3 ms·
Can you put a link to your claim?
by Oletros 11y ago
Can you put a link to your claim?
- pdonis 11y agoThe IPCC AR5 Summary for Policymakers is here: http://www.climate2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf http://www.climate2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pd... A discussion of the key admissions (and how the IPCC tried to obfuscate them), including specific references to the AR5 SPM, is here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/09/the-ipcc-discards-its-models/ http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/09/the-ipcc-discards-its-...
- acqq 11y agoSo the claims as you specify them are those of Barry Brill not the IPCC: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Brill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Brill "New Zealand politician and a lawyer." "He was also involved with the New Zealand Climate Science Education Trust, a charitable organisation that, according to the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA), appears to have been set up solely to take court action against them. The trust lost two court cases against NIWA and on both occasions, was ordered to pay costs. NIWA has put the trust into liquidation and as of 2014 was considering to pursue Brill and another trustee for the owed money.[7]" His claims are, of course, a distortion of what really happened, and are based on what he and those like him call the "hiatus." Which is also misinterpretation of the curve of the temperature change, and which those especially liked before the last two years that broke most of the records. I see only the agenda there, and again, scientific illiteracy.
- pdonis 11y ago> the claims as you specify them are those of Barry Brill not the IPCC The link I gave gives specific quotes and references from the IPCC AR5. It doesn't talk about Barry Brill or his claims at all, nor did I.
- Oletros 11y agoSo, the only thing that you have to back your claims is a post from WUWT, a know denier site that has lied a lot of times. I will suppose that you don't have anything
- pdonis 11y ago> the only thing that you have to back your claims is a post from WUWT A post which gives specific quotes and references from the IPCC AR5. Whatever you might think of WUWT in general, this particular post is talking about what the IPCC itself is saying.
- pdonis 11y ago> a know denier site that has lied a lot of times I could just as well say that a site like RealClimate is "a known alarmist site that has lied a lot of times". At that point we're just pointing fingers and arguing from authority, not substance. That's why I picked an article that specifically quotes and references the IPCC AR5 itself, rather than one of the hundreds of critical papers and articles that have been published by skeptics on the mismatch between the models and the data.
- Oletros 11y ago> I could just as well say that a site like RealClimate is "a known alarmist site that has lied a lot of times" No, you can´t if you don´t lie > At that point we're just pointing fingers and arguing from authority, No, WUWT has no authority because nobody on this site is a climate scientist > That's why I picked an article that specifically quotes and references the IPCC AR5 itself No, you quoted an article where someone interpreted what the IPCC said. You didn't quoted anything from the IPCC. And that was your claim > rather than one of the hundreds of critical papers and articles that have been published by skeptics on the mismatch between the models and the data. Still waiting one of those articles from climate scientists But I will wait a lot, you're just another denier that has nothing to back what you write
- reitanqild 11y agoSeconded, as much as I am still a sceptic I still want verifiable facts or at least sources.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]