The UN climate change numbers hoax

Click For Summary
The discussion centers around the credibility of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and its Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), released in 2007. Participants challenge the claim that 2,500 scientists agree on human-caused climate change, arguing that the report misrepresents scientific consensus and omits critical data. Concerns are raised about the IPCC's selective inclusion of feedback from scientists, which some believe skews the findings towards alarmism. Critics point to significant gaps in the report, particularly regarding biospheric aspects of climate change, and question the reliability of climate models used in the assessments. The conversation highlights a divide between those who advocate for urgent action based on the IPCC's findings and skeptics who argue that the evidence for human impact is overstated or misrepresented. Overall, the thread reflects a broader debate about the validity of climate science and the implications of the IPCC's conclusions for policy-making.
  • #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

Replies
18
Views
5K
  • · Replies 73 ·
3
Replies
73
Views
16K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
13K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
7K
Replies
28
Views
8K
  • · Replies 76 ·
3
Replies
76
Views
34K
  • · Replies 129 ·
5
Replies
129
Views
18K
  • · Replies 59 ·
2
Replies
59
Views
12K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
5K