436 of 804
436
Climate Change
Posted: 25 January 2010 05:33 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6526 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  198
Joined:  2009-10-21
Havequestions - 25 January 2010 04:41 PM

Rayz #6688)

Great post.  But got off to a bad start when you said:

HQ,
Sorry to disagree just a little. You are right it is a figure of speech. But the figure of speech really might be based upon a numerical analysis.


Sorry to disagree with you, Rayz.  I stick by what I said.  I am referring to the statements such as “very likely”  throughout the Summary for Policy Makers and the body of the report.  These are not based on numerical analysis.  They are based on the consensus gut feel of the participants.  They are definitely not based on numebrical analysis.  If they were, surely by now someone would have published the results of the analyses underlying the hundreds or thousands of such statements that appear throughout the reports.  And of course that publication would have been peer reviewed smile

HQ,
This thread is moving so fast it’s difficult to keep up.

I’m assuming that most IPCC statement are carefully considered verbal interpretations of numerical analysis. However, they are not necessarily unbiased interpretations. Therein lies the problem.

What degree of probability equates to ‘very likely’? Is it 75% or 85% or 95%? The initial analysis should reveal the probability mathematics. But the initialial analysis may not be reported to the general public.

It’s the verbal distortion of the scientific results, in the alarmist direction, that is the problem here.

There’s clearly a biased agenda in the reporting of the results. If that were all, it would be bad enough to cause justified outrage.

But there now appears to be biased manipulation of the RAW data, and sometimes even complete loss of the RAW data, according to the leaked emails from the CRU in East Anglia..

Hoax may not be the right word. Completely unprofessional, slack and incompetent scientific procedure might better describe it.

 
 
Posted: 25 January 2010 06:06 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6527 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  566
Joined:  2009-10-13
Rayz - 25 January 2010 05:33 PM

Hoax may not be the right word. Completely unprofessional, slack and incompetent scientific procedure might better describe it.

Hi Ray

I disagree.  There was a deliberate attempt to deceive here.

Afterall, where are the errors that minimalise AGW, the typos that instead of reading 2350 were mistakenly put as 2530.  (Instead of 2035 which is what appeared and three years later w= it comes to light, who is to say what impact that typo had on ‘policymakers’)

As with all the Assessment Reports. This goes right back to 1988 and Henson and the hot day and turning off the aircon and the ‘stage-craft’ of AGW.  The whole thing has been an over-statement to deceive.

This is the grandfather of all hoaxes a Madoffian dream!

Pip

PS I love your posts!

 
 
Posted: 25 January 2010 06:42 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6528 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  198
Joined:  2009-10-21
pip willis - 25 January 2010 06:06 PM
Rayz - 25 January 2010 05:33 PM

Hoax may not be the right word. Completely unprofessional, slack and incompetent scientific procedure might better describe it.

Hi Ray

I disagree.  There was a deliberate attempt to deceive here.

Afterall, where are the errors that minimalise AGW, the typos that instead of reading 2350 were mistakenly put as 2530.  (Instead of 2035 which is what appeared and three years later w= it comes to light, who is to say what impact that typo had on ‘policymakers’)

As with all the Assessment Reports. This goes right back to 1988 and Henson and the hot day and turning off the aircon and the ‘stage-craft’ of AGW.  The whole thing has been an over-statement to deceive.

This is the grandfather of all hoaxes a Madoffian dream!

Pip

PS I love your posts!

You might be right Pip, but I’m a nice guy, reasonable and fair. I’m prepared to see the true meaning of Professor Schneider’s statement, ‘we are not just scientists, but human beings’.

That means incompetent also. A scientist who works in a big organisation, like CSIRO, may not be completely objective. He might not even give a stuff. Perhaps he just wants to get through the day’s work and return to his wife back home. If he sees data being fudged, he might also not give a stuff. He’s a small prawn in a big organisation. He studied science in order to get a job and because it was his forte and gave him the best chance of earning a living. He was perhaps lousy at English literature.

When I look at some of these filched emails from the CRU in East Anglia, I’m amazed at the lack of sound scientific procedure. It’s truly a revelation.

If there was an attempt to deceive, it is on top of serious incompetence, which of course makes it worse.

 
 
Posted: 25 January 2010 07:13 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6529 ]
Professional Contributor
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2147
Joined:  2009-07-13

Spatch, you expect others to answer your questions, now answer mine please.
How much will global CO2 be reduced by Australia introducing the CPRS/ETS ?  Does the amount of reduction justify the carbon taxes we will be paying on everything?

 
 
Posted: 25 January 2010 07:20 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6530 ]
Professional Contributor
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2147
Joined:  2009-07-13

From The Sunday Times
January 24, 2010
UN climate panel blunders again over Himalayan glaciers

Claims of melting Himalayan glaciers have been cited in grant applications

Jonathan Leake, Science and Environment Editor

The chairman of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has used bogus claims that Himalayan glaciers were melting to win grants worth hundreds of thousands of pounds.

Rajendra Pachauri’s Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), based in New Delhi, was awarded up to £310,000 by the Carnegie Corporation of New York and the lion’s share of a £2.5m EU grant funded by European taxpayers.

It means that EU taxpayers are funding research into a scientific claim about glaciers that any ice researcher should immediately recognise as bogus. The revelation comes just a week after The Sunday Times highlighted serious scientific flaws in the IPCC’s 2007 benchmark report on the likely impacts of global warming.

The IPCC had warned that climate change was likely to melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 - an idea considered ludicrous by most glaciologists. Last week a humbled IPCC retracted that claim and corrected its report.

Carnegie grant announcement from The Energy and Resources Institute
EU grant announcement of research into rapid glacier melt
How bloggers helped break the story
Related Links
Global warming and disasters link ‘wrong’
Sloppy science is seeping into the climate watchdog
World misled over glacier meltdown
Since then, however, The Sunday Times has discovered that the same bogus claim has been cited in grant applications for TERI.

One of them, announced earlier this month just before the scandal broke, resulted in a £310,000 grant from Carnegie.

An abstract of the grant application published on Carnegie’s website said: “The Himalaya glaciers, vital to more than a dozen major rivers that sustain hundreds of millions of people in South Asia, are melting and receding at a dangerous rate.

“One authoritative study reported that most of the glaciers in the region “will vanish within forty years as a result of global warming, resulting in widespread water shortages,”

The Carnegie money was specifically given to aid research into “the potential security and humanitarian impact on the region” as the glaciers began to disappear. Pachauri has since acknowledged that this threat, if it exists, will take centuries to have any serious effect.

The money was initially given to the Global Centre, an Icelandic Foundation which then channelled it, with Carnegie’s involvement, to TERI.

The cash was acknowledged by TERI in a press release, issued on January 15, just before the glacier scandal became public, in which Pachauri repeated the claims of imminent glacial melt.

It said: ““According to predictions of scientific merit they may indeed melt away in several decades.”

The same release also quoted Dr Syed Hasnain, the glaciologist who, back in 1999, made the now discredited claim that Himalayan glaciers would be gone by 2035.

He now heads Pachauri’s glaciology unit at TERI which sought the grants and which is carrying out the glacier research.

Critics point out that Hasnain, of all people, should have known the claim that the Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035 was bogus because he was meant to be a leading glaciologist specialising in the Himalayas.

Any suggestion that TERI has repeated an unchecked scientific claim without checking it, in order to win grants, could prove hugely embarrassing for Pachauri and the IPCC.

The second grant, from the EU, totalled £2.5m and was designed to “to assess the impact of Himalayan glaciers retreat”.

It was part of the EU’s HighNoon project, launched last May to fund research into how India might adapt to loss of glaciers.

In one presentation at last May’s launch, Anastasios Kentarchos, of the European Commission’s Climate Change and Environmental Risks Unit, specifically cited the bogus IPCC claims about glacier melt as a reason for pouring EU taxpayers’ money into the project.

Pachauri spoke at the same presentation and Hasnain is understood to have been present in the audience.

The EU grant was split between leading European research institutions including Britain’s Met Office, with TERI getting a major but unspecified share because it represented the host country.

The “Glaciergate” affair has seen Pachauri come under increasing pressure in India, prompting him to call a press conference yesterday (Saturday) where he dismissed calls for his resignation and said no action would be taken against the authors of the erroneous section of the IPCC report.

He said: “I have no intention of resigning from my position,” adding the errors were unintentional and not significant in comparison to the entire report.

However, other questions remain. One of the most important is in connection with Pachauri’s earnings.

In an interview with The Sunday Times he said his only income came from his salary at TERI. However TERI does not publish his salary and he refused to divulge it.

In India questions are also being asked about Pachauri’s links with GloriOil, a Houston, Texas-based oil technology company that specialises in recovering extra oil from declining oil fields . Pachauri is listed as a founder and scientific advisor.

Critics say it is odd for a man committed to decarbonising energy supplies to be linked to an oil company.

The problems come at a bad time for the IPCC which is recruiting scientists for its fifth report into the science and impacts underlying global warming.

Yesterday, Pachauri said he intended to remain as director of the IPCC to oversee the fifth IPCC assessment report dealing with sea level rise and ice sheets, oceans, clouds and carbon accounting. The report is expected by 2014.

 
 
Posted: 25 January 2010 07:25 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6531 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  817
Joined:  2009-06-18
Peggyb - 25 January 2010 02:32 PM

SO !!  How much will global CO2 be reduced by Australia introducing the CPRS/ETS ?  Does the amount of reduction justify the carbon taxes we will be paying on everything?

No answer?

See my post 6664 above.

 
 
Posted: 25 January 2010 07:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6532 ]
Professional Contributor
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2147
Joined:  2009-07-13

Spatch:

Last I heard it was a 5 per cent cut from 1990 levels by 2020. What’s the latest news as I’ve not been following this issue all that closely.


5% of what?  Let’s have some figures.

 
 
Posted: 25 January 2010 08:01 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6533 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  942
Joined:  2009-07-14
Spatch - 25 January 2010 02:37 PM
Colin Davidson - 25 January 2010 02:32 PM

[quote author=“Spatch” date=“1264351189I suggest you read up on how increased CO2 will not result in increases in crop yields.

Food for Thought: Lower-Than-Expected Crop Yield Stimulation with Rising CO2 Concentrations
Stephen P. Long,1,2,3* Elizabeth A. Ainsworth,4,1,3 Andrew D. B. Leakey,3,1 Josef Nösberger,5 Donald R. Ort4,1,2,3

Model projections suggest that although increased temperature and decreased soil moisture will act to reduce global crop yields by 2050, the direct fertilization effect of rising carbon dioxide concentration ([CO2]) will offset these losses. The CO2 fertilization factors used in models to project future yields were derived from enclosure studies conducted approximately 20 years ago. Free-air concentration enrichment (FACE) technology has now facilitated large-scale trials of the major grain crops at elevated [CO2] under fully open-air field conditions. In those trials, elevated [CO2] enhanced yield by ~50% less than in enclosure studies. This casts serious doubt on projections that rising [CO2] will fully offset losses due to climate change.

1 Department of Plant Biology, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign, 1201 West Gregory Drive, Urbana, IL 61801, USA.
2 Department of Crop Sciences, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign, 1201 West Gregory Drive, Urbana, IL 61801, USA.
3 Institute for Genomic Biology, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign, 1201 West Gregory Drive, Urbana, IL 61801, USA.
4 Photosynthesis Research Unit, U.S. Department of Agriculture–Agricultural Research Service, 1201 West Gregory Drive, Urbana, IL 61801, USA.
5 Institute for Plant Sciences, ETH Zurich, 8902 Zurich, Switzerland.

All very well, these models, but there are literally thousands of laboratory measurements which have been taken on most of the crop species, under varying conditions of CO2 and Nitrogen and Water, and also millions of CO2 enriched greenhouses which seem to give the lie to the above. I note that these experiments were all done with controls in the same conditions - only the CO2 was varied. You get around 40% more yield. Who cares if you lose 50% when outdoors in the real world - 40% greater yield still holds true. So I would like to see where they measured rather thanpredicted. How can they say less soil moisture (we know there will be increased rainfall). How can you say crops grow less in higher temperatures - it is well known that we will increase the croppable land by a significant amount in the Northern Hemisphere. This will be accompanied by. an expansion of the tropics (more crops) and a poleward shift and mnarrowing of the desert regions.

All good questions I’m sure the researchers will be able to answer. Why not get the research papers if you’re seriously interested in the subject.

 
 
Posted: 25 January 2010 08:04 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6534 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  566
Joined:  2009-10-13
phoenix - 25 January 2010 06:39 PM

Hi pip, spatch, farewell?
knew i would be deleted today
they tried a different method , a very cunning plan

ve vill change passenvord, vill be up all night trying to be loggin on ha ha ha ha ha ha

i logged off after farewell to allow this option
leaffing of posts vill make it appear has been gone. ha ha haa ha ha a ha

phoenix tries to log on   .. he he he he
2nd try he he he he
phoenix , please to be issuing new password

thank you , dumb baskets

will have a look and address this hq rubbish spatch

re lau paper spatch go to http://www.realclimate.org      IPCC not infallible thread scroll down to update, lau paper discussed there

few typos today hq, better hurry around and fix em up again

looks like i may be around till thursday at least unless steve works his staff all night


rgds

Still with us I see.  My cunning plan failed then?! (Vee vill see)

See you’re still winding us all up, ha ha.

Tell me would you put up any of your own money into Himalayian glacier research, knowing that they are less than truthful in their reporting?  And have you figured out when the EPA will start banning clouds?

x

 
 
Posted: 25 January 2010 08:08 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6535 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  566
Joined:  2009-10-13
Spatch - 25 January 2010 07:32 PM
pip willis - 25 January 2010 04:22 PM
Spatch - 25 January 2010 04:06 PM
pip willis - 25 January 2010 03:43 PM

Spatch

Will there ever be a tipping point for you, when the evidence for deception becomes so great you finally crack and admit it is all a sham?

A cooling globe not enough eh? Climategate not enough?  Glaciergate not enough? Gore / Pauchari self interest not enough?

What is your definition of a hoax?  You must be getting paid to be here!

A cooling globe not enough eh?
The globe is warming

Climategate not enough?
it is still under investigation, in any case it doesn’t undermine the entire AR4 at all

Glaciergate not enough?
it doesn’t undermine the entire AR4 at all

Gore / Pauchari self interest not enough?
Their self interests seem legit to me, I’ve seen nothing to prove otherwise

What is your definition of a hoax?
Hoax - a deliberate intention to deceive.

You must be getting paid to be here!
why do you say that?

Have I been paying attention, you are a student in Canberra right?

I’m glad we agree about what a hoax is.  Then I am sure you will agree that Glaciergate conforms to that definition.  What would undermine AR4, if that and Climate gate don’t?  In regard to Gore/Pauchari self interst, just look at pretty much any link from Peggyb.
I do not agree that with either of the “gates” that there has been a deliberate intention to deceive

Cooling globe, ummm depends on start and end points.  I’m starting at 2000 anding today.  Its cooling, quite against prediction.  Why?  Because the prediction has CO2 as the main driver of climate change.
Evidence I have posted here previously has shown that the past decade has been the warmest on record since modern temperature measurement began in 1880. In fact, 9 of the 10 warmest years on record occurred in the past decade

I’m paying to be here, as every tax payer is.  I want to see veracity and value in government.  I see deception and waste.

Well, Spatch, if you don’t see intention to deceive in either ‘Gate’, I guess do you don’t see any intention by Nixon to deceive by having the CIA break into the Watergate Hotel?  It is totally out there, the guys even said he knew it was wrong but didn’t blow the whistle.  Have you been annointed with the krudd charism?  I think you are a political babe-in-the-woods.

 
 
Posted: 25 January 2010 08:23 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6536 ]
Professional Contributor
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2147
Joined:  2009-07-13

My letter to Sunrise.

From
XXXXXX
XXXXX
Australia’s emissions of CO2 are an infinitessimal amount in the global figure. About an eyedropper full in an olympic swimming pool.  Here is what you should be asking.
How much will global CO2 be reduced by Australia introducing the CPRS/ETS ?  Does the amount of reduction justify the carbon taxes we will be paying on everything?
Why should the Australian workers/taxpayers be paying carbon taxes to reduce our carbon when we are exporting massive amounts of carbon to other countries which don’t?
And will you please stop showing those irrelevent pictures of power station’s cooling towers with steam billowing atop them.  It is steam, y’know ?  the water vapour that comes out of a kettle.  They are cooling towers.
It looks impressive but doesn’t do your reporting credibility any good.
If you just keep sticking to your one-sided propaganda I won’t be watching Sunrise much longer, and I will write to your advertisers about it too
By the way Sunrise email address is .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

 
 
Posted: 25 January 2010 08:24 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6537 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  566
Joined:  2009-10-13
Rayz - 25 January 2010 06:42 PM
pip willis - 25 January 2010 06:06 PM
Rayz - 25 January 2010 05:33 PM

Hoax may not be the right word. Completely unprofessional, slack and incompetent scientific procedure might better describe it.

Hi Ray

I disagree.  There was a deliberate attempt to deceive here.

Afterall, where are the errors that minimalise AGW, the typos that instead of reading 2350 were mistakenly put as 2530.  (Instead of 2035 which is what appeared and three years later w= it comes to light, who is to say what impact that typo had on ‘policymakers’)

As with all the Assessment Reports. This goes right back to 1988 and Henson and the hot day and turning off the aircon and the ‘stage-craft’ of AGW.  The whole thing has been an over-statement to deceive.

This is the grandfather of all hoaxes a Madoffian dream!

Pip

PS I love your posts!

You might be right Pip, but I’m a nice guy, reasonable and fair. I’m prepared to see the true meaning of Professor Schneider’s statement, ‘we are not just scientists, but human beings’.

That means incompetent also. A scientist who works in a big organisation, like CSIRO, may not be completely objective. He might not even give a stuff. Perhaps he just wants to get through the day’s work and return to his wife back home. If he sees data being fudged, he might also not give a stuff. He’s a small prawn in a big organisation. He studied science in order to get a job and because it was his forte and gave him the best chance of earning a living. He was perhaps lousy at English literature.

When I look at some of these filched emails from the CRU in East Anglia, I’m amazed at the lack of sound scientific procedure. It’s truly a revelation.

If there was an attempt to deceive, it is on top of serious incompetence, which of course makes it worse.

Well, I would hope I’m a nice guy too!

There is only one reason to depart from the scientific method and then present something as if had been subject to the scientific method.  To deceive. 

Incompetent, hierarchal, bored, under-paid, loving wife (maybe), greed avarice, planetary altruism, just doesn’t cut it.  If you are going to get a scientific proof that is powerful and you can make accurate predictions by it needs to be 100% (not 99.999%) truthful.  That is to say, full of truth, impeachable.  “Warts and all”  to quote another hero of mine.

These career ‘scientists’, humans maybe, have smashed the concept of the integtrity of science in the public mind and look like all the others on the public teet milking if for all its worth.  As for their masters, the Strongs and Gores, they are in the way to make billions.

A Madoffian Dream, to con the world.  Damn their greed, misplaced altruism and gutter morals.  These people have poisoned the challis.  If you can’t even trust your own weather man….

I’ve calmed down now!

Pip

 
 
Posted: 25 January 2010 08:43 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6538 ]
Professional Contributor
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2265
Joined:  2009-06-08
Spatch - 25 January 2010 07:25 PM
Havequestions - 25 January 2010 04:53 PM
Spatch - 25 January 2010 04:31 PM

Here’s some of the evidence that has persuaded me to believe in AGW

CO2 as a Feedback and Forcing in the Climate System

http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2007/10/common-climate-misconceptions-co2-as-a-feedback-and-forcing-in-the-climate-system/

[snip]

Initial temperature changes at the beginnings and ends of ice ages are caused by changes in orbital forcings. These temperature changes have effects on the natural carbon, nitrogen, and methane cycles. In particular, initial warming reduces ocean uptake of atmospheric carbon (because warmer water can absorb less CO2 from the atmosphere), and warmer temperatures increase the decay rate of vegetative matter. Similarly, cooling at the start of an ice age increases ocean uptake and reduces emissions from vegetative decay.

There are many other important interactions between temperature changes and the carbon cycle and many outstanding questions are only beginning to be answered by paleoclimatologists. However, the role of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses as a feedback to Milankovitch forcings during glacial and interglacial transitions provides a compelling explanation for observed changes. Jeff Severinghaus, professor of geosciences at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, succinctly explains:

The contribution of CO2 to the glacial-interglacial coolings and warmings amounts to about one-third of the full amplitude, about one-half if you include methane and nitrous oxide.

So one should not claim that greenhouse gases are the major cause of the ice ages. No credible scientist has argued that position (even though Al Gore implied as much in his movie). The fundamental driver has long been thought, and continues to be thought, to be the distribution of sunshine over the Earth’s surface as it is modified by orbital variations

The greenhouse gases are best regarded as a biogeochemical feedback, initiated by the orbital variations, but then feeding back to amplify the warming once it is already underway.

Current climatic changes are substantially different from those that occurred in the past. For one thing, they are happening at a much faster rate than changes in past glacial periods. Significant climate changes are occurring over the course of decades and centuries, rather than millennia. Scientists know that Milankovitch forcings are not having a significant impact on changes observed over the past century, as they do not operate on such a short timescale, and scientists have good measurements of what their effect should be. For the first time, greenhouse gasses are primarily acting as forcings in the climate system instead of as a feedback to external forcing (though their role as feedbacks is still important, as illustrated in discussions of a potential methane feedback from melting arctic permafrost).

While the lag between temperature and greenhouse gas changes in the paleoclimate record is important in understanding the function of greenhouse gasses in the Earth’s climate, and has helped in estimating the effects of CO2 concentrations on radiative forcing, it in no way discredits the conventional knowledge that CO2 is forcing recent changes in the Earth’s climate.

As Eric Steig, a geochemist at the University of Washington who works extensively with ice cores, remarks, “the ice core data in no way contradict our understanding of the relationship between CO2 and temperature”.

Point me to a succinct summary of the evidence for this assertion:

Current climatic changes are substantially different from those that occurred in the past. For one thing, they are happening at a much faster rate than changes in past glacial periods. Significant climate changes are occurring over the course of decades and centuries, rather than millennia.

The evidence is in this report.

Where?

 
 
Posted: 25 January 2010 08:45 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6539 ]
Professional Contributor
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2147
Joined:  2009-07-13

Spatch

Sure Peggy

547.7 (Mt CO2-e) @ 1990 levels

5% of 547.7 (Mt CO2-e) = 27.38 (Mt CO2-e) 

547.7 (Mt CO2-e) - 27.38 (Mt CO2-e) = 520.32 (Mt CO2-e) by 2020

Does that look correct?

Yep, that’s correct.  That is Australia’s CO2 emissions.  What are the global emissions? and what is Australia’s % of global emissions?.

 
 
Posted: 25 January 2010 08:58 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6540 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  566
Joined:  2009-10-13

Spatch

Have you had any scientific training?  At all.  Do you understand the scientific method. At all. How can you be so blithe?

When you buy something and it says “safety approved”, you expect it to be safety approved. 

When the IPCC market their Assessment Reports as ‘peer-reviewed’, and have ‘consensus’, you expect it to be peer-reviewed and have the consensus of scientific support, like er, continental drift, accepted, unchallenged.  ‘Peer-reviewed’, ‘consensus’ the IPCC have made a nonsense of those concepts.

They are liars.  And you, well gullible at best.  Get a proper job mate.

 
 
   
436 of 804
436