More climate change uncertainty. The models don't fit the actual observations

desert dude

desert dude

Well-Known Member
ginjawarrior said:
LOL so where is this leaked report? and where is his robust rebuttal of it?

again can you not tell the difference between an opinion piece and decent reporting?
Click to expand...
"Mr. Lewis also found that the IPCC had misreported the results of another study, leading to the IPCC issuing an Erratum in 2011."
 
ginjawarrior

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
desert dude said:
"Mr. Lewis also found that the IPCC had misreported the results of another study, leading to the IPCC issuing an Erratum in 2011."
Click to expand...
wheres the link? im guessing by now that you do not have the ability to recognise an opinion piece (thats even labeled as such)
 
desert dude

desert dude

Well-Known Member
ginjawarrior said:
thats rather pathetic considering these are scientific papers

the facts dont lie
Click to expand...
"He first collaborated with others to expose major statistical errors in a 2009 study of Antarctic temperatures. In 2011 he discovered that the IPCC had, by an unjustified statistical manipulation, altered the results of a key 2006 paper by Piers Forster of Reading University and Jonathan Gregory of the Met Office (the United Kingdom's national weather service), to vastly increase the small risk that the paper showed of climate sensitivity being high."
 
ginjawarrior

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
desert dude said:
"He first collaborated with others to expose major statistical errors in a 2009 study of Antarctic temperatures. In 2011 he discovered that the IPCC had, by an unjustified statistical manipulation, altered the results of a key 2006 paper by Piers Forster of Reading University and Jonathan Gregory of the Met Office (the United Kingdom's national weather service), to vastly increase the small risk that the paper showed of climate sensitivity being high."
Click to expand...
and the link to that paper is where?
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
one person's opinion: unassailable

overwhelming scientific consensus: to be ignored

LOL @ desert rat logic.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
ginjawarrior said:
i take the insinuation that the ippc is lying seriously and i expect proper evidence for such allegations
deasert dude is just a mouth piece but his allegations gain traction and should be answered seriously
Click to expand...
You said seriously twice.

"A man's character may be learned from the adjectives which he habitually uses in conversation." ~Mark Twain

I wouldn't really care, but you seem to go out of your way to annoy me, maybe you're not going out of your way and you just annoy me, hard to tell, either way, don't take yourself so seriously.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
desert dude said:
"He first collaborated with others to expose major statistical errors in a 2009 study of Antarctic temperatures. In 2011 he discovered that the IPCC had, by an unjustified statistical manipulation, altered the results of a key 2006 paper by Piers Forster of Reading University and Jonathan Gregory of the Met Office (the United Kingdom's national weather service), to vastly increase the small risk that the paper showed of climate sensitivity being high."
Click to expand...
oh, ya mean that thing that they were exonerated for, as in did nothing wrong?

you're an idiot, rat.
 
ginjawarrior

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
You said seriously twice.

"A man's character may be learned from the adjectives which he habitually uses in conversation." ~Mark Twain

I wouldn't really care, but you seem to go out of your way to annoy me, maybe you're not going out of your way and you just annoy me, hard to tell, either way, don't take yourself so seriously.
Click to expand...
i dont give a fuck enough about you or your corrections to go out of my way to "annoy you"

when i see something wrong i say so if that bothers you then either look at what your doing or fuck off either way i'm gonna carry on doing what i'm doing
 
desert dude

desert dude

Well-Known Member
"The scientists at the IPCC next year have to choose whether they will admit — contrary to what complex, unverifiable computer models indicate — that the observational evidence now points toward lukewarm temperature change with no net harm. On behalf of all those poor people whose lives are being ruined by high food and energy prices caused by the diversion of corn to biofuel and the subsidizing of renewable energy driven by carboncrats and their crony-capitalist friends, one can only hope the scientists will do so."
 
ginjawarrior

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
desert dude said:
"The scientists at the IPCC next year have to choose whether they will admit — contrary to what complex, unverifiable computer models indicate — that the observational evidence now points toward lukewarm temperature change with no net harm. On behalf of all those poor people whose lives are being ruined by high food and energy prices caused by the diversion of corn to biofuel and the subsidizing of renewable energy driven by carboncrats and their crony-capitalist friends, one can only hope the scientists will do so."
Click to expand...
still not worked out what an opinion piece is yet?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top