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

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.