This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Guest Post: The IPCC May Have Outlived its Usefulness - An Interview with Judith Curry
Submitted by James Stafford of OilPrice.com
The IPCC May Have Outlived its Usefulness - An Interview with Judith Curry
As the global warming debate increases in its intensity we find both sides deeply entrenched, hurling accusations and lies at one another in an attempt to gain the upper hand. This divide within the scientific community has left the public wondering who can be trusted to provide them with accurate information and answers.
The IPCC, the onetime unquestioned champion of climate change, has had its credibility questioned over the years, firstly with the climategate scandal, then with a number of high profile resignations, and now with the new “Gleickgate” scandal (1) (2) – One has to wonder where climate science goes from here?
We have just had the pleasure of interviewing the well known climatologist Judith A. Curry in order to get her thoughts on climate change, the IPCC, geo-engineering, and much more.
Judith is the current chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology and hosts sensible discussions on climate change at her popular blog Climate, etc.
Considered somewhat of a black sheep within the scientific community Judith was a one time supporter of the IPCC until she started to find herself disagreeing with certain policies and methods of the organization. She feared the combination of groupthink and political advocacy, combined with an ingrained "noble cause syndrome" stifled scientific debate, slowed down scientific progress, and corrupted the assessment process.
OP: What are your personal beliefs on climate change? The causes and how serious a threat climate change is to the continued existence of society as we know it.
JC: The climate is always changing. Climate is currently changing because of a combination of natural and human induced effects. The natural effects include variations of the sun, volcanic eruptions, and oscillations of the ocean. The human induced effects include the greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, pollution aerosols, and land use changes. The key scientific issue is determining how much of the climate change is associated with humans. This is not a simple thing to determine. The most recent IPCC assessment report states: “Most [50%] of the warming in the latter half of the 20th century is very likely [>90%] due to the observed increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.” There is certainly some contribution from the greenhouse gases, but whether it is currently a dominant factor or will be a dominant factor in the next century, is a topic under active debate, and I don’t think the high confidence level [>90%] is warranted given the uncertainties.
As I stated in my testimony last year: “Based upon the background knowledge that we have, the threat does not seem to be an existential one on the time scale of the 21st century, even in its most alarming incarnation.”
OP: You have said in the past that you were troubled by the lack of cooperation between organizations studying climate change, and that you want to see more transparency with the data collected. How do you suggest we encourage/force transparency and collaboration?
JC: We are seeing some positive steps in this regard. Government agencies that fund climate research are working to develop better databases. Perhaps of greatest interest is the effort being undertaken by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, which is a (mostly) privately funded effort to compile and document a new data base on surface temperatures, in a completely open and transparent way.
OP. Do you feel climatologists should be putting more effort into determining the effect of the sun on our climate? As the IPCC primarily focuses on CO2 as the cause of climate change – Is the importance of CO2 overestimated and the importance of the sun is underestimated?
JC: I absolutely think that more effort is needed in determining the effect of the sun on our climate. The sun is receiving increased attention (and funding), and there is a lively debate underway on interpreting the recent satellite data record, reconstructing past solar variability, and predicting the solar variability over the 21st century. Nearly all of the solar scientists are predicting some solar cooling in the next century, but the magnitude of the possible or likely cooling is hotly debated and highly uncertain.
OP: You are well known in climate and energy circles for breaking from the ranks of the IPCC and questioning the current information out there. What do you see as the reasons for the increase in skepticism towards global warming over the last few years.
JC: Because of the IPCC and its consensus seeking process, the rewards for scientists have been mostly in embellishing the consensus, and this includes government funding. Because of recent criticisms of the IPCC and a growing understanding that the climate system is not easily understood, an increasing number of scientists are becoming emboldened to challenge some of the basic conclusions of the IPCC, and I think this is a healthy thing for the science.
OP. What are your views on the idea that CO2 may not be a significant contributor to climate change? How do you think such a revelation, if true, will affect the world economy, and possibly shatter public confidence in scientific institutions that have said we must reduce CO2 emissions in order to save the planet?
JC: Personally, I think we put the CO2 stabilization policy ‘cart’ way before the scientific horse. The UN treaty on dangerous climate change in 1992 was formulated and signed before we even had ‘discernible’ evidence of warming induced by CO2, as reported in 1995 by the IPCC second assessment report. As a result of this, we have only been considering one policy option (CO2 stabilization), which in my opinion is not a robust policy option given the uncertainties in how much climate is changing in response to CO2.
OP. There has been quite a bit of talk recently on geo-engineering with entrepreneurs such as Bill Gates and Richard Branson pushing for a “plan B” which utilizes geo-engineering to manipulate the environment in order to cool the atmosphere.
Geo-engineering could be much cheaper than reducing emissions, and also much quicker to produce results and scientists are lobbying governments and international organizations for funds to experiment with various approaches, such as fertilizing the oceans or spraying reflective particles and chemicals into the upper atmosphere in order to reflect sunlight and heat back into space. What are your thoughts on geo-engineering? Is it a realistic solution to solving climate change or is it a possible red herring?
JC: With regards to geo-engineering, there are two major concerns. The first is whether the technologies will actually work, in terms of having the anticipated impact on the climate. The second is the possibility of unintended consequences of the geoengineering.
OP. You have been noted to criticize the IPCC quite openly in the past on several topics.
Even going so far as to say: “It is my sad conclusion that opening your mind on this subject (climate change controversy) sends you down the slippery slope of challenging many aspects of the IPCC consensus.”
Do you believe that the organization as a whole needs to be assessed in order to better serve progress on climate change? What suggestions do you have on how the organization should function?
JC: The IPCC might have outlived its usefulness. Lets see what the next assessment report comes up with. But we are getting diminishing returns from these assessments, and they take up an enormous amount of scientists’ time.
OP. Would renewable energy technologies have received the massive amounts of funding we have seen over the last few years without global warming concerns?
JC: I think there are other issues that are driving the interest and funding in renewables, including clean air and energy security issues and economics, but I agree that global warming concerns have probably provided a big boost.
OP. What do you believe are the best solutions to overcoming/reversing climate change; is a common consensus needed in order to effectively combat climate change?
JC: The UN approach of seeking a global consensus on the science to support an international treaty on CO2 stabilization simply hasn’t worked, for a variety of reasons. There are a range of possible policy options, and we need to have a real discussion that looks at the costs, benefits and unintended consequences of each. Successful solutions are more likely to be regional in nature than global.
OP. I saw an interesting comment on another site regarding climate science that i thought i’d get your opinion on as it raises some very interesting arguments:
Climate science has claimed for 30 years that it affects the safety of hundreds of millions of people, or perhaps the whole planet. If it gets it wrong, equally, millions may suffer from high energy costs, hunger due to biofuels, and lost opportunity from misdirected funds, notwithstanding the projected benefits from as yet impractical renewable energy.
Yet, we have allowed it to dictate global policy and form a trillion dollar green industrial complex - all without applying a single quality system, without a single performance standard for climate models, without a single test laboratory result and without a single national independent auditor or regulator. It all lives only in the well known inbred, fad-driven world of peer review.
JC: I agree that there is lack of accountability in the whole climate enterprise, and it does not meet the standards that you would find in engineering or regulatory science. I have argued that this needs to change, by implementing data quality and model verification and validation standards.
OP: Do you believe that the language used in papers and at conferences is a problem? The public just wants straight answers to questions: Is the climate warming, By how much, and what will the effects be? Scientists need to step out from behind the curtain and engage the public with straight answers and in their own words. Is this achievable, or is climate science too complex to be explained in laymen’s terms? Or is it because even climate scientists can’t agree on the exact answers?
JC: I think the biggest failure in communicating climate science to the public has been the reliance on argument from consensus. We haven’t done a good job of explaining all this, particularly in the context of the scientific disagreement
OP: What resources would you recommend to people who wish to get a balanced and objective view on climate science and climate change.
JC: There is no simple way to get a balanced and objective view, since there are so many different perspectives. I think my blog Climate Etc. at judithcurry.com is a good forum for getting a sense of these different perspectives.
Thank you Judith for taking the time to speak to us. For those who wish to engage in balanced discussion on climate related issues we recommend you visit Judith’s blog Climate etc
- 11228 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -


Here is a linky thingy for you. Alas, the facts march onward.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2011-temps.html
NASA Finds 2011 Ninth-Warmest Year on Record
01.19.12The global average surface temperature in 2011 was the ninth warmest since 1880, according to NASA scientists. The finding continues a trend in which nine of the 10 warmest years in the modern meteorological record have occurred since the year 2000.
Aah NASA, that bastion of scientific integrity (Govt funded crony science) much like the UK Met Office right?
still have that political loon, James Hansen, on the payroll ? ..the one that gets his warming wrong but says fuck the scientific accuracy, the political message is far more important
good honest science at NASA ..and only $20,000 a toilet seat (which is where they should put Hansen)
"UK Met Office right"
Did you think there was profit in weather forecasting? - it's PUBLICALY FUNDED for a reason (note I said public, not Government)
"and only $20,000 a toilet seat"
I think we know where you're getting your 'facts' from - don't we?
..of course the 'arguments' used by the deniers - are the same arguments used by the tobacco industry and it's cronies when SCIENCE demonstrated that smoking was bad for you.
So now the penalty for such idiocy is being felt - with so many people hooked and so many people with smokng related diseases.
I know science will win out in the end, people need something which can be PROVEN - they are not happy to just take ESSO's word for it!
Science has won out.. you're just too much in denial of the facts and in absolute denial of all the lies, scientific fraud and junk you've peddled
YOU ARE the scientific deniars
PS. smoking is good for you, far less diseases than non-smokers, and smokers children also get far less ailments than non-smokers kids inlater life
"YOU ARE the scientific deniars"
Says the shill who couldn't argue his way out of a wet paper bag.
Man, these denialists get desperate so easy, it's pathetic.
are you in denial the Antarctic is not melting away?
are you in denial Al Gores film wasn't a shed full of lies?
are you in denial we haven't warmed since 1998?
are you in denial the Hockey Stick graph wasn't a crock of hidden cooling?
who is the denialist?
go see a Doctor, you're addicted to fraud, lying and cheating ...do you deny that?
"go see a Doctor, you're addicted to fraud, lying and cheating ...do you deny that?"
There is a mix of comedy and tragedy in reading these denialists when they go into all-out absurd-claims-cum-ad-hom mode.
there you go again, denying the (relentless) lies and scientific fraud of the AGW crew... you'd think one day the penny would drop
but no, ya keep denying the lies, ya keep ignoring the truth, you keep humming that Marxist tune when all the science points toward you talking non-stop hysterical bullshit
you're in denial peanut brain, go see a Doctor soon as you can there's a good little Commie
"but no, ya keep denying the lies, ya keep ignoring the truth, you keep humming that Marxist tune when all the science points toward you talking non-stop hysterical bullshit"
WHAT SCIENCE ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT - THERE ARE NO SCIENTISTS WHICH AGREE WITH YOU!
"you're in denial peanut brain, go see a Doctor soon as you can there's a good little Commie"
Ah - we see where this man's intelligence lies - in his prejudice.
I'm not a communist - I'm an anarchist - they are very, very different ideologically. I wouldn't expect you to understand as you're struggling to understand science which is a much simpler concept
One thing that hasn't changed is the pay (and consequently the intellectual ability) of the shrills of the corporations
You cannot visit a Doctor as he will tell you about EVOLUTION - another piece of science our friend denies because it doesn't fit in with the story he was told.
I bet your Doctor could tell you a thing or two about scientific fact and climate change.
i very much like Darwin and Evolution
you ought to get your facts straight which hard when you're in denial of them pea brain
I bet you couldn't tell me 2 scientifc facts about CO2 that lead to warming.. try it, max out your pea brain
Nah, evidence based medicine is probably also a UN/IPCC fraud.... much better to go talk to your Scientologist auditor, who'll expunge them nasty body thetans from your MEST body.
you really are a prick
and you're in denial so no chance of any improvement
go suck Al Gores dick 13 times, once for every schoolboy scientific error in his film of hysterical fiction
"go suck Al Gores dick 13 times, once for every schoolboy scientific error in his film of hysterical fiction"
Now now - you keep saying this sort of thing and yet have presented NO EVIDENCE of these 'schoolboy mistakes'.
Now surely you will understand we are sceptical?
Google it, do some research you lazy twat
..try not to deny the facts as you read up ok
..and if you can't find a dozen more scientific lies by tomorrow you're not trying hard enough to overcome your denial, there's 100's out there
"Google it, do some research you lazy twat"
That's reasearch??
It's not laziness which stops me from taking any old shit written by any old twat on the internet as 'fact'
I prefer scientific journals where the sources are cited and verified by other scientists.
"..and if you can't find a dozen more scientific lies by tomorrow you're not trying hard enough to overcome your denial, there's 100's out there"
Oh that is truly brilliant - so if I don't find any evidence I just keep looking harder and harder?
Eventually I will find 'some' evidence which concluds it's all a myth - right?
...and if not I'll just get desperate and take whatever I can find.
Like you found the enstrom and kabat study to 'prove' your believes about smoking!
What are you - like 3 years old or something?
"you really are a prick"
Oh, save me your indignation, you detestable death-peddler.
"PS. smoking is good for you, far less diseases than non-smokers, and smokers children also get far less ailments than non-smokers kids inlater life"
I think that sums you up - what total rubbish. Next you'll be telling me gravity is a myth!
You need something to back you up - something called proof.
Clearly you migrated from defending tobacco companies to defending oil companies - nice job - bring about the death of your fellow man for money.
Did your mummy teach you that if you want something and say it over and over then it will come true?
it's time to grow up dullard
Er no gravity is not a myth, it's a scientific fact ..there you go speculating wildly again, you're alot like the AGW crews hysterical weather computers aren't you?
Regards smoking i refer you to the longest and largest study in medical history by Enstrom & Kabat conducted in California over a 34 year period involving tens of thouands of particpants
it concluded there was no health problems to spouses of smokers, children of smokers and indeed work colleagues of smokers. Passive smoking not only got a clean bill of health, it also showed a marginal improvement in health amongst children of smokers
the report was of course squashed, the anti-smoking hysterics and denialists (of science) threw their toys outta the pram but it was crowned when the EPA was found in court to be peddling bent junk science themselves
Smokers also suffer from less diseases and cancers than non-smokers though we do carry a microscopic increased chance of lung cancer and a couple of other ailments (but so tiny you should ignore the hysterical Govt health warnings.. as always)
Man isn't stupid (unless you work for Govt)... we smoke because it does us good
"Regards smoking i refer you to the longest and largest study in medical history by Enstrom & Kabat"
Oh you mean this one - discredited by the BMA?
http://www.no-smoke.org/document.php?id=333
"Study Part of Organized Effort to Confuse Public About Secondhand Smoke"
http://www.scientificintegrityinstitute.org/ACSEPR051503.pdf
Are these the people you're relying on for your FACTS?
...and you have the nerve to criticise Al Gore for being inaccurate!
"PS. smoking is good for you, far less diseases than non-smokers, and smokers children also get far less ailments than non-smokers kids inlater life"
Jesus fucking Christ.
I'm on my 20th ciggy today, i haven't keeled over and died yet!
I'm off to the gym tonight, i could bend you around the dumbells later if you like, show you who's fitter?
You dimwit - you can have the biggest muscles in the world on your arms and your legs - but without a good muscle inside (your heart) - you're dead.
I ride 18 Miles a day - fancy challenging me to a REAL test of fitness? - Maybe I'll take you on a Marathon which requires cardio-vascular fitness and not simply muscle building at the gym.
I hope you're paid to have such insane views on life - surely nobody is as dumb as you're making out!!!
No i'm not "paid to have insane views" .. i thought that was the Govts job with all its climate and health scientists/crones paid to sing hysterically for more taxation??
and once again pea brain you're in denial
you're in denial of all the mountains of lies of the AGW crew over the past decade
you're in denial of real science and research on the smoking (non)health issue
you need to see a Doctor about your denial (of reality)...let me know how you get on ok
"sing hysterically for more taxation"
Now we get down to the crux of the matter - it's not climate change you are sceptical about - it's TAXATION.
You're just another self interested T-partier who doesn't want to pay their way and who claims they are 'independent' when in fact they are the biggest dependents in the US.
if you don't mind i'd like to keep my "self interest" going for a little while longer. Selfish i know but unlike you who likes to piss their money into Govt coffers never to see any benefit i'd like to hang onto my hard earned
and if the Govt lying through its teeth, which is a speciality of Govt afterall, is not good reason to not pay tax that's as gooda reason as any to question
i mean 350% tax of cigarettes is a bit grotesque don't you think?
and paying yet another tax ont top of dozens for cars, petrol, travel etc is yet more excessive parasitical behaviour don't you think?
So the Tea Party are big dependents you say? Bigger than the worthless non-stop lying scum of the public sector do you think?
Like I said - it's all about tax.
you also need to learn about economic history before you take on the challenge of the climate debate - and the history of modern taxation and it's intended purpose.
I'm glad we got down to your real self serving purpose and motivation. Most children work out the 'prisoners dilemma' when they are teenagers - clearly you are a special needs case who needs more help understanding the consequences of beign allowed to 'do what you please'.
eh?!!
Excuse me but isn't the "self serving" a-hole here a bunch of worthless liars in the public sector piling on yet another parasitical tax based on a wholly fabricated scare story the Earth is about to fry???
Point me toward the self-serving lying lazy tossers Mr Eagle-Eye?
"fabricated scare story the Earth is about to fry???"
Who said that? - I think you're in exaggeration land again....
So following your failure in the debates on
Climate change
Smoking
Science
...you now move on to bashing the public sector?
Well (I presume you're an American) - how would you go about defending your country from invaders without Governemnt help?
How do you propose you police the streets?
How do you propose you ensure you don't have a Bhopal in California?
You are a monkey alright - you think you do it all by yourself - but actually you're just not appreciative of how things DO get done. You don't want to pay tax, but you'll be the first to complain when your house burns down because you don't have teh cash to pay the firemen!
...and I'll save you the assumption - I've worked in the private sector all my life.
As usual disagree with global warming and the global warming pundits will treat you like cattle becuase you do not understand. The statement that the scientific community is all in agreement with global warming ought to tell you something. Just another scam to make people rich by taxing you for the air you breathe. Next thing coming is population control and horse drawn buggies they will tax you for when your horse farts. This debate does get old.
Talk to me about pollution and I will listen. But stop trying to sell me the air I breathe in the way of another fricking tax. Al Gore is a dam joke go check out his 25000 square foot house. Funny how some of our entertainers want us to drive hybrids while they climb on their private jets. Even when caught lieing they will call us stupid. I do not even need to go into stripping out water vapor in the atmosphere to prove their point.
I have an enormous respect for scientists as my major was geology. While you pundits are here in force provide the concrete evidence which has yet to be proven. I am sick of making the common person pay more out of their pockets and yet scare the hell out of them on a science that is as of yet non conclusive. Notice when asked the pundits shut up when they stated the entire scientific community agrees with them. Instad they want to treat you and after this post I like ignorant ass wipes because we do not believe. Guess what they did the same thing to scientists that disagreed with them. Work was not even allowed to be peer reviewed as they knew thy were fixing their numbers to scare everyone. There are scientists that use sound scientific methods to prove their theories, the global warming would not allow someone with another view to look at the work. Either you were all in or you were not allowed. Even when they got caught, we are called the stupid ass folks. Just because we do not agree with global warming does not make people stupid. All I ask is for you to prove it.
"The statement that the scientific community is all in agreement with global warming ought to tell you something."
Yes - that the relevant, qualified scholars and students of a compelx field have no major disagreements on the basics of the topic.
" Just another scam to make people rich by taxing you for the air you breathe."
From one sentence, scientists, the next politics.... see what you did there?
" Next thing coming is population control and horse drawn buggies they will tax you for when your horse farts."
And third sentence, conspiraciy theorizing.
"I have an enormous respect for scientists as my major was geology."
Does it then matter to you that the geologists that work in disciplines and subjects interfacing with climate theory are likewise in agreement with the broad outline of climate change theory?
"While you pundits are here in force provide the concrete evidence which has yet to be proven."
Outright falsehood. "Concrete evidence" to the nature of greenhouse gases has been on record for over a century.
The only disagreement is the rate of warming, given the enviro-economic progression over the comiong decades, and the specific climate sentitivity to increased GHG precense in the atmosphere.
As usual, you pick up a feather and turn it into a flock of chickens.
"Notice when asked the pundits shut up when they stated the entire scientific community agrees with them."
Rather, i notice your entire post is based on rhetoric, rather than any reference to fact or a concrete argument.
"Instad they want to treat you and after this post I like ignorant ass wipes because we do not believe."
No, we treat you like an ignorant arse-wipe, because youre busy mouthing off about a subject of which you evidently have ZERO KNOWLEDGE and ZERO DESIRE TO DEBATE RATIONALLY, because it would force you to revise your opinion, which is a result of ideological zeal rather than rational examination of the field.
"Guess what they did the same thing to scientists that disagreed with them."
What? Burned at stake? Thumbscrews? Disembowelment?
"Work was not even allowed to be peer reviewed as they knew thy were fixing their numbers to scare everyone."
The usual denialist horseshit. Extremely vague, outrageous and unsubstantiated claims claimign a broad conspriacy.
"There are scientists that use sound scientific methods to prove their theories, the global warming would not allow someone with another view to look at the work"
This doesnt even make sense.
"Even when they got caught, we are called the stupid ass folks."
No, just liars and useful idiots to those who would keep the public in the dark irt. the consequences of unrestrained emissions of greenhouse gasses, because it would hurt their fat profit margins.
"Just because we do not agree with global warming does not make people stupid. "
If you disagree, because you have wilfully abstained from educating yourself, then yes, you are stupid.
"All I ask is for you to prove it which has not be done yet."
You can't prove anything to someone who does not want to learn.
GCT - the false claim by Govts that "there is a consensus" is just another bare-faced lie amongst the mountains of lies on this stinking topic
I have asked many AGW tossers where is their evidence/sruvey of a scientific consensus but there has been none to support their false claim... the best they can come up with is a shamboli list of all the so-called scientific organisations that are Pro AGW
first off nearly all of them depend on Govt support for their crony existence
second hardly any of the scientific members have actually been surveyed and asked their opinion before their Boards have 'voted'
there is only one credible survey of scientific opinion conducted professionally by the Oregon Institute which has over 34,000 scientists signed up against AGW
these scientists are largely independent, not the Govt funded crones on the AGW side or that are perpetrating this scientific fraud
there is no consensus, it is another bloody lie and the debate is not over, that's another fuking lie, we have never had a proper debate (before the scumbag politicians tried to shut it down)
Bent as ever, like the AGW junk science
"I have asked many AGW tossers where is the evidence of a scientific consensus"
Here
http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/climate-change/scientific-consensus-on.html
Here
http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/climate-change-deni...
Here
http://www.realclimate.org/
Here
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2010/06/22/the-scientific...
....want more?
I've got plenty...
"there is only one credible survey of scientific opinion conducted professionally by the Oregon Institute which has over 34,000 scientists signed up against AGW"
You have your head so far into the dunes its unbelieveable.
quote:
"Scientific American took a random sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition —- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.[22]"
Also.
In less than 10 minutes of casual scanning, I found duplicate names (Did two Joe R. Eaglemans and two David Tompkins sign the petition, or were some individuals counted twice?), single names without even an initial (Biolchini), corporate names (Graybeal & Sayre, Inc. How does a business sign a petition?), and an apparently phony single name (Redwine, Ph.D.). These examples underscore a major weakness of the list: there is no way to check the authenticity of the names. Names are given, but no identifying information (e.g., institutional affiliation) is provided. Why the lack of transparency?[23]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition#Criticism_of_the_Oregon_Pet...
So, when climate denialists make up some petitions who every yahoo can sign on to prove their strength in numbers, then there IS a consensus (no matter how unreliable), but when its the other camp, ie. scientists in the relevant field, no consensus, its all conspiracy, polticians distorted it all. Yada yada yada. So afraid of the truth, it's pathetic.
Sigh.
"pathetic" is the politicians (inc ex wonder of the internet, Al Gore) claiming a "consensus" when in fact there had been no such survey conducted and no such conclusion reached by anyone on the planet
..and still hasn't to date
In contrast the oregon Petition was conducted professionally, any erros or mistakes, including Greepeace activists trying to defraud their way onto the Petition, have been addressed and removed
One Petition is fact. One claim for "consensus" is patently a fuking lie.
but you're in denial of both those FACTS ..have you seen a Doctor yet denialist?
"claiming a "consensus" when in fact there had been no such survey conducted and no such conclusion reached by anyone n the planet
..and still hasn't to date"
You wouldn't know what a scientific consensus was if it smacked you upside the head and then decided to dance a jitterbug on your face.
My hopes for humanity are invariably lowered when having
run-ins with halfwits such as this specimen.
Can't make a coherent argument, can't formulate yourself in a comprehensible manner, cant fucking stick to the point, all you have is your anger, which, judging from your handle, born of some irrational ideological fear that the UN commies are comin' for ya.
Back to work - I'm not paid to try and smack sense into the skull of a delusional tar addict.
No it's the AGW crew/cretins that woulòdn't know a consensus.. it was afterall them that claimed a consensus
and we now know they claimed a consensus without ever having the FACTS to back up their gobshite, having never carried out a census (so they were lying from the get-go)
and now we have a Petition against AGW showing/proving their is no consensus for AGW
so the politicians are caught lying (yet again) for not having any research, but when a proper Petition is carried out they're fuking ignore it
They're in DENIAL
worse still anyone who knows proper science knows it is not taken forward by consensus (a problem throughout history of stuck-in-the-mud scientific organisations). Sceine is progressed by a few brilliant individuals and followed by the herd, not by a vote
So claiming a consensus shows once again the ignorance of political science
From every angle these frauds of society have been exposed
But you're STILL in denial of all this ..please see a Doctor mate, you're a sicko
Aw - you beat me to it!
you're probably beaten often
you're a socialist no?
No - I told you before I'm an Anarchist - very different.
Clearly READING is not your speciality - maybe that's why you rely on hearsay for your facts.
Also Socialism is about the working class taking control of the means of production - it has NOTHING to do with state imposed freedom restriction.
You really can't rely on watching animal farm a few times for your insights into Marxism!
Do you think 'socialist' means 'wanker'? - you use the phrase like you do.
...oh and I rarely get beaten - I'm one of lifes winners.
...unlike you who has failed to answer to the facts presented about smoking, scientific consenus and the fraudulent petition you presented as 'evidence'.
Come on - if you're really straight up you will try to respond to at least ONE of these.
If all you have to challenge climate change is a few hacked E-mails and some paranoia - against the massive weight of scientific consensus
...then you have nothing.
I'll stick with the scientists thanks
Yes do stick with the scientists pea brain, here's over 30,000 of them (not on the payroll of Govt funded/fabricated crony science) and here's their facts (have a read, learn something since kindergarten):
http://www.oism.org/pproject/
Oh my god you are such a DICK!
That website is just an onine petition for any whacko with an interenet connection and a self interest to defend!
I took ONE NAME at random off that list - a PHD - turned out he was a PASTOR!
Oh dear, your fraud is not well worked is it?
Here we have someone who found HIMSELF ON THE LIST! - even though he never signed up to any such petition!
http://rr57701.blogspot.com/2009/12/global-liars-strike-again.html
You also seem to be equating 'anonymous people' with 'scientists' in order to add some credibility.
Why don't you report both your 'findings' to Oregon.. it's a very professional run list and they will look into any claim
we're still waiting to hear back from the hundreds of scientific organisations that claim their members are Pro AGW without ever having actually conducted any such survey of their members
and we're still waiting to hear public apologies from all the politicians, inc Al Gore, for claiming a scientific consensus when firstly they had no such research to prove such and secondly there is no scientific consensus (2 whopping big fat lies to add to the hundreds now amassed by the AGW fraudsters)
Are you still in denial son?
"Why don't you report both your 'findings' to Oregon.. it's a very professional run list and they will look into any claim "
Professionally run and funded by nameless individuals...
"Funding for the project comes entirely from private donations by interested individuals, primarily readers of the newsletter Access to Energy that is independently published."
With it's 'SIX' scientists - it's hardly a major shift from consensus is it?
I started to look at the qualifications of those on the petition - rather a lot of chemists and engineers on that list (they make up over 50% of the qualifications)
...I wonder which industry they are most likely to work in?
Clearly your research is not as thorough as mine....
Oh - and now I have done another quick bit of research I find the REAL contributors to the OISM.
"It was co-published by Robinson's organisation - the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine - and an outfit called the George C Marshall Institute, which has received $630,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998."
Paid for by the oil industry.
"Some 17,000 graduates signed it, the majority of whom had no background in climate science."
Maybe YOU need to educate yourself before believing the first piece of evidence presented you can find to support your BELIEFS!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/19/ethicalliving.g2
"..17,000 graduates signed it, the majority of whom had no background in climate science.."
Thank fuck for that!
Have you any grasp of the low-rent ameteurs/morons that run the UK Met Office and NADSA GISS ?
Al Gore makes a film based on his friends advise who are "experts" on climate change and the film has 13 basic schoolboy errors in it
Every organisation you peddle as experts in this field are highly dependent on Govt money for their crony existence. Govt science is of course garbage, Govt funded weather forcasting is also garbage and being flogged by private sector enterprises who are anti AGW
None of the organisations you peddle have actually surveyed their members either. Many have resigned claiming their Boards are following the money, not the science (what a surprise, we hear that so often with Govt 'research')
"Have you any grasp of the low-rent ameteurs/morons that run the UK Met Office and NADSA GISS ?"
If a 'moron' (a colloquialism for a low-IQ person, aka retard) can get a position as a research associate there, then I wonder what would describe your cognitive skills.
Possibly "Pond Scum".
"Al Gore makes a film based <snip>"
Yes, you have an obsession about Al Gore. We get it. You might want to seek out a qualified therapist to get that OCD under control.
After reading Monbiots article - I can understand why believing climate change is a myth and believing smokingis 'good for you' go hand in hand in your fucked up world!
You are the sheep - driven by the corporate giants to do their bidding through your desire to fulfill your own self interest.
Ha ha, a classic waif.
dub post
well talking of sheep being driven by corporate giants wasn't it Al Gore that cooked up the CO2 scam with Big OIl fraudsters Enron?
Under oath in the Senate Als Corzine-like response was he "couldn't remember" discussing Carbon Fraud Schemes
and you might like to look at who is funding AGW ...it's Big Govt and Big Oil
those terrible twins of global anarchy and mayhem, stiffing consumers with over-priced energy when it's plentiful and of course using 'green' as starter for hundreds of new fascist controls over the neviroment (a new shedload of Regs/Laws to strangle competition for this most corrupt of all cartels)
so i've got you down as putting liars on pedestals, ignoring science, loving high priced oil, thinking the world is going to fry and smokers are going to die young based on Govt funded crones pumping out hysterical junk science
ie. a complete fuking retard (that's loony humming socialists for you)
"wasn't it Al Gore that cooked up the CO2 scam with Big OIl fraudsters Enron?"
I don't know - do you have any PROOF to show that it was?
You claimed that the science world was not in consenus - I gave you evidence to show it is
You claimed that a study proved smoking was good for you - I showed you evidence that study was flawed
You claimed that the Oregon list was genuine - I found many sources (some from the list) which contradicted that claim.
You have not responded to one of these pieces of evidence - why not?
er, doesn't over 30,000 scientists signing a petition against the AGW fraudsters show/prove to you there is NOT a scientific consensus???
Facts are facts mate, a consensus doesn't involve 30,000 not holding the view don't you think!
regards smoking i've read this topic for over a year and am very happy the scientific studies point toward it being no detriment to health. This is proven by the oldest people in the world being smokers
the oldest man in Britain is a smoker, his tip for a long life is, "whiskey, cigarettes and wild women" (respect)
the oldest woman who ever lived is Madam Jean Claument from Aryles in France who lived to the ripe old age of 131. Her lifestyle was a Govt health fascists nightmare involving a very sugary tooth, heavy French stews (saturated fat), lots of port and red wine and smoking
If you're in deep denial of reality and science i suggest you go top yourself
"the oldest woman who ever lived is Madam Jean Claument from Aryles in France who lived to the ripe old age of 131. Her lifestyle was a Govt health fascists nightmare involving a very sugary tooth, heavy French stews (saturated fat), lots of port and red wine and smoking"
Yes, the anecdote about granny who lived to an age of Methusalem while chain smoking is a common tool in most tar addicts or Big Tobacco apologists' inventory. They do exist, but they're statistical outliers, meaning very, very improbable. The rest of the people that this sorry excuse for a dope peddler will NEVER tell you about is the millions of people whose lives have been wrecked and ended short, drenched in misery and agony because they were ignorant (innocently or intentionally) of the illness and cancer inducing chemicals and trace compounds in tobacco.
That Big Tobacco never thought their addicts should know about.
That Big Tobacco could have removed for decades, but chose not to.
"regards smoking i've read this topic for over a year and am very happy the scientific studies point toward it being no detriment to health. This is proven by the oldest people in the world being smokers"
You're a scumbag. You sure as hell won't be sitting on the side of the hospital bed to calm and console the relatives of the family members who have smoking-induced metastatized cancers and have to receive ultrastrong painkillers 24/7 to keep them out of the grips of indescribable agony in the remainder of their lives.
Keep up smoking those two packs a day, asshole, your karma will catch up with you, and if anyone will inconvenience themselves to console your sorry ass when you're in the hospice, in constant pain, vomiting your guts out from the chemo, you should count yourself blessed.
Here we have a sceptics 'documentary' - which got into a little trouble because it didn't STICK TO THE FACTS.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/jul/21/channel4.ofcom
I watched this and was convinced for about 10 minutes - then it all started to fall apart - right when I started to ask the most basic of questions.