Thread: Climate Change Info from an IPCC Scientist

quote from TexasBob:

[B]Climate Change Info from an IPCC Scientist

---

I have been a reviewer of the last two IPCC reports, one of the several thousand scientists who purportedly are supporters of the IPCC view that humans control global temperature. Nothing could be further from the truth. Many of us try to bring better and more current science to the IPCC, but we usually fail. Recently we found out why. The whistleblower release of e-mails and files from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University has demonstrated scientific malfeasance and a sickening violation of scientific ethics.-- Lee C. Gerhard, IPCC Expert Reviewer[/B]

Great post, Texas Bob!
Lee C. Gephard, one of the IPCC's own scientists, blows the IPCC out of the water!! You all know Lee, don't you? As Bob's post says, he an IPCC scientist. Well, actually, no. He's not an IPCC scientist. Rather, he's an IPCC reviewer. You know, a self-appointed reviewer of the IPCC.
But let's not quibble with that mis-characterization of who Lee is. The important thing is, he's an objective critic who's blown the lid off the IPCC, right?
Uhm... well, not really, Exactly who is Lee Gephard? Try this on for size.

From www.desmogblog.com/lee-c-gerhard:

Lee C. Gerhard
Research and Background
Gerhard is a retired geologist from the University of Kansas. He has government and industry experience in petroleum exploration, research and exploration program management, oil and gas regulation and reservoir geology. According to a search of 22,000 academic journals, Gerhard has published 13 research articles in peer-reviewed journals, mainly on the subject of resource geology in the oil and gas sector.
Gerhard and the NRSP
Gerhard is listed as an "Allied Expert" for a Canadian group called the "Natural Resource Stewardship Project," (NRSP) a lobby organization that refuses to disclose its funding sources. The NRSP is led by executive director Tom Harris and Dr. Tim Ball. An October 16, 2006 CanWest Global news article on who funds the NRSP, it states that "a confidentiality agreement doesn't allow him [Tom Harris] to say whether energy companies are funding his group."
DeSmog recently uncovered information that two of the three Directors on the board of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project are senior executives of the High Park Advocacy Group, a Toronto based lobby firm that specializes in “energy, environment and ethics.”


Uh-oh. Looks like TexasBob forgot to fact check about Mr. Lee. Fact-checking before you post. Give it a try. It's fun!

Originally Posted by xman

Please enjoy and broaden as will I. I also invite you to review with me once again the Critical Thinking link in my signature. Alternatively, good luck with the cow.

again typical left wing nonsense, mud slinging, no facts, nothing to add, just sling mud and character attacks and innuendos

Originally Posted by 59caddy

billyjeff, again typical left wing mud slinging....you find something a man or group was wrong about and start yelling all his work is in error...there are just as many groups on the left with more errors than you can "shake a stick at". more left "theories and models" have been proven to be in error lately than have been proven correct...admit it..it is all about the money and NOT the better good of man or any country or the earth in general....i want rock solid proof of this so called "theory" then and only then will i agree to it, not before..
i will give you one thing and only one thing...is there pollution? yes..do we need to do something about it? yes...do we need to destroy the entire economy of our country and other developing countries? NO, NO, NO!!!
if you want us to be another 3rd world country, then keep going with the nonsense and we will get there FAST..
do you want to make progress with truth and facts? no, if so, there would be more open debates instead of trying to destroy groups and researchers with character assassinations.
by the way y'all 'THE SKY IS FALLING"

You posted two articles purporting to prove your point of view, and I simply demonstrated the info you was cited was...umm...somewhat factually "questionable". That makes me a "typical left wing mudslinger", in your estimation.
Sorry if the "facts" I quoted got in the way of your "opinions"...

Originally Posted by heirkb

Just try to find the research (is that the thousandth time I've said that). It's not hard, there are a ton of journal databases around. I've never been to a single website that is pro or anti global warming, and I expect people who argue with me to use sources that are above that crap as well..

I'll have to disappoint you, this is the third or fourth time a thread like this was created in the last few months, and I've concluded that none of the posters has any interest or ability to read and evaluate a research paper. Plenty of research papers have been pointed out (from a link from TexasBob), so far I seem to be the only one who have read some of them.
This simply isn't the place where you can have a rational discussion. It's all based on propaganda and brainwashing.

Originally Posted by billyjeff2

Uh-oh. Looks like TexasBob forgot to fact check about Mr. Lee. Fact-checking before you post. Give it a try. It's fun!

Did you find something contrary to the following during your fact-check?

I have been a reviewer of the last two IPCC reports, one of the several thousand scientists who purportedly are supporters of the IPCC view that humans control global temperature...-- Lee C. Gerhard, IPCC Expert Reviewer

Originally Posted by gugi

This simply isn't the place where you can have a rational discussion. It's all based on propaganda and brainwashing.

No gugi, this is a place where gentlemen of all persuasions can make all things interesting

So unless you want to grab a stick, I suggest you walk away from this dead horse

Originally Posted by gugi

I'll have to disappoint you, this is the third or fourth time a thread like this was created in the last few months, and I've concluded that none of the posters has any interest or ability to read and evaluate a research paper. Plenty of research papers have been pointed out (from a link from TexasBob), so far I seem to be the only one who have read some of them.
This simply isn't the place where you can have a rational discussion. It's all based on propaganda and brainwashing.

i have asked time and time again for the proof and all i get is "theory". where are the facts? i have asked again and again for someone to show me the proof..
i get only character assassinations on researchers that break away from the global warming crowd. i get no rock solid proof.
yes there is a dead horse and the left and the global warming crowds are the one that are trying to ride it. they are trying to ride it right to the bank..plain and simple

[QUOTE=hoglahoo;513676]Did you find something contrary to the following during your fact-check?


Yeah. I did. I found out Lee Gerhard is not a climatologist or a meteorologist. He's a "reviewer". Also found out he's got some interesting ties to some interesting..."interests".
Fact.
Check.

Originally Posted by 59caddy

i have asked time and time again for the proof and all i get is "theory". where are the facts? i have asked again and again for someone to show me the proof..

the proof is in the scientific research, you'll have to do the work to get to it though.
actually, i doubt that you are able to prove something as mundane as 2+2=4, and by proof i mean in strict mathematical sense starting with a basic axiom. feel free to prove my doubts wrong if you dare.

The oscillation between ice ages and interglacial periods is the dominant feature of Earth's climate for the last million years. But the computer models that predict significant global warming from carbon dioxide cannot reproduce these temperature changes. This failure to reproduce the most significant aspect of terrestrial climate reveals an incomplete understanding of the climate system, if not a nearly complete ignorance.
Global warming predictions by meteorologists are based on speculative, untested, and poorly constrained computer models. But the knowledge of ice ages is based on a wide variety of reliable data, including cores from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. In this case, it would be perspicacious to listen to the geologists, not the meteorologists. By reducing the production of carbon dioxide, we risk hastening the advent of the next ice age. Even more foolhardy and dangerous is the Obama administration's announcement that they may try to cool the planet through geoengineering. Such a move in the middle of a cooling trend could provoke the irreversible onset of an ice age. It is not hyperbole to state that such a climatic change would mean the end of human civilization as we know it.
Earth's climate is controlled by the Sun. In comparison, every other factor is trivial. The coldest part of the Little Ice Age during the latter half of the seventeenth century was marked by the nearly complete absence of sunspots. And the Sun now appears to be entering a new period of quiescence. August of 2008 was the first month since the year 1913 that no sunspots were observed. My oldest son who works at Stanford Uninversities Astrophysics research clued me into this...
The sun is quiet at the moment. We are in a cooling trend. The areal extent of global sea ice is above the twenty-year mean.

Official "Experts" Translation "Trust us, even though it's cold, and getting colder, you are to blame for global warming and you need to pay a carbon tax."

Originally Posted by 59caddy

there is a dead horse and the left and the global warming crowds are the one that are trying to ride it. they are trying to ride it right to the bank..plain and simple

59caddy: I want rock solid, incontrovertible proof of your theory that the the left wing is promoting global warming theory solely as a means to ride it to the bank. And I'll accept nothing less from you than rock-solid, unassailable factual proof.
I await your response...