Search This Blog

Sunday, 17 January 2010

What Consensus? Part 1 Precis.

In the following series of posts, we read the letters and denouncements of thousands of top scientist who openly challenge much of the case for man made climate change or the alleged effects of it. So much for the consensus. In Parts 2 to 7 their letters and all their names I publish in full.

However it is not these who are demanding that we all interfere with our lifestyles and impoverish ourselves to do it. These scientists are not demanding anything at all.

This is not just an argument one side against the other. This is one side demanding from the others: Us........!!

The problem is that, those that want to follow the AGW/ACC religion, expect us all to follow it too. They are free to take the hair shirt if they wish and like Canute, try to harness nature and Godlike, control the weather, but why must the rest be dragged down with them?

Here are just some examples from the letters of distinguished scientists.

67 Scientists and over 180 distinguished citizens signed this:'there's a growing body of evidence showing anthropogenic CO2 plays no measurable role. Indeed CO2's capability to absorb radiation is already exhausted by today's atmospheric concentrations. If CO2 did indeed have an effect and all fossil fuels were burned, then additional warming over the long term would in fact remain limited to only a few tenths of a degree. The IPCC had to have been aware of this fact, but completely ignored it during its studies of 160 years of temperature measurements and 150 years of determined CO2 levels.'

See Prof A Kellow a referee for one of the IPCC's main chapters he says: 'The Report(IPCC) persists in this nonsense in the face of at least this reviewer drawing it to their attention, so the persistence is quite wilful. It is, of course, such a fundamental criticism that it virtually renders the whole report invalid, so it was not likely to be well-received. I also added that the chapter exaggerated the hazards of climate change and almost totally ignored any benefits.' Part 7

The accredited climate experts who wrote this: 'Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future. Yet this is precisely what the United Nations did in creating and promoting Kyoto and still does in the alarmist forecasts' and 'Climate change is real" is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes' Part4

On abuse of scientific Integrity of the IPCC 5 PhDs wrote: 'A separate question is whether IPCC procedures on matters such as peer-review are in accord with accepted scientific standards. For example, a conscientious journal editor would not normally choose an author's colleague as a referee. The Nature article points out that "the integrity of the reviewing and approval process is ... an essential element in assuring the credibility of the resulting conclusions." The IPCC had assigned the role of convening lead author to Ben Santer, who then based much of the conclusion of Chapter 8 on two of his own papers that had not yet appeared in peer-reviewed journals.' and 'We detect here a serious misuse of science and of scientists for political purposes. We earnestly request that you respond to these concerns in order to protect the scientific integrity of the IPCC process.' Part5

No comments: