authors of IPCC have been funded privately by governments peddling politics and also companies like shell (i mean climate change proponents have been funded by oil companies also) ...interesting
like the point at 7:40 about peer review. GW alarmists always think they win the argument with the magic phrase "peer reviewed science.
Peer review is presented as an editing process that filters out errors and falsehoods to produce papers that are so perfect that they cannot be challenged.
In reality the IPCC's peer review process has become a censorship process that filters out research that doesn't support alarmist claims.
I find it amusing that he is an economist. Less certainty is given to many economic reports than the IPCC, yet many governments invest their entire economic system according to those uncertain policies.
I also agree with karkas, that he should have cited references. I really have no reason to believe a word that he said.
^ You did not respond adequately to cldunford. I will show you a somewhat better way:
"Less certainty is given to many economic reports than the IPCC, yet many governments invest their entire economic system according to those uncertain policies."
So what? There is a saying about science I once heard: "If you don't make mistakes, your'e doing it wrong, if you don't correct those mistakes, your'e doing it really wrong, If you can't accept that your'e mistaken, your'e not doing it at all "
You need to invest a little effort in looking up the facts concerning the issue of GW.
There are plenty of facts that point to the IPCC's false claims of GW being man made.
There are over 50,000 scientists who have signed a petition disagreeing with the IPCC's "concensus" and you wont find Mr. Hendersons name on it. The IPCC and their cohorts have intentionally scewered the results to favor their agenda. GW is a man made lie.
Check out realclimate(.)org and go to the "Start Here" page
There you'll find links to basic,medium,and advanced climate/weather discussions as well as links to both sides of the arguments
If you read the IPCC report then listen to what the Alarmists are saying it doesn't add up.
Likewise how the Alarmists say Co2 is effecting Climate doesn't add up to what is known by anyone that has ever learned Basic Meteorology (the Sun drives wind weather and climate not GHG theory)
My god, this is truly sickening.
Kevin Rudd is destroying Australia with the IPCC biased science.
We are getting into debt. WE SHOULD NOT BE IN ANY DEBT.
Fuck this.
I'm going to not work until this douche stops putting us in debt.
PonguigPeopinn 2 years ago 2
David Henderson is affiliated with the Institute of Economic Affairs which gets or has recieved money from ExxonMobil, a decent amount of money
zulubakery 2 years ago
authors of IPCC have been funded privately by governments peddling politics and also companies like shell (i mean climate change proponents have been funded by oil companies also) ...interesting
AussieDolla 2 years ago
like the point at 7:40 about peer review. GW alarmists always think they win the argument with the magic phrase "peer reviewed science.
Peer review is presented as an editing process that filters out errors and falsehoods to produce papers that are so perfect that they cannot be challenged.
In reality the IPCC's peer review process has become a censorship process that filters out research that doesn't support alarmist claims.
Check out ht tp://nov55. com/prv.html)
AlanTTT3 2 years ago 2
yeahyeah, it's all a taxscam to get your money...
Darusdei 2 years ago 2
Nuclear power INVENTED 'climate change' with no historical link.
JonThm 2 years ago
The IPCC i9s financed by nuclear power.
JonThm 3 years ago
I find it amusing that he is an economist. Less certainty is given to many economic reports than the IPCC, yet many governments invest their entire economic system according to those uncertain policies.
I also agree with karkas, that he should have cited references. I really have no reason to believe a word that he said.
cldunford 3 years ago
UN is corrupt, look at what they did in Rwanda. Pulled out and let those people kill each other. Look at the oil for food scandals.
Even the IPCC scaled back it's warnings on GW.
btester1 3 years ago
^ You did not respond adequately to cldunford. I will show you a somewhat better way:
"Less certainty is given to many economic reports than the IPCC, yet many governments invest their entire economic system according to those uncertain policies."
So what? There is a saying about science I once heard: "If you don't make mistakes, your'e doing it wrong, if you don't correct those mistakes, your'e doing it really wrong, If you can't accept that your'e mistaken, your'e not doing it at all "
nurbSoldier 3 years ago
cldunford
You need to invest a little effort in looking up the facts concerning the issue of GW.
There are plenty of facts that point to the IPCC's false claims of GW being man made.
There are over 50,000 scientists who have signed a petition disagreeing with the IPCC's "concensus" and you wont find Mr. Hendersons name on it. The IPCC and their cohorts have intentionally scewered the results to favor their agenda. GW is a man made lie.
apollo1268 3 years ago
Personally, I'm a man-made global warming skeptic, but this dude needed to cite some examples to lend some credit to his positions
karkas07 4 years ago
Well,
Check out realclimate(.)org and go to the "Start Here" page
There you'll find links to basic,medium,and advanced climate/weather discussions as well as links to both sides of the arguments
If you read the IPCC report then listen to what the Alarmists are saying it doesn't add up.
Likewise how the Alarmists say Co2 is effecting Climate doesn't add up to what is known by anyone that has ever learned Basic Meteorology (the Sun drives wind weather and climate not GHG theory)
TheRealArchAngel 3 years ago