http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/political-news/climate-scientists-buckling-under-heat-of-work-20130115-2cr12.html

The world's foremost climate scientists are said to be staggering under the weight of their work in the critical stages of a highly anticipated report on global climate change.

The UN International Panel on Climate Change is over the next 18 months finalising its massive fifth assessment report, the key document relied upon to address the global environmental crisis.

Work on the first section, on the physical science of global warming, is to be largely done in Hobart this week ahead of its formal completion in late September.

But the IPCC's Working Group I on physical science has faced a flood of 31,422  comments on its second draft, each of which must be dealt with, according to the group's co-chair, Thomas Stocker.

"We want to get this right," Professor Stocker told reporters, before the opening plenary session of the meeting on Tuesday, when he said the scientists' workload could be outpacing them.

"The question must be raised whether the volunteer scientists who act as lead authors are still equipped with an adequate infrastructure for this Herculean task mandated by governments," Professor Stocker said.

"And whether enough researchers will continue to donate their time."

The IPCC's chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, said despite the weight of the comments, the organisation needed to be as open and inclusive as possible.

"We don't want to restrict it to a point where people might say that you only get your own chosen people to comment on the report," he told the ABC.

Dr Pachauri also warned against being misled by the leaking by a blogger of the Working Group's second draft in December.

"While the leaked report, the draft, may have said a few things, I wouldn't at this stage come to  any conclusions because we're still working very hard with this report," he said.

"It's entirely possible that what we get in the final version may be far stronger or in some cases maybe a little more moderate."

Professor Stocker said the leak breached the IPCC's system of trust.

"We have basically relied on a system of trust  towards those people who sign up as expert reviewers, and in that particular case that trust was not honoured," he said.

"But that will not disturb any of the processes we have started three years ago and will complete in September  2013."

and this is the 2nd draft

I wonder how many errors the first draft had?

A complete work of fiction no doubt.

Hahahahhaha. Its prolly typos and syntax errors. Any report that size will have more of those than a smaller one. What the heck is the media publishing that for anyway?

SOB

Since when have "comments" been "errors"...Maqqa has let himself down again  ;D

It is great to see people taking the time to comment.

It is sad to  see Maqqa make such an idiot of himself.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 3:56am:

Hahahahhaha. Its prolly typos and syntax errors. Any report that size will have more of those than a smaller one. What the heck is the media publishing that for anyway? SOB

Quote:

"We want to get this right," Professor Stocker told reporters, before the opening plenary session of the meeting on Tuesday, when he said the scientists' workload could be outpacing them. "The question must be raised whether the volunteer scientists who act as lead authors are still equipped with an adequate infrastructure for this Herculean task mandated by governments," Professor Stocker said.

So they need more scientists to correct syntax and typos?

Is that the type of scientists they have working at the IPCC

adelcrow wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 10:09am:

Since when have "comments" been "errors"...Maqqa has let himself down again  ;D

Quote:

"We want to get this right," Professor Stocker told reporters, before the opening plenary session of the meeting on Tuesday, when he said the scientists' workload could be outpacing them. "The question must be raised whether the volunteer scientists who act as lead authors are still equipped with an adequate infrastructure for this Herculean task mandated by governments," Professor Stocker said.

I should have said an obtuse idiot.

Peter Freedman wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 11:08am:

I should have said an obtuse idiot.

You're a moron - what ur the point?

Maqqa wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 11:05am:

adelcrow wrote on Jan 17th, 2013 at 10:09am: Since when have "comments" been "errors"...Maqqa has let himself down again  ;D Quote: "We want to get this right," Professor Stocker told reporters, before the opening plenary session of the meeting on Tuesday, when he said the scientists' workload could be outpacing them. "The question must be raised whether the volunteer scientists who act as lead authors are still equipped with an adequate infrastructure for this Herculean task mandated by governments," Professor Stocker said.

Yep..Im still waiting for the so called "31,422 errors"

I guess they'll be ironing out errors like the "there has been no warming in sixteen years" bit  ;D

Innocent bystander wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 12:06pm:

I guess they'll be ironing out errors like the "there has been no warming in sixteen years" bit  ;D

They werent errors. 


They were comments.


You've been lied to.

This is what the cult relies on for science. The MET office and the IPCC.

If they cant get the following science right, they should give up on climate science.

New Met Office Botch: Climate Scientists Get The Stratosphere Wrong

This is an egregious example of sloppy science, slipshod science, bad science. How other climate scientists blindly accepted the Met Office’s manufactured data, even when their models could not be reconciled with nature, leads one to question the scientific integrity of many of those in the field. This is not acceptable behavior in any realm of scientific endeavor.

Time and again the proponents of catastrophic climate change use the mantra of “settled science” to shout down their critics. This is nothing less than blind faith that science actually knows what is going on in the complex environment that regulates this planet’s climate. Imagine a part of that system that is literally only 10km from anywhere on Earth, a component of our environment that science thought it understood quite well. Now imagine the embarrassment when a major review in a noted journal finds that previous datasets associated with this component are wrong and have been wrong for more than a quarter of a century. Yet that is precisely what has happened. The area in question is Earth’s stratosphere and the impact of this report is devastating for climate scientists and atmospheric modelers everywhere.

more
http://www.thegwpf.org/met-office-botch-climate-scientists-stratosphere-wrong/

Professor Stocker said the leak breached the IPCC's system of trust.


what trust would that be??

The GWPF?
Now Ive heard everything..whats next, a piece from Nazis Weekly on how the Jews are to blame for all of the worlds problems   ;D

adelcrow wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 2:31pm:

The GWPF? Now Ive heard everything..whats next, a piece from Nazis Weekly on how the Jews are to blame for all of the worlds problems   ;D

Im sure you have plenty, but stick with the thread. You will have your chance to bag the jews in your own thread.

So I guess you hate nature.com and the scientists who post to it. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v491/n7426/full/nature11579.html

GWPF is the messenger, not the creator of the report.  ::) ::) ::)

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Global_Warming_Policy_Foundation#Funding_not_transparent.3B_just_1.6.25_comes_from_memberships

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 2:34pm:

adelcrow wrote on Jan 17th, 2013 at 2:31pm: The GWPF? Now Ive heard everything..whats next, a piece from Nazis Weekly on how the Jews are to blame for all of the worlds problems   ;D Im sure you have plenty, but stick with the thread. You will have your chance to bag the jews in your own thread. So I guess you hate nature.com and the scientists who post to it. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v491/n7426/full/nature11579.html GWPF is the messenger, not the creator of the report.  ::) ::) ::)

ISNT IT THE GREENS THAT BAG THE JEWS????

COUPLE OF REAL VIPERS IN THAT PARTY

adelcrow wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 2:37pm:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Global_Warming_Policy_Foundation#Funding_not_transparent.3B_just_1.6.25_comes_from_memberships

Do they hate nature.com as well. You should be ashamed to be in the cult.

cods wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 2:38pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 17th, 2013 at 2:34pm: adelcrow wrote on Jan 17th, 2013 at 2:31pm: The GWPF? Now Ive heard everything..whats next, a piece from Nazis Weekly on how the Jews are to blame for all of the worlds problems   ;D Im sure you have plenty, but stick with the thread. You will have your chance to bag the jews in your own thread. So I guess you hate nature.com and the scientists who post to it. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v491/n7426/full/nature11579.html GWPF is the messenger, not the creator of the report.  ::) ::) ::) ISNT IT THE GREENS THAT BAG THE JEWS???? COUPLE OF REAL VIPERS IN THAT PARTY

Might give an indication on who adelcrow follows politically.

The GWPF is just a bunch of tax dodging upper crust old farts who get most of the their funding from Exxon..

Good one   ;D

adelcrow wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 2:39pm:

The GWPF is just a bunch of tax dodging upper crust old farts who get most of the their funding from Exxon.. Good one   ;D

So you hate nature.com and the scientists who post their reports and papers there?

cods wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 2:38pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 17th, 2013 at 2:34pm: adelcrow wrote on Jan 17th, 2013 at 2:31pm: The GWPF? Now Ive heard everything..whats next, a piece from Nazis Weekly on how the Jews are to blame for all of the worlds problems   ;D Im sure you have plenty, but stick with the thread. You will have your chance to bag the jews in your own thread. So I guess you hate nature.com and the scientists who post to it. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v491/n7426/full/nature11579.html GWPF is the messenger, not the creator of the report.  ::) ::) ::) ISNT IT THE GREENS THAT BAG THE JEWS???? COUPLE OF REAL VIPERS IN THAT PARTY

Thats coz theyre Nazis  ;D

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-3-6TYlirQJg/TtAXF__S--I/AAAAAAAAAV4/d6HUpOtUMwA/s1600/bob+brown+nazi+montage.jpg

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 2:39pm:

adelcrow wrote on Jan 17th, 2013 at 2:37pm: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Global_Warming_Policy_Foundation#Funding_not_transparent.3B_just_1.6.25_comes_from_memberships Do they hate nature.com as well. You should be ashamed to be in the cult.

Surprisingly the interpretation of the same data is totally different on nature.com
Its just more proof that your original post was nothing but scare mongering rubbish
Telling a tiny part of the story and then submitting it as absolute proof just makes you deniers look dimwitted and desperate

adelcrow wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 2:46pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 17th, 2013 at 2:39pm: adelcrow wrote on Jan 17th, 2013 at 2:37pm: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Global_Warming_Policy_Foundation#Funding_not_transparent.3B_just_1.6.25_comes_from_memberships Do they hate nature.com as well. You should be ashamed to be in the cult. Surprisingly the interpretation of the same data is totally different on nature.com Its just more proof that your original post was nothing but scare mongering rubbish Telling a tiny part of the story and then submitting it as absolute proof just makes you deniers look dimwitted and desperate

I can understand why a brainwashed cultist would hate gwpf. I will not hold it against you. I am confident that once we rid ourselves of this pathetic doomsday cult and its co2 gas failure, you will be able to look at science the way science was always meant to be. Not some religious cult.

Are you going to purchase the full article and then comment on it progs or are you going to continue to read your own amateur interpretation into a few lines and take that as fact.
Unfortunately that's how you deniers are played for chumps so often by these dodgy oil industry funded groups.
Honestly have you ever read a full paper or been to a lecture?

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 2:48pm:

adelcrow wrote on Jan 17th, 2013 at 2:46pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jan 17th, 2013 at 2:39pm: adelcrow wrote on Jan 17th, 2013 at 2:37pm: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Global_Warming_Policy_Foundation#Funding_not_transparent.3B_just_1.6.25_comes_from_memberships Do they hate nature.com as well. You should be ashamed to be in the cult. Surprisingly the interpretation of the same data is totally different on nature.com Its just more proof that your original post was nothing but scare mongering rubbish Telling a tiny part of the story and then submitting it as absolute proof just makes you deniers look dimwitted and desperate I can understand why a brainwashed cultist would hate gwpf. I will not hold it against you. I am confident that once we rid ourselves of this pathetic doomsday cult and its co2 gas failure, you will be able to look at science the way science was always meant to be. Not some religious cult.

$32 for the full article from nature.com.. so are you going to purchase it and get the full paper or is the rubbish from GWPF good enough for you?

adelcrow wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 2:53pm:

Are you going to purchase the full article and then comment on it progs or are you going to continue to read your own amateur interpretation into a few lines and take that as fact. Unfortunately that's how you deniers are played for chumps so often by these dodgy oil industry funded groups. Honestly have you ever read a full paper or been to a lecture?

You do it all the time so why shouldn;t he?

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 2:39pm:

cods wrote on Jan 17th, 2013 at 2:38pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jan 17th, 2013 at 2:34pm: adelcrow wrote on Jan 17th, 2013 at 2:31pm: The GWPF? Now Ive heard everything..whats next, a piece from Nazis Weekly on how the Jews are to blame for all of the worlds problems   ;D Im sure you have plenty, but stick with the thread. You will have your chance to bag the jews in your own thread. So I guess you hate nature.com and the scientists who post to it. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v491/n7426/full/nature11579.html GWPF is the messenger, not the creator of the report.  ::) ::) ::) ISNT IT THE GREENS THAT BAG THE JEWS???? COUPLE OF REAL VIPERS IN THAT PARTY Might give an indication on who adelcrow follows politically.

hes said a few times hes a greeny...rather proud of it.

adelcrow wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 2:55pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 17th, 2013 at 2:48pm: adelcrow wrote on Jan 17th, 2013 at 2:46pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jan 17th, 2013 at 2:39pm: adelcrow wrote on Jan 17th, 2013 at 2:37pm: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Global_Warming_Policy_Foundation#Funding_not_transparent.3B_just_1.6.25_comes_from_memberships Do they hate nature.com as well. You should be ashamed to be in the cult. Surprisingly the interpretation of the same data is totally different on nature.com Its just more proof that your original post was nothing but scare mongering rubbish Telling a tiny part of the story and then submitting it as absolute proof just makes you deniers look dimwitted and desperate I can understand why a brainwashed cultist would hate gwpf. I will not hold it against you. I am confident that once we rid ourselves of this pathetic doomsday cult and its co2 gas failure, you will be able to look at science the way science was always meant to be. Not some religious cult. $32 for the full article from nature.com.. so are you going to purchase it and get the full paper or is the rubbish from GWPF good enough for you?

The abstract of the paper is fine. If you want to delve into how they got there, then pay the $32. I would suggest the MET pay the $32. Thats cheap compared to the millions they pay their dumb climate scientists.

Maqqa wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 2:55pm:

adelcrow wrote on Jan 17th, 2013 at 2:53pm: Are you going to purchase the full article and then comment on it progs or are you going to continue to read your own amateur interpretation into a few lines and take that as fact. Unfortunately that's how you deniers are played for chumps so often by these dodgy oil industry funded groups. Honestly have you ever read a full paper or been to a lecture? You do it all the time so why shouldn;t he?

Yep Im always quoting from oil industry funded think tanks  ;D

Abstract

A new data set of middle- and upper-stratospheric temperatures based on reprocessing of satellite radiances provides a view of stratospheric climate change during the period 1979–2005 that is strikingly different from that provided by earlier data sets. The new data call into question our understanding of observed stratospheric temperature trends and our ability to test simulations of the stratospheric response to emissions of greenhouse gases and ozone-depleting substances. Here we highlight the important issues raised by the new data and suggest how the climate science community can resolve them.

adelcrow wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 3:03pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jan 17th, 2013 at 2:55pm: adelcrow wrote on Jan 17th, 2013 at 2:53pm: Are you going to purchase the full article and then comment on it progs or are you going to continue to read your own amateur interpretation into a few lines and take that as fact. Unfortunately that's how you deniers are played for chumps so often by these dodgy oil industry funded groups. Honestly have you ever read a full paper or been to a lecture? You do it all the time so why shouldn;t he? Yep Im always quoting from oil industry funded think tanks  ;D

der. the words of the brainwashed.

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 3:03pm:

adelcrow wrote on Jan 17th, 2013 at 2:55pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jan 17th, 2013 at 2:48pm: adelcrow wrote on Jan 17th, 2013 at 2:46pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jan 17th, 2013 at 2:39pm: adelcrow wrote on Jan 17th, 2013 at 2:37pm: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Global_Warming_Policy_Foundation#Funding_not_transparent.3B_just_1.6.25_comes_from_memberships Do they hate nature.com as well. You should be ashamed to be in the cult. Surprisingly the interpretation of the same data is totally different on nature.com Its just more proof that your original post was nothing but scare mongering rubbish Telling a tiny part of the story and then submitting it as absolute proof just makes you deniers look dimwitted and desperate I can understand why a brainwashed cultist would hate gwpf. I will not hold it against you. I am confident that once we rid ourselves of this pathetic doomsday cult and its co2 gas failure, you will be able to look at science the way science was always meant to be. Not some religious cult. $32 for the full article from nature.com.. so are you going to purchase it and get the full paper or is the rubbish from GWPF good enough for you? The abstract of the paper is fine. If you want to delve into how that got there, then pay the $32. I would suggest the MET pay the $32. Thats cheap compared to the millions they pay their dumb climate scientists.

A few lines from a paper that says nothing that the GWPF claims it says is fine?
Pay the $32 or stop wasting everyone's time..

adelcrow wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 3:09pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 17th, 2013 at 3:03pm: adelcrow wrote on Jan 17th, 2013 at 2:55pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jan 17th, 2013 at 2:48pm: adelcrow wrote on Jan 17th, 2013 at 2:46pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jan 17th, 2013 at 2:39pm: adelcrow wrote on Jan 17th, 2013 at 2:37pm: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Global_Warming_Policy_Foundation#Funding_not_transparent.3B_just_1.6.25_comes_from_memberships Do they hate nature.com as well. You should be ashamed to be in the cult. Surprisingly the interpretation of the same data is totally different on nature.com Its just more proof that your original post was nothing but scare mongering rubbish Telling a tiny part of the story and then submitting it as absolute proof just makes you deniers look dimwitted and desperate I can understand why a brainwashed cultist would hate gwpf. I will not hold it against you. I am confident that once we rid ourselves of this pathetic doomsday cult and its co2 gas failure, you will be able to look at science the way science was always meant to be. Not some religious cult. $32 for the full article from nature.com.. so are you going to purchase it and get the full paper or is the rubbish from GWPF good enough for you? The abstract of the paper is fine. If you want to delve into how that got there, then pay the $32. I would suggest the MET pay the $32. Thats cheap compared to the millions they pay their dumb climate scientists. A few lines from a paper that says nothing that the GWPF claims it says is fine? Pay the $32 or stop wasting everyone's time..

Well then you are going to love this one, oh brainwashed cultist.


Climate Scientists Get The Stratosphere Wrong

The gravest danger to Earth these days isn’t climate skepticism; it’s the broken, Malthusian and statist green policy imagination. Wedded to grandiose and unworkable “solutions”, greens feel they must push the panic button at every opportunity to stampede the world into embracing an unworkable and unsustainable policy agenda. It won’t work. The Al Gore path (alarmism, hypocrisy, dumb policy solutions, green pig lipsticking or corporate subsidies disguised as green breakthroughs) will not bend the curve. –Walter Russell Mead, Via Meadia, 12 January 2013

more
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/16/newsbytes-new-met-office-botch

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 3:06pm:

adelcrow wrote on Jan 17th, 2013 at 3:03pm: Maqqa wrote on Jan 17th, 2013 at 2:55pm: adelcrow wrote on Jan 17th, 2013 at 2:53pm: Are you going to purchase the full article and then comment on it progs or are you going to continue to read your own amateur interpretation into a few lines and take that as fact. Unfortunately that's how you deniers are played for chumps so often by these dodgy oil industry funded groups. Honestly have you ever read a full paper or been to a lecture? You do it all the time so why shouldn;t he? Yep Im always quoting from oil industry funded think tanks  ;D der. the words of the brainwashed.

Ive always said I'll take the word of the majority of experts in any field over that of shock jocks, crazy old farts and self serving pollies.
If thats being brainwashed Im guilty as charged.

adelcrow wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 3:11pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 17th, 2013 at 3:06pm: adelcrow wrote on Jan 17th, 2013 at 3:03pm: Maqqa wrote on Jan 17th, 2013 at 2:55pm: adelcrow wrote on Jan 17th, 2013 at 2:53pm: Are you going to purchase the full article and then comment on it progs or are you going to continue to read your own amateur interpretation into a few lines and take that as fact. Unfortunately that's how you deniers are played for chumps so often by these dodgy oil industry funded groups. Honestly have you ever read a full paper or been to a lecture? You do it all the time so why shouldn;t he? Yep Im always quoting from oil industry funded think tanks  ;D der. the words of the brainwashed. Ive always said I'll take the word of the majority of experts in any field over that of shock jocks, crazy old farts and self serving pollies. If thats being brainwashed Im guilty as charged.

Do the scientists talk about oil money. Hmm and here I was thinking they were/would have been talking about science. Oh well, thats what you get from the brainwashed cultists.

If I want to know the best way to pump oil out of the ground I'll seek advice from experts in the oil industry and if I want to know about the science behind climate change I'll seek advice from the experts in that field.
Sadly denialists confuse oil industry experts with climate change scientists  ;D

adelcrow wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 3:14pm:

If I want to know the best way to pump oil out of the ground I'll seek advice from experts in the oil industry and if I want to know about the science behind climate change I'll seek advice from the experts in that field. Sadly denialists confuse oil industry experts with climate change scientists  ;D

You sadly confuse other cultists with experts in their field but it would seem they are just experts at propaganda about oil money and no science.

This is the brainwashed cultist science. Follow the best propaganda machine without peer-review. Makes for a better story and an even better science to follow.

How did the Met Office get their data so wrong? Well there’s the rub. You see, the methodology used to develop the Met Office SSU product was never published in the peer-reviewed literature, and certain aspects of the original processing “remain unknown.” Evidently the boffins at the Met didn’t bother to write down exactly how they were massaging the raw data to get the results they reported. Indeed, those who did the data manipulation seem to have mostly retired. This is an egregious example of sloppy science, slipshod science, bad science. How other climate scientists blindly accepted the Met Office’s manufactured data, even when their models could not be reconciled with nature, leads one to question the scientific integrity of many of those in the field. This is not acceptable behavior in any realm of scientific endeavor. — Doug Hoffman, The Resilient Earth, 15 January 2013

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 3:13pm:

adelcrow wrote on Jan 17th, 2013 at 3:11pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jan 17th, 2013 at 3:06pm: adelcrow wrote on Jan 17th, 2013 at 3:03pm: Maqqa wrote on Jan 17th, 2013 at 2:55pm: adelcrow wrote on Jan 17th, 2013 at 2:53pm: Are you going to purchase the full article and then comment on it progs or are you going to continue to read your own amateur interpretation into a few lines and take that as fact. Unfortunately that's how you deniers are played for chumps so often by these dodgy oil industry funded groups. Honestly have you ever read a full paper or been to a lecture? You do it all the time so why shouldn;t he? Yep Im always quoting from oil industry funded think tanks  ;D der. the words of the brainwashed. Ive always said I'll take the word of the majority of experts in any field over that of shock jocks, crazy old farts and self serving pollies. If thats being brainwashed Im guilty as charged. Do the scientists talk about oil money. Hmm and here I was thinking they were/would have been talking about science. Oh well, thats what you get from the brainwashed cultists.

The GWPF is funded by Exxon and the short exert from nature.com says nothing that GWPF claims it does. I assume GWPF does not subscribe to nature.com or they would have the full article or maybe they do and the full article is the opposite to what they are claiming and they are playing you denialists for chumps..You can tell me why GWPF does not publish the full article if you like coz its not like they dont have a spare $32 kicking around especially if its such ground breaking news

Figure it out for yourself.

http://www.desmogblog.com/really-inconvenient-truth-gwpf-debunking-gwpf-briefing-paper-no1

adelcrow wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 3:20pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 17th, 2013 at 3:13pm: adelcrow wrote on Jan 17th, 2013 at 3:11pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jan 17th, 2013 at 3:06pm: adelcrow wrote on Jan 17th, 2013 at 3:03pm: Maqqa wrote on Jan 17th, 2013 at 2:55pm: adelcrow wrote on Jan 17th, 2013 at 2:53pm: Are you going to purchase the full article and then comment on it progs or are you going to continue to read your own amateur interpretation into a few lines and take that as fact. Unfortunately that's how you deniers are played for chumps so often by these dodgy oil industry funded groups. Honestly have you ever read a full paper or been to a lecture? You do it all the time so why shouldn;t he? Yep Im always quoting from oil industry funded think tanks  ;D der. the words of the brainwashed. Ive always said I'll take the word of the majority of experts in any field over that of shock jocks, crazy old farts and self serving pollies. If thats being brainwashed Im guilty as charged. Do the scientists talk about oil money. Hmm and here I was thinking they were/would have been talking about science. Oh well, thats what you get from the brainwashed cultists. The GWPF is funded by Exxon and the short exert from nature.com says nothing that GWPF claims it does. I assume GWPF does not subscribe to nature.com or they would have the full article or maybe they do and the full article is the opposite to what they are claiming and they are playing you denialists for chumps..You can tell me why GWPF does not publish the full article if you like coz its not like they dont have a spare $32 kicking around especially if its such ground breaking news Figure it out for yourself.

The abstract is enough to go on and investigate why the old data was so STRIKINGLY different from the peer-reviewed NEW data.

http://www.carbonbrief.org/profiles/global-warming-policy-foundation

adelcrow wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 3:24pm:

http://www.desmogblog.com/really-inconvenient-truth-gwpf-debunking-gwpf-briefing-paper-no1

Yeh you see, that brainwashed article is old. Too bad. You got something that bebunks this NEW article of NEW data that is peer-reviewed, STRIKINGLY different from the old data.

Nah you say. We'll wait.

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 3:24pm:

adelcrow wrote on Jan 17th, 2013 at 3:20pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jan 17th, 2013 at 3:13pm: adelcrow wrote on Jan 17th, 2013 at 3:11pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jan 17th, 2013 at 3:06pm: adelcrow wrote on Jan 17th, 2013 at 3:03pm: Maqqa wrote on Jan 17th, 2013 at 2:55pm: adelcrow wrote on Jan 17th, 2013 at 2:53pm: Are you going to purchase the full article and then comment on it progs or are you going to continue to read your own amateur interpretation into a few lines and take that as fact. Unfortunately that's how you deniers are played for chumps so often by these dodgy oil industry funded groups. Honestly have you ever read a full paper or been to a lecture? You do it all the time so why shouldn;t he? Yep Im always quoting from oil industry funded think tanks  ;D der. the words of the brainwashed. Ive always said I'll take the word of the majority of experts in any field over that of shock jocks, crazy old farts and self serving pollies. If thats being brainwashed Im guilty as charged. Do the scientists talk about oil money. Hmm and here I was thinking they were/would have been talking about science. Oh well, thats what you get from the brainwashed cultists. The GWPF is funded by Exxon and the short exert from nature.com says nothing that GWPF claims it does. I assume GWPF does not subscribe to nature.com or they would have the full article or maybe they do and the full article is the opposite to what they are claiming and they are playing you denialists for chumps..You can tell me why GWPF does not publish the full article if you like coz its not like they dont have a spare $32 kicking around especially if its such ground breaking news Figure it out for yourself. The abstract is enough to go on and investigate why the old data was so STRIKINGLY different from the peer-reviewed NEW data.

Rubbish,..it has nothing to do with anything you or the GWPF are claiming

An example of taking a small snippet as proof of a full statement
"Blah blah is a wanker" now for the full conversation "Mike thinks Blah blah is a wanker but I have indisputable proof that he is a decent fella and after talking to Mike he now agrees with me"
And I wont even begin to tell you the difference between the Stratosphere and Troposphere and the other layers that make up our Atmosphere..look it up.

adelcrow wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 3:58pm:

An example of taking a small snippet as proof of a full statement "Blah blah is a wanker" now for the full conversation "Mike thinks Blah blah is a wanker but I have indisputable proof that he is a decent fella and after talking to Mike he now agrees with me" And I wont even begin to tell you the difference between the Stratosphere and Troposphere and the other layers that make up our Atmosphere..look it up.

lol. If that is what you call debunking, we poor bastards are in for a long wait.

Another "snippet" from nature.com   the site you said is debunking carbon pollution and climate change

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v493/n7432/full/493304d.html

In an area where I have expertise on, extremes and their impacts, the report by the US Global Change Research Program is well out of step with the scientific literature, including the very literature it cites and conclusions of the IPCC. Questions should (but probably won’t) be asked about how a major scientific assessment has apparently became captured as a tool of advocacy via misrepresentation of the scientific literature — a phenomena that occurs repeated in the area of extreme events. Given the strength of the science on this subject, the USGCRP must have gone to some effort to mischaracterize it by 180 degrees. How is it that it got things so wrong? –Roger Pielke Jr., 15 January 2013

adelcrow wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 4:06pm:

Another "snippet" from nature.com   the site you said is debunking carbon pollution and climate change http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v493/n7432/full/493304d.html

::) ::) ::)

Another snippet from your fave source..nature.com  ;D

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v493/n7432/full/493275e.html

Yep..the good people at nature.com are in complete agreement with the denialists  ;D

adelcrow wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 4:11pm:

Yep..the good people at nature.com are in complete agreement with the denialists  ;D

another  ::) ::) ::) ::)

I dont even see how you came to a conclusion that you had to suggest anything close to what you did.

If this is your way of debunking, we poor bastards in in for a long wait.

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 3:16pm:

adelcrow wrote on Jan 17th, 2013 at 3:14pm: If I want to know the best way to pump oil out of the ground I'll seek advice from experts in the oil industry and if I want to know about the science behind climate change I'll seek advice from the experts in that field. Sadly denialists confuse oil industry experts with climate change scientists  ;D You sadly confuse other cultists with experts in their field but it would seem they are just experts at propaganda about oil money and no science.

You can't debate a fact: progs hates your childrens childrens children!
;D

adelcrow wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 3:11pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 17th, 2013 at 3:06pm: adelcrow wrote on Jan 17th, 2013 at 3:03pm: Maqqa wrote on Jan 17th, 2013 at 2:55pm: adelcrow wrote on Jan 17th, 2013 at 2:53pm: Are you going to purchase the full article and then comment on it progs or are you going to continue to read your own amateur interpretation into a few lines and take that as fact. Unfortunately that's how you deniers are played for chumps so often by these dodgy oil industry funded groups. Honestly have you ever read a full paper or been to a lecture? You do it all the time so why shouldn't he? Yep Im always quoting from oil industry funded think tanks  ;D der. the words of the brainwashed. Ive always said I'll take the word of the majority of experts in any field over that of shock jocks, crazy old farts and self serving pollies. If thats being brainwashed Im guilty as charged.

you've said it, but it isnt true. the number of sceptic scientists is very large and growing daily. If you were anywhere NEAR as open-minded as you claim to be then you wouldn't dismiss each and every published report that isnt to your liking.

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 3:20pm:

This is the brainwashed cultist science. Follow the best propaganda machine without peer-review. Makes for a better story and an even better science to follow. How did the Met Office get their data so wrong? Well there’s the rub. You see, the methodology used to develop the Met Office SSU product was never published in the peer-reviewed literature, and certain aspects of the original processing “remain unknown.” Evidently the boffins at the Met didn’t bother to write down exactly how they were massaging the raw data to get the results they reported. Indeed, those who did the data manipulation seem to have mostly retired. This is an egregious example of sloppy science, slipshod science, bad science. How other climate scientists blindly accepted the Met Office’s manufactured data, even when their models could not be reconciled with nature, leads one to question the scientific integrity of many of those in the field. This is not acceptable behavior in any realm of scientific endeavor. — Doug Hoffman, The Resilient Earth, 15 January 2013

smells just like the hockey stick scandal. they refused to provide date or methodology in complete contradiction to accepted scientific protocol and govt rules. The reasons were obvious. When they were finally (year later) discovered they were found to be crap.

same thing here.

adelcrow wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 3:26pm:

http://www.carbonbrief.org/profiles/global-warming-policy-foundation

so your *insert laugh* scientific method is to attack sceptic sites using climate hysteric sites???

oh the irony...

adelcrow wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 3:11pm:

Ive always said I'll take the word of the majority of experts in any field over that of shock jocks, crazy old farts and self serving pollies. If thats being brainwashed Im guilty as charged.

Ignoring the shock jocks, crazy old farts and self serving pollies (which most people do), why would you automatically trust "the word of the majority of experts"?



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_djkPMdSMw

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 4:55pm:

adelcrow wrote on Jan 17th, 2013 at 3:11pm: Ive always said I'll take the word of the majority of experts in any field over that of shock jocks, crazy old farts and self serving pollies. If thats being brainwashed Im guilty as charged. Ignoring the shock jocks, crazy old farts and self serving pollies (which most people do), why would you automatically trust "the word of the majority of experts"? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_djkPMdSMw

That's right. Why would you bother with them when you can listen to Alan?

Those eggheads are so boring.

DITCH THE WITCH.

Karnal wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 4:57pm:

That's right. Why would you bother with them when you can listen to Alan?

No, I said ignoring the shock jocks, crazy old farts and self serving pollies (which most people do), why would you automatically trust "the word of the majority of experts"?

adelcrow wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 10:09am:

Since when have "comments" been "errors"...Maqqa has let himself down again  ;D

I agree, she has!

perceptions_now wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 7:52pm:

adelcrow wrote on Jan 17th, 2013 at 10:09am: Since when have "comments" been "errors"...Maqqa has let himself down again  ;D I agree, she has!

agreeing with adel makes you even worse than adel

read the article again - they wouldn't need extra resources if it were "comments"

they need resources to fix the errors that's why they said everyone of the comments need to be addressed

gold_medal wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 4:50pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 17th, 2013 at 3:20pm: This is the brainwashed cultist science. Follow the best propaganda machine without peer-review. Makes for a better story and an even better science to follow. How did the Met Office get their data so wrong? Well there’s the rub. You see, the methodology used to develop the Met Office SSU product was never published in the peer-reviewed literature, and certain aspects of the original processing “remain unknown.” Evidently the boffins at the Met didn’t bother to write down exactly how they were massaging the raw data to get the results they reported. Indeed, those who did the data manipulation seem to have mostly retired. This is an egregious example of sloppy science, slipshod science, bad science. How other climate scientists blindly accepted the Met Office’s manufactured data, even when their models could not be reconciled with nature, leads one to question the scientific integrity of many of those in the field. This is not acceptable behavior in any realm of scientific endeavor. — Doug Hoffman, The Resilient Earth, 15 January 2013 smells just like the hockey stick scandal. they refused to provide date or methodology in complete contradiction to accepted scientific protocol and govt rules. The reasons were obvious. When they were finally (year later) discovered they were found to be crap. same thing here.

And these cultists will defend this shite to the end. Just unbelievable. As long as the failed co2 gas theory holds 1 leg, they are happy to keep going.

gold_medal wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 4:48pm:

adelcrow wrote on Jan 17th, 2013 at 3:11pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jan 17th, 2013 at 3:06pm: adelcrow wrote on Jan 17th, 2013 at 3:03pm: Maqqa wrote on Jan 17th, 2013 at 2:55pm: adelcrow wrote on Jan 17th, 2013 at 2:53pm: Are you going to purchase the full article and then comment on it progs or are you going to continue to read your own amateur interpretation into a few lines and take that as fact. Unfortunately that's how you deniers are played for chumps so often by these dodgy oil industry funded groups. Honestly have you ever read a full paper or been to a lecture? You do it all the time so why shouldn't he? Yep Im always quoting from oil industry funded think tanks  ;D der. the words of the brainwashed. Ive always said I'll take the word of the majority of experts in any field over that of shock jocks, crazy old farts and self serving pollies. If thats being brainwashed Im guilty as charged. you've said it, but it isnt true. the number of sceptic scientists is very large and growing daily. If you were anywhere NEAR as open-minded as you claim to be then you wouldn't dismiss each and every published report that isnt to your liking.

So you say.  But you have been caught telling lies numerous limes..
Show us evidence  liar.

Cultists want to talk oil money conspiracy, you know, the conspiracy you have when it is ok to have a conspiracy. Any others is just down right nut bag stuff.

Well here is the carbon trading money tree. Bigger and better, more honed in to the co2 gas, than any oil money could dream of

If the carbon trading business seems too good to be true, maybe there’s a good reason

Guest post by Kelvin Kemm

The COP-18 environmental conference held in Doha has come and gone. In the wake of high expectations for a successor treaty, the Kyoto Protocol was extended, but only after bitter debate – and several countries have withdrawn from the process or signaled their intent to do so.

Moreover, many observers believe the decision to extend the Protocol was primarily the result of countries not having the courage to stop or scuttle it outright, and not actually knowing what to do next. So the easy way out was to just extend Kyoto and also promise the developing world lots and lots of dollars for “climate mitigation,” which is a sort of apology from the first world for having allegedly messed up the planet in the first place with their fossil fuels and economic development.

Whether the billions of promised aid dollars will really materialize is another matter. But a lot of people have already gotten rich – including Al Gore, hundreds of climate scientists, and thousands of environmental activists and government bureaucrats – and others are trying to cash in. 


more
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/17/the-carbon-trading-money-tree/#more-77696

Lefties at least knows that Greenhouse gases acts as a blanket to keep the heat in

Greenhouse gases include water vapour, CO2, OZONE etc

20 years ago they actually tried to repair the OZONE layer so they can't say we should put a hole in it now to let the heat out can they!!??

So what else can they blame it on??

Water vapour??!!  :o :o

There will be no water tax under a government I lead!!  :D :D

Carbon Dioxide is next on the list

Maqqa wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 7:58pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Jan 17th, 2013 at 7:52pm: adelcrow wrote on Jan 17th, 2013 at 10:09am: Since when have "comments" been "errors"...Maqqa has let himself down again  ;D I agree, she has! agreeing with adel makes you even worse than adel read the article again - they wouldn't need extra resources if it were "comments" they need resources to fix the errors that's why they said everyone of the comments need to be addressed

1) I already read it!

2) It says nothing about needing extra resources!

3) Comments are parts of the normal peer review process, they are NOT errors!!

perceptions_now wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 11:59pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jan 17th, 2013 at 7:58pm: perceptions_now wrote on Jan 17th, 2013 at 7:52pm: adelcrow wrote on Jan 17th, 2013 at 10:09am: Since when have "comments" been "errors"...Maqqa has let himself down again  ;D I agree, she has! agreeing with adel makes you even worse than adel read the article again - they wouldn't need extra resources if it were "comments" they need resources to fix the errors that's why they said everyone of the comments need to be addressed 1) I already read it! 2) It says nothing about needing extra resources! 3) Comments are parts of the normal peer review process, they are NOT errors!!

IPCC is not part of the peer-review process. Dont be mistaken with political vs science

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 18^th, 2013 at 12:03am:

perceptions_now wrote on Jan 17th, 2013 at 11:59pm: Maqqa wrote on Jan 17th, 2013 at 7:58pm: perceptions_now wrote on Jan 17th, 2013 at 7:52pm: adelcrow wrote on Jan 17th, 2013 at 10:09am: Since when have "comments" been "errors"...Maqqa has let himself down again  ;D I agree, she has! agreeing with adel makes you even worse than adel read the article again - they wouldn't need extra resources if it were "comments" they need resources to fix the errors that's why they said everyone of the comments need to be addressed 1) I already read it! 2) It says nothing about needing extra resources! 3) Comments are parts of the normal peer review process, they are NOT errors!! IPCC is not part of the peer-review process. Dont be mistaken with political vs science

Where do you think the 34,000 comments come from, Progs?
You may like to have a look here?
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles-appendix-a.pdf

On 2nd thoughts, you probably wouldn't, because it won't make any difference, no matter what is said, your mind is made up!

perceptions_now wrote on Jan 18^th, 2013 at 12:10am:

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 18th, 2013 at 12:03am: perceptions_now wrote on Jan 17th, 2013 at 11:59pm: Maqqa wrote on Jan 17th, 2013 at 7:58pm: perceptions_now wrote on Jan 17th, 2013 at 7:52pm: adelcrow wrote on Jan 17th, 2013 at 10:09am: Since when have "comments" been "errors"...Maqqa has let himself down again  ;D I agree, she has! agreeing with adel makes you even worse than adel read the article again - they wouldn't need extra resources if it were "comments" they need resources to fix the errors that's why they said everyone of the comments need to be addressed 1) I already read it! 2) It says nothing about needing extra resources! 3) Comments are parts of the normal peer review process, they are NOT errors!! IPCC is not part of the peer-review process. Dont be mistaken with political vs science Where do you think the 34,000 comments come from, Progs? You may like to have a look here? http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles-appendix-a.pdf On 2nd thoughts, you probably wouldn't, because it won't make any difference, no matter what is said, your mind is made up!

It is not part of the peer-review. It can only and should only be a discussion of what has already been peer-reviewed and the political part of IPCC is trying to put it all together.

The problem is, they have advocates and non-peer-reviewed information. They are as dodgy as hell, getting better.

Maqqa wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 7:58pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Jan 17th, 2013 at 7:52pm: adelcrow wrote on Jan 17th, 2013 at 10:09am: Since when have "comments" been "errors"...Maqqa has let himself down again  ;D I agree, she has! agreeing with adel makes you even worse than adel read the article again - they wouldn't need extra resources if it were "comments" they need resources to fix the errors that's why they said everyone of the comments need to be addressed

It isnt even news. Every report has to have the errors fixed.

SOB

the IPCC reportas are usually half-fiction and the rest bad science.

nothing new here...

This is IPCC at their pathetic best. Busted again for being just political environmental activists.

Critics are blasting a draft U.N. climate change report that combines studies by advocacy groups like the World Wildlife Fund and Greenpeace alongside scientific research papers -- the same issue that led independent auditors to slam the U.N.'s last report.

“You'd think that the IPCC would have learned its lesson, that it would have told its authors not to rely on these sorts of publications,” said Donna Laframboise, the head of nofrakkingconsensus.com, an investigative website skeptical of the scientific consensus on global warming.

“The report currently includes, amongst its list of references, nine separate publications produced wholly or in part by the WWF,” Laframboise told FoxNews.com.

This isn’t the first time the WWF has been used as a source in a climate assessment report by the U.N.'s IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In 2007, the panel relied on statements made in a WWF article to predict that the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035. That claim was based on nothing more than a remark that a scientist made in a 1999 interview with New Scientistmagazine.

A 2010 audit by a panel of scientists from around the world called for change, meaning less so-called "gray literature," and the IPCC apologized for the error.


more
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/01/23/leaked-un-climate-report-slammed-for-citing-wwf-greenpeace/

Time for Flannery and Wong to say sorry. Oh and Juliar and labor

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dr_5Iv9_OGY

How is the report going now? All fixed up is it?

SOB

Time for Flannery and Wong to say sorry. Oh and Juliar and labor

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dr_5Iv9_OGY

The pendulum is swinging and the scientists are finely getting it.

A leaked report by a United Nations’ group dedicated to climate studies says that heat from the sun may play a larger role than previously thought.

“[Results] do suggest the possibility of a much larger impact of solar variations on the stratosphere than previously thought, and some studies have suggested that this may lead to significant regional impacts on climate,” reads a draft copy of a major, upcoming report from the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Read more:
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/02/01/report-show-un-admitting-solar-activity-may-play-significant-role-in-global/#ixzz2JkGHDt7i

BREAKING: an encouraging admission of lower climate sensitivity by a ‘hockey team’ scientist, along with new problems for the IPCC

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/01/encouraging-admission-of-lower-climate-sensitivity-by-a-hockey-team-scientist/

Did you cherry pick that data  ;D

Innocent bystander wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2013 at 11:16pm:

Did you cherry pick that data  ;D

Not at all. He got it from Fox News.

Why would the news cherry pick anything?

They just report the facts.

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 29^th, 2013 at 3:51pm:

Time for Flannery and Wong to say sorry. Oh and Juliar and labor http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dr_5Iv9_OGY

Using the Bolt Report as a reference.   ;D

This is quite possibly the funniest thing I've seen on the Internet.

I have no time for alarmist morons, but using Bolt to argue against their religion is just too funny.

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2013 at 11:56pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 29th, 2013 at 3:51pm: Time for Flannery and Wong to say sorry. Oh and Juliar and labor http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dr_5Iv9_OGY Using the Bolt Report as a reference.   ;D This is quite possibly the funniest thing I've seen on the Internet.

Yet you cant debate the message which happens to be spot on.

progressiveslol wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2013 at 11:59pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 2nd, 2013 at 11:56pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jan 29th, 2013 at 3:51pm: Time for Flannery and Wong to say sorry. Oh and Juliar and labor http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dr_5Iv9_OGY Using the Bolt Report as a reference.   ;D This is quite possibly the funniest thing I've seen on the Internet. Yet you cant debate the message which happens to be spot on.

I have no time for the AGW alarmist, brainwashed morons.

However, Bolt is not someone I want on my side.

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 12:01am:

progressiveslol wrote on Feb 2nd, 2013 at 11:59pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 2nd, 2013 at 11:56pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jan 29th, 2013 at 3:51pm: Time for Flannery and Wong to say sorry. Oh and Juliar and labor http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dr_5Iv9_OGY Using the Bolt Report as a reference.   ;D This is quite possibly the funniest thing I've seen on the Internet. Yet you cant debate the message which happens to be spot on. I have no time for the AGW alarmist, brainwashed morons. However, Bolt is not someone I want on my side.

So dont have him on your side.