| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| IPCC Scientists Knew Data and Science Inadequacies Contradicted Certainties | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Mar 23 2014, 12:58 AM (501 Views) | |
| Berton | Mar 23 2014, 06:47 AM Post #11 |
![]()
Thunder Fan
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
They are your quack opinions. Why do you keep insisting on attacking the source rather than the content? I can only conclude you have no ammunition and you have nothing of value to add to the subject. Go away, you are like pesky gnat.. Here are some more what you call quacks being quoted: Before leaked emails exposed its climate science manipulations, the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) issued a statement that said, “GCMs are complex, three dimensional computer-based models of the atmospheric circulation. Uncertainties in our understanding of climate processes, the natural variability of the climate, and limitations of the GCMs mean that their results are not definite predictions of climate.” Phil Jones, Director of the CRU at the time of the leaked emails and former director Tom Wigley, both IPCC members, said, “Many of the uncertainties surrounding the causes of climate change will never be resolved because the necessary data are lacking.“ I am so happy to see you saying that the CRU, Phil Jones, and Tom Wiogley are all quacks. |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Mar 23 2014, 07:36 AM Post #12 |
|
Deleted User
|
You only base your opinions on this scientific subject on political blogs. You would have made a good church official in the middle ages. I can just see you arguing with Galileo.LOL |
|
|
| Berton | Mar 23 2014, 07:46 AM Post #13 |
![]()
Thunder Fan
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Are you still denying what the CRU, Phil Jones, and Tom Wigley said? Or are you still deflecting like a small child will do? |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Mar 23 2014, 07:49 AM Post #14 |
|
Deleted User
|
Maybe you could provide the link where they said what you claimed in full context? |
|
|
| Berton | Mar 23 2014, 07:56 AM Post #15 |
![]()
Thunder Fan
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Either say they didn't or accept it. The choice is yours. Remember I already proved you were wrong once today when you said a source of mine was lying. "Stephen Schneider, prominent part of the IPCC from the start said, “Uncertainty about feedback mechanisms is one reason why the ultimate goal of climate modeling – forecasting reliably the future of key variables such as temperature and rainfall patterns – is not realizable.” Schneider also set the tone and raised eyebrows when he said in Discover magazine. Scientists need to get some broader based support, to capture the public’s imagination…that, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have…each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. The IPCC achieved his objective with devastating effect, because they chose effective over honest." Edited by Berton, Mar 23 2014, 07:59 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Mar 23 2014, 08:25 AM Post #16 |
|
Deleted User
|
Thats a quote from the blog by the washed up weatherman. I want the original source in context. |
|
|
| Berton | Mar 23 2014, 09:06 AM Post #17 |
![]()
Thunder Fan
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
No those were quotes of Stephen Schneider. What do you have to say about what was pointed out in The Physical Basis of the Models in the article? Edited by Berton, Mar 23 2014, 09:14 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Thumper | Mar 23 2014, 10:11 AM Post #18 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
LOL. |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Mar 23 2014, 10:35 AM Post #19 |
|
Deleted User
|
I still want it from the source not from Watts. How am I sopposed to know whether or not he is cherry picking out of context? After all cherry picking is his specialty. If they offered a doctorate in it, he would be a shoo in. |
|
|
| Berton | Mar 23 2014, 10:55 AM Post #20 |
![]()
Thunder Fan
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I didn't think you had the intelligence to understand it. Now I know you don't. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Fire And Ice General Discussion · Next Topic » |






![]](http://z3.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)



10:21 PM Jul 11
