The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The UN climate change numbers hoax > Comments

The UN climate change numbers hoax : Comments

By Tom Harris and John McLean, published 30/6/2008

The IPCC needs to come clean on the real numbers of scientist supporters.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 14
  10. 15
  11. 16
  12. All
Paul.L: "They make a solid point about the factual incorrectness of that claim. It is up to you to disprove it if you wish, but to suggest that the debate is over is simply not correct."

Depends what you are debating Paul.L. If we are debating the idea that plebs such as you and I, Don Aitkin or indeed anybody who doesn't spend their time studying climate and publishing peer reviewed papers on the subject then obviously the debate goes on. This forum is evidence of that I guess.

But if you restrict yourself to the one or two thousand individuals that have devoted their lifetimes to the climate science, and have had the balls to put their lifetimes work and reputation on the line by publishing in peer reviewed journals, then the answer is starkly clear. At least it is to anybody who has taken the 5 or so minutes required to look it up - by say reading the Wikipedia entry on the subject that Lev so helpfully provided the link for.

You of course will now be thinking of ways to attack the impartiality of Wikipedia. Don't waste your time. On this particular topic others who were willing to spend far more effort on it than you have already tried:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7381&page=0#113833

As you point out, the models AGW is based on are complex even by todays standards where doing a complete FSA of an aircraft in flight is regarded as fairly mundane. It has lots of contestable points, and we see them regularly attacked here on OLO. So, do Harris and McLean target one of them with their flak? No. They target one of AGW strongest points, and whats more one that you correctly say is irrelevant to the science.

And this, you say, is Harris and McLean's making a "solid point". Well a solid point has indeed been made, I guess. But it is not the one you are suggesting.
Posted by rstuart, Monday, 30 June 2008 5:13:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bazz,

You ask

"Prove their figures wrong regarding the numbers of scientists that say that it is caused by anthropogenic carbon."

I did that in the first comment.

I shall do so again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Sams,

Apology accepted
Posted by Lev, Monday, 30 June 2008 5:27:27 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
PaulL, as you said yourself, you are only an engineer and you know its difficult to model anything as complex as climate. Yes well the maths engineers use isn't the same maths as biometricians and other disciplines use.

We clearly can model the climate, what do you think our weather forecasts are? The Bureau of Meteorology and the Weather Company produce long range forecasts which grain growers use to base their decisions on whether to invest $500,000 planting a crop or not.

Respected climatologists and hydrographers are in no doubt that south eastern Australia is getting drier and their climate models show this. There is less certainty about what climate change will mean for the tropical areas of Australia because the climate modelling is less developed.

The article was a mish mash of vague innuendo casting aspersions on the review process of the IPCC report not on the content of the report. The ssort of thing we should expect from the Australian Environment Foundation that was set up to allow timber companies to retain access to our forests.
Posted by billie, Monday, 30 June 2008 5:32:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I thought the article was clear in its intent ... to question the often repeated claim that 2,500 scientists have endorsed the IPCC reports and findings. Clearly the IPCC process is more about politics than science and it should be exposed as such. Thanks OLO for continuing to publish the politically incorrect.
Posted by Jennifer, Monday, 30 June 2008 7:05:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
And thanks to you Jennifer Marohasy (and OLO's "snowman" aka McClean).

And to the IPA, Heartland Institute, Lavoisier Group, Tech Central Station, etc and et al for your politically motivated and "New World Order" denialists diatribe.
Posted by Q&A, Monday, 30 June 2008 7:13:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Q&A

Have you bothered to read anything at all.

1.You dont have to be a scientist to undertake this type of management and audit review. It is common practice on other domains where the ethical standards may be little higher.

2. I would have thought that when the authors show that the IPCC has lied about the extent of the support from the scientific community, that is serious. It impacts on the over all credibilty of the IPCC reports.

3. There is clear proof of the fact that the statement "Greenhouse gas forcing has very likely caused most of the observed global warming over the last 50 years" was not supported by 2500,but just 7.

Thats not a simple error of judgement, that is fraudulent misrepresentation, for which the Norwegian dopes gave them a Nobel Prize,thereby demeaning the prize itself. What a Joke.

4.The data supporting this paper is available for you to also access and research to validate and/or dispute the theses being presentd by the authors. Go your hardest.

5. Notably the data was obtained by virtue of the USA FOI laws covering where the WG1 activities took place, not European law where Pachuri and his cronies reside, and therefore could not influence the FOI decision of USA law.

Now why is that not surprising.
Posted by bigmal, Monday, 30 June 2008 8:52:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 14
  10. 15
  11. 16
  12. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy