Excerpt: However, the authors of Chapter 1 "The Climate System: An Overview" signed their own death warrant when they wrote: “ The fact that the global mean temperature has increased since the late 19th century and that other trends have been observed does not necessarily mean that an anthropogenic effect on the climate has been identified. Climate has always varied on all time-scales, so the observed change may be natural” This true statement has led to the replacement in "Climate Change 2007" of this introductory Chapter with a completely different Chapter entitled "Historical Overview of Climate Change Science" which is a highly selective history boosting the activities of the IPCC.....
One of its features is to conceal the very existence of measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration before 1958 which show a variability which would interfere with the IPCC calculations of “radiative forcing” The Chapters in "Climate Change 2007" are only slightly rearranged and they all push the same message, enforced by an increase in gloomy "opinions" derived from the "spin" process described herein. < > It is all (the UN IPCC process) a magnificent example of what public relations can achieve, but the consequences for most of us, and for the scientific community before it is eventually exposed for the deception that it is do not bear contemplation.
Control Charts In Quality [url=http://thomas-pryor.googlegroups.com/web/control-charts-in-quality.html]Control Charts In Quality[/url] Ingredient Hersheys Chocolate [url=http://thomas-pryor.googlegroups.com/web/ingredient-hersheys-chocolate.html]Ingredient Hersheys Chocolate[/url] Answering Best Cordless Machine Phone [url=http://thomas-pryor.googlegroups.com/web/answering-best-cordless-machine-phone.html]Answering Best Cordless Machine Phone[/url] Physical Map Austria [url=http://thomas-pryor.googlegroups.com/web/physical-map-austria.html]Physical Map Austria[/url] Spx Group [url=http://thomas-pryor.googlegroups.com/web/spx-group.html]Spx Group[/url]
Champs Go Karting [url=http://group/kyle-ruacho.googlegroups.com/web/champs-go-karting.html]Champs Go Karting[/url] Sophacles Antigone [url=http://group/kyle-ruacho.googlegroups.com/web/sophacles-antigone.html]Sophacles Antigone[/url] Summerfield Suites Orlando [url=http://group/kyle-ruacho.googlegroups.com/web/summerfield-suites-orlando.html]Summerfield Suites Orlando[/url] Autograph Picture Frames [url=http://group/kyle-ruacho.googlegroups.com/web/autograph-picture-frames.html]Autograph Picture Frames[/url] Yolo County Courthouse [url=http://group/kyle-ruacho.googlegroups.com/web/yolo-county-courthouse.html]Yolo County Courthouse[/url]
Sid
which part of the report do you base that conclusion on?
To protect itself and its very existance, the IPCC lives by Maier's Law..
Maier's Law states that.. "If the facts don't conform to the theory they must be disposed of."
Well John expecting to be overwhelmned with scores of papers I typed ... "vincent gray" climate ... into Google Scholar and got one journal hit in of all things Energy and Environment and a few reports. Perhaps I'm not searching correctly?
As has been previously noted:
The long-suffering editors respond:
"We thank Vincent for his diligence in writng so many comments. However, the comments would be much more useful if they were backed up by other than opinion. ...""
As for your (b) investigating claims that don't agree with beliefs - that's your big problem John - I do a stack of that actually and keep finding you guys coming up empty. So don't talk to me about "belief".
I know Vincent Gray and can attest that
(a) "Expert reviewer" is a designation not a qualification but yes, he has reviewed every IPCC assessment report
(b) He has published numerous papers and articles which challenge the IPCC party line. (No Luke, you can show some willingness to investigate claims that don't agree with your beliefs)
(c) He got tired of justifying each and every comment in his latest review and replaced detailed comment with references to earlier substantiation but the authors decided that a lack of explicit justification for each and every comment was grounds to dismiss much of what he said.
(d) The IPCC's assessment reports are heavily biased towards the organisation's charter - the investigation of risks posed by any human influence on climate. If the IPCC says there's no human influence then the IPCC disappears. Add to that the fact that the report authors are usually researchers, funded on the assumption of a human influence, who both cite their own papers and sometimes act as IPCC reviewers. Also add that many reviewers are likewise researchers funded the same assumptions. and that both authors and reviewers often developed their professional reputations on the claim of man-made warming.
How many people still believe the IPCC to be an impartial organisation whose reports are free from bias and vested interest?
I guess as a self-proclaimed expert reviewer and super-duper one at that Gray would have a great number of papers published in the climate or meteorology field? hmmmm
Paul
he retired in 1987, and that was when his understanding of the science stopped. He is stuck in the last century.
Gray seems to claim a victory: "The first draft of the 1995 Report had a Chapter 5 "Validation of Climate Models" as in the First Report. I pointed out that it was wrong since no climate model has ever been "validated", and they did not even try to do so. They thereupon changed the word "Validation" to "Evaluation" no less that fifty times."
Gray has a First Class Honours Degree in Physical Chemistry from Cambridge University (1942) and a PhD Degree 1946
He “retired” in 1987 and has wrote 1,878 comments on the last IPCC Report, most of which were “rejected.”
says the great one-liner merchant. ROTFL.