So how do you define a lie?
Acknowledging flaws in its reports and growing public skepticism toward the theory of manmade global warming, the United Nations hired an independent review panel in March to audit its climate-science arm. The group found plenty of problems.
The InterAcademy Council, an independent group of scientists representing agencies from around the world, presented the findings of its five-month investigation Monday morning at the United Nations. The group took issue with the structure, methods and leadership of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) -- the group responsible for a 2007 report that erroneously forecast the imminent melting of Himalayan glaciers, the rate of melt of polar ice caps and dwindling Amazon rainforests.
"We found in the summary for policymakers that there were two kinds of errors that came up -- one is the kind where they place high confidence in something where there is very little evidence. The other is the kind where you make a statement … with no substantive value, in our judgment."
Let me see if I have this correct. The UN IPCC listed many things as highly confident yet they had little to no data to back up those claims? That sounds like bold faced lies to me.
MMGW isn't "a closed debate" and the IPCC has chosen to report what they want rather than the truth. They all need to be fired. If MMGW were real, why would all of the MMGW leaches need to lie so much? Maybe because the data doesn't support their politics?
If you believe in this bullshit, you are a religious zealot, not a scientist.
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by TomC , August 30, 2010
Is supposition a lie? I don't think so. Presenting supposition as science is a lie. Changing data to match a hypothesis is bad science and a lie. A lie is knowingly misrepresenting facts to satisfy a hypothesis or argument.
The "Bush lied people died" always bothered me because it was clearly not a lie. WMD were known to have existed and had been used and there was no evidence of them having been destroyed.
Getting back to MMGW. Another part of the IPCC that bothered me was the "scientists" listed who supported the reports was a misrepresentation. The list included people from many science disciplines, many not having anything to do with weather and climate.
Real counter science was belittled as being funded by the oil companies--regardless of how well documented and repeatable the science was.
The IPCC and the international GW/Climate change consortium has been shown to have ulterior motive in the evidence they conjure up. The outcome is determined, then the evidence is sought or model configured to demonstrate that outcome. If there was any science involved in any part of the IPCC report it has been diminished by the feel-good "science/"
written by Don Roscoe , August 31, 2010
Try looking out the window. Forget all the studies, emails etc. Global temperatures are higher each year; storms, droughts, rainfall amounts are all setting records worldwide.
If you travel anywhere and talk to people who live there, you will learn that weather everywhere is more extreme. All that severe local weather adds up to climate.
