9,000 Nobel Pretenders | NoFrakkingConsensus
The unadorned truth was door number one. Cringe-worthy exaggeration was door number two. The IPCC made the wrong call.Summary for Policymakers published | The IPCC Report
...No best estimate of climate sensitivity, but a likely range given of 1.5 – 4.5C. The low end is slightly lower than it was in AR4 (2.0).Climate Delusion | ScottishSceptic
Misleading graph of ocean heat content
Graph of snow cover for March/April only
Decadally averaged temperature graph (hide the decline?)
Graph of Arctic, but not Antarctic, sea ice.
I am just listening to the IPCC spokesman.Michael Brown, astronomer, says science is not about debate, the people are too stupid « JoNova
There is a simple rule most of us use. If you are caught making a big lie, then we don’t trust anything else being said. He has just said that the models were “policy relevant”. This is entirely at odds with the lack of confidence amongst leading climate modellers at the Royal Society meeting in October last year.
The IPCC have just lost all credibility as a body advising governments.
Michael Brown, recipient of taxpayer funds for astronomy, tells us that science is not about debate because the public are not smart enough to judge the winner. He doesn’t list any evidence to support his faith in climate models (he’s just part of the herd following the consensus pack). Nor does he have any serious scientific criticism of the NIPCC climate report. But he uses plenty of names, baseless allusion, and innuendo. In the article ”Adversaries, zombies and NIPCC climate pseudoscience” in The Conversation he resorts to a group smear (with the help of the taxpayer funded site) in the hope that people won’t listen to those who disagree with him. Apparently he can’t win a fair and open debate, so he’s doing what he can to stop one.