Comments on: The UN IPCC ‘2500 Scientists’ Hoax

By: george rock

george rock — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 03:27:19 +0000

30000 real scientists agree IPCC is wrong. perhaps penny wrong should stick to law…

By: Ian Mott

Ian Mott — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 14:03:44 +0000

Will someone explain to poor old Ender that it was the IPCC that started the numbers game with their specific mention of 2500 scientists. And the facts now become clear that most of those 2500 didn’t do ANY job at all so it would not be a very big ask to do a “better job” as he demands of us.

Get back under the rock, Ender, the slime moulds are getting lonely.

By: Mark

Mark — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 11:59:54 +0000

Ivan,

I think you hit the nail on the head!

By: spangled drongo

spangled drongo — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 08:47:25 +0000

Ender,
“Summerising”?
Nobody could a better job of “summerising” than the IPCC.

By: cohenite

cohenite — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 05:56:23 +0000

Ah yes, misery-guts Clive Hamilton; he’s always been a fan of transparency and the rights of the hoi poloi; give him heaps Mr Young.

By: Graham Young

Graham Young — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 05:02:07 +0000

Brian, I asked the same question as to why On Line Opinion was carrying a 6 month old story. Apparently we found out late in the day, so my editor was already more or less committed to it. However, thinking about it a little longer, like Mondo, I hadn’t seen it covered in Australia so it went up.

It’s sparked some fireworks and Clive Hamilton has submitted a piece which we will publish later this week, to which I will reply. He thinks it represents the “demise” of On Line Opinion. I beg to differ.

By: Malcolm Hill

Malcolm Hill — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 04:31:36 +0000

“So counting the number of scientists that took part in the IPCC report is more important than its content?”

Like you said the IPCC doesnt do science, it just assesses, arrives at a position and then proclaims a consensus, when there isnt one.

If the IPCC was ethical it wouldnt be making claims it cannot suppport

As to the content, well the documents dont support the main contentions,(made in the summary documents) either. So its not only numbers, but substance as well.

By: Ivan

Ivan — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 04:14:09 +0000

“If you people think you can do a better job of summerising the current research then put your hands up and do the job or shut up.”

Easy – the summary would be:
“It’s all bull$shit. Carry on as before.”

Let me know who to send my invoice to.

By: Ender

Ender — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 02:01:20 +0000

Also the IPCC does not do the science it just summerises what the current thinking in climate science is.

I was being perfectly serious in my first comment. If you people think you can do a better job of summerising the current research then put your hands up and do the job or shut up.

By: Ender

Ender — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 01:56:39 +0000

cohenite – “it is also revealing, once again, the lack of transparency, elitism and corruption in the AGW camp; regardless of the ’science’, the politic behind AGW is vile.”

So this a pathetic attempt to justify the graft and corruption behind the anti AGW movements by attempting to show that the IPCC is as bad?