A blog?   You're kidding, right?

Blogs are not news.   Stop trying to pass them off as such!

A blog? You're kidding, right?

Blogs are not news. Stop trying to pass them off as such!

On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:21:50 -0800, enigma wrote :

A blog? You're kidding, right?

Blogs are not news. Stop trying to pass them off as such!

Again wasting our time with your irrelevant objections (its a blog, I
don't like him, he is a smoker, he is not an affiliated paleoclimate
scientist, he has no climate related doctorate, he is ugly, etc.)

What is relevant is : are the given informations true or not. Are the
conclusions drawn from those informations plausible or not.

The informations are exact. The conclusions are plausible. There is an
objective concern about the IPCC scientific objectivity and
impartiality.

On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 07:21:11 +0000, Sirius wrote:
On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:21:50 -0800, enigma wrote :

A blog?   You're kidding, right?

Blogs are not news.   Stop trying to pass them off as such!

Again wasting our time with your irrelevant objections (its a blog, I
don't like him, he is a smoker, he is not an affiliated paleoclimate
scientist, he has no climate related doctorate, he is ugly, etc.)

What is relevant is : are the given informations true or not. Are the
conclusions drawn from those informations plausible or not.

The informations are exact. The conclusions are plausible. There is an
objective concern about the IPCC scientific objectivity and
impartiality.

Give him a break, Sirius.  If not for ad hominem comments, he'd have
nothing at all.  You surely don't think he actually understands enough to
comment on the technical aspects of AGW, do you?

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/11/...

November 6, 2009, 17:50:00 | NP Editor
Politicians the world over claim that 4,000 scientists believe in global warming. Depends on who's
counting
By Lawrence Solomon

On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 07:21:11 +0000, Sirius wrote:

On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:21:50 -0800, enigma wrote :

A blog? You're kidding, right?

Blogs are not news. Stop trying to pass them off as such!

Again wasting our time with your irrelevant objections (its a blog, I
don't like him, he is a smoker, he is not an affiliated paleoclimate
scientist, he has no climate related doctorate, he is ugly, etc.)

What is relevant is : are the given informations true or not. Are the
conclusions drawn from those informations plausible or not.

The informations are exact. The conclusions are plausible. There is
an objective concern about the IPCC scientific objectivity and
impartiality.

Give him a break, Sirius. If not for ad hominem comments, he'd have
nothing at all. You surely don't think he actually understands
enough to comment on the technical aspects of AGW, do you?

A blog? You're kidding, right?

Blogs are not news. Stop trying to pass them off as such!

A blog? You're kidding, right?

Blogs are not news. Stop trying to pass them off as such!

On Nov 7, 8:43 am, Bill Ward <bw... at (no spam) ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 07:21:11 +0000, Sirius wrote:
On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:21:50 -0800, enigma wrote :

A blog?   You're kidding, right?

Blogs are not news.   Stop trying to pass them off as such!

Again wasting our time with your irrelevant objections (its a blog, I
don't like him, he is a smoker, he is not an affiliated paleoclimate
scientist, he has no climate related doctorate, he is ugly, etc.)

What is relevant is : are the given informations true or not. Are the
conclusions drawn from those informations plausible or not.

The informations are exact. The conclusions are plausible. There is
an objective concern about the IPCC scientific objectivity and
impartiality.

Give him a break, Sirius.  If not for ad hominem comments, he'd have
nothing at all.  You surely don't think he actually understands enough
to comment on the technical aspects of AGW, do you?

Do you understand enough to comment on the technical aspects of AGW

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/11/...

November 6, 2009, 17:50:00 | NP Editor
Politicians the world over claim that 4,000 scientists believe in global warming. Depends on who's
counting
By Lawrence Solomon

In a speech yesterday, Australia's Prime Minister Kevin Rudd explained why he is so certain that
the
science is settled on climate change. It stems from the number 4,000 - a number that the United
Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change used to publicize its last major report.
"This is the conclusion of 4,000 scientists appointed by governments from virtually every country
in the world," asserted Mr. Rudd, in making his case that the planet is in peril.
Unfortunately for Mr. Rudd, he has made a blunder in citing this number. As he can confirm by
contacting the secretariat of the IPCC, the thousands of scientists upon whom he rests his case
never endorsed the IPCC's report. Rather, the secretariat will advise him - as the Secretariat
advised me when I inquired in 2007 - that the great majority of those scientists were merely
reviewers. Worse for Mr. Rudd, those scientists had reviewed only a fraction of the report. Worst
of all, far from endorsing the IPCC's conclusions, many of the reviewers turned thumbs down on the
IPCC sections that they read and only a handful actually endorsed the IPCC's claims that man-made
global warming represents a threat to the planet.
The upshot? Australia has turned its economy inside out largely on the basis of imagined
endorsements.

How could Rudd have made this mistake? He was tricked by the PR machine at the IPCC. Look at the
accompanying illustration from a public relations flyer that the IPCC distributed and you can see
how easy it is for an unsuspecting person to be tricked. The work of "2,500+ scientific expert
reviewers, 800+ contributing authors, 450+ lead authors from 130+ countries" had culminated in one
report, the flyer states. The not unreasonable implication that almost everyone drew was that those
3,750-plus experts and authors stood behind the IPCC's views of impending doom.
The rest is history. A tricked press reported those figures, often rounding the 3,750-plus people
to 4,000. And then the public and the politicians such as Rudd were tricked, too.
How many of those 3,750-plus people from 130-plus countries can the IPCC claim as true backers of
its conclusions? An Australian analyst named John McLean scrutinized the lists that the IPCC used
to arrive at its figures and found them to be riddled with duplications, such as the 383 authors
who also acted as reviewers for the same sections in which their work appeared, and the authors and
reviewers who were listed twice or thrice. Remove the duplications and the total number of authors
plus reviewers drops from 3,750 to 2,890.
The reviewers, as might be expected, made suggestions. In about 25% of the cases, the editors
rejected the suggestions - another indication that the verdict on the IPCC's report was far from
unanimous.

Most importantly, the great majority of the reviewers commented on chapters that dealt with
historical or technical issues - matters that didn't support the IPCC's conclusions on man-made
climate change. The exception was Chapter 9 - Understanding and Attributing Climate Change. An
endorsement here would clearly be a bona fide endorsement of the IPCC's conclusion.
Chapter 9 had 53 authors and it received comments from 55 individual reviewers. Of the 55
individuals, four commented favourably on the entire chapter and three on a portion of the chapter.
(To give you the flavour of these endorsements, reviewer David Sexton stated that "section # 9.6 I
think reads pretty well for the bits I understand" and reviewer Fons Baede's endorsement was
"Chapter 9 SOD has improved considerably and is very readable and informative.")
The 53 authors and seven favourable reviewers represent a total of 60 people, leading McLean to
conclude: "There is only evidence that about 60 people explicitly supported the claim" made by the
IPCC that global warming represents a threat to the planet. Sixty scientists among the 130-plus
countries that the IPCC cites amounts to one scientist for every two countries.
Prime Minister Rudd needs to do his sums, just as John McLean and others have. There is no
scientific consensus on climate change. There is no basis to undertake the radical economic changes
that he and other western leaders propose. There is, on the other hand, a good reason for the
public in Australia to balk at his radical plans - they are no longer taken in by the IPCC's public
relations department.

Financial Post
LawrenceSolo... at (no spam) nextcity.com

Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Energy Probe and Urban Renaissance Institute and author
of The Deniers: The world-renowned scientists who stood up against global warming hysteria,
political persecution, and fraud

On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 07:36:45 -0800, erschroedin... at (no spam) gmail.com wrote :

Sigh.  Solomon and Bonzo.  Birds of a feather.  Cuckoos are birds..

Hey, how's the National Post doing in bankruptcy these days?

Another clinching example of what the best arguments of AGWers are.
Double standards : they never feel compelled to build any valid argument,
or give any reference, but, as soon as you don't agree with them, you
will be required to show peer reviewed scientific references.

What is relevant is : are the given informations true or not. Are the
conclusions drawn from those informations plausible or not.

The informations are exact. The conclusions are plausible.

There is an
objective concern about the IPCC scientific objectivity and impartiality.

On Nov 6, 9:47 pm, "Eric Gisin" <gi... at (no spam) uniserve.com> wrote:
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/11/...

November 6, 2009, 17:50:00 | NP Editor
Politicians the world over claim that 4,000 scientists believe in global warming. Depends on who's
counting
By Lawrence Solomon

In a speech yesterday, Australia's Prime Minister Kevin Rudd explained why he is so certain that
the
science is settled on climate change. It stems from the number 4,000 - a number that the United
Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change used to publicize its last major report.
"This is the conclusion of 4,000 scientists appointed by governments from virtually every country
in the world," asserted Mr. Rudd, in making his case that the planet is in peril.
Unfortunately for Mr. Rudd, he has made a blunder in citing this number. As he can confirm by
contacting the secretariat of the IPCC, the thousands of scientists upon whom he rests his case
never endorsed the IPCC's report. Rather, the secretariat will advise him - as the Secretariat
advised me when I inquired in 2007 - that the great majority of those scientists were merely
reviewers. Worse for Mr. Rudd, those scientists had reviewed only a fraction of the report. Worst
of all, far from endorsing the IPCC's conclusions, many of the reviewers turned thumbs down on the
IPCC sections that they read and only a handful actually endorsed the IPCC's claims that man-made
global warming represents a threat to the planet.
The upshot? Australia has turned its economy inside out largely on the basis of imagined
endorsements.

Sigh. Solomon and Bonzo. Birds of a feather. Cuckoos are birds.

Hey, how's the National Post doing in bankruptcy these days?


How could Rudd have made this mistake? He was tricked by the PR machine at the IPCC. Look at the
accompanying illustration from a public relations flyer that the IPCC distributed and you can see
how easy it is for an unsuspecting person to be tricked. The work of "2,500+ scientific expert
reviewers, 800+ contributing authors, 450+ lead authors from 130+ countries" had culminated in one
report, the flyer states. The not unreasonable implication that almost everyone drew was that those
3,750-plus experts and authors stood behind the IPCC's views of impending doom.
The rest is history. A tricked press reported those figures, often rounding the 3,750-plus people
to 4,000. And then the public and the politicians such as Rudd were tricked, too.
How many of those 3,750-plus people from 130-plus countries can the IPCC claim as true backers of
its conclusions? An Australian analyst named John McLean scrutinized the lists that the IPCC used
to arrive at its figures and found them to be riddled with duplications, such as the 383 authors
who also acted as reviewers for the same sections in which their work appeared, and the authors and
reviewers who were listed twice or thrice. Remove the duplications and the total number of authors
plus reviewers drops from 3,750 to 2,890.
The reviewers, as might be expected, made suggestions. In about 25% of the cases, the editors
rejected the suggestions - another indication that the verdict on the IPCC's report was far from
unanimous.

Not at all. The suggestions could be minor. Or they could have
suggested even more drastic language.


Most importantly, the great majority of the reviewers commented on chapters that dealt with
historical or technical issues - matters that didn't support the IPCC's conclusions on man-made
climate change. The exception was Chapter 9 - Understanding and Attributing Climate Change. An
endorsement here would clearly be a bona fide endorsement of the IPCC's conclusion.
Chapter 9 had 53 authors and it received comments from 55 individual reviewers. Of the 55
individuals, four commented favourably on the entire chapter and three on a portion of the chapter.
(To give you the flavour of these endorsements, reviewer David Sexton stated that "section # 9.6 I
think reads pretty well for the bits I understand" and reviewer Fons Baede's endorsement was
"Chapter 9 SOD has improved considerably and is very readable and informative.")
The 53 authors and seven favourable reviewers represent a total of 60 people, leading McLean to
conclude: "There is only evidence that about 60 people explicitly supported the claim" made by the
IPCC that global warming represents a threat to the planet. Sixty scientists among the 130-plus
countries that the IPCC cites amounts to one scientist for every two countries.
Prime Minister Rudd needs to do his sums, just as John McLean and others have. There is no
scientific consensus on climate change. There is no basis to undertake the radical economic changes
that he and other western leaders propose. There is, on the other hand, a good reason for the
public in Australia to balk at his radical plans - they are no longer taken in by the IPCC's public
relations department.

Financial Post
LawrenceSolo... at (no spam) nextcity.com

Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Energy Probe and Urban Renaissance Institute and author
of The Deniers: The world-renowned scientists who stood up against global warming hysteria,
political persecution, and fraud

Yeah, like writing a book on the brave Nazis who stood up to the Jews.

Sigh. Solomon and Bonzo. Birds of a feather. Cuckoos are birds.

Hey, how's the National Post doing in bankruptcy these days?