Head of IPCC up to his neck in it [Climate Change]

Toiletroll

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6847227/Questions-over-business-deals-of-UN-climate-change-guru-Dr-Rajendra-Pachauri.html

The head of the UN's climate change panel - Dr Rajendra Pachauri - is accused of making a fortune from his links with 'carbon trading' companies

Still trust them?

Dr Pachauri has established an astonishing worldwide portfolio of business interests with bodies which have been investing billions of dollars in organisations dependent on the IPCC’s policy recommendations

Impartial? Are you still brainwashed enough to trust them?

These outfits include banks, oil and energy companies and investment funds heavily involved in ‘carbon trading’ and ‘sustainable technologies’, which together make up the fastest-growing commodity market in the world, estimated soon to be worth trillions of dollars a year.

Today, in addition to his role as chairman of the IPCC, Dr Pachauri occupies more than a score of such posts, acting as director or adviser

Oil did you say? Have the IPCC and their swarms of fake scientists not been saying climategate is funded by big oil? Well guys and gals, I can confirm you have been LIED to yet again. It makes me sad to see the entire human population so docile and naieve. Please tune out of the mainstream media. They have proven themselves to be nothing more than regurgitators and repeaters. We no longer have what used to be called 'investigative journalism' All we have are press release re-writers, copy cats and pawns of the elite no doubt getting paid hefty sums to keep things under wraps or to add certain stories to the mix. Guys and gals our media is controlled as is most of the worlds main media. Once you learn how to switch the controller box off, then you might gain a better understanding of the universe.

When Dr Pachauri took over the running of TERI in the 1980s, his interests centred on the oil and coal industries, which may now seem odd for a man who has since become best known for his opposition to fossil fuels. He was, for instance, a director until 2003 of India Oil

In 2005, he set up GloriOil, a Texas firm specialising in technology which allows the last remaining reserves to be extracted from oilfields otherwise at the end of their useful life.

It is one of these deals, reported in last week’s Sunday Telegraph, which is enabling Tata to transfer three million tonnes of steel production from its Corus plant in Redcar to a new plant in Orissa, thus gaining a potential £1.2 billion in ‘carbon credits’ (and putting 1,700 people on Teesside out of work)

So guys and girls. The only thing the climate scientists, sorry liars, have been using against climategate is that it was funded by big oil. In fact it was not and the documents were leaked by an insider. More will be revealed soon.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6847227/Questions-over-business-deals-of-UN-climate-change-guru-Dr-Rajendra-Pachauri.html

here is more that casts doubt on the IPCC

http://www.nationalpost.com/m/blog.html?b=fullcomment&e=lawrence-solomon-wikipedia-s-climate-doctor&s=Opinion

Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley’s global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia’s blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement.

bonkey

Dead right there.

If the chairman has questionable business interests the actual scientists must be corrupt and the science bogus.

Macha

Deleted User wrote: »

http://www.nationalpost.com/m/blog.html?b=fullcomment&e=lawrence-solomon-wikipedia-s-climate-doctor&s=Opinion

blindjustice, please read the forum charter and take note that you must comment on links that are posted.

simplistic

bonkey wrote: »

Dead right there.

If the chairman has questionable business interests the actual scientists must be corrupt and the science bogus.

When you were a kid and wanted pocket money did you do what mammy and daddy said or did you say "keep the pocket money mammy I think your ethically corrupt".

The US Government has spent more than $79 billion of taxpayers’ money since 1989 on policies related to climate change,

Mammy to kids : Im offering 79 billion lollypops for any of you that write a story about mammy.

Kid1 : Writes a story detailing who beautiful mammy is.
Kid2 : Writes a story saying how mammy is an abuser

hmmmmmm who continues to get the candy?

http://www.transworldnews.com/NewsStory.aspx?id=104031&cat=12

marco_polo

This seems to be the only sort of research climate skeptics are doing these days.

simplistic

marco_polo wrote: »

This seems to be the only sort of research climate skeptics are doing these days.

True, its terrible that some of us go to the bother to try and unstick some peoples minds from the propaganda frying pan.

djpbarry

Toiletroll wrote: »

Please tune out of the mainstream media. They have proven themselves to be nothing more than regurgitators and repeaters. We no longer have what used to be called 'investigative journalism'

Except for The Telegraph it seems. Although I'm not sure all that much investigation was required in this case. However, given that Dr Pachauri is not actually a climate scientist, I’m struggling to grasp how this ‘revelation’ undermines the science behind climate change?

Toiletroll wrote: »

All we have are press release re-writers, copy cats and pawns of the elite no doubt getting paid hefty sums to keep things under wraps or to add certain stories to the mix.

Save it for Conspiracy Theories.

djpbarry

simplistic wrote: »

True, its terrible that some of us go to the bother to try and unstick some peoples minds from the propaganda frying pan...

...with propaganda. Hmm.

csm

Toilet,

Why don't you try doing some scientific research to conclusively prove that climate change isn't happening? If you manage it you will become a massively successful scientist who would be the envy of all others. I presume since you can cast aspersions on all other scientists' research that you have the technical expertise to understand it. Would that be true?

How dare you call me a liar and a fake. You've never met me and most likely you have never read one of my papers. I've never met the head of the IPCC, he has no control over me or anyone in my organisation. He does not have any feedback into whether our research gets published or not (unless he happens to be chosen as an anonymous reviewer). And yet you feel the need to call into question my integrity because of the business interests of someone who happens to have the same occupation as me? Get a grip.

Toiletroll

csm wrote: »

Toilet,

Why don't you try doing some scientific research to conclusively prove that climate change isn't happening? If you manage it you will become a massively successful scientist who would be the envy of all others. I presume since you can cast aspersions on all other scientists' research that you have the technical expertise to understand it. Would that be true?

How dare you call me a liar and a fake. You've never met me and most likely you have never read one of my papers. I've never met the head of the IPCC, he has no control over me or anyone in my organisation. He does not have any feedback into whether our research gets published or not (unless he happens to be chosen as an anonymous reviewer). And yet you feel the need to call into question my integrity because of the business interests of someone who happens to have the same occupation as me? Get a grip.

If you have nothing to do with the IPCC then fine your research may be credible. I apologise to have generalised so much. Though it is a like for like scenario. You have the guys over at the IPCC to thank for that.

The globe is warming and we need to move away from finite fuels, I agree.

Also worth looking at...

What Scientists Really Think About Global Warming - Forbes.com

These are hard times for climate scientists who want government action on global warming. Not only has the Copenhagen summit largely produced discord, but an embarrassing public release of private e-mails exposed attempts by a group of climate scientists to hide scientific evidence that didn't conform to their beliefs or pronouncements.

Indeed... Survey of scientists to follow...

In a broader effort to measure scientific opinion, one scholar analyzed peer-reviewed journal articles on climate change and concluded that over 75% supported the notion of anthropogenic (human-induced) warming. But critics argued that the analysis was itself skewed toward finding such a consensus.

The STATS study polled nearly 500 randomly selected members of the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union listed in American Men and Women of Science, the longtime "Who's Who" directory of the scientific community. This provided the best glimpse into the views of prominent American scientists with expertise relevant to climate change. We asked them not only whether they thought global warming was occurring, but how severe the effects might be, and how certain they were about making such judgments.

Survey...

As with all polls, the answers you get depend on the questions you ask. We found that almost all climate scientists believe that the world has been warming: 97% agree that "global average temperatures have increased" during the past century. But not everyone attributes that rise to human activity. A slight majority (52%) believe this warming was human-induced, 30% see it as the result of natural temperature fluctuations and the rest are unsure.

When it comes to current conditions, however, the consensus in favor of human warming reemerges: 84% believe "human-induced greenhouse warming" is now occurring, compared with only 5% who reject this conclusion. And 74% say the "currently available scientific evidence substantiates" its occurrence, while only 9% disagree. So global warming doubter are a genuinely small minority among American climate scientists; it is difficult to believe that any transgressions against scientific procedures or the scientific ethos uncovered by Climategate are going to change that.

Going forward, the more interesting question is how great a danger current warming trends may pose to future generations. The IPCC as well as many environmental organizations have set temperature increases of two degrees Celsius (about 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) as a threshold beyond which global warming poses grave dangers to the planet.

We asked the scientists to estimate the probability that human activity will raise global temperatures that much in the next 50 to 100 years. Just over half of these climate experts (56%) believe there is at least a 50-50 chance that global warming of this magnitude will occur. About one in five (19%) see less than a 50-50 chance, and one in four (26%) are unwilling to venture an opinion. This suggests a division of opinion, combined with some uncertainty, over the likely impact of warming in the short to medium term.

To get a more general sense of how climate experts feel about the risks of global warming, we asked them to rate the likely effects of climate change during the next 50 to 100 years along a spectrum ranging from "trivial" to "catastrophic." The result was widespread concern, along with considerable debate over how great that concern should be.

Only 13% saw relatively little danger (ratings of 1 to 3 on a 10-point scale); the rest were about evenly split between the 44% who see moderate to high danger (ratings of 4 to 7) and 41% who see very high or grave danger (ratings of 8 to 10). It is also notable that only 1% answered "don't know" to this question, a reminder that many scientists respond more cautiously about making specific scientific projections than about giving their personal opinions, a distinction that is sometimes lost on politicians.

In fact, scientists are often reluctant to rush to judgment, though you wouldn't know it from the mass media, which typically caricature scientific debates as involving two clearly defined, committed and opposed sides. The scientists' actual responses reflect a certain modesty about our capacity to predict the future. For example, when asked to rate the predictability of future climate change along the same 1-to-10 scale, 32% found its effects difficult to predict (ratings of 1 to 3), 51% found them moderately predictable (4 to 7), and only 17% found them easy to predict (8 to 10).

Such reticence reflects a modest appraisal of the scientific community's current understanding of climate change. For example, only 29% express a "great deal of confidence" in science's current understanding of the size and extent of human sources of greenhouse gases, and even fewer (23%) express great confidence in scientific understanding of their natural sources.

This is hardly surprising, in light of the relatively recent origins of this debate. Speculation about global cooling wasn't decisively rejected until the 1980s, and widespread scientific concern over global warming didn't happen until the 1990s. Little wonder that only 5% of the scientists we surveyed describe the study of climate change as a fully mature science--51% call it fairly mature and 39% still see it as an emerging science.

This doesn't mean that we should do nothing about climate change until everyone agrees about the details of its causes and effects. It's time for political leaders to admit that science can inform their policies on climate change but can't dictate them. As Climategate shows, the search for certainty as political cover can backfire. The ABC poll cited above finds that 62% of the American public now see "a lot of disagreement" among scientists as to whether global warming is really happening. Scientific debate is open-ended, but at some point decision-makers must decide--and take responsibility for their decisions.

Firstly, should AGW be true then should we support it and try to make the place a tad warmer?

Academics in China are debating whether global warming could benefit rather than harm the country, with some historical climatologists believing the country did better during warmer periods.

They point to studies that show a drop in temperature and desertification accelerated the Mongol invasions of the 13th century.

Read more: Chinese debate positive side of global warming
The National Post is now on Facebook. Join our fan community today.

THE WORLD'S CLIMATE HAS ALWAYS BEEN CHANGING - FACT!

Sahara Desert Greening Due to Climate Change?

Desertification, drought, and despair—that's what global warming has in store for much of Africa. Or so we hear.

Emerging evidence is painting a very different scenario, one in which rising temperatures could benefit millions of Africans in the driest parts of the continent.

Scientists are now seeing signals that the Sahara desert and surrounding regions are greening due to increasing rainfall.

If sustained, these rains could revitalize drought-ravaged regions, reclaiming them for farming communities.

This desert-shrinking trend is supported by climate models, which predict a return to conditions that turned the Sahara into a lush savanna some 12,000 years ago.

Sahara Desert Greening Due to Climate Change?

Turtwig

*Cyan*

Arghhhhhhhhhhh
My eyes!

Turtwig

Toiletroll wrote: »

Firstly, should AGW be true then should we support it and try to make the place a tad warmer?

Umm let's see.
C02 is great for heating the earth.
As the years go on our sun is going to heat us more and more.
Don't we want less C02 in the earth then, you know to compensate for the increasing heat coming from the sun?

Maybe in the short term global warming will be beneficial to China, but I doubt they'd be as myopic to propose what you are proposing. Oh wait! They aren't.

If you have nothing to do with the IPCC then fine your research may be credible.

May?
Until he is proven guilty of fraud and/or shown to be dishonest, his/her research is credible!!While it may be end up being inaccurate it is still credible research.
Unless, of course, you are following a policy of guilty until proven innocent.

The globe is warming and we need to move away from finite fuels, I agree.

So how far are you willing to agree with the IPCC on adaption?

Indeed... Survey of scientists to follow...

Awesome, I'm glad to see they're skeptical. One question though...what if the question asked:
"What would you regard as the best model that explains the Earth's climate?"
I wonder how many would say anything other than AGW. We can believe what we like but at the end of the day it's the model that's the best explanation that we have to accept. It is no good believing it to be wrong; we must prove it wrong.

THE WORLD'S CLIMATE HAS ALWAYS BEEN CHANGING - FACT!

The sky is blue too.
Isn't it easy to point out the obvious?

Mahatma coat

.......As the years go on our sun is going to heat us more and more.....

WTF

seriously, explain this please, are you saying that Global warming is mostly down to the Sun gettin hotter, when did it Start to get hotter, by what scale is it increasing in heat.

or are you just trying to Scattergun as many pettheories and F-in buzzwords into your posts in the hope that some of it might be near the mark??


Of course CO2 increases when the temprature increases warmer planet means lower animal mortality rate, more plant life, greater availability of Habitats, as the Temprature increases the total Fauna increase, and what do they breathe out??? CO2

Turtwig

Mahatma coat wrote: »

WTF

seriously, explain this please, are you saying that Global warming is mostly down to the Sun gettin hotter, when did it Start to get hotter, by what scale is it increasing in heat.

No I said..
"As the years go on our sun is going to get heat us more"

The sun is going to get warmer by about 10% every billion years until it dies.
Now you could use that to conclude that sun is going to be the biggest factor on the earth's climate. Or you could also realise that C02 was far more plentiful in the past when the sun was actually a heck of a lot weaker and that increased C02 kept the planet nice and cosy. It stands to reason then that as the sun heats up human beings will prefer less and less C02 in the atmosphere, regardless of how little. My point is simpling replying to toilettrolls suggestion that we should fill the earth with carbon especially when we know how long it takes the earth to flush its atmosphere of the carbon. Venus may be our closest planet, but I'd rather we didn't try to match it temperature wise.

djpbarry

Toiletroll wrote: »

If you have nothing to do with the IPCC then fine your research may be credible.

May be credible? Suppose <insert random climate scientist here> was actively involved with the IPCC – does that automatically invalidate their research (for some unknown reason)?

Toiletroll wrote: »

The globe is warming and we need to move away from finite fuels , I agree.

Just so we’re clear; you accept that the planet is warming, based on the evidence presented by climate science, but reject the theory that greenhouse gases are a significant cause, based on the evidence presented by climate science?

Akrasia

Toiletroll wrote: »

If you have nothing to do with the IPCC then fine your research may be credible. I apologise to have generalised so much. Though it is a like for like scenario. You have the guys over at the IPCC to thank for that.

The globe is warming and we need to move away from finite fuels, I agree.

Also worth looking at...

What Scientists Really Think About Global Warming - Forbes.com



Indeed... Survey of scientists to follow...





Survey...



Firstly, should AGW be true then should we support it and try to make the place a tad warmer?

Academics in China are debating whether global warming could benefit rather than harm the country, with some historical climatologists believing the country did better during warmer periods.

They point to studies that show a drop in temperature and desertification accelerated the Mongol invasions of the 13th century.

Read more: Chinese debate positive side of global warming
The National Post is now on Facebook. Join our fan community today.

THE WORLD'S CLIMATE HAS ALWAYS BEEN CHANGING - FACT!

Sahara Desert Greening Due to Climate Change?



Sahara Desert Greening Due to Climate Change?

Just for everyone's information, this post, as well as the OP of this thread is an almost exact copy of a different post on a different forum (including the same green highlighting)

http://www.politics.ie/environment/120920-why-dont-deniers-have-any-political-representation.html#post2352180

It's not very good etiquette to cross post the exact same information to multiple forums. One has to wonder how many other different forums this poster crossposts all of his propaganda to (it's also quite funny that this particular username contains the word troll)

Pembily

Akrasia wrote: »

Just for everyone's information, this post, as well as the OP of this thread is an almost exact copy of a different post on a different forum (including the same green highlighting)

http://www.politics.ie/environment/120920-why-dont-deniers-have-any-political-representation.html#post2352180

It's not very good etiquette to cross post the exact same information to multiple forums. One has to wonder how many other different forums this poster crossposts all of his propaganda to (it's also quite funny that this particular username contains the word troll)

Fair play for posting

19 posts in this thread and maybe 2 or 3 out of all of them have addressed the opening post. The issue is about the credibility of the IPCC specifically the head of it and the consequences, if any, of this.

We have other threads on CO2 and warming and climategate.

I think he is definitely a vested interest and possibly an outright crook. He clearly has conflicts of interest and has a position which allows him to, in full view of everybody, be an insider trader. Which is a crime in stock trading.

Turtwig

Deleted User wrote: »

19 posts in this thread and maybe 2 or 3 out of all of them have addressed the opening post. The issue is about the credibility of the IPCC specifically the head of it and the consequences, if any, of this.

We have other threads on CO2 and warming and climategate.

I think he is definitely a vested interest and possibly an outright crook. He clearly has conflicts of interest and has a position which allows him to, in full view of everybody, be an insider trader. Which is a crime in stock trading.

Will you go on record?:)

Toiletroll

Deleted User wrote: »

19 posts in this thread and maybe 2 or 3 out of all of them have addressed the opening post. The issue is about the credibility of the IPCC specifically the head of it and the consequences, if any, of this.

We have other threads on CO2 and warming and climategate.

I think he is definitely a vested interest and possibly an outright crook. He clearly has conflicts of interest and has a position which allows him to, in full view of everybody, be an insider trader. Which is a crime in stock trading.

Yes Akrasia and his ilk try to derail anything negative toward AGW. In my opinion Akrasia and his friends may have an agenda, one that maybe pays them to post. Akrasia and friends are logged into forums and posting 24/7. IMpossible for a real human being.

Now can we get back on topic (again I have to ask) please....

Turtwig

Toiletroll wrote: »

Yes Akrasia and his ilk try to derail anything negative toward AGW.

Actually we're open to sensible challenges against AGW. It's is an open forum, but bad science is bad science no matter how you try to dress it up.
And be it on evolution,space,european history, the big bang, statistics or just something simple like pendulums I don't like people spreading false misinformation about science or history on any topic.

Toiletroll

djpbarry wrote: »

May be credible? Suppose <insert random climate scientist here> was actively involved with the IPCC – does that automatically invalidate their research (for some unknown reason)?
Just so we’re clear; you accept that the planet is warming, based on the evidence presented by climate science, but reject the theory that greenhouse gases are a significant cause, based on the evidence presented by climate science?

I accept the planet is warming because it has happened naturally many times in the past. I do not accept that man has a significant effect on it. Unless we nuke yellow stone or similar.

See: http://www.nctimes.com/app/blogs/wp/?p=6063

Toiletroll

Malty_T wrote: »

Actually we're open to sensible challenges against AGW. It's is an open forum, but bad science is bad science no matter how you try to dress it up.
And be it on evolution,space, the big bang, statistics or just something simple like pendulums I don't like people spreading false misinformation about science on any topic.

I agree. The AGW supporters have been on a rampage over at p.IE trying to supress skeptics BECAUSE the information is correct.

Duiske

Deleted User wrote: »

19 posts in this thread and maybe 2 or 3 out of all of them have addressed the opening post. The issue is about the credibility of the IPCC specifically the head of it and the consequences, if any, of this.

Ok, I'll address the opening post, or more precisely, the opening link in the opening post.

One of the authors of that Telegraph piece is none other than one Mr Christopher Booker, a die-hard AGW skeptic who recently published a book called "The Real Global Warming Disaster: (Is The Obsession With `Climate Change` Turning Out To Be The Most Costly Scientific Blunder In History?)

Seems to me that he does not have a problem trying to make a few quid from the issue himelf. So if we follow your logic, he can't be trusted.

Toiletroll

Duiske wrote: »

Ok, I'll address the opening post, or more precisely, the opening link in the opening post.

One of the authors of that Telegraph piece is none other than one Mr Christopher Booker, a die-hard AGW skeptic who recently published a book called "The Real Global Warming Disaster: (Is The Obsession With `Climate Change` Turning Out To Be The Most Costly Scientific Blunder In History?)

Seems to me that he does not have a problem trying to make a few quid from the issue himelf. So if we follow your logic, he can't be trusted.

Avoiding the real issue. Pah, not even worth a response!

djpbarry

Deleted User wrote: »

19 posts in this thread and maybe 2 or 3 out of all of them have addressed the opening post.

Toiletroll wrote: »

Now can we get back on topic (again I have to ask) please....

Less of the back-seat moderation please folks.

djpbarry

Deleted User wrote: »

I think he is definitely a vested interest and possibly an outright crook.

Do we have any evidence that suggests he is a ‘crook’?

djpbarry

Toiletroll wrote: »

Yes Akrasia and his ilk try to derail anything negative toward AGW. In my opinion Akrasia and his friends may have an agenda, one that maybe pays them to post. Akrasia and friends are logged into forums and posting 24/7. IMpossible for a real human being.

I don’t know whether to interpret this as a personal slur or a conspiracy theory – either way, leave it out.

Toiletroll wrote: »

I accept the planet is warming because it has happened naturally many times in the past.

How do you know? Based on scientific evidence, perchance?

Toiletroll wrote: »

Avoiding the real issue. Pah, not even worth a response!

You’re dismissing the IPCC because Dr Pachauri has, in your opinion, questionable business interests and/or an agenda. So, if someone deems that Christopher Booker and/or Richard North (and/or The Daily Telegraph) have questionable interests and/or an agenda (perish the thought), would it not be reasonable for said person to dismiss their articles, based on your own logic? Or is it a case of simply dismissing what you disagree with and seeking to justify it later?

Duiske

Toiletroll wrote: »

Avoiding the real issue. Pah, not even worth a response!

Look, it was you, in your first post,who made it the issue. Your saying that the mans reputation in tarnished because of the fact he has profited from the issue of AGW, but so has Mr Booker, from the other side of the fence.

And anyway, Dr Pachauri's background is in Mechanical Engineering,not Climate Science, so I don't see how he is in a position to fiddle the figures.

Toiletroll

djpbarry wrote: »

How do you know? Based on scientific evidence, perchance?

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf

djpbarry wrote: »

You’re dismissing the IPCC because Dr Pachauri has, in your opinion, questionable business interests and/or an agenda. So, if someone deems that Christopher Booker and/or Richard North (and/or The Daily Telegraph) have questionable interests and/or an agenda (perish the thought), would it not be reasonable for said person to dismiss their articles, based on your own logic? Or is it a case of simply dismissing what you disagree with and seeking to justify it later?

He is just a tiny part of it all. Minute in fact.

There are many reasons and categories why I dismiss the IPCC.

Ill give you just 1 category: Supression

1. Controlling the peer review process. Taking over competent and respected skeptical journals to be the new 'peers' so that skeptical analysis and papers do not see the light of day. Why would you not just depend on your data? IS there more at stake here for those involved? Yes as proven in the OP.

2. Try to remove someones credentials because they are a skeptic with powerful ideas. Imagine having your PHD revoked for trying to find the truth?

Finally on just this 1 category of reasons a quote:

You claim that “just about the entire scientific community” is on board the global warming scam?? The UN has been stifling dissent since the scheme was hatched. Check out the following excerpt (and link) from 2 years ago if you think you can take it. It represents only the tip of the iceberg.
____________________________________________________
U.N. Blackballs International Scientists from Climate Change Conference The Heartland Institute ^ | December 4, 2007 | Tom Swiss (CHICAGO, Illinois – December 5, 2007) — The United Nations has rejected all attempts by a group of dissenting scientists seeking to present information at the climate change conference taking place in Bali, Indonesia.

The International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) has been denied the opportunity to present at panel discussions, side events, and exhibits; its members were denied press credentials. The group consists of distinguished scientists from Africa, Australia, India, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

The scientists, citing pivotal evidence on climate change published in peer-reviewed journals, have expressed their opposition to the UN’s alarmist theory of anthropogenic global warming. As the debate on man-made global warming has been heating up, the UN has tried to freeze out the scientists and new evidence, summarily dismissing them with the claim “the science is settled.”

James M. Taylor, senior fellow for The Heartland Institute explained, “It is not surprising the UN has completely rejected dissenting voices. They have been doing this for years. The censorship of scientists is necessary to promote their political agenda. After the science reversed on the alarmist crowd, they claimed ‘the debate is over’ to serve their wealth redistribution agenda.”

http://www.nctimes.com/app/blogs/wp/?p=6063

Toiletroll

Toiletroll wrote: »

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf




He is just a tiny part of it all. Minute in fact.

There are many reasons and categories why I dismiss the IPCC.

Ill give you just 1 category: Supression

1. Controlling the peer review process. Taking over competent and respected skeptical journals to be the new 'peers' so that skeptical analysis and papers do not see the light of day. Why would you not just depend on your data? IS there more at stake here for those involved? Yes as proven in the OP.

2. Try to remove someones credentials because they are a skeptic with powerful ideas. Imagine having your PHD revoked for trying to find the truth?

Finally on just this 1 category of reasons a quote:



http://www.nctimes.com/app/blogs/wp/?p=6063

Just to add to the supression category...

Climategate: the corruption of Wikipedia

A new insight.

Unfortunately, this naked bias and corruption has infected the supposedly neutral Wikipedia’s entire coverage of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory. And much of this, as Lawrence Solomon reports in the National Post, is the work of one man, a Cambridge-based scientist and Green Party activist named William Connolley.

djpbarry

Toiletroll wrote: »

djpbarry wrote: »

How do you know? Based on scientific evidence, perchance?

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf

Linking to a 100-odd-page paper does not constitute an answer. Although it does illustrate my point quite nicely – you’re rather selective in deciding what science is ‘valid’ and what is not.

Toiletroll wrote: »

Controlling the peer review process. Taking over competent and respected skeptical journals to be the new 'peers' so that skeptical analysis and papers do not see the light of day.

Evidence?

Toiletroll wrote: »

Try to remove someones credentials because they are a skeptic with powerful ideas.

Evidence?

Toiletroll wrote: »

Finally on just this 1 category of reasons a quote:
...
http://www.nctimes.com/app/blogs/wp/?p=6063

From the original article:

Dr. Gray is an expert reviewer for the IPCC and has submitted more than 1,800 comments on IPCC reports. He is an expert on the IPCC methodology and published Spinning the Climate.
Dr. Gray is the last person the politicized UN wants speaking

http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/22401/UN_Blackballs_International_Scientists_from_Climate_Change_Conference.html

So the IPCC are ‘suppressing’ Dr. Gray by inviting his input on IPCC reports? How does that work exactly?

Toiletroll wrote: »

Just to add to the supression category...

Climategate: the corruption of Wikipedia

The first line reads...

If you want to know the truth about Climategate, definitely don’t use Wikipedia.

Surely it should read “ If you want to know the truth about ANYTHING, definitely don’t use Wikipedia”?

Turtwig

djpbarry wrote: »

Surely it should read “ If you want to know the truth about ANYTHING, definitely don’t use Wikipedia”?

Reminds me of the creationist petition to stick labels on scientific textbooks.

"This textbook contains material on Evolution Anthropogenic Global Warming. Evolution AGW is only a theory. This material should be treated with an open mind,studied carefully and critically considered."
To which the NCSE responded with putting labels on every scientifc textbook (and before certain chapters):
AGW was replaced by gravity...relativity..E&M..Germ Theory etc etc wherever appropriate.

slagger

This article is thought provoking on the issue of control of the peer review process!

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/a_climatology_conspiracy.html

djpbarry

slagger wrote: »

This article is thought provoking on the issue of control of the peer review process!

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/a_climatology_conspiracy.html

Wrong thread.