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 second salvo in the IPCC countdown - Roy Spencer > Comments

The second salvo in the IPCC countdown - Roy Spencer : Comments

By Don Aitkin, published 26/9/2013

We are now at the point in the age of global warming hysteria where the IPCC global warming theory has crashed into the hard reality of observations .

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
ozdoc,

I think it is you who misses the point. For many years the IPCC has been presented to the world as the source of all things we should respect about CAGW. Now that the IPCC and it's predictions are failing, thanks mainly to "science by political consensus". The warmertariat want us to ignore their flaws and return to the very science that failed you in the first place.

It is your science that brought about the demise of Kyoto, the collapse of the emissions trading schemes and the destruction of the global renewables industry, the RENIXX top 30 renewables index collapsed by 90 percent three months ago.

It serves little purpose to try to convert skeptics when you cannot even convince the UN body that sold you a pup in the first place. Stop proselytising and write your complaint to the IPCC.

What is it about "your science has failed you" that fails to penetrate your self indoctrinated ideology?
Posted by spindoc, Thursday, 26 September 2013 2:07:48 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
The other Godwins law, Runner rules:- If Runner agrees with you, your argument is invalid.
Posted by Cobber the hound, Thursday, 26 September 2013 2:12:26 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
Barry (I mean spindoc hehe)

Spin CAGW all you want but it ain't catastrophic - notwithstanding in decades to come things may change.

I don't have a complaint with the IPCC, it's very conservative - particularly in the SPM's. Perhaps you can get our new conservative Environment Minister to write on your behalf?

Besides, it's the scientific papers that I'm involved with and no amount of 'proselytizing' (your word) by political/religious interests or indeed, political scientists like this author, will change that.
Posted by ozdoc, Thursday, 26 September 2013 2:32:23 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'm looking forward to the third salvo in the IPCC countdown.

I wonder, will it be that well-known possessor of a Classics degree and non-peer reviewed climate expert....Lord Monckton?

The suspense is killing me.
Posted by Poirot, Thursday, 26 September 2013 3:13:30 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
ozdoc,

Glad you mentioned about the " scientific papers" you are "involved" with because there are a couple of questions you failed to address.

The first is the scientific explanation of Blickmans attempt to discredit Spencer as posted earlier to Jeremy, he seems to have gone very quiet and may need your scientific expertise to refute it.

I was also wondering if you are able to explain what you mean by the comment that the IPCC is " very conservative" when all the AR assessments confirm that they are exactly the opposite? Which has been their problem all along.

Finally, would you care to advise on any progress that the global warming industry has made since November 19, 2009? Anything will do, even the most trivial achievement would do.

Some might expect you to respond with even more infantile trivia however, I'm sure that as a scientifically literate and articulate contributor, you will do better than that.

So looking forward to your scientifically rational response, as one scientist to another you understand.
Posted by spindoc, Thursday, 26 September 2013 4:20:25 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
spindoc,

In your comment addressed to me you say "I neglected to mention ... that Bickmore was himself criticised for adding to Spencer's model to try to discredit it". I'm not clear on why this is relevant to my comment, but if it of sufficient interest or relevance to be worth reading, perhaps you might consider providing a reference.

Your third and fourth paragraphs seem to claim that I have said certain things - which is absolutely not true. Perhaps you are confusing me with some other commenter (though I can't see which). In fact there is not a paragraph of your post where I have any idea what you are talking about.
Posted by jeremy, Thursday, 26 September 2013 4:41:06 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. All

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