Briefing Note Update on Climate Skeptic Conference Presenters

Previous Comments

Another denier who has not figured out the difference between weather and climate.

VJ, you’ve found there’s no connection between weather and climate? Please publish your research, the world is waiting!!

Again, selective reading by “deniers.” What VJ said was that you “deniers” have not figured out the difference between the terms “weather” and “climate.”

OF COURSE THERE IS A CONNECTION, BUT WEATHER AND CLIMATE ARE NOT THE SAME THING!!! Good Lord, JohnnyB! Are you that ideologically blinded, or are you just another one of those s*** disturber “deniers”?

Stephen Berg, please refrain from telling me what I can’t figure out. It was VJ that said there was a difference!! So if you can explain what you think the difference is. like what part of weather isn’t part of climate the rest of the world will be talking off the same page!

I didn’t raise the topic and don’t give a fig anyway. I’m here to talk weather and climate.. same thing.

Check a dictionary.

You check the dictionary and whie you’re at it check the difference between no climate change and no weather change… both have been the same since 1940 and you haven’t got a point.

Have you ingested so much CO2 that your brain doesn’t work, JohnnyB? What you say makes absolutely no sense!

I’ve got no problem with CO2, I like the stuff, so do plants and so do over 19,000 scientists that think it’s good stuff for the planet. That’s against 2,500 IPCC scientists who the IPCC, Al ‘private jet’ Gore and the eco-extremists think ‘the debate is over’. Far from it.

In fact only 62 scientists reviewed the IPCC chapter in which the ‘man made’ AGW statement appears, Chapter 9, “Understanding and Attributing Climate Change”. Of the comments received from the 62 reviewers of this critical chapter, almost 60% of them were rejected by IPCC editors. And of the 62 expert reviewers of this chapter, 55 had serious vested interest, leaving only seven expert reviewers who appear impartial.

2 of the 7 were contacted by NRSP - Dr. Vincent Gray of New Zealand and Dr. Ross McKitrick of the University of Guelph, Canada. Concerning the “Greenhouse gas forcing …” statement above, Professor McKitrick explained “A categorical summary statement like this is not supported by the evidence in the IPCC WG I report. Evidence shown in the report suggests that other factors play a major role in climate change, and the specific effects expected from greenhouse gases have not been observed.”

Dr. Gray labeled the WG I statement as “Typical IPCC doubletalk” asserting “The text of the IPCC report shows that this is decided by a guess from persons with a conflict of interest, not from a tested model.”

Determining the level of support expressed by reviewers’ comments is subjective but a slightly generous evaluation indicates that just five reviewers endorsed the crucial ninth chapter. Four had vested interests and the other made only a single comment for the entire 11-chapter report. The claim that 2,500 independent scientist reviewers agreed with this, the most important statement of the UN climate reports released, or any other statement in the UN climate reports, is utter nonsense.

Pro- man made/CO2 global warming theory is a MINORITY interest. Anyone such as Al Gore that believes it isn’t is either very stupid and can’t count or in need of a shrink.

Johnnyb is an NRSP fan. Idiot.

VJ, I’d be a bigger idiot, like yourself, to believe in the highly Doctored, twisted, factless IPCC reports which have so much political inteference and influence.

Do you like being in a minority of scientists with so little evience to back you up?

Ross McKitrick is no climate scientist. He is an economist. His familiarity with and expertise of the intricate workings of the climate system is questionable at best.

VJ, I’d be a bigger idiot, like yourself, to believe in the highly Doctored, twisted, factless IPCC reports which have so much political inteference and influence.

Do you like being in a minority of scientists with so little evience to back you up?

Liar.

VJ, if you’re going to call someone a ‘liar’ you better back it up with some facts.. and the truth is you haven’t got any. The hysterical global warming bandwagon is a factless propoganda machine that’s run out of hot air. The science is all points to nature ruling climate and higher CO2 levels being beneficial. Go back to the classroom until you can understand the facts.

The link between CO2 and temperatures is well-founded as there has been over a century of scientific investigation which has proved this point. Nothing has discredited it. CO2 is essential to a point, but excess CO2 (as currently exists) is hazardous to the global climate, some species, etc.

JohnnyB, go read some peer-reviewed journal articles on this, not CEI press releases.

Stephen Berg, I’ve read some peer reviewed science on CO2.. there don’t seem to be any to support your case however as the IPCC’s case is weak at best with some IPCC scientists claiming the authors that made the man-made climate change did not have supporting science to make that claim.

If there’s a link between current high CO2 levels and temperature why hasn’t Earths temp changed since 1998 - 10 years of statci temperatures. Surely it should be driving it up right now (just had the coldest winter in 20 years)?!!

Which species are suffering from high CO2 levels SB ?

Johnnyb wrote: “highly Doctored, twisted, factless IPCC reports.”

I say he is a liar. He can either prove that they are doctored and factless or be known as a lying troll.

VJ, it’s you calling people lyers with no back up. Please back up your assertion CO2 is a climate driver. Saying there’s a 100yrs of research on CO2 is bland and lame. Where’s your facts CO2 has driven climate since 1950?

Regarding backing up my assertion the IPCC reports are factless propoganda can I refer you to at least 5 of my posts to this Blog regarding actual IPCC scientists saying the IPCC Report authors have made assertions about man-made climate change is “IPCC double-talk” and “assertions not supported by the underlying evidence.”

Indeed the IPCC’s own vice president Yuri Izreal has stated this month the IPCC “have made many mistakes” and “the politicians are acting too fast, they need to wait until the science is established”.

In short the climate science isn’t settled and our current warm patch can’t have a finger pointed at man.

If you deny that CO2 has driven climate since 1950, you must also deny that gravity is a force which exists on Earth or that the Earth is an oblate spheroid.

Stephen Berg, if CO2 has driven temperature since 1950 why was there a cool period in the 1960’s?

Why have Antartic temperatures remained static for the last 50 years?

And why have global temperatures remained static since 1998, for the past 10 years when CO2 levels have been at their highest?

We have a Desmogblog journalist (I use that term lightly) claiming Englands hot summer 2006 is proof of global warming. I’ve asked him is this, the coldest winter in 2 decades ther4efore proof of man-made global cooling.. maybe you could answer for the jump-to-conclusions greeny?

I have looked for a reference to this alleged statement by Yuri Izrael, and can’t seem to locate it, no matter how I spell his name. Can you cite your source, please? Judging by the current collapse of the Wilkins Ice Sheet, if the IPCC made a mistake it was in underestimating the speed at which things are starting to happen! http://nsidc.org/news/press/20080325_Wilkins.html

Fern Mackenzie

Femack, here’s the Yuri A. Izrael article/interview link: http://sandberghans.blogspot.com/2008/03/why-did-ipccs-yuri-izrael-speak-at-anti.html

I read this post, and I think you have done a bit of cherry-picking, JohnnyB. Especially the bit about “mistakes.” When Hans Sandberg asked Izrael: Are you here to make a statement that you siding with skeptics in the debate?, his complete answer was:

“No, I don’t want to. I’m not critical of Albert Gore, because he received the Noble Prize, but I have a lot of questions about his text and his work. When it comes to the IPCC, they have done a lot of mistakes over twenty years, but on the balance, the IPCC, which included thousand people, is very good. They always want to find the balance between people on the left and the right,” he said.

Fern Mackenzie

Fern, you can read it how you like but I’m pretty sure the thin compliments don’t outweigh the criticisms of the IPCC.

Take Izreal talking about Al Gore. “I’m not critical of Albert Gore, because he received the Noble Prize, but I have a lot of questions about his text and his work.” Is the glass half full (I’m not critical of Gore) or half empty (I have alot of questions about his work). Or is it political double speak and he’s just covering both bases?

I have read between the lines that he’s being pretty critical of Gores work and the IPCC’s quite frankly. And who can blame Izreal when you look into their claims about being a ‘scientific body’ (which is BS in all honesty) when in fact they’re a politically top heavy and highly influenced body with politicians, eco-groups and eco-industries influencing their reports - never has a body devided the scientific community so strongly against it and its meathods.

Pages

[x]
Climate change

This is a guest post by Climate Nexus.

A recent opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal by Rupert Darwall paints efforts to address climate change through international policy as doomed from the start, ignores recent progress and dismisses mounting...

read more