tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12339127.post7499917230810244230..comments2024-01-13T01:17:55.325-06:00Comments on Tom Nelson: Is this stunning admission "just a typo" or "taken out of context"?Tomhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08119241500221931600noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12339127.post-8874408478727455852010-03-21T18:46:57.055-05:002010-03-21T18:46:57.055-05:00I have to agree with you, Tom. And the really craz...I have to agree with you, Tom. And the really crazy fact of it is that the IPCC admits is doesn't understand yet the msm and politicians don't pay any heed to that.<br /><br />IPCC itself says it has either 'low' or 'very low' scientific understanding of 80% of known climate forcing agents yet somehow has a crystal ball telling them CO2 is the bad guy of the bunch.<br /><br />Readers ought to check the table in the IPCC Third Assessment Report (2001) under ‘Radiative Forcing agent, Level of Scientific Understanding.’ It is also entitled IPCC TAR WGI SPM (figure 3). The table proves they’ve got no clue over an astonishing 8 out of 12 forcing factors! >>><br /><br />Greenhouse gases High<br />Stratospheric ozone Medium<br />Tropospheric ozone Medium<br />Aerosols – Sulphate Low<br />Aerosols – CO2 from fossil fuel Very Low<br />Aerosols – Biomass burning) Very Low<br />Aerosols – Mineral dust Very Low<br />Aerosols – indirect effects Very Low<br />Aviation-induced contrails Very Low<br />Aviation-induced cirrus Very Low<br />Land use – albedo only Very Low<br />Solar radiative forcing Very Low <br /><br />After 22 years of 'research' these jokers woefully ignored obtaining ANY scientific findings that distracted the blame away from CO2- its not science - its political advocacy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com