View Single Post
Old 16th Jun 2011, 11:01
  #8206 (permalink)  
rvv500
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 56
Posts: 25
Why don't you read your own post. You said " WGI and WGIII were composed more of proper scientists, so I'd be a bit more willing to listen to their conclusions than I would WGII.", in this very page.

Which scientist wrote the WG 3 renewable report then?

And the scientists must be debating really quietly in " private ". Wonder who they are. The IPCC insider coterie scientists who did the dodgy work are all bust blogging in places like Realclimate and Tamino's blog, spreading unscientific bullshit and claiming there is no doubt about their science and eveything is perfect.

Then you have Mann giving these press releases

" http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/06/solar-minimum-climate/"

And here is Jones giving the below fatuous statements about " statistical significane " and warming, showing he has no idea of maths or statistics ad no idea how to compute statistical significance

BBC News - Global warming since 1995 'now significant'

His statement was torn apart even by warming friendly blogs which showed that there was no such trend

The Blackboard » Statistical Significance since 1995? Not with HadCrut!

Here's Trenberth caught lifting text verbatim and plagiarising, in his AMS speech, the content of which itself was trash

Trenberth and Lifting Text Verbatim « Climate Audit

Here's Schneider as author in the infamous NAS " blacklist " paper, before he passed away, his last gift to bad science

Comments On The PNAS Article “Expert Credibility In Climate Change” By Anderegg Et Al 2010 | Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr.

So who's doing the shrill shouting and spouting crap here and which are the " climate scientists " talking about uncertainities?

Only one, Dr.Judith Curry has stood up and said enough is enough and criticised the climate scientists and associated organisations that are misbehaving. And she is more respected as a climate scientist and know much more well than unknown you. All you have been doing is being an apologist for bad science and bad scientific practices.

And you have the nerve to talk about others being shrill. Oh, and you're too busy. You can't read links with factual information and see bad behaviour that is obvious to Stevie Wonder. yet, you have time enough to come to an airline blog and show off as being an expert, supporting this kind of a science and behaviour. You have time to criticise us posters, but not a peep against these scientists who have basically shown to be unreliable cheats. And yes, it's a conspiracy, only for the blind.

Pull the other one Simonpro, and it has bells on it.

We in the real world can smell BS a mile away.
rvv500 is online now