We know the IPCC says it is 90% confident,

For your information Gandalf.

A large number of scientists contributing to the IPCC have decided to have a middle eastern style rejection of the way the organization falsely represents their views.

This appears to be based upon their belief that the IPCC has gone too far with the idea of mans impact on global climate and intend to set up an alternative scientific organization debunking most if not all of the IPCC'S projections and I Quote"False science and manipulation of politics"

Interesting times ahead, my friend.

Well I know many perhaps most of the contributors to the physical science (working group 1) of the IPCC and this is just nonsense, none of them have.

I,ve just recieved an email from Mark Sereeze himself confirming this Tom .

Apparently the reason for JOE ******I'S departure from Accuweater was to facilitate the presentation of their views on a new site to be set up.

Edited by user  01 April 2011 14:26:06  | Reason: Not specified

 We know the IPCC says it is 90% confident,

For your information Gandalf.

A large number of scientists contributing to the IPCC have decided to have a middle eastern style rejection of the way the organization falsely represents their views.

This appears to be based upon their belief that the IPCC has gone too far with the idea of mans impact on global climate and intend to set up an alternative scientific organization debunking most if not all of the IPCC'S projections and I Quote"False science and manipulation of politics"

Interesting times ahead, my friend.

Fortunately I realised it was April Fool's Day AIMSIR, so had a good chuckle at your post.

That was very creative of you.

---

Location: South Cambridgeshire
130 metres ASL
52.0N 0.1E

 We know the IPCC says it is 90% confident,

For your information Gandalf.

A large number of scientists contributing to the IPCC have decided to have a middle eastern style rejection of the way the organization falsely represents their views.

This appears to be based upon their belief that the IPCC has gone too far with the idea of mans impact on global climate and intend to set up an alternative scientific organization debunking most if not all of the IPCC'S projections and I Quote"False science and manipulation of politics"

Interesting times ahead, my friend.

Fortunately I realised it was April Fool's Day AIMSIR, so had a good chuckle at your post.

That was very creative of you.

Looks like my cover has been blown Gandalf.

AH well, It was a bit corny,but worth a try.

(Also, SORRY TOM)

Edited by user  01 April 2011 14:35:15  | Reason: Not specified

 We know the IPCC says it is 90% confident,

For your information Gandalf.

A large number of scientists contributing to the IPCC have decided to have a middle eastern style rejection of the way the organization falsely represents their views.

This appears to be based upon their belief that the IPCC has gone too far with the idea of mans impact on global climate and intend to set up an alternative scientific organization debunking most if not all of the IPCC'S projections and I Quote"False science and manipulation of politics"

Interesting times ahead, my friend.

Watch the use of the word Debunk as GTW finds it offensive....

I thought this rather amusing...

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100030204/climategate-two-more-bricks-fall-out-of-the-ipcc-wall-of-deceit-rainforests-and-polar-bears/

What a load of utter bo****cks.   More farcical ranting by someone with zero understanding of the science. 

You just need to read a little about what happens to rainforests in severe droughts, of which there have been two "once-in-a-century" events in the last five years, as I recall.  What do the models predict about rainfall in that region?

As for polar bears, he at least admits to the declining population but then has to resort to more ignorant nonsense to dismiss the issue.

Tiresome.

I think you have helped debunk another bunch of sceptic/denier nonsense, thanks.

---

Location: South Cambridgeshire
130 metres ASL
52.0N 0.1E

 We know the IPCC says it is 90% confident,

For your information Gandalf.

A large number of scientists contributing to the IPCC have decided to have a middle eastern style rejection of the way the organization falsely represents their views.

This appears to be based upon their belief that the IPCC has gone too far with the idea of mans impact on global climate and intend to set up an alternative scientific organization debunking most if not all of the IPCC'S projections and I Quote"False science and manipulation of politics"

Interesting times ahead, my friend.

Fortunately I realised it was April Fool's Day AIMSIR, so had a good chuckle at your post.

That was very creative of you.

Looks like my cover has been blown Gandalf.

AH well, It was a bit corny,but worth a try.

You spelt Mark's name incorrectly, bit of a give away

Edited by user  01 April 2011 14:59:41  | Reason: Not specified

 We know the IPCC says it is 90% confident,

For your information Gandalf.

A large number of scientists contributing to the IPCC have decided to have a middle eastern style rejection of the way the organization falsely represents their views.

This appears to be based upon their belief that the IPCC has gone too far with the idea of mans impact on global climate and intend to set up an alternative scientific organization debunking most if not all of the IPCC'S projections and I Quote"False science and manipulation of politics"

Interesting times ahead, my friend.

Fortunately I realised it was April Fool's Day AIMSIR, so had a good chuckle at your post.

That was very creative of you.

Looks like my cover has been blown Gandalf.

AH well, It was a bit corny,but worth a try.

(Also, SORRY TOM)

Also, and more tellingly, Robertski fell for it hook line and sinker.

What does that say about the desperation of the sceptic/denier fraternity?  So so anxious to bolster their untenable position...

---

Location: South Cambridgeshire
130 metres ASL
52.0N 0.1E

 We know the IPCC says it is 90% confident,

For your information Gandalf.

A large number of scientists contributing to the IPCC have decided to have a middle eastern style rejection of the way the organization falsely represents their views.

This appears to be based upon their belief that the IPCC has gone too far with the idea of mans impact on global climate and intend to set up an alternative scientific organization debunking most if not all of the IPCC'S projections and I Quote"False science and manipulation of politics"

Interesting times ahead, my friend.

Fortunately I realised it was April Fool's Day AIMSIR, so had a good chuckle at your post.

That was very creative of you.

Looks like my cover has been blown Gandalf.

AH well, It was a bit corny,but worth a try.

(Also, SORRY TOM)

Also, and more tellingly, Robertski fell for it hook line and sinker.

What does that say about the desperation of the sceptic/denier fraternity?  So so anxious to bolster their untenable position...

Oh come on lads.It's friday and April the first.

I didn't know I was going to start WW3.

 

Oh come on lads.It's friday and April the first.

I didn't know I was going to start WW3.

 

LOL.

Hardly - I thought it was very amusing but I think my comment is valid.

As for WW3, I thought that started here some time back...?

Oh come on lads.It's friday and April the first.

I didn't know I was going to start WW3.

 

 

LOL.

Hardly - I thought it was very amusing but I think my comment is valid.

As for WW3, I thought that started here some time back...?

As for your comment on WW3. I think I could agree.

 

As for polar bears, he at least admits to the declining population but then has to resort to more ignorant nonsense to dismiss the issue.

Tiresome.

I think you have helped debunk another bunch of sceptic/denier nonsense, thanks.

The bottom line is the actual statistics, conceded even by warmists: since 1970 the world’s polar bear population has “declined” from 5,000 to 25,000. Some of us would term that a quintupling, but obviously we do not share the same mathematical skills as those who predicted the imminent loss of the Himalayan glaciers.

 

As for polar bears, he at least admits to the declining population but then has to resort to more ignorant nonsense to dismiss the issue.

Tiresome.

I think you have helped debunk another bunch of sceptic/denier nonsense, thanks.

You didn't read to the end:

The bottom line is the actual statistics, conceded even by warmists: since 1970 the world’s polar bear population has “declined” from 5,000 to 25,000. Some of us would term that a quintupling, but obviously we do not share the same mathematical skills as those who predicted the imminent loss of the Himalayan glaciers.

 

As for polar bears, he at least admits to the declining population but then has to resort to more ignorant nonsense to dismiss the issue.

Tiresome.

I think you have helped debunk another bunch of sceptic/denier nonsense, thanks.

You didn't read to the end:

The bottom line is the actual statistics, conceded even by warmists: since 1970 the world’s polar bear population has “declined” from 5,000 to 25,000. Some of us would term that a quintupling, but obviously we do not share the same mathematical skills as those who predicted the imminent loss of the Himalayan glaciers.

Well that would be because it is wrong....

http://globalwarmingisreal.com/2008/03/10/scientist-on-western-hudson-bay-polar-bear-population-i-consider-myself-a-historian/

It was predictable Four, that you would fall for the sceptic propaganda line yet again.  It would help if you checked these things for yourself rather than jumping aboard a superficially promising opportunity to expose your sceptic views again.

I stick with my original judgement - he is talking rubbish from a convenient position of ignorance.

Do sceptics use propaganda to forward their views?.
What do you think of the latest efforts/plans to COMMUNICATE an understanding of agw to the masses using a more correct form of media.??????

Meanwhile, back at the ranch ....... problems with the Berkeley Group who are not, so far, reaching the conclusions they were meant to reach

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2011/mar/31/scienceofclimatechange-climate-change-scepticism

And Wattsy's response:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/response_to_muller_testimony.pdf

Meanwhile, back at the ranch ....... problems with the Berkeley Group who are not, so far, reaching the conclusions they were meant to reach

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2011/mar/31/scienceofclimatechange-climate-change-scepticism

And Wattsy's response:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/response_to_muller_testimony.pdf

Is your post Proxy PROPAGANDA?.

 

Well that would be because it is wrong....

http://globalwarmingisreal.com/2008/03/10/scientist-on-western-hudson-bay-polar-bear-population-i-consider-myself-a-historian/

It was predictable Four, that you would fall for the sceptic propaganda line yet again.  It would help if you checked these things for yourself rather than jumping aboard a superficially promising opportunity to expose your sceptic views again.

I stick with my original judgement - he is talking rubbish from a convenient position of ignorance.

Your link seems rather bereft of real evidence either way since it says no-one actually tried to count them till recently, which seems fair enough.

There seems little evidence to suggest they are in catastrophic decline, or that any decline there is must be largely due to less ice/warming.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5664069/Polar-bear-expert-barred-by-global-warmists.html

Mitchell Taylor, who has studied the animals for 30 years, was told his views 'are extremely unhelpful’

Meanwhile, back at the ranch ....... problems with the Berkeley Group who are not, so far, reaching the conclusions they were meant to reach

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2011/mar/31/scienceofclimatechange-climate-change-scepticism

And Wattsy's response:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/response_to_muller_testimony.pdf

Propaganda at it's best Essan.

Is your post Proxy PROPAGANDA?.

Propaganda?   For whom?

The Berkeley project was critisced by some at its inception because it was seen as having a preconceived agenda - to prove there is no AGW.

Rather ironic that those who initially lauded it are now up in arms because their initial conclusions are not what they were paid to produce ..... 

Meanwhile, back at the ranch ....... problems with the Berkeley Group who are not, so far, reaching the conclusions they were meant to reach

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2011/mar/31/scienceofclimatechange-climate-change-scepticism

And Wattsy's response:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/response_to_muller_testimony.pdf

Propaganda at it's best Essan.

Is your post Proxy PROPAGANDA?.

Propaganda?   For whom?

The Berkeley project was critisced by some at its inception because it was seen as having a preconceived agenda - to prove there is no AGW.

Rather ironic that those who initially lauded it are now up in arms because their initial conclusions are not what they were paid to produce ..... 

Ironic? It's hilarious . One minute Watts likes BEST the next (when it find what he doesn't like) he goes all Denial Depot.on us. Great entertainment though

 

Well that would be because it is wrong....

http://globalwarmingisreal.com/2008/03/10/scientist-on-western-hudson-bay-polar-bear-population-i-consider-myself-a-historian/

It was predictable Four, that you would fall for the sceptic propaganda line yet again.  It would help if you checked these things for yourself rather than jumping aboard a superficially promising opportunity to expose your sceptic views again.

I stick with my original judgement - he is talking rubbish from a convenient position of ignorance.

The point I was making was that you said he agreed they were declining but he does not.

Your link seems rather bereft of real evidence either way since it says no-one actually tried to count them till recently, which seems fair enough.

There seems little evidence to suggest they are in catastrophic decline, or that any decline there is must be largely due to less ice/warming.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5664069/Polar-bear-expert-barred-by-global-warmists.html

Mitchell Taylor, who has studied the animals for 30 years, was told his views 'are extremely unhelpful’

It sounds like propaganda doesn't it 

 

A picture is worth a thousand words Four....

I don't see too much evidence of increasing populations there do you?  The areas with the biggest populations all in decline and one of the smallest showing an increase.

Go figure.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch ....... problems with the Berkeley Group who are not, so far, reaching the conclusions they were meant to reach

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2011/mar/31/scienceofclimatechange-climate-change-scepticism

And Wattsy's response:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/response_to_muller_testimony.pdf

Propaganda at it's best Essan.

Is your post Proxy PROPAGANDA?.

Come on AIMSIR, what is that all about?   A group checking independently the temperature record - how is that propaganda?