The UN climate change numbers hoax

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the validity of claims made by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) regarding human contributions to climate change. Participants explore the implications of the IPCC's reports, the inclusion and exclusion of scientific data, and the perceived biases in the reporting process. The conversation includes critiques of the IPCC's methodologies and the broader implications for climate science and policy.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that the claim of "2500 scientists agree" is misleading and not representative of the actual consensus within the IPCC reports.
  • Concerns are raised about the omission of certain scientific data in the IPCC reports, with claims that critical biospheric aspects of climate change are largely ignored.
  • Participants discuss the implications of the IPCC's focus on certain data while dismissing others, suggesting a potential bias in how information is presented.
  • Some argue that the IPCC's role as a guide for policymakers necessitates a focus on risks, even amidst uncertainties, to effectively communicate the potential dangers of climate change.
  • Others challenge the validity of the IPCC's predictions, suggesting that reliance on models with significant uncertainties undermines the scientific integrity of the reports.
  • There is mention of the IPCC's responses to critiques, with some participants expressing dissatisfaction with the lack of scientific backing for these responses.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views, with significant disagreement on the credibility of the IPCC's findings and the implications of its reporting practices. No consensus is reached regarding the accuracy or reliability of the IPCC's assessments.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in the IPCC reports, including space restrictions that may have led to selective coverage of topics. There are also concerns about the assumptions underlying the models used in climate predictions, which remain unresolved.

  • #31
Evo said:
This is not a conspiracy theory, it happens to be true.

Please link to the IPCC page here that was provided. http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Comments/wg1-commentFrameset.html if you do not understand the article.

Seriously you should read this. When ever someone said the data could be wrong, that previous records had been ignored, etc... The were told that sorry, can't be included, not enough space. But when someone says Great job! They are included with a note: Thanks!

So you are now officially promoting conspiracy theories. Got it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Earth sciences news on Phys.org
  • #32
Ivan Seeking said:
So you are now officially promoting conspiracy theories. Got it.
That page IS the IPCC website. What conspiracy theory? Are you accusing the IPCC of a conspiracy?

On a serious note, look at how they ommited any comment that questioned the data and gave supporting proof and only approved "Oh that's great" comments.
 
Last edited:
  • #33
Andre said:
Thanks, Wolram

If you would like to see what John McLean had to wade through you can go here http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Comments/wg1-commentFrameset.html and hit the accept button. Also of course if you would like to check his numbers.

This link appears to already be defunct, only a week after the posting I'm replying to.

However, Ross McKitrick's http://ross.mckitrick.googlepages.com/McKitrick.final.pdf" rather than some "official" site...).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #34
  • #35
In case anybody is interested, I have downloaded the majority of the documents, just let me know.
 
  • #36
Evo said:
Billiards, you seem unaware of all of the crazy ideas to pump the upper atmosphere full of sulphur particles to block sunlight or arrays of mirrors mounted on satellites to shield the earth. The results of the alarmism.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7365793.stm

Thank goodness sanity is slowly creeping back.

Thats some scary stuff right there, and i believe there is more "crazy ideas" besides this one.
I believe the Earth can repair itself as long as it its not subject to too much abuse, we have been burning fossil fuels for 100 years now and it has had no significant impact on our climate. We probably won't even have fossil fuels available for much longer i doubt they will even last another century, I read somewhere it could be 30 years at our current rate of consumption. Plus hyrbid engines are becoming really popular and kyoto has been ratified by most of the large industrial nations.
 

Similar threads

Unmasking the IPCC's 2500 "Scientists": A Climate Crisis Reality Check
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
5K
New Climate Science Update: Latest Findings Since 2006 Report
  • · Replies 73 ·
3
Replies
73
Views
17K
Graduate Negative carbon emissions to fight ocean acidification?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
North Atlantic Drift Current and Abrupt Climate Change
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
13K
From Pooh’s first Assessment Report on Climate Change
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
7K
Is Flooding Increasing Due to Climate Change and Rising Greenhouse Gases?
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
8K
Is Earth's Temperature Governed by Physics Alone?
  • · Replies 76 ·
3
Replies
76
Views
34K
News The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
  • · Replies 129 ·
5
Replies
129
Views
18K
News Is James Randi a skeptic or a Republican climate change denier?
  • · Replies 59 ·
2
Replies
59
Views
12K
News IPCC Fourth Assessment Synthesis Report
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
5K