The UN climate change numbers hoax

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The forum discussion critically examines the claims made by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), specifically regarding the consensus among scientists about human-caused climate change. Participants argue that the assertion of 2,500 scientists agreeing on this issue is misleading, citing the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) from 2007 as a flawed document that omits significant scientific feedback. Key criticisms include the exclusion of biospheric aspects of climate change and the selective acceptance of comments from reviewers, raising questions about the integrity of the IPCC's conclusions.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) and its structure
  • Familiarity with climate change science and its key concepts
  • Knowledge of the role of scientific consensus in climate policy
  • Awareness of the Freedom of Information Act and its implications for scientific transparency
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) and its findings
  • Examine the criticisms of the IPCC's methodology and data selection
  • Explore the role of biospheric feedbacks in climate change models
  • Investigate the implications of the Freedom of Information Act on climate science transparency
USEFUL FOR

Climate scientists, policy makers, environmental activists, and anyone interested in the integrity of climate change research and the implications of scientific consensus on policy decisions.

  • #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
17K
  • · 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