Global Warming Meltdown Part 2 KUSI News, Weather and Sports San Diego, CA Coleman's Corner

[mojoidol]

The only consensus now is that man made global warming was a hoax.

[prettycallierox]

MY FAMILY OWENS THATIT IS A MCKINNON PRODUCTION IM A MCKINNON IM GETTING AIRED 2 DAY AND ITS GONNA BE SHOWED THIS FRI AT THE PPR PREP PIG SKIN REPROT LOOK 4 MY CHEER TEAM THEETORREY PINES FALCONS

[prettycallierox]

MY FAMILY OWENS THATIT IS A MCKINNON PRODUCTION IM A MCKINNON IM GETTING AIRED 2 DAY AND ITS GONNA BE SHOWED THIS FRI AT THE PPR PREP PIG SKIN REPROT LOOK 4 MY CHEER TEAM THEE TORREY PINES FALCONS

[GrungeWerewolf]

Have you read the IPCC? It never presents this as fact, only as highly probable. And there were many "white lies" told in those reports to "help build consensus", but never an outright fabrication.

Many scientists criticize their approach, but almost none their findings.

[drkstrong]

The problem with the so-called problem with the IPCC report - "a problem the size of the Himalayas" - is that the error (a minor blunder in reference checking) was that it was not in the science part of the report but a complete separate volume detailing the impacts of GW around the globe.

That book, over 800 pages, mentions the Himalayas on one page

So no lies were told as Coleman claims and the minor error has no impact on the science justification

Why is HE lying to us about this?

[glennimmortal]

the point is that it was in there, no activists article should be sited in a scientific report, in the science part or any other part and it was not just the Himalayas, the rain forests, African crop failure rates. We want the facts to decide our emotion not emotion to decide the facts.

[drkstrong]

True that if they were not the result of a scientifically peer reviewed paper they should not be referenced (the african crop failures are because I have seen rhe papers in Nature and Science, perhaps they did not use those) but do not say that the Science Justification Report is comprimised when none of these errors occured in that report but in a separate report done by different people on another subject.

Your emotion is blinding you to the fact that the science is rock solid.

[glennimmortal]

I assure you I have no problem with being wrong, being wrong means I have advanced my knowledge, but those who blindly criticise asking questions and reporting holes in the AGW theory don't seem to be able listen to any rational argument they just spout ad hominem attacks. I tried to pull up the article you referred to but they seem to charge for access to archived content, shame.

[drkstrong]

If you can post anything that pokes a hole on the AWG thoery go ahead. The scientific world waits with baited breath. But I suspect you cannot.

If you are refering to the IPCC Impacts report, they dont charge for access. Google "IPCC Far", go to the IPCC WGII report and it is in chapter 10 section 6 part 2, second paragraph, second sentance. It reads: "....the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate..."

[drkstrong]

If you are refering to the Nature articles, yes you need a subscription. I tried to thumb through my back copies to find it but could not find them. The thing comes every week and several hundred pages long. It would be nice if they had an annual index.

I'll root around and see if I can come up with a public domain reference to them. I'll reply again if I am successful.

[goog2k]

Terrific new NASA YouTube:

Our Earth has a FEVER! - the Climate Change puzzle

/watch?v=XzfRs74b-qw

For excellent data & scientific info. on Climate Change search:

1) Climate Change: Key indicators

2) Climate Change: NASA's Eyes on the Earth (These are the BEST sites)

3) NASA GISS Do Variations in the Solar Cycle Affect Our Climate System

4) Climate change odds much worse than thought MIT

-- and for some other great scientific YouTubes see the greenman3610

& potholer54 channels.

[luncheaterguy123]

Jail Time is in order. Make gore work in a license plate factory until he can pay back what he ripped off from the tax payers.

[dozerking]

Gore had the Supreme Court of the US rule against him in 2000, so he didn't make us pay anything. Cleaning up the earth= bad ?ok!

If Gore is to be punished in your mind, then Bush and Cheney should be hanging at high noon for sending our children off to die in foreign invasions of sovereign Countries. Global Warming or Young Americans being used as cannon fodder....hmmm, let me think...

[99Tabbycat]

Pachauri, together with his predecessor at the IPCC Sir John Houghton and Maurice Strong who set the whole thing up are the joint Godfathers for this whole scam. We know Strong is a crook. After having been found to have syphoned off $1 Million from the UN's "Oil for Food Programme" with the help of Saddam Hussein, he decamped to hide in Beijing. Pachauri and Houghton are either nincompoops or crooks as well. They had every reason to be aware that the IPCC's shroudwaving claims are pure bunkum

[sydneydoc]

Coleman is obviously very sure of himself to state Pachauri's fraud in public. I'm sure there will be no defamation case.

[Billiquiz]

If Pachauri wants to persue a defamation case then he'll be required to disclose TERIs accounts (including his own).

This guarantees that there will not be a case.

[sydneydoc]

Good point.

I'm sure Pachauri will pretend not to notice.

[sydneydoc]

Funny how the IPCC couldn't find a climatologist and had to use a railway engineer, who had already lied in court, as its head.