[N_Fiddledog]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

The mandate of the IPCC is to find existing scientific studies concerning human causes of climate change, and review what it considers to be the science within.

No that is not the mandate of the IPCC. From the IPCC website:

$1:

The IPCC was established to provide the decision-makers and others interested in climate change with an objective source of information about climate change. The IPCC does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters. Its role is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the latest scientific, technical and socio-economic literature produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change, its observed and projected impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they need to deal objectively with policy relevant scientific, technical and socio economic factors. They should be of high scientific and technical standards, and aim to reflect a range of views, expertise and wide geographical coverage.

Potayto, Potahto.

But I couldn't put this bit better myself.

"The IPCC does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters."

*

[sasquatch2]

Fiddledog

$1:

Zipperfish

$1:

No that is not the mandate of the IPCC. From the IPCC website:

$1:

The IPCC was established to provide the decision-makers and others interested in climate change with an objective source of information about climate change. The IPCC does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters. Its role is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the latest scientific, technical and socio-economic literature produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change, its observed and projected impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they need to deal objectively with policy relevant scientific, technical and socio economic factors. They should be of high scientific and technical standards, and aim to reflect a range of views, expertise and wide geographical coverage.

Potayto, Potahto.

But I couldn't put this bit better myself.

"The IPCC does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters."

Gee Zip that's gotta hurt. Why don't you complain to a mod about this bias towards an identifiable stupid group.

[Joe_Stalin]

dog77_1999 dog77_1999:

How about this idea. Instead of emission caps based off the arbitrary year 1990, why don't we base it off of land area? If you country has more people than your land can't support, then you pay. Those with smaller but larger land area populations don't because their footprint is small relative to their size?

Any idea that is not a wealth transfer to the 3rd world will not fly.
The farleft will not allow it.

[Joe_Stalin]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

Exactly, thats why it will turn out to be the greatest swindle of the 21st century.

Time to start making a giant carpet to sweep it all under.

I know--that's what the right keeps wishing for. Tehy've been wishing for it for about ten years now. But it ain't happening. Why is that? You read articels form 1999, from 2002, from 2005--they all spell the end of climate change. And yet the "myth" persists.

Shows you the power of the farleftoid media. Why are schoolkids forced to watch Al Gores Inconvenient truth which is chockablock full of lies?
Why does a British court have to rule that an opposing view should also be presented?

Some kids reported they saw it many times. Whichever teacher wanted to flog it showed it to their captive audience to corrupt their impressionable minds, IMHO.

By mistake I happened upon David Suzuki on Newsworld. Slick job of scaring the people. Floods will wash away Stanley park with a perfect storm. Richmond dikes will be breached by rising sea levels..

Last report out of New Zealand shows sea levels constant or dropping at pacific island stations.

Maybe the land is rising due to GW?

[sasquatch2]

What is really occuring in Bali is the free world and developing world (India/China/Brazil) is fighting an Al Alemein/Stalingrad battle with the UN beurocracy.

An international organization founded by the winners of WW2 with altruistic intent and purpose has been hijacked by an independant beaurocracy intent on world government. Largely euro-leftists, they have successfully played gullible 3rd world states to support their agenda. They have attempted to establish a global tax and budget regime, a military. This is their latest conspiracy to seize control and are ruthless, unscrupulous, and dangerously desperate to see this swindle through.

The UN is no longer a de-facto organization of member states but has become an independant entity unto it's own. The west especially the US is weary of financing this monster to which most of the world only contributes corrupt beaurocrats. The former SG's regime was notorious in it's widespread corruption and campaign for increasing it's influence. AIDs was flogged less for altruistic reasons but more to gather funds and influence.

[Joe_Stalin]

The UN must be disbanded. It is a farce. Canada got enamoured with the UN when Mikey Pearson was awarded the Peace Prize. The result was that we volunteered billions and most of our troops as 'Peace Keepers' around the world, where they incidentally did yeoman's service.
Peace keeping became one of our Canadian Values.

When it became obvious 'Peace Keeping' essentially did diddly squat and 'peace making' was required, Canada switched roles. This riled the peaceniks and far-left UN loving crowd of appeasers and apologists.

A new UN is required. One populated by democracies only. Dictatorships and despotic regimes can have observer status. African blocks with the Arab block have the numbers to install Zimbabwe and Libya in positions on Human Rights commissions.

Some say China's economy will top that of the USA shortly. Why then is China paying 3% UN dues while the USA pays 22%?

[sasquatch2]

Unlike the rest of us, who generally accept life as it is, utopians insist on building a new and better order. To achieve this, they demand all powers for themselves, display a chilling contempt for human life, and harbor ambitions to spread their vision globally. Several utopian schemes come to mind, with fascism and communism historically the most consequential and each of them claiming tens of millions of casualties.

[Zipperfish]

Joe_Stalin Joe_Stalin:

Shows you the power of the farleftoid media.

Have you ever considered that it is perhaps your far right politcial positon that makes the appear appear far left? It certainly makes a lot more sense than some media conspiracy theory. The Ntional Post, one of Canada's newspapers, has a strong editorial opinion that AGW is junk science, asdo many of the talk radio hosts here in Vancouver. So your postion doesn't realy stand up to scrutiny.

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

The mandate of the IPCC is to find existing scientific studies concerning human causes of climate change, and review what it considers to be the science within.

No that is not the mandate of the IPCC. From the IPCC website:

$1:

The IPCC was established to provide the decision-makers and others interested in climate change with an objective source of information about climate change. The IPCC does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters. Its role is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the latest scientific, technical and socio-economic literature produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change, its observed and projected impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they need to deal objectively with policy relevant scientific, technical and socio economic factors. They should be of high scientific and technical standards, and aim to reflect a range of views, expertise and wide geographical coverage.

Potayto, Potahto.

But I couldn't put this bit better myself.

"The IPCC does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters."

*

I just find it ironic that you call AGW proponents "tricky liars" and then proceed to knowingly make a false staemet about the purpose of the IPCC.

[N_Fiddledog]

What lie? Both statements are saying the same thing. The only lie would be you saying they're not.

When you suggest the IPCC were doing actual science, that's the lie. They were reviewing it. There's a gigantic difference. To say one is the other is the whopper.

Actually if there's an even bigger lie it's in the official statement where they suggest they are "objective". What they do is about as "objective" as those press releases from the Iragi information minister.

Want an example? Let's talk about Kevin Trenberth. I don't think you clicked the link concerning how that big cheese Trenberth of the IPCC screwed over Christopher Landsea so I'll update you.

Trenberth was the Observations Chapters Lead Author. He was the guy in charge. He asked Christopher Landsea to provide the writeup for Atlantic hurricanes. In Landsea's words, here's what happened.

$1:

Shortly after Dr. Trenberth requested that I draft the Atlantic hurricane section for the AR4's Observations chapter, Dr. Trenberth participated in a press conference organized by scientists at Harvard on the topic "Experts to warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense hurricane activity" along with other media interviews on the topic. The result of this media interaction was widespread coverage that directly connected the very busy 2004 Atlantic hurricane season as being caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas warming occurring today. Listening to and reading transcripts of this press conference and media interviews, it is apparent that Dr. Trenberth was being accurately quoted and summarized in such statements and was not being misrepresented in the media. These media sessions have potential to result in a widespread perception that global warming has made recent hurricane activity much more severe.

I found it a bit perplexing that the participants in the Harvard press conference had come to the conclusion that global warming was impacting hurricane activity today. To my knowledge, none of the participants in that press conference had performed any research on hurricane variability, nor were they reporting on any new work in the field. All previous and current research in the area of hurricane variability has shown no reliable, long-term trend up in the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones, either in the Atlantic or any other basin. The IPCC assessments in 1995 and 2001 also concluded that there was no global warming signal found in the hurricane record.

Those of us who remember the IPCC's press conferences during that period know this wasn't an isolated incident. Before the report was out in it's printed form they presented it as if it was going to be scientific proof of coming climate catastrophes. When it finally did come out we discovered that wasn't exactly true, but by that time the media had lost interest, and we never heard that story. The average person still thinks the IPCC report supports the gargantuan fibs of the Al Gore movie. It doesn't. Now that's what I mean by a lie. And is that kind of behavior "objective"? Because if not, calling themselves objective is the big lie.