, including access to food, in many African countries and regions is projected

to be severely compromised by climate variability and change. The area suitable for agriculture, the

length of growing seasons and yield potential, particularly along the margins of semi-arid and arid

areas, are expected to decrease. This would further adversely affect food security and exacerbate

malnutrition in the continent. In some countries, yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by

up to 50% by 2020. (High confidence; IPCC, 2007b, p. 13)

http://reviewipcc.in...ment%20of%20Unc

Peer review is an essential part of the scientific process which is what I and HAL have been arguing with you and John Smith...cough...GaryC, for a long time. You guys dismiss the importance of peer review. So how quaint that you are now using this independent review of the IPCC report as some kind of condemnation of the report when in fact it supports the overall findings of the report - which clearly state that human activity is greatly contributing and accelerating Global Warming. While the report may have including some non-peer reviewed findings, the climate science community has long been providing peer-reviewed scientific findings and conclusions that you've easily dismissed as irrelevant or even a conspiracy. You can chew all the fat you want, but in the end this independent report validates the conclusions of the IPCC report - that Global Warming is real and that we must do something about it.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Yeah, it's too bad you selectively put the wrong part in bold:

Peer review is an essential part of the scientific process which is what I and HAL have been arguing with you and John Smith...cough...GaryC, for a long time. You guys dismiss the importance of peer review. So how quaint that you are now using this independent review of the IPCC report as some kind of condemnation of the report when in fact it supports the overall findings of the report - which clearly state that human activity is greatly contributing and accelerating Global Warming. While the report may have including some non-peer reviewed findings, the climate science community has long been providing peer-reviewed scientific findings and conclusions that you've easily dismissed as irrelevant or even a conspiracy. You can chew all the fat you want, but in the end this independent report validates the conclusions of the IPCC report - that Global Warming is real and that we must do something about it.

Did you even read what you highlighted? The review panel is saying the IPCC pulled this ####### out of their buttholes, and claimed that with a "high level of confidence" that it was all going to happen, despite that no one ever heard of, or read the ####### before it was included in the IPCC report. They were relying on fiction, not published and reviewed studies, according to the review panel.

Talk about a lack of reading comprehension. Can you even understand what you bolded in red?

ETA: Grammar, spelling

Edited September 5, 2010 by ##########

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Ah, your finally telling us your problem then? If you can't see that the IPCC has told outright lies and total distortions then that is your problem.

The actual issue for many scientists is not that humans are not having a tremendous impact on the environment, the knock is focusing solely on CO2 emissions, and reliance on models which are scientifically faulty to get the job done, instead of including many other causal factors including CO2, but not limited to CO2 included, and then accurately predicting global climate changes on the global scale and over long decades of time.

"Climate Scientists" that poo poo GW are generally in the category of paid political/industrial spokespersons.

The report indicates there are a number of steps the IPCC should take to improve systemically and procedurally, but falls way short of your assessment of what you claim the report says.

Edited September 5, 2010 by ready4ONE

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Did you even read what you highlighted? The review panel is saying the IPCC pulled this ####### out of their buttholes, and claimed that with a "high level of confidence" that it was all going to happen, despite that no one ever heard of, or read the ####### before it was included in the IPCC report. They were relying on fiction, not published and reviewed studies, according to the review panel.

Bill, you and GaryC have on more than one occasion posted opinions and so-called reports from "scientists" that were not peer reviewed and even when you were called on it, you effectively said that peer-review is irrelevant. So now, here's an independent review on the IPCC report where the only real criticism was that some non-peer reviewed findings were included in the report (a scientific no-no), and you are now a disciple of peer reviewed science. The IPCC report was compiled together by a committee that apparently overlooked one of the fundamental principles of scientific study, yet it in spite of that, the overall findings of the report are scientifically sound. This was not a deliberate attempt to lie, it was a failure of a committee to make sure the report only included peer reviewed scientific findings. What makes this so amusing is to see such GW denialists such as yourself and GaryC try to take what essentially is an independent endorsement of the IPCC report, and try to turn it into something that validates your denialist reasoning. You two bumbling science goofballs wouldn't admit to the science of Global Warming if it fell on your lap. You two are ideological hacks who think you know better than the consensus of the scientific community. Pure comedy.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Bill, you and GaryC have on more than one occasion posted opinions and so-called reports from "scientists" that were not peer reviewed and even when you were called on it, you effectively said that peer-review is irrelevant. So now, here's an independent review on the IPCC report where the only real criticism was that some non-peer reviewed findings were included in the report (a scientific no-no), and you are now a disciple of peer reviewed science. The IPCC report was compiled together by a committee that apparently overlooked one of the fundamental principles of scientific study, yet it in spite of that, the overall findings of the report are scientifically sound. This was not a deliberate attempt to lie, it was a failure of a committee to make sure the report only included peer reviewed scientific findings. What makes this so amusing is to see such GW denialists such as yourself and GaryC try to take what essentially is an independent endorsement of the IPCC report, and try to turn it into something that validates your denialist reasoning. You two bumbling science goofballs wouldn't admit to the science of Global Warming if it fell on your lap. You two are ideological hacks who think you know better than the consensus of the scientific community. Pure comedy.

Bunk. I can only speak for myself. I am not denying that global warming may well be happening, nor am I denying that CO₂ levels are increasing. I am suggesting that there is not adequate modeling, to show a mechanism for one leading to the other, giving historic observations precluding any such relationship.

Further, I am the group that sees a benefit to increased CO₂ levels and increased mean global temperatures. For myself and others, this is far from the doomsday scenario predicted by Algore sycophants like yourself, despite unsupported and proven erroneous claims to the contrary of super hurricanes, coastal flooding, and famine. The planet is in CO₂ deficit, and warming from a prolonged cooling period.

And, please try to keep the argument above the belt, rather than whining like a spoiled child.

Edited September 5, 2010 by ##########

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

http://current.com/green/91726034_global-warming-nonsense.htm

[luckytxn 2,265]

The actual issue for many scientists is not that humans are not having a tremendous impact on the environment, the knock is focusing solely on CO2 emissions, and reliance on models which are scientifically faulty to get the job done, instead of including many other causal factors including CO2, but not limited to CO2 included, and then accurately predicting global climate changes on the global scale and over long decades of time.

"Climate Scientists" that poo poo GW are generally in the category of paid political/industrial spokespersons.

The report indicates there are a number of steps the IPCC should take to improve systemically and procedurally, but falls way short of your assessment of what you claim the report says.

Any scientist that poo poo's GW is in the pocket of industry? Really now. I think that every scientist that screams about GW is on the Fed dole. If any scientist asks for money for research to combat GW they get it from us taxpayers. There are actually way more scientists that think GW warming is not a science at all but at the most a theory that should be investigated further but in no way ever should this be called a done deal. If it was a real science then why the need to cherry pick only data that supports your take on things and ignore and/or suppress any data that shows the opposite? That they did this at all is FRAUD. If any scientist ever had done these things in the past they would have been castigated and many were in the past.

No, these scientists are toeing the line to further an agenda that the Feds want them too. This stuff has enabled the government to control the citizenry. The scare tactics they are trying to pull is scandalous and all over a bunk science that a majority of scientists in the world has denounced as fake. These scientists could get on the gravy train like these frauds have and accept money to fit a science to the government wants but they have integrity and I admire that.

[luckytxn 2,265]

http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php

This place has studies from reputable scientists that show GW is wrong and also many other things that will never be shown on major media.

My personal fave is the one where a scientist was talking about GW and mentioned the supposed Antarctic ace melt. The reporter mentioned a recent study that showed that Antarctica was actually cooling with record amounts of snowfall and ice growth and the area that the scientist was talking about that had seen a huge amount of ice breakage and warming has actually been found to have a huge volcano that was becoming even more active on the sea floor under that ice sheet. The scientist didn't even blink and seemed serious when he retorted that GW causes volcanoes to become more active.