Global oppvarming.

[jjkoggan]

Her er et lite utdrag av en utgivelse av Gray.

Han har jobbet i IPCC fra begynnelsen av og frem til 2007.

 

 

Har han virkelig jobbet i IPCC og som klimatolog?

 

Kan du støtte dette paastand?

 

Det jeg har lest er at han er pensjonist og aldri jobbet som klimatolog. Videre så ble han aldri spurt å jobbe på iPCC men han spurte selv om kunne se på rapporter, mange kunne gjøre og bli "Expert reviewers"!

Endret 29. mars 2014 av jjkoggan

[liealot]

 

Det var artig lesning! Jeg googlet forfatterne av artikkelen i den andre linken før jeg begynte, og kom ikke lenger. En av forfatterene heter Joseph D'Angelo, en kreasjonist, som også har skrevet under på følgende deklarasjon:

"We believe Earth and its ecosystems — created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence — are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth's climate system is no exception."

 

Klart klimaforandringene ikke er menneskeskapt, det er jo Gud bestemmer her i gården! Hoppet over å lese selve artikkelen, noe sier meg at det er sprøyt. Hoppet like så greit over link nummer 1 også. Jeg er kritisk til kilden den kom fra.

Du mener altså at disse artiklene bør tas like seriøst som andre, fordi de mener noe annet?

 

Troller du, rillto?

 

edit: blandet link nr 1 og link nr 2.

Hvis du ikke leste innholdet er det ikke noe poeng å gi deg en kommentar..

 

 

Hvis du tar kreasjonister seriøst er det ikke noe poeng å høre på det du har å si.

 

Hvis du ikke visste at det var kreasjonister, så er det ikke noe vits i å bry seg om noen av kildene du presenterer.

 

Forstår du hvorfor, eller må jeg utdype?

[rillto]

 

Her er et lite utdrag av en utgivelse av Gray.

Han har jobbet i IPCC fra begynnelsen av og frem til 2007.

 

Har han virkelig jobbet i IPCC og som klimatolog?

 

Kan du strette dette paastand

http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=55387187-4d06-446f-9f4f-c2397d155a32

 

 

Her kan du lese om fyren.

[jjkoggan]

 

 

Her er et lite utdrag av en utgivelse av Gray.

Han har jobbet i IPCC fra begynnelsen av og frem til 2007.

 

Har han virkelig jobbet i IPCC og som klimatolog?

 

Kan du strette dette paastand

http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=55387187-4d06-446f-9f4f-c2397d155a32

 

 

Her kan du lese om fyren.

Prøv linken din, det fungerer ikke

[rillto]

 

 

Det var artig lesning! Jeg googlet forfatterne av artikkelen i den andre linken før jeg begynte, og kom ikke lenger. En av forfatterene heter Joseph D'Angelo, en kreasjonist, som også har skrevet under på følgende deklarasjon:

"We believe Earth and its ecosystems — created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence — are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth's climate system is no exception."

 

Klart klimaforandringene ikke er menneskeskapt, det er jo Gud bestemmer her i gården! Hoppet over å lese selve artikkelen, noe sier meg at det er sprøyt. Hoppet like så greit over link nummer 1 også. Jeg er kritisk til kilden den kom fra.

Du mener altså at disse artiklene bør tas like seriøst som andre, fordi de mener noe annet?

 

Troller du, rillto?

 

edit: blandet link nr 1 og link nr 2.

 

Hvis du ikke leste innholdet er det ikke noe poeng å gi deg en kommentar..

Hvis du tar kreasjonister seriøst er det ikke noe poeng å høre på det du har å si.

 

Hvis du ikke visste at det var kreasjonister, så er det ikke noe vits i å bry seg om noen av kildene du presenterer.

 

Forstår du hvorfor, eller må jeg utdype?

Innlegget var betegnet som morsom lesing. Jeg tar det ikke seriøst,men tallene som brukes i hasseleringen er fra IPCC selv og det betyr at deres tall er feil samme hvem og hvor tullete de fremføres.

 

Global oppvarming på grunn av co2 er en umulighet frem til noen slenger beviset på bordet. Nobelprisen venter på den som klarer det, men ingen har klart det enda.

 

Hvis du er så kritisk til kilder så må du glemme IPCC. De bruker masse materiale skrevet av naturforkjempere uten forsker utdannelse og de bruker såkalt gray literatur uten å være kritiske.

 

Det har overhode ikke noe med vitenskap å gjøre men politisk hjernevask!

[rillto]

 

 

 

Her er et lite utdrag av en utgivelse av Gray.

Han har jobbet i IPCC fra begynnelsen av og frem til 2007.

Har han virkelig jobbet i IPCC og som klimatolog?

 

Kan du strette dette paastand

http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=55387187-4d06-446f-9f4f-c2397d155a32

Her kan du lese om fyren.

Prøv linken din, det fungerer ikke

Virker hos meg men her er innholdet:

 

Vincent Gray has begun a second career as a climate-change activist. His motivation springs from the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a body that combats global warming by advocating the reduction of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Dr. Gray has worked relentlessly for the IPCC as an expert reviewer since the early 1990s.

 

But Dr. Gray isn't an activist in the cause of enforcing the Kyoto Protocol and realizing the other goals of the worldwide IPCC process. To the contrary, Dr. Gray's mission, in his new role as cofounder of The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, is to stop the IPCC from spreading climate-change propaganda that undermines the integrity of science.

 

"The whole process is a swindle," he states, in large part because the IPCC has a blinkered mandate that excludes natural causes of global warming.

 

" The Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) 1992 defined 'climate change' as changes in climate caused by human interference with atmospheric composition," he explains. "The task of the IPCC, therefore, has been to accumulate evidence to support this belief that all changes in the climate are caused by human interference with the atmosphere. Studies of natural climate change have largely been used to claim that these are negligible compared with 'climate change.' "

 

Dr. Gray is one of the 2,000 to 2,500 top scientists from around the world whom the IPCC often cites as forming the basis of its findings. No one has been a more faithful reviewer than Dr. Gray over the years -- he has been an IPCC expert almost from the start, and perhaps its most prolific contributor, logging almost 1,900 comments on the IPCC's final draft of its most recent report alone.

 

But Dr. Gray, who knows as much about the IPCC's review processes as anyone, has been troubled by what he sees as an appalling absence of scientific rigour in the IPCC's review process.

 

"Right from the beginning, I have had difficulty with this procedure. Penetrating questions often ended without any answer. Comments on the IPCC drafts were rejected without explanation, and attempts to pursue the matter were frustrated indefinitely.

 

"Over the years, as I have learned more about the data and procedures of the IPCC, I have found increasing opposition by them to providing explanations, until I have been forced to the conclusion that for significant parts of the work of the IPCC, the data collection and scientific methods employed are unsound. Resistance to all efforts to try and discuss or rectify these problems has convinced me that normal scientific procedures are not only rejected by the IPCC, but that this practice is endemic, and was part of the organization from the very beginning."

 

Dr. Gray has detailed extensively the areas in which global warming science falls down. One example that this New Zealander provides comes from his region of the globe: "We are told that the sea level is rising and will soon swamp all of our cities. Everybody knows that the Pacific island of Tuvalu is sinking. Al Gore told us that the inhabitants are invading New Zealand because of it.

 

"Around 1990 it became obvious that the local tide-gauge did not agree -- there was no evidence of 'sinking.' So scientists at Flinders University, Adelaide, were asked to check whether this was true. They set up new, modern, tide-gauges in 12 Pacific islands, including Tuvalu, confident that they would show that all of them are sinking.

 

"Recently, the whole project was abandoned as there was no sign of a change in sea level at any of the 12 islands for the past 16 years. In 2006, Tuvalu even rose."

 

Other expert reviewers at the IPCC, and scientists elsewhere around the globe, share Dr. Gray's alarm at the conduct of the IPCC. An effort by academics is now underway to reform this UN organization, and have it follow established scientific norms. Dr. Gray was asked to endorse this reform effort, but he refused, saying: "The IPCC is fundamentally corrupt. The only 'reform' I could envisage would be its abolition."

 

--- - Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Energy Probe and the Urban Renaissance Institute.

 

www.urban-renaissance.org

 

CV OF A DENIER:

 

Vincent Gray is a graduate of the University of Cambridge, with a PhD in physical chemistry. He has published more than 100 scientific papers and authored the book, The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of 'Climate Change 2001.'

 

Dr. Gray has participated in all of the science reviews of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and in 2006 was a visiting scholar at the Beijing Climate Center.

[jjkoggan]

 

 

 

 

Her er et lite utdrag av en utgivelse av Gray.

Han har jobbet i IPCC fra begynnelsen av og frem til 2007.

Har han virkelig jobbet i IPCC og som klimatolog?

 

Kan du strette dette paastand

http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=55387187-4d06-446f-9f4f-c2397d155a32

Her kan du lese om fyren.

Prøv linken din, det fungerer ikke

Virker hos meg men her er innholdet:

 

Vincent Gray has begun a second career as a climate-change activist. His motivation springs from the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a body that combats global warming by advocating the reduction of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Dr. Gray has worked relentlessly for the IPCC as an expert reviewer since the early 1990s.

 

But Dr. Gray isn't an activist in the cause of enforcing the Kyoto Protocol and realizing the other goals of the worldwide IPCC process. To the contrary, Dr. Gray's mission, in his new role as cofounder of The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, is to stop the IPCC from spreading climate-change propaganda that undermines the integrity of science.

 

"The whole process is a swindle," he states, in large part because the IPCC has a blinkered mandate that excludes natural causes of global warming.

 

" The Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) 1992 defined 'climate change' as changes in climate caused by human interference with atmospheric composition," he explains. "The task of the IPCC, therefore, has been to accumulate evidence to support this belief that all changes in the climate are caused by human interference with the atmosphere. Studies of natural climate change have largely been used to claim that these are negligible compared with 'climate change.' "

 

Dr. Gray is one of the 2,000 to 2,500 top scientists from around the world whom the IPCC often cites as forming the basis of its findings. No one has been a more faithful reviewer than Dr. Gray over the years -- he has been an IPCC expert almost from the start, and perhaps its most prolific contributor, logging almost 1,900 comments on the IPCC's final draft of its most recent report alone.

 

But Dr. Gray, who knows as much about the IPCC's review processes as anyone, has been troubled by what he sees as an appalling absence of scientific rigour in the IPCC's review process.

 

"Right from the beginning, I have had difficulty with this procedure. Penetrating questions often ended without any answer. Comments on the IPCC drafts were rejected without explanation, and attempts to pursue the matter were frustrated indefinitely.

 

"Over the years, as I have learned more about the data and procedures of the IPCC, I have found increasing opposition by them to providing explanations, until I have been forced to the conclusion that for significant parts of the work of the IPCC, the data collection and scientific methods employed are unsound. Resistance to all efforts to try and discuss or rectify these problems has convinced me that normal scientific procedures are not only rejected by the IPCC, but that this practice is endemic, and was part of the organization from the very beginning."

 

Dr. Gray has detailed extensively the areas in which global warming science falls down. One example that this New Zealander provides comes from his region of the globe: "We are told that the sea level is rising and will soon swamp all of our cities. Everybody knows that the Pacific island of Tuvalu is sinking. Al Gore told us that the inhabitants are invading New Zealand because of it.

 

"Around 1990 it became obvious that the local tide-gauge did not agree -- there was no evidence of 'sinking.' So scientists at Flinders University, Adelaide, were asked to check whether this was true. They set up new, modern, tide-gauges in 12 Pacific islands, including Tuvalu, confident that they would show that all of them are sinking.

 

"Recently, the whole project was abandoned as there was no sign of a change in sea level at any of the 12 islands for the past 16 years. In 2006, Tuvalu even rose."

 

Other expert reviewers at the IPCC, and scientists elsewhere around the globe, share Dr. Gray's alarm at the conduct of the IPCC. An effort by academics is now underway to reform this UN organization, and have it follow established scientific norms. Dr. Gray was asked to endorse this reform effort, but he refused, saying: "The IPCC is fundamentally corrupt. The only 'reform' I could envisage would be its abolition."

 

--- - Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Energy Probe and the Urban Renaissance Institute.

 

www.urban-renaissance.org

 

CV OF A DENIER:

 

Vincent Gray is a graduate of the University of Cambridge, with a PhD in physical chemistry. He has published more than 100 scientific papers and authored the book, The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of 'Climate Change 2001.'

 

Dr. Gray has participated in all of the science reviews of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and in 2006 was a visiting scholar at the Beijing Climate Center.

Hvor står det noe om hans erfaring som klimatolog? En trenger ikke å bli klimatolog å bli en "ekspert" på IPCC. En kan jobbe på et annet fag som statistikker og bli en "expert reviewer " uten å vite mye om klimaforskning Endret 29. mars 2014 av jjkoggan

[rillto]

 

 

 

 

 

Her er et lite utdrag av en utgivelse av Gray.

Han har jobbet i IPCC fra begynnelsen av og frem til 2007.

Har han virkelig jobbet i IPCC og som klimatolog?

 

Kan du strette dette paastand

http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=55387187-4d06-446f-9f4f-c2397d155a32

Her kan du lese om fyren.

Prøv linken din, det fungerer ikke

Virker hos meg men her er innholdet:

Vincent Gray has begun a second career as a climate-change activist. His motivation springs from the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a body that combats global warming by advocating the reduction of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Dr. Gray has worked relentlessly for the IPCC as an expert reviewer since the early 1990s.

But Dr. Gray isn't an activist in the cause of enforcing the Kyoto Protocol and realizing the other goals of the worldwide IPCC process. To the contrary, Dr. Gray's mission, in his new role as cofounder of The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, is to stop the IPCC from spreading climate-change propaganda that undermines the integrity of science.

"The whole process is a swindle," he states, in large part because the IPCC has a blinkered mandate that excludes natural causes of global warming.

" The Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) 1992 defined 'climate change' as changes in climate caused by human interference with atmospheric composition," he explains. "The task of the IPCC, therefore, has been to accumulate evidence to support this belief that all changes in the climate are caused by human interference with the atmosphere. Studies of natural climate change have largely been used to claim that these are negligible compared with 'climate change.' "

Dr. Gray is one of the 2,000 to 2,500 top scientists from around the world whom the IPCC often cites as forming the basis of its findings. No one has been a more faithful reviewer than Dr. Gray over the years -- he has been an IPCC expert almost from the start, and perhaps its most prolific contributor, logging almost 1,900 comments on the IPCC's final draft of its most recent report alone.

But Dr. Gray, who knows as much about the IPCC's review processes as anyone, has been troubled by what he sees as an appalling absence of scientific rigour in the IPCC's review process.

"Right from the beginning, I have had difficulty with this procedure. Penetrating questions often ended without any answer. Comments on the IPCC drafts were rejected without explanation, and attempts to pursue the matter were frustrated indefinitely.

"Over the years, as I have learned more about the data and procedures of the IPCC, I have found increasing opposition by them to providing explanations, until I have been forced to the conclusion that for significant parts of the work of the IPCC, the data collection and scientific methods employed are unsound. Resistance to all efforts to try and discuss or rectify these problems has convinced me that normal scientific procedures are not only rejected by the IPCC, but that this practice is endemic, and was part of the organization from the very beginning."

Dr. Gray has detailed extensively the areas in which global warming science falls down. One example that this New Zealander provides comes from his region of the globe: "We are told that the sea level is rising and will soon swamp all of our cities. Everybody knows that the Pacific island of Tuvalu is sinking. Al Gore told us that the inhabitants are invading New Zealand because of it.

"Around 1990 it became obvious that the local tide-gauge did not agree -- there was no evidence of 'sinking.' So scientists at Flinders University, Adelaide, were asked to check whether this was true. They set up new, modern, tide-gauges in 12 Pacific islands, including Tuvalu, confident that they would show that all of them are sinking.

"Recently, the whole project was abandoned as there was no sign of a change in sea level at any of the 12 islands for the past 16 years. In 2006, Tuvalu even rose."

Other expert reviewers at the IPCC, and scientists elsewhere around the globe, share Dr. Gray's alarm at the conduct of the IPCC. An effort by academics is now underway to reform this UN organization, and have it follow established scientific norms. Dr. Gray was asked to endorse this reform effort, but he refused, saying: "The IPCC is fundamentally corrupt. The only 'reform' I could envisage would be its abolition."

--- - Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Energy Probe and the Urban Renaissance Institute.

www.urban-renaissance.org

CV OF A DENIER:

Vincent Gray is a graduate of the University of Cambridge, with a PhD in physical chemistry. He has published more than 100 scientific papers and authored the book, The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of 'Climate Change 2001.'

Dr. Gray has participated in all of the science reviews of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and in 2006 was a visiting scholar at the Beijing Climate Center.

Hvor står det noe om hans erfaring som klimatolog? En trenger ikke å bli klimatolog å bli en "ekspert" på IPCC.

Han er kjemikker. Og som du ser har han jobbet på samtlige IPCC rapporter.

[jjkoggan]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Her er et lite utdrag av en utgivelse av Gray.

Han har jobbet i IPCC fra begynnelsen av og frem til 2007.

Har han virkelig jobbet i IPCC og som klimatolog?

 

Kan du strette dette paastand

http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=55387187-4d06-446f-9f4f-c2397d155a32

Her kan du lese om fyren.

Prøv linken din, det fungerer ikke

Virker hos meg men her er innholdet:

Vincent Gray has begun a second career as a climate-change activist. His motivation springs from the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a body that combats global warming by advocating the reduction of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Dr. Gray has worked relentlessly for the IPCC as an expert reviewer since the early 1990s.

But Dr. Gray isn't an activist in the cause of enforcing the Kyoto Protocol and realizing the other goals of the worldwide IPCC process. To the contrary, Dr. Gray's mission, in his new role as cofounder of The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, is to stop the IPCC from spreading climate-change propaganda that undermines the integrity of science.

"The whole process is a swindle," he states, in large part because the IPCC has a blinkered mandate that excludes natural causes of global warming.

" The Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) 1992 defined 'climate change' as changes in climate caused by human interference with atmospheric composition," he explains. "The task of the IPCC, therefore, has been to accumulate evidence to support this belief that all changes in the climate are caused by human interference with the atmosphere. Studies of natural climate change have largely been used to claim that these are negligible compared with 'climate change.' "

Dr. Gray is one of the 2,000 to 2,500 top scientists from around the world whom the IPCC often cites as forming the basis of its findings. No one has been a more faithful reviewer than Dr. Gray over the years -- he has been an IPCC expert almost from the start, and perhaps its most prolific contributor, logging almost 1,900 comments on the IPCC's final draft of its most recent report alone.

But Dr. Gray, who knows as much about the IPCC's review processes as anyone, has been troubled by what he sees as an appalling absence of scientific rigour in the IPCC's review process.

"Right from the beginning, I have had difficulty with this procedure. Penetrating questions often ended without any answer. Comments on the IPCC drafts were rejected without explanation, and attempts to pursue the matter were frustrated indefinitely.

"Over the years, as I have learned more about the data and procedures of the IPCC, I have found increasing opposition by them to providing explanations, until I have been forced to the conclusion that for significant parts of the work of the IPCC, the data collection and scientific methods employed are unsound. Resistance to all efforts to try and discuss or rectify these problems has convinced me that normal scientific procedures are not only rejected by the IPCC, but that this practice is endemic, and was part of the organization from the very beginning."

Dr. Gray has detailed extensively the areas in which global warming science falls down. One example that this New Zealander provides comes from his region of the globe: "We are told that the sea level is rising and will soon swamp all of our cities. Everybody knows that the Pacific island of Tuvalu is sinking. Al Gore told us that the inhabitants are invading New Zealand because of it.

"Around 1990 it became obvious that the local tide-gauge did not agree -- there was no evidence of 'sinking.' So scientists at Flinders University, Adelaide, were asked to check whether this was true. They set up new, modern, tide-gauges in 12 Pacific islands, including Tuvalu, confident that they would show that all of them are sinking.

"Recently, the whole project was abandoned as there was no sign of a change in sea level at any of the 12 islands for the past 16 years. In 2006, Tuvalu even rose."

Other expert reviewers at the IPCC, and scientists elsewhere around the globe, share Dr. Gray's alarm at the conduct of the IPCC. An effort by academics is now underway to reform this UN organization, and have it follow established scientific norms. Dr. Gray was asked to endorse this reform effort, but he refused, saying: "The IPCC is fundamentally corrupt. The only 'reform' I could envisage would be its abolition."

--- - Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Energy Probe and the Urban Renaissance Institute.

www.urban-renaissance.org

CV OF A DENIER:

Vincent Gray is a graduate of the University of Cambridge, with a PhD in physical chemistry. He has published more than 100 scientific papers and authored the book, The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of 'Climate Change 2001.'

Dr. Gray has participated in all of the science reviews of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and in 2006 was a visiting scholar at the Beijing Climate Center.

Hvor står det noe om hans erfaring som klimatolog? En trenger ikke å bli klimatolog å bli en "ekspert" på IPCC.

Han er kjemikker. Og som du ser har han jobbet på samtlige IPCC rapporter.

Han er ingen klimatolog og har aldri blitt betalt å gjør det. Det i valifiserer han ikke som klima ekspert men gjør det mer som en hobby. En kan ha ingen erfaring i klimaforskning og bli ekspert reviewer, det bare betyr han får lese rapporter og skrive kommentar før de bli publisert, ikke at han gjør forskningen og skriver rapportene

 

Jeg tar ikke han som alvorlig klimaforsker

Endret 29. mars 2014 av jjkoggan

[rillto]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Her er et lite utdrag av en utgivelse av Gray.

Han har jobbet i IPCC fra begynnelsen av og frem til 2007.

Har han virkelig jobbet i IPCC og som klimatolog?

 

Kan du strette dette paastand

http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=55387187-4d06-446f-9f4f-c2397d155a32

Her kan du lese om fyren.

Prøv linken din, det fungerer ikke

Virker hos meg men her er innholdet:

Vincent Gray has begun a second career as a climate-change activist. His motivation springs from the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a body that combats global warming by advocating the reduction of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Dr. Gray has worked relentlessly for the IPCC as an expert reviewer since the early 1990s.

But Dr. Gray isn't an activist in the cause of enforcing the Kyoto Protocol and realizing the other goals of the worldwide IPCC process. To the contrary, Dr. Gray's mission, in his new role as cofounder of The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, is to stop the IPCC from spreading climate-change propaganda that undermines the integrity of science.

"The whole process is a swindle," he states, in large part because the IPCC has a blinkered mandate that excludes natural causes of global warming.

" The Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) 1992 defined 'climate change' as changes in climate caused by human interference with atmospheric composition," he explains. "The task of the IPCC, therefore, has been to accumulate evidence to support this belief that all changes in the climate are caused by human interference with the atmosphere. Studies of natural climate change have largely been used to claim that these are negligible compared with 'climate change.' "

Dr. Gray is one of the 2,000 to 2,500 top scientists from around the world whom the IPCC often cites as forming the basis of its findings. No one has been a more faithful reviewer than Dr. Gray over the years -- he has been an IPCC expert almost from the start, and perhaps its most prolific contributor, logging almost 1,900 comments on the IPCC's final draft of its most recent report alone.

But Dr. Gray, who knows as much about the IPCC's review processes as anyone, has been troubled by what he sees as an appalling absence of scientific rigour in the IPCC's review process.

"Right from the beginning, I have had difficulty with this procedure. Penetrating questions often ended without any answer. Comments on the IPCC drafts were rejected without explanation, and attempts to pursue the matter were frustrated indefinitely.

"Over the years, as I have learned more about the data and procedures of the IPCC, I have found increasing opposition by them to providing explanations, until I have been forced to the conclusion that for significant parts of the work of the IPCC, the data collection and scientific methods employed are unsound. Resistance to all efforts to try and discuss or rectify these problems has convinced me that normal scientific procedures are not only rejected by the IPCC, but that this practice is endemic, and was part of the organization from the very beginning."

Dr. Gray has detailed extensively the areas in which global warming science falls down. One example that this New Zealander provides comes from his region of the globe: "We are told that the sea level is rising and will soon swamp all of our cities. Everybody knows that the Pacific island of Tuvalu is sinking. Al Gore told us that the inhabitants are invading New Zealand because of it.

"Around 1990 it became obvious that the local tide-gauge did not agree -- there was no evidence of 'sinking.' So scientists at Flinders University, Adelaide, were asked to check whether this was true. They set up new, modern, tide-gauges in 12 Pacific islands, including Tuvalu, confident that they would show that all of them are sinking.

"Recently, the whole project was abandoned as there was no sign of a change in sea level at any of the 12 islands for the past 16 years. In 2006, Tuvalu even rose."

Other expert reviewers at the IPCC, and scientists elsewhere around the globe, share Dr. Gray's alarm at the conduct of the IPCC. An effort by academics is now underway to reform this UN organization, and have it follow established scientific norms. Dr. Gray was asked to endorse this reform effort, but he refused, saying: "The IPCC is fundamentally corrupt. The only 'reform' I could envisage would be its abolition."

--- - Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Energy Probe and the Urban Renaissance Institute.

www.urban-renaissance.org

CV OF A DENIER:

Vincent Gray is a graduate of the University of Cambridge, with a PhD in physical chemistry. He has published more than 100 scientific papers and authored the book, The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of 'Climate Change 2001.'

Dr. Gray has participated in all of the science reviews of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and in 2006 was a visiting scholar at the Beijing Climate Center.

Hvor står det noe om hans erfaring som klimatolog? En trenger ikke å bli klimatolog å bli en "ekspert" på IPCC.

Han er kjemikker. Og som du ser har han jobbet på samtlige IPCC rapporter.

Han er ingen klimatolog og har aldri blitt betalt å gjør det. Han kvalifiserer seg ikke som klima ekspert men gjør det mer som en hobby

Han har fått betalt av IPCC og har gjort dette på lik linje med alle andre forskere i panelet. Det er ikke en hobby, men full jobb. Flesteparten av panelets forskere har doktorgrad i noe annet enn klima. Han er et typisk eksempel på de som jobber i panelet.

Du har vel ingen illusjoner om at de alle har doktorgrad i klimatologi?

 

"We cannot hope to understand the causes of climatic stability or change by restricting ourselves to any one field of earth science. Nature is ignorant of how our universities are organized..." Peter Weyl

Endret 29. mars 2014 av rillto

[jjkoggan]

Han har fått betalt av IPCC og har gjort dette på lik linje med alle andre forskere i panelet. Det er ikke en hobby, men full jobb. Flesteparten av panelets forskere har doktorgrad i noe annet enn klima. Han er et typisk eksempel på de som jobber i panelet.

Du har vel ingen illusjoner om at de alle har doktorgrad i klimatologi?

 

"We cannot hope to understand the causes of climatic stability or change by restricting ourselves to any one field of earth science. Nature is ignorant of how our universities are organized..." Peter Weyl

Han får ingen betaling av IPCC

 

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a huge and yet very small organization. Thousands of scientists from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC on a voluntary basis as authors, contributors and reviewers. None of them is paid by the IPCC. The work of the IPCC is guided by a set of principles and procedures.

 

http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization_structure.shtml

 

Han ble en Expert reviewer fordi han registrert seg som det, ikke fordi han ble spurt om det. Han får ingen betaling og det eneste han får gjøre er å kommentere om rapporter publisert av andre forskere og bare hvis han vill. Han er ingen klima ekspert som mange impliserer. Han er en god kjemiker uten ekspertise i feltet, annet enn han har lest mange rapporter. Det finnes mer enn 2000 ekspert reviewers uten klima forskning erfaring og det er godt å gjøre, men de er ikke klima experts

 

Å si at han er ekspert som jobber på IPcC går alt for langt. Uten noe ekte Peer reviewed forskning blir hans mening mindre verdt enn de som har gjort det

[rillto]

I teksten:

Dr. Gray is one of the 2,000 to 2,500 top scientists from around the world whom the IPCC often cites as forming the basis of its findings. No one has been a more faithful reviewer than Dr. Gray

 

Din påstand:

Han er ingen klimatolog og har aldri blitt betalt å gjør det. Det i valifiserer han ikke som klima ekspert men gjør det mer som en hobby. En kan ha ingen erfaring i klimaforskning og bli ekspert reviewer, det bare betyr han får lese rapporter og skrive kommentar før de bli publisert, ikke at han gjør forskningen og skriver rapportene

Jeg tar ikke han som alvorlig klimaforsker.

 

Han er den mest brukte personen di har hatt til å kontrollere forskningen. Som teksten sier har han bidratt til utformingen av rapportene. Ingen andre har vært mer eller bedre kvalifisert enn han og du tar han ikke alvorlig?

Da kan du ikke ha tiltro til noen av de gjennværende forskerne i IPCC,eller så forstår du ikke hvordan IPCC virker.....

 

IPCC utgir stadig materiale som er såkalt gray material som ikke er gjennomgått. Du har malt deg inn i et hjørne nå da du angriper en som har gått god for forskningen i ti år. Da var hans meninger av betydning. Etter 2008 når han skiftet side er hans ord ingenting.

Endret 29. mars 2014 av rillto

[rillto]

 

Å si at han er ekspert som jobber på IPcC går alt for langt. Uten noe ekte Peer reviewed forskning blir hans mening mindre verdt enn de som har gjort det

 

Dette er en selvmotsigelse. Hans jobb for IPCC var jo nettopp å foreta peer review på andre sitt arbeid.

At hans arbeid er mindre verd vil si det samme som at læreren som retter elevens oppgave er mindre verdt enn eleven. Men det er læreren som avgjør om eleven har gjort oppgaven riktig.

 

Det er slik alt blir gjort i IPCC og Gray har levert tusenvis av slike som du selv mener er riktig, helt til han altså sluttet.

[Skatteflyktning]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_R._Gray

[jjkoggan]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_R._Gray

Ingen klima forskning, som sagt

 

He has been an "Expert Reviewer for the IPCC" since 1990,[1][6] although this consideration has been challenged and considered misleading since it does not require any expertise at all, but only that "he asked to see the draft report" and signed an agreement not to publicly comment on the draft report.[9]

[rillto]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_R._Gray

Ingen klima forskning, som sagt

He has been an "Expert Reviewer for the IPCC" since 1990,[1][6] although this consideration has been challenged and considered misleading since it does not require any expertise at all, but only that "he asked to see the draft report" and signed an agreement not to publicly comment on the draft report.[9]

Det er jo akkurat dette alle andre også gjør. Noen sender inn forskning, noen leser forskningen og lager kommentarer. Et utvalg av politikkere og pr folk plukker ut det de ønsker å bruke og lager rapporten slik den blir presentert.

Han er bare en av flere tusen som gjør samme jobben. Han er lik alle de andre og er ikke han god nok for deg, er ingen av dem det!

 

Du kan ikke skille ham ut fra resten av IPCC bare fordi flertallet av hans kommentarer ikke faller i din smak. Da er ikke du eller IPCC objektive, noe som jo er selve hovedargumentet mitt mot deres troverdighet.

 

Det finnes knapt nok noen klimaforskere i IPCC og det er egentlig ikke relevant. Hovedregelen for forskning er lik uansett disiplin og det er denne han hevder blir brutt.

 

Wikipedia er også en lite troverdig kilde da det ofte er fullt av feil....

Endret 29. mars 2014 av rillto

[rillto]

Her kan man lese om Arrhenius som lanserte teorien om drivhuseffekten. Han var også kjemikker. Så hvis kjemikkeres arbeid er verdiløst i klimasammenheng har vi altså ikke noen drivhuseffekt heller da ?

 

http://www.viten.no/biografi/vis.html?tid=452058

[hekomo]

Hele poenget er jo at det finnes andre meninger utenom IPCC. Ved at du kun aksepterer info fra IPCC vil du aldri få et nyansert bilde over hva som skjer.

 

At det finnes andre meninger gjør ikke at disse meningene er riktige. Det er de som mener at evolusjonsteorien ikke stemmer også, inkludert enkelte biologer (Michael Behe er ganske aktiv på den froten), men konsensus er fortsatt at evolusjonsteorien er korrekt.

 

De som mener IPCCs oppsummeringer av forskningen er feil er en ørliten gruppe som stort sett består av politiske aktivister uten reell kompetanse innenfor klimaforskning. De bruker hele tiden de samme fagpersonene, som f.eks. Richard Lindzen som hittil ikke har klart å produsere gyldig forskning som støtter påstandene han kommer med i offentligheten.

 

Det er ikke en eneste anerkjent forskningsinstitusjon som tar avstand fra IPCCs konklusjoner. Med andre ord må man ty til konspirasjonsteorier av et voldsomt omfang for å bortforklare hvor entydige forskningsmiljøenes standpunkter er.

 

Her er en oversikt over co2 utslipp.image.jpg

 

Her er en oversikt over temperaturen i Oslo. Den har ikke endret seg på 25 år.image.jpg

 

Det er overhode ikke noe sammenheng mellom co2 og temperatur. Da er naturlige svingninger totalt dominerende og menneskapte co2 utslipp påvirker ikke klimaet.

 

For det første er ikke kilden til grafen din særlig troverdig, og dessuten ser du ikke ut til å skjønne hva "global oppvarming" går ut på. Det handler om den globale gjennomsnittstemperaturen, og ikke været i Oslo til enhver tid.

 

 

 

 

Det er flere forskere som har sluttet nettopp fordi deres synspunkt ikke blir med i konklusjonen.

 

Har du et eksempel på dette? Da vil jeg gjerne ha bare ett, så det ikke tar så mye tid å ettergå påstanden din.

 

 

 

Siste avsnitt taler for seg selv. Consensus er ikke vitenskap! Vitenskapen går fremmover nettopp fordi noen ikke slår seg til ro med den vanligste oppfatningen.

 

Konsensus gjenspeiler de samlede konklusjonene til forskningen. Konsensus har altså ikke noe å gjøre med om det er vitenskap eller ikke.

 

 

Termodynamikkens 2. lov gjelder også for co2 molekyler. Visste dere forresten at klimamodellen som brukes av IPCC bruker en flat jord!

 

 

Nei, ingenting i IPCCs rapporter har en flat jord som utgangspunkt.

 

 

Sannheten er at hundre prosent av klimamodellene med co2 som oppvarming har feilet med mellom 50 og 400 prosent avvik! Modeller som ikke har co2 drevet oppvarming feiler med mindre enn 20 prosent.

 

 

Kan du oppgi kildene dine for disse påstandene?

Endret 30. mars 2014 av hekomo

[hekomo]

Jeg er ikke sikker på hva poenget med bildet du la ved er, men hvis du lurer på hva slags tidsskalaer man skal se på for å få et mer korrekt bilde av hva trenden er så kan du jo bare gå rett til kilden og lære deg det selv?

Er det virkelig slik at du ikke vet noe om dette i det hele tatt, siden du først fremsetter påstander for så å spørre meg, som ikke engang er en fagperson, hva du egentlig burde ha visst?

Vel det var du som påsto at man ser på "feil" tidsperiode, derfor spør jeg deg hva som er "rett" tidsperiode å se på.

 

At du ikke er fagmann er vel irrelevant for at du skulle kunne forklare dine egne påstnader?

 

Det som er spørsmålet her er jo hvorfor du velger ut kilder som ikke er faglig holdbare, og hvorfor du kommer med bastante påstander om et tema som du nå ser ut til å innrømme at du ikke vet nok om. Jeg vil si at når du ikke engang vet hva slags tidsrom man snakker om når det gjelder klima, så har du veldig mye å lære. Dette er såpass grunnleggende og såpass enkelt å finne ut av at man lurer på hva du egentlig driver med.

 

Jeg gikk ikke til ett nettsted, men til bladet som faktisk anses som å være ganske seriøst.

Imidlertid er det ikke et fagtidsskrift for klimaforskning. Tvert imot er det en publikasjon som appellerer til personer som ofte føler at deres verdensbilde er truet av klimaforskningen.

Å ukritisk gjengi noe som noen påstår noe på et tilfeldig nettsted er ikke spesielt god kildekritikk.

Tiårene er flertall av tiår. The Economist referer til det siste tiåret (singular).

At du velger flere tiår er kan vel kalles Cherry-picking, medmindre du kan forklare hva som er "rett" tidsperiode å bruke, samt hvorfor.

 

Jeg viser til mitt tidligere svar der jeg oppfordrer deg til å sette deg bedre inn i dette, og gå til reelle fagkilder for å lære mer (fremfor andre kilder som åpenbart ikke holder vann). Hvis du virkelig lurer på hva slags tidsskala man snakker om er det svært enkelt å finne ut av det.

Og frem til du besitter slik grunnleggende kunnskap er det kanskje ikke noe særlig poeng for deg å delta i en debatt om emnet?

 

Du er selvfølgelig klar over at om der faktisk var ett virkelig konsensus om den vitenskapelige teorien så kunne der ikke være noen relevant spredning i forecast?

Her er du nok en gang ute med ganske grunnleggende feiloppfatninger igjen. For å sitere Wikipedia: "Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity."

 

Desverre er det endel som tyder på at der er "fudge factors" aka "flux adjustments" inne i modellene til klimaforskerne

Det stemmer ikke. I det minste ikke på de fleste og mest kjente.

 

http://www.grida.no/.../wg1/fig9-3.htm

To aspekter er vel verdt å påpeke

 

Det aspektet jeg vil påpeke er at du åpenbart ikke skjønner hva grafene faktisk viser, og hvordan man leser dem.

Endret 30. mars 2014 av hekomo

[hekomo]

Minst 30 år er standarden i klimavitenskap for å kunne si noe som helst om langtidstrender. Dette er for å kunne utelukke naturlige kortidsvariasjoner.

Så hele den perioden hvor FN påstår at vi har hatt noen vesentlig innvirkning på klimaet består altså av ca 3 datapunkter? Pleier du å trekke en trend ut av 3 punkter? Er ikke det litt snaut?

Og hvordan er så denne perioden bestemmt? Hva er kriteriene bak å velge 30 år?

 

Jeg synes det er pussig at du er såpass bastant og påståelig i klimadebatten når du stiller spørsmål om såpass grunnleggende ting. Ikke bare er det grunnleggende du nå viser at du ikke besitter, men det er også svært enkelt å finne ut mer om dette. Dersom du faktisk ønsker å skaffe kunnskap om temaet.

 

Videre mistenkeliggjør du fagpersonene på fagområdet du nettopp har utvist en mangel på grunnleggende kunnskap om. Det virker som du prøver å få frem at de ikke vet hvordan de selv kommer frem til trendene i deres egen forskning. Synes du ikke selv dette blir litt for dumt, flesvik?