IPCC lied about global warming the glacier-gate findings

IPCC lies - findings after the glacier-gate scandal. With interview with Dr Mike Hulme from East Anglia University, the group that gave us climate-gate email scandal what a joke. Lies scams and fraud welcome to the green tyranny ( ABC news Australia)

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• IPCC
• lies
• science
• global
• warming
• climate
• sceptic
• skeptic
• fraud
• swindle
• al
• gore
• east
• anglia
• carbon
• tax
• change
• the greens
• whitewash
• un
• glaciergate
• glacier-gate
• glacier
• gate
• united
• nations
• climategate

[drkstrong]

It should be pointed out that the glacier error was in the working group 2 report (impacts) not the science basis report (Working group 1) which even the sceptics had admit after their "citizen reviewers" went over it with a fine tooth comb had done an excellent job of citing peer reviewed papers. They gave it an overall A rating with only 3 chapter (11) getting a B.

So quit implying that the glacier issue affects the scientific conclusions - it does not

[wakeup2thelies]

@drkstrong =brainwashed unable to see through the lies

[drkstrong]

@wakeup2thelies "brainwashed unable to see through the lies" Glad you admit it - that's progress. If you would only read the scientific literature.

I know this to be true from personal experience. I have published over 200 scientiific papers and articles before I retired & have been a referee many times. I know several people who were on the IPCC FAR committee & discussed what they had to do for reviews. They thought it unnecessarily onerous for what amounts to a literature review.

[wakeup2thelies]

@drkstrong i have read the scientific papers ALL are flawed therefore invalid

[drkstrong]

@wakeup2thelies Interesting please choose one peer reviewed paper, anyone, and tell me why it is invalid. Bet you cant.

[wakeup2thelies]

@drkstrong what do you mean i haven't told you why its invalid read the above comments - if you cant read simple youtube messages than I don't think you have academic ability to read scientific journals. Hear is a link to a web blog ( i hope its not too far above your reading level ) that has linked to the scientific journals you can download them from their

eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010­/01/and-now-for-amazongate.htm­l

[ihaveairlockers]

OK people. get ready for my comment...

Climate change was created for 3 reasons. The first is for carbon trading to make the banks richer. The second is to have something of value(carbon credits) when the US and world economies goes under. The third is to get funding for science which has been in decline at universities for the last 20 years.

You heard it first from me. Argue your hardest !!

[OlBlueshound]

What, you didn't know the IPCC was yet just another arm of Corrupt Government with an AGENDA? To make the science fit the desired outcome, so they can implement their taxes and levies etc to fleece the good hard working citizens of their money. It's about transfer of wealth world wide to the already wealthy. Is there anyone that still can't see the Governments and Politicians are the TRUE TERRORISTS of the world? Climate change is a natural cyclic event throughout HISTORY For F$%#s Sake wake up

[matt75hooper]

Man made Global Warming. The Great Scam. Earth 5 Billion Years Old. Man and his Machines 150 years old. You do the Math.

[drkstrong]

@wakeup2thelies As I pointed out before the IPCC process is more rigorous than most journals - they have 100s of reviewers journals have 1 or 2. The reviewers names are published which tend to make them more careful (unlike most journals where the reviewers are anonymous). You can reject a referree's comments in a paper just like th IPCC can but you have to explain why to the satisfaction of the editor.

So it is not a fraud, you just want to think that.

[wakeup2thelies]

@drkstrong

except the ipcc do not peer reviewed to the same standard The IPCC “peer review” process is not like the one academic journals use, in which reviewers actually have the authority to recommend rejection and require changes; instead it is more like a limited, voluntary public comment process. Since the IPCC gives Lead Authors the sole right to determine content and accept or dismiss comments, it is more like a weblog than an academic report or more simply put "fraud"