JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).



The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Unpaid students to review AR5. This is rigorous expert science right?

The Risk Monger (David Zaruk) was astonished to receive an advertisement from the Dutch government looking for 60 young PhD students to help with the next Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report.

They salary is “none”. But they are not just looking for any old student. You don’t need experience, but to qualify you need “an affinity with climate change”. I guess they are not looking for skeptical students who feel an affinity with logic, reason, and empirical evidence?

The reasons for asking the unpaid students is actually described as an “ambitious plan” to do a “thorough review” because there were “errors in the fourth assessment report…”. O.K.

The Risk Monger:

Maybe I am jumping to conclusions, but with all of the mess of the last IPCC Assessment Report (including a non-scientific WWF campaign document predicting the disappearance of Himalayan glaciers getting through the review process and becoming one of the IPCC’s main conclusions), shouldn’t they try to do a more rigorous review process this time around? Students, working for free, are not perhaps the ideal choice of reviewers needed to challenge the experts

What troubles the Risk-Monger more here is that many environmental activists are working on their PhDs and would jump at the opportunity of shaping the IPCC’s subjective conclusions to match their personal political biases. I suppose Greenpeace or WWF will pay their time-sheets to help shape the IPCC’s most socially important chapters.

Strangely, in that month when the entire review process will be done, students will also be taught about what the IPCC is, and how to review a document (I really wish I was making this up). The review process starts with a drink on April 12 and ends with a dinner on May 13. One lucky reviewer will receive € 250; the rest go home with nothing.

I am going to go out on a limb here and predict that the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report will be loaded with more than just spelling mistakes.

Now don’t get me wrong, I’m the one who says there are no Gods in Science, and scientific truth lies in evidence and reasoning, not in qualifications — perhaps an unpaid student will straighten out the IPCC and stop them from making more embarrassing mistakes? But note the contradiction that hiring unpaid students provides compared with the IPCC promotion that they only use expert peer review.

No doubt the students work will be checked and overseen with a leading top climate expert with decades of experience (but then a government appointee will re-write their conclusions anyway). This expedition appears to be more about fishing and training up-and-coming PhD’s rather than the IPCC running out of money.

We all know that newly graduated PhD’s are sometimes the best at rewriting history and producing hockeysticks to fit the policy.

 The PDF of the letter to students

Richard Betts (the IPCC Lead Author that Lewandowsky mistakenly thought suffered from “conspiracist ideation”) points out that technically anyone can review an IPCC report, which is true. You can apply too.

The review of the WG2 volume starts tomorrow, and last until 24th May. Further info is here:

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/press-releases/25March2013_WGII_SOD_Review.pdf

 

 

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.1/10 (73 votes cast)
Unpaid students to review AR5. This is rigorous expert science right?, 9.1 out of 10 based on 73 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/cdtf6jp

172 comments to Unpaid students to review AR5. This is rigorous expert science right?

  • #
    Andrew McRae

    This news is ridiculous.

    So let’s be ridiculous.

    - – - – - – - – - – -

    IPCC AR5 Expert Reviewer Qualification Examination

    Q1: What does IPCC stand for?

    A) Imperial Pseudoscience Certified by the Credulous

    B) Isn’t Paying Cheap Collegians.

    C) Inculcates PhD Corruption of Climatology.

    D) Not much. (ba-dum-tisshh!)

     
    Keep `em comin’.


    Report this

    294

  • #
    Yonniestone

    What’s the matter, do the IPCC have a problem with Lord Monckton’s expert review?
    The advert reads like a recruitment drive for a new age cult or…HANG ON!!


    Report this

    283

    • #
      Joe V.

      I did think Lord Monckton could have made more of an effort , in his submission on WG1 reviewed. But then perhaps he already knew what a sham the process was. Better to publicise truths on your own terms, rather than have good ideas lost in the process.
      Yeeha for Doha !


      Report this

      122

      • #
        Joe V.

        Before you slaughter me, I haven’t found the smiley for tongue-in-cheek yet. :-)


        Report this

        80

      • #
        Yonniestone

        Joe V. During Monckton’s address here he was asked to recount the Doha story of being mistaken as the Burmese delegate, the way he told the story was hilarious and gave a great insight into the sham that these meetings are.
        Lord Monckton also pointed out the video we see had the booing and jeering he received edited out, how diplomatic of them.


        Report this

        131

        • #
          Joe V.

          On balance, having edited out the bad behaviour of the assembled does preserve the dignity of Monckton’s calm & courteous announcement, for the whole World to see.


          Report this

          102

          • #
            Yonniestone

            Joe V. I wonder if there’s an essay to do as part of the application?
            Some appropriate titles might be.

            -Rising sea levels & the need for more fingers in dykes.

            -You down with IPCC? Yeah you know me!

            -Hot air & sustainable farting.

            -My reason for “Hump a dolphin day”

            -Pachauri, my favorite Pokémon character.

            -Why skeptics are fake and gay.

            -Warm, what is it good for?

            Any other ideas will be appreciated.


            Report this

            51

    • #
  • #
    Otter

    In the future they envision, pretty much everyone will be doing upaid work- for Them.


    Report this

    182

    • #
      Dave

      WTF

      Through this review you will help IPCC in their aim to produce policy-relevant and
      policy-neutral information on climate change.

      You will obey and be compliant little slaves. Is it relevant or neutral?

      International Panel of Compliant Comics.

      Fruitloops, Geese, Gravy Lickers, Parasites, DDT deficient parasites.

      I just applied to lianne.vanderveer@pbl.nl stating that I am a Climate affected (young *1) scientist that logistically (Trucks) is surveying the effect of IPCC induced climate change on bitumen surfaces throughout the Angry Summer in Queensland, Australia.

      *1 – Young is relative in time and IPCC space. I am the Climate Change POT HOLE KING applicant reviewer for the IPCC and will from this moment on – have it Gold embossed on my business cards.


      Report this

      112

    • #
  • #
    Joe V.

    They will make great play of having ‘opened up’ the review process , in the future. It’s a way of claiming Skeptics buy-in. But don’t worry, while almost anyone may provide comments , there will be a firewall of Lead Authors to accept or reject them , according to their persuasion and that’s all before the all important conclusion are drawn for publication in the summary for policy makers.
    While everyone may have the right to be heard the arbitrers of worthwhile commentary remain to protect the creed.


    Report this

    122

  • #
    Nice One

    Wow that’s earthshattering news since anyone could sign up to be a reviewer. Even Anthony Watts signed up.

    That is different to being a peer that reviews peer-reviewed science, you know that right?


    Report this

    534

    • #
      Robert

      I thought the earth shattering news was that you’d learned to spell.


      Report this

      153

    • #
      Streetcred

      Any body doesn’t include you … you will need more than your 7th grade education.


      Report this

      121

    • #
      Dave

      .
      Mr. Nice One
      Peer reviewed is your GAIA God,

      What about this from Crakar24 from the last thread?

      Peer Reviewed Global Cooling? Do you agree with this peer reviewed paper?

      You say:

      “That is different to being a peer that reviews peer-reviewed science”

      – so if I’m a checker of the peer review, that reviews peer review checkers, does that mean you have to be a peer review peer checker checker. How come you aren’t a peer that been checked by the peer checker peer review checkers.

      You know that’s right? Are you a peer or a peer checker Nice One.


      Report this

      150

      • #

        Try saying that after a few tinnies.


        Report this

        60

      • #
        Nice One

        Sure beats the crap out there in blogger camp where you can make anything you like up. No science, no data, just whatever theory you like and “its real because its on a website”. Make it convoluted enough and no one will understand it, or be bothered to try to debunk it. Yeah, you’re onto a real winner there.

        Speaking of which, we’re still waiting for your evidence Jo. Stop hiding and man up.


        Report this

        337

        • #
          Dave

          .
          Yup Nice One,

          Make it convoluted enough and no one will understand it, or be bothered to try to debunk it.

          But, but, – just get 60 Phd students to mark your little essay, publish it, get Prince Choo Choo to release and WALLA:

          The Global Warming Theory all proved beyond doubt. Goodness you’re a clever little princess Nice One.

          So peer review is out, blogs are out, websites are out – let me guess you’re LEFT with the ABC and the BBC.

          You win – the world is getting so hot – it’s an Angry spring in the Northern Hemisphere that it’s snowing.

          CAGW – you’re a joke Nice ONE.


          Report this

          121

          • #
            Nice One

            So peer review is out

            Only for “so called skeptics”.


            Report this

            124

          • #
            Nice One

            By the way Dave, you may not know this, but

            notrickszone.com

            is not a peer-reviewed scientific journal.


            Report this

            316

            • #
              Heywood

              By the way Nice One, you may not know this, but

              itsnotnova.com, and
              skepticalscience.com

              are not peer-reviewed scientific journals either, but that doesn’t stop you quoting them.

              What’s good for the goose and all……


              Report this

              112

              • #
                Nice One

                I’d be ecstatic if we made decisions based upon peer-reviewed science only instead of blogger sites.

                But you don’t.

                Nova hasn’t cited one peer-reviewed paper that supports her theory of hydrothermal vents causing the OHC to rise between 700m and 2000m.


                Report this

                17

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                Nice One, you are denying that hydrothermal vents exist, are you? You are not denying that the heat from these vents, which actually consist of magma, warms the surrounding seabed and the surrounding water, are you? If you are, please give us references to the peer reviewed literature that supports your disbelief.

                Oh, and I am still awaiting a reply from you, to my request at 5.3.2.2.2.

                I noticed you went quiet when I asked you to supply the empirical evidence (not models) that supports the hypothesis of anthropogenic global climate change?

                But there again, you always go quiet when asked that question. That must be because you have none. And worse still, none of your friends can tell you where to look.


                Report this

                61

              • #
                Nice One

                No Rereke , read carefully. I am waiting for Nova to present research that shows how the hydrothermal vents have increased activity to the point that they can adequately explain the huge increase in deep ocean heat.

                btw: still waiting for your calcs of attribution. tea leaves settled yet?


                Report this

                18

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                Nice One,

                You are avoiding my question, yet again. I am not concerned with the debate you might, or might not be having with Joanne, that is none of my concern.

                I am asking you for some empirical evidence that supports the hypothesis of anthropogenic global climate change. And I will continue to ask for it, because every time I do, more people come to realise that you are all mouth, but no substance.

                As for these “calcs of attribution” that you keep on mentioning, as I have told you before, I have no idea what you are talking about. Please refresh my memory with a reference to our previous conversation where such things were discussed.


                Report this

                71

              • #
                Dave

                Nice One,

                Heat isn’t the only thing you can’t cope with:

                Seafloor hydro-thermal vents support ecosystems with enormous biomass and productivity compared with that observed elsewhere in the deep oceans.

                What’s that mean Nice One, also hope you are having a Nice Easter.


                Report this

                51

              • #
                Nice One

                You missed the point Dave, and failed to show how these vents are causing teh INCREASE in ocean heat.


                Report this

                17

              • #
                Dave

                Nice One,

                Send me the peer reviewed link to prove your statement:

                the huge increase in deep ocean heat

                please


                Report this

                40

            • #
              Nice One

              Gladly.

              http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50382/abstract

              The increase in heat below 700m is what Nova wishes to blame on hydrothermal vents, and thus not include it in the analysis.

              Please join her quest, perhaps you can succeed where all others have failed.

              http://joannenova.com.au/2012/10/man-made-global-warming-disproved/


              Report this

              04

              • #
                Dave

                Nice One.

                Simply – please provide the mechanism for the CO2 molecule to release it’s heat gained from CAGW “assumed” warming in the atmosphere and deposit this heat through to 700 meters below the oceans surface and then retain it.

                And also why is 0 to 700 meters decreasing over the last 15 years (Hansen et.al). This is recorded on ARGO also. And also I need the volume increase temperature from 700m below average compared to the 0 to 700 meters temperature volume average. Balmaseda1 and Trenberth did not provide this in that paper. I think Kallen was involved too: Uncertain paper by early Trenberth? Need more than a depth indicator, but rather a total temperature difference (think volume).


                Report this

                20

              • #
                Nice One

                Dave you failed to provide evidence for hydrothermal vents as the cause of increased OHC. Joanne Nova will be disappointed.

                please provide the mechanism for the CO2 molecule to release it’s heat gained from CAGW “assumed” warming in the atmosphere and deposit this heat through to 700 meters below the oceans surface and then retain it.

                Eh? You’re not making sense. It seems you might be a few physics lessons behind when it comes to how GHG will create a warmer ocean.

                But please do let us know of any peer-reviewed science that describe why the above paper, that describes how the oceans are warming, is in some way incorrect.

                And also why is 0 to 700 meters decreasing over the last 15 years (Hansen et.al).

                Again, WTF are you on about? The 0-700m OHC is also increasing. Your reference to Hansen et.al is about a vague as one could get. Be specific and provide a URL to the peer-reviewed paper.

                And also I need …

                To provide your own evidence or peer-reviewed papers that support some kind of conclusion instead of incoherent ramblings.

                I’m not here to try and fetch you evidence, or to explain basic physics. I’ve provided research that shows how the oceans are warming. It doesn’t support Jo’s hydrothermal vent theory.


                Report this

                05

              • #
                Dave

                Nice one
                1. When it comes to how GHG will create a warmer ocean. Peer reviewed paper please.
                2. The 0-700m OHC is also increasing. Please provide peer reviewed paper.
                3. I’ve provided research that shows how the oceans are warming Please provide peer reviewed papers.

                All I am asking is the peer reviewed papers you continually claim as proof?


                Report this

                40

              • #
                Nice One

                Already did Dave.

                http://joannenova.com.au/2013/03/unpaid-students-to-review-ar5-this-is-rigorous-expert-science-right/#comment-1260296

                Your failure to accept it or provide counter evidence appears to be your childish way of arguing.

                Warmist – Is so, provides evidence.
                “Skeptic” – Is not, show me evidence!


                Report this

                05

              • #
                Dave

                Nice One,

                Fair enough – but you didn’t read my reply:

                But you said earlier that you had:

                I’ve provided research that shows how the oceans are warming.

                But you haven’t: All I have asked if you would provide a link to the peer reviewed papers please.

                Good night Nice One: no doubt the link will be provided about how oceans are warming by the morning.


                Report this

                00

              • #
                Nice One

                As i said before.

                I’m not here to try and fetch you evidence, or to explain basic physics. I’ve provided research that shows how the oceans are warming. It doesn’t support Jo’s hydrothermal vent theory.


                Report this

                02

              • #
                Dave

                Nice One,

                I’ll provide the answer since you refused:

                “The cause of the change is a particular change in winds, especially in the Pacific Ocean where the subtropical trade winds have become noticeably stronger, thereby increasing the subtropical overturning in the ocean and providing a mechanism for heat to be carried down into the ocean,”

                by your hero Mr. Trenberth.

                The biomass increase is another thing you have omitted in your CAGW computer models and peer reviewed proof.

                My first question after you provide the above Nice One:

                1: What is the biomass contribution per year in tonnes in your computer Nice One due to hydrothermal vents?


                Report this

                00

              • #
                Dave

                .
                Nice One,

                Just to repeat myself from the other thread:

                Do you think that deep sea dumping of mining tailings in the Bismark Sea off PNG as authorised by Ross Garnaut from Highland Pacific and Lihir plus river dumping by OkTedi also could contribute to sub 700 meter temperature increase? Tailings average temperature is around 24 deg C and around 14,000 tonnes per day are entering into the Bismark Sea alone from Mr. Ross Garnaut’s Highland Pacific Ramu Nickel mine. Isn’t Mr. Garnaut the originator of the CO2 tax Nice One?

                Also Mr. J Hewson is involved in new GAS (renewable energy -joke) exploration company in PNG.

                Garnaut and Hewson are raping our Northern partner through REAL pollution and greed – while you, Nice One sit back and condone it all. Do you agree with deep sea tailing dumping? Does this contribute to the missing heat below 700 meters?


                Report this

                00

              • #
              • #
                Dave

                .
                Nice One,

                Ditto. Happy Easter :)


                Report this

                00

          • #
            Peter Miller

            Dave

            Nice One’s arguments are of the time proven “Yah, boo! Sucks to you” variety. These types of arguments are very compelling when passing through puberty.

            Perhaps his Dad is a government bureaucrat with something to do with climate, and he wants to be supportive. Perhaps – well, perhaps a lot of things……….

            Anyhow, trolls come and they go in sceptic blogs, but unlike in alarmist blogs their contrary views are not censored. True, they are an irritant, but that is what they are designed to be. Why do alarmists blogs always censor all sceptic comments? Answer: The same reason that any authoritarian regime applies rigid censorship – the people must be kept unaware of the truth/facts, or their could be leadership consequences.

            Anyhow, at least the members of the Team will be very proud of his brave words. I am sure he that warm, fuzzy feeling about his pitiful attempts to try and make Jo feel bad about what he sees as her awful blog, her lack of scientific knowledge and her lack of integrity. Presumably, there is someone out there who agrees with him – Michael, James, Phil?


            Report this

            152

        • #
          Richard

          You ask Jo where her evidence is? Are you wearing glasses with green-tinted lenses? How can you account for not seeing the evidence against CAGW she posts here week-in and week-out?


          Report this

          151

          • #
            Nice One

            I’m all too well aware of the blogger posts Jo makes. As for the science, her methods and scientific ability leave a lot to be desire. Check out itsnotnova for a list of past mistakes.

            But feel free to help Jo out in finding her evidence for hydrothermal vents causing the rise in OHC.

            Or perhaps you can help her redefine “statistical significance” – there are a lot of stats101 textbooks that require changing.


            Report this

            323

            • #
              Michael

              Nice One you say “As for the science, her methods and scientific ability leave a lot to be desire. Check out itsnotnova for a list of past mistakes.” If the mistakes(which I doubt) are so extensive,please provide clear and documented proof of them,or quit posting. Referring people to a site that may,or may not be trustworthy is just another smear attempt.Maybe the definition of Ad Hominem would apply in your case. Translated from Latin to English, “Ad Hominem” means “against the man” or “against the person.”

              An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of “argument” has the following form:

              Person A makes claim X.
              Person B makes an attack on person A.
              Therefore A’s claim is false.

              The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).


              Report this

              171

              • #
                Robert

                Well according to the “logic” being used thus far, why should we check out “itsnotnova” since that’s just another website, you know another blog, no scientific credibility, etc. etc.

                Those are his/her rules as outlined in 5.3.2.

                But apparently he/she can make up whatever constitutes a “credible” blog or website so long as it supports his/her beliefs.

                You can’t make that kind of stupid reasoning up yet we see it day in and day out from the faithful.


                Report this

                171

            • #
              Rereke Whakaaro

              And I am well aware that you still have not referred us to any empirical evidence that supports the hypothesis that mankind has the ability, by design or by accident, to impact the climate on anything like a global scale. All you can point to are computer models, that have not been published and released into the public domain.

              In fact, all you have, is a computer modellers club, where the members choose to communicate the results of computer modelling exercises with each other, through the “peer reviewed literature”, rather than by other means.

              You keep pushing this line because you have guessed that if anybody from outside the club was to submit a paper, it would be rejected by “The Club.” There are Climategate emails where that specific situation was discussed amongst the club members.

              Peer review is not the be-all and end-all of scientific progress, in any field. Something you would know if you had any real-world research experience.

              There is heaps of research being done in commercial laboratories that never goes near any sort of external scientific literature until patents have been applied for. Even then, a lot of the basic research underpinning that patent is kept within the organisation. for sound commercial reasons.

              You are strong on bluster, and dominating threads, but short of being able to deliver anything else.

              So, I will ask you my previous question again, Nice One: Where is the empirical evidence (not models) that supports the hypothesis of anthropogenic global climate change?


              Report this

              131

            • #
              AndyG55

              pretty pathetic when a site has to name itself something like that..

              really, really PATHETIC. (but you knew that)


              Report this

              81

            • #
              handjive

              Nice one and his “settled science.”

              In the real world (e.g: Jonova’s website), where genuine science is never settled, new discoveries have rendered all ocean/climate computer models obsolete and wrong:

              ❝ Antarctic bottom water – cold, dense water that sits in the abyssal zone between 4000 metres and 6000 metres below the ocean’s surface – plays a plays a key role in global water circulation and the transport of carbon dioxide to the deepest layers of the ocean.

              The discovery of a fourth source of deep water is critical to our understanding of Antarctica’s contribution to global ocean circulation, and will improve modelling of its response to climate change, says study co-author Dr Guy Williams.

              “The discovery of a fourth source is like “finding a new component in the engine,” he says.

              Until recently only three sources of the deep waters were known – the Weddell and Ross seas and off the Adelie Coast.

              The discovery of the polynya off Cape Darnley not only confirms a significant site of bottom water, but identifies a new mechanism for the generation of such waters, writes Michael Meredith. ❞

              Trenberth’s mystical, thermodynamic defying “missing heat”, last sighted only by Trenberth’s computer models, is junk climate science.

              It’s a travesty, Nice one.

              Unlike Trenberth’s thermodynamic defying “missing heat,” at least hydrothermal vents exist.


              Report this

              91

              • #
                cohenite

                That’s interesting; the researchers say this:

                “That was the smoking gun – it was a signal that this water had recently been near the surface [of the ocean] and had somehow been converted into this dense, deep ocean water,” says Williams

                .

                So surface water doesn’t carry its heat with it; and just think Trenberth has just found his missing heat.


                Report this

                30

              • #
                Nice One

                Nice one and his “settled science.”

                I’ve never said such a thing, nor has any climate scientist that I know of.

                In the real world (e.g: Jonova’s website)

                HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

                Trenberth’s mystical, thermodynamic defying “missing heat”, last sighted only by Trenberth’s computer models, is junk climate science.

                Funny how you cite the Feynman video (your link is wrong BTW) but then go on to make this claim, without having the data to conclusively declare that “Trenberth’s heat” is definitely not in the ocean. Perhaps you need to refamiliarise yourself with the logic behind disproving a theory.

                The “missing heat” refers to the imbalance between incoming/outgoing radiation, and the amount of heat we can observe in the ocean. However our ability to detect heat in the ocean remains very limited. Some Argo data goes to 2,000m, but the ocean is, on average, twice as deep. Some areas of the oceans go entirely without monitoring. Data below 2,000 meters is almost non existant.

                The discovery of the polynya off Cape Darnley not only confirms a significant site of bottom water, but identifies a new mechanism for the generation of such waters, writes Michael Meredith

                Yes, I agree our understandng of this planet will keep on expanding. But perhaps you should do a little more research before posting. And cohenite probably should before making such a stupid comment.

                You see the person you quoted also states:

                Michael Meredith, a polar oceanographer at the British Antarctic Survey in Cambridge, UK, who wrote an accompanying commentary on the study, says that if the total rate of AABW formation declines, the resulting changes in cold-water circulation could have important effects on global climate, letting the ocean depths warm and thereby changing the rate of heat exchange between Antarctica and the tropics. Moreover, he says, sea levels could rise — owing to the fact that water expands as it warms — and temperature changes could affect deep-sea ecosystems.

                Ironic that you attempt to suppot Nova’s idea that the oceans aren’t warming because we don’t know enough about them, only to post real science showing new evidence that shows how heat CAN be transported to the depths.

                If I hadn’t read other posts by you, I would almost think you set this up as a way to make “so called skeptics” look stupid. cohenite chipped in perfectly!


                Report this

                11

              • #
                handjive

                @Nice One
                March 29, 2013 at 7:57 pm

                Quote:

                I’ve never said such a thing, nor has any climate scientist that I know of.

                Either Nice one is pig ignorant or un-informed, stupid, or all of the above (plus some):

                In testimony to Congress about global warming, Al Gore declared that “the science is settled” and he was right.
                Stephen Schneider: Climate Change: Is the Science “Settled”?
                U. S. Environmental Protection Agency: The Science is Settled

                I could go on. The internet never forgets.
                Unlike Nice one, who conveniently forgets…Oh, thats right Al Gore is NOT a scientist!

                Back at ya, Nice one:

                “HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.”
                .
                Feynman:

                It doesn’t make a difference how beautiful your guess is.
                It doesn’t make a difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is.
                If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong

                Yes Nice one, that is how science is treated here. Are you in denial? Do you have evidence contrary?
                Why is it you never see a global warmer like Nice one post the Feynman video to support their failed arguments?
                .
                Your Meredith quote disproves or achieves nothing to re-butt the fact.
                The FACT that, with this discovery, ALL climate models are redundant still stands.
                Including, and especially, Trenberth’s “missing heat.”
                What, It’s still missing?
                Maybe we can put it’s picture on milk cartons! Someone must have seen it!
                .
                Quote:

                “…only to post real science showing new evidence that shows how heat CAN be transported to the depths.”

                Well, were is it? Where is this “transported missing heat” that defies thermodynamics only Trenberth can see?
                Still hiding?

                As I said previously, “Unlike Trenberth’s thermodynamic defying “missing heat,” at least hydrothermal vents exist.”


                Report this

                20

              • #
                Nice One

                You may wish to quote the “science is settled” in context.

                Is CO2 a GHG? Yes, the science is settled.
                Is the planet warming, Yes, the science is settled.
                Does the increase in CO2 results in an increase in the planets atmospheric temp, Yes, the science is settled.

                What final increase will we get (climate sensitivity), no the science is not settled.
                How exactly is heat transported around the oceans, no the science is not settled.

                A lack of observational data has not yet discredited the energy imbalance.

                at least hydrothermal vents exist

                Now for the rest of it. show how they are increasing in temperature and cause the planets oceans to also warm. Nova, despite having been asked multiple times, cannot provide this.


                Report this

                13

          • #
            Andrew McRae

            It’s the usual warmist tactic of hit and run. The Noxious One is counting on most people seeing its allegation with no subsequent response attached, and then assuming the allegation must be true without following Jo’s blog intently or (heaven forbid) using the search feature to find out what has already been said.

            Reversal of Science
            This is just playing into the hands of the topsy-turvy anti-science of the warmists, who expect skeptics to show evidence of a phenomenon NOT existing, which is inconceivable and therefore impossible by definition.
            The presumption should be that CO2 has little warming effect and that all recent climate change has been natural variance. The burden of proof is on CAGW believers to quantify the warming effect of CO2 in the atmosphere from real observation.
            Their eagerness to offload this burden shows they can’t carry it, and amidst all the failed temperature predictions, missing hotspots, paleoclimatologies that won’t co-operate, dodgy proxies, poor instrument siting, pre-emptive politicisation, and increasingly successful non-anthropogenic explanations for climate change, the subsequent fabricated hockeysticks, rigged peer reviews, whitewashed fraud inquiries, and general abandonment of the scientific method are not surprising.

            How Strong Is CO2 Really?
            The fact there is so little of CO2′s absorption spectrum that isn’t already covered by water vapour at low altitude tends to rain on the thermageddon parade. There are two small bumps left for CO2 and they’ve bet the house on it. The way that climate science has studiously avoided quantifying the radiative forcing effect of CO2 observationally in the real atmosphere is damning. Go ahead skeptics, stare into the eye of the beast, and tell me what evidence SkS has for producing the dangerous figure of “2 – 4.5°C warming for a doubling of CO2″. Yeah, the IPCC AR4, with no later references than that. You’re expected to take the missives of a corrupt political organisation as gospel. And in the last 3 years we’ve repeatedly seen CO2 is simply assigned a high warming potential because they can’t imagine how else to get their models to match reality.

            The SkS page begins with a Frankenstick glued together from ice cores and instruments – in Mannian style trickery to contrive the incline. Its whole thesis then revolves on a sensitivity number that has been guesstimated. The page then meanders through a non-sequitur from Hansen posing as “confirmation” of CO2 culpability, before culminating in an argument from consensus. That is the best SkS can do. Well warmists must be sorely disappointed with such a dog in a manger!

            Feedback Shmeedback
            Whatever CO2 does is partly reduced by the Earth’s natural thermostat.
            The way Lindzen and Choi’s 2011 paper on CERES data showed feedbacks to warming are negative, not positive as predicted by the IPCC climate models, should have been the death knell of this hyped-up hypothesis.

            Be Good To Your Mother (Nature)
            We’re told the temperature rise from the 50s to 2000 (ignoring the cool dip in the 1970s!) was mostly due to man-made CO2, but the moment the CO2 graph departed from the temperature graph in 2002, we were told NOW it’s natural fluctuation TEMPORARILY masking the man-made warming, but HAVE FAITH my brethren, for the warming shall return! Well what were all the natural phenomena doing when there was warming, eh? Sleeping?

            CAGW would be a religion, except religions are supposed to help people.


            Report this

            170

        • #
          AndyG55

          “No science, no data, just whatever theory you like ”

          yes.. YOU do !

          You got nothing, NONCE !! you feeble little git. !


          Report this

          81

        • #
          AndyG55

          “we’re still waiting for your evidence”

          Yes we ARE still waiting for YOUR evidence !!

          But it never happens… Perhaps its with Mann’s data and code.


          Report this

          101

        • #

          Nice One:Make it convoluted enough and no one will understand it, or be bothered to try to debunk it

          It didn’t work for the climate scientists, did it???


          Report this

          91

      • #
        Tim

        Is the government appointee who re-writes the conclusions of the peer that was checked by the peer review checkers called the peer reviewer of the peer checker’s checks?

        (And is his nickname ‘Chubby’?)


        Report this

        31

    • #
      Joe V.

      You do realise don’t you, that all Government policy gets reviewed by Peers in the UK, before it gets onto the statute books. Yes, Peers still have a lot to answer for, not least the conflicting commercial interests of the likes of Lord’s Windbags and Whitewash. Thankfully they’re not all like that though, just the one’s that get appointed to Chair Committees and to Conduct Enquiries on such matters.


      Report this

      41

    • #
      Safetyguy66

      I think you need to look up the meaning if the word “peer”

      Definition: “one that is of equal standing with another : equal; especially : one belonging to the same societal group especially based on age, grade, or status”

      So very few of the people being asked to review could be regarded as peers, based on the nature of the recruitment drive. This is perhaps quite indicative of the entire perversion of the notion of peer review since this age of pseudo science/climate religion began. The IPCC will go down in history as having done more damage to the basic notion of scientific rigour than any other organisation before or since.


      Report this

      41

      • #
        justjoshin

        The acceptance of underqualifed students as their peers is a small step in the right direction.

        Maybe they should get engineers to look at their papers. Engineers are fairly fastidious with their work, as they are legally liable for damages caused by errors in their work. Engineers typically don’t work for free though.


        Report this

        20

  • #
    Robert

    Well the Nobel Prize was made meaningless by this lot, no surprise that they’re doing the same thing to the PhD.


    Report this

    131

    • #
      Joe V.

      Oh, didn’t they mention the prospect of sharing in a Nobel Prize ? But everyone knows that right (although it just cann’t be said) ? But only if they do a really good job of course, in supporting the right conclusions.
      A few might not be taken in by that, but the Left communicates by such unspoken messages, and many already of that persuasion as well as I fear many more of easy persuasion, will be.


      Report this

      71

    • #
      Safetyguy66

      I was watching the show “History of Electricity” last night. I think the Nobel Prize was screwed long before Gore stole it. Marconi was a pretty undeserved recipient over 100 years earlier.


      Report this

      30

      • #
        Robert

        Yep, the entire Marconi/Tesla thing is still a major fiasco to this day. The last time I checked Tesla was formally given credit for what numerous texts to this day still attribute to Marconi.


        Report this

        30

  • #
    Streetcred

    Interesting … let’s not overlook the fact, as well, that the Dutch are leading public donors to WWF along with Germany. Mmmmm ?


    Report this

    70

    • #

      The Germans are as gullible as the British.

      WWF gets paid by big corporations to let them put the death-panda logo on containers.


      Report this

      30

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Well, you have to admit, it was a brilliant stroke of marketing … nothing to do with saving the planet or anything, but good marketing.


        Report this

        30

        • #

          I reckon it’s backfiring, though. I’m sure I’m not the only one who refuses to buy anything associated with WWF, “save the planet” slogans or panda bears. I used to not care, now such items are poison to me. I’m sure many others have also withdrawn their support for such marketing.


          Report this

          60

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            I reckon it’s backfiring …

            I am sure it is. I know of at least one cosmetic company, that paid a small fortune to WWF for the privilege of using “the WWF endorsement” on packaging and in advertising.

            Although they saw a small improvement in sales overall, their sales in eye makeup took a total nose-dive.

            Now, I wonder why that might have occurred? ;-)


            Report this

            20

          • #
            Streetcred

            When Coke (TM) did the polar bear thing with WWF there was such a negative response that they stopped producing the white cans.

            For me I stopped drinking Coke in anything and will only venture back when they abandon WWF … Coke ruins the ‘Square Bear’ anyway. (Note: Bundaberg Rum => square bottle => white bear logo => long before WWF & Coke cock-up)


            Report this

            10

  • #

    [...] To read the full article, click here. Share this:TwitterFacebookEmailStumbleUponLike this:Like Loading… « Hottest ever in England: Why meteorological mathematics misleads [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Peter Miller

    This comment in the IPCC press release says everything: “and a final round of government comments on the draft of the Summary for Policymakers.”

    This will be a deliberately scary summary, probably having little to do with the actual contents of AR5, designed to titillate the ecoloons in the left-leaning media, such as the ABC and the BBC. Anyhow, whatever the contents are of AR5, its results and conclusions are clearly going to be skewed horribly towards the requirements of populist politicians, namely:

    1. The need for more taxes to combat………….
    2. The need for more ‘research’ and more bureaucrats to monitor the ‘research’.
    3. “As the science is settled”, there is no need for any further debate, Thermageddon is almost upon us – we must act now!!!!
    4. Proof that energy poverty caused by ‘essential’ green energy policies is the fault of rich people living in rich western countries – and they must be made to pay for their crimes.
    5. The need to restrict personal freedoms in favour of actions for ‘the greater good of mankind’.
    6. Cheap, reliable, abundant energy like coal is bad, while expensive, unreliable, erratic energy, like solar and wind is good.
    7. CO2 is the greatest threat to mankind since the H bomb.

    And so on, ad nauseam.


    Report this

    110

  • #

    The fall of the IPCC has echoes of the fall of the Roman Empire. This latest bizzare move is the equivalent of Caligula appointing his horse a senator. With it, they’ve smashed through the laughable barrier.

    Pointman


    Report this

    181

  • #
    pat

    meanwhile…

    28 March: UK Telegraph: Ambrose Evans-Pritchard: Cyprus has finally killed myth that EMU is benign
    The punishment regime imposed on Cyprus is a trick against everybody involved in this squalid saga, against the Cypriot people and the German people, against savers and creditors. All are being deceived.
    The complicity of EU authorities in the original plan to violate insured bank savings – halted only by the revolt of the Cypriot parliament – leaves the suspicion that they will steal anybody’s money if leaders of the creditor states think it is in their immediate interest to do so. Monetary union has become a danger to property…
    The Cyprus debacle has taught us yet again that EMU has gone off the rails, is a danger to stability, and should be dismantled before it destroys Europe’s post-War order…
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/9957999/Cyprus-has-finally-killed-myth-that-EMU-is-benign.html


    Report this

    50

  • #
    michael hart

    “Unpaid students to review AR5. This is rigorous expert science right?”

    Not surprised. They clearly got school children to write some of it.

    In Chapter 3, persisting from earlier draughts, is the phrase “When CO2 reacts with seawater it forms carbonic acid, which is highly reactive…”

    That sentence is an affront to anyone who has studied Chemistry past the age of 13. I’m watching with amusement to see if it remains in the final document.


    Report this

    100

    • #
      JunkPsychology

      I do have this dim recollection of carbonic being a very weak acid…


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Isn’t carbonic acid put into soft drinks to make them fizzy?


        Report this

        30

        • #
          Andrew McRae

          A fine example of how correlation isn’t causation.

          Forcing CO2 into soft drinks under pressure to make them fizzy will also create carbonic acid.
          After opening the container the CO2 bubbles eventually fade and the pH will return to pre-carbonated levels. It’s a physical chemistry change (loss of partial pressure of CO2) which then drives a chemical reaction change ( H2CO3 => CO2 + H2O ).

          Pepsi and Coke also add other kinds of acids to their drinks. I happen to have a sample of bottled Coca Cola available for analysis right now.
          Hmm yes. There is now less of the sample available for study.
          On the label it says Food Acid 338, which is sneaky code for Phosphoric Acid.
          Gulp. There is now even less of the sample available for study.
          A quick googling shows Phosphoric Acid is a slightly stronger acid (lower pKa value) than carbonic acid, but they are both classed as “weak” acids (pKa greater than -2.0 ). So carbonic acid is weaker than the acid added to Coke.
          And now an entirely new specimen will be needed if further study is to be undertaken.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            Hmmm, what does introducing alcohol do to the sample? I am specifically thinking about alcohol containing traces of organic matter from sugar cane?


            Report this

            10

            • #
              Andrew McRae

              Previous field agents have reported that the CO2 bubbles exhibit different motion and behaviour, which is particularly pronounced in the presence of ice cubes whereupon the bubbles tend to cluster around the ice cubes. This may be due to altered density and surface tension.
              The same source reported that the bubbles clustered differently yet again if the alcoholic beverage contains less impurities, such as obtained from fermented wheat. The different pattern of bubbles on the surface allows an agent practised in the art to distinguish between rum-and-coke and vodka-and-coke using only a few moments glance.

              However it is only an unproven hypothesis of Physics that the laws of physics operate the same way at all points in the Universe, so no matter how many times the above results are observed there is never an excuse to discontinue the observational regime. ;)
              If I’m ever visiting your corner of Mordor then it’s an experiment you could certainly assist with.


              Report this

              10

      • #
        michael hart

        Exactly. All that CO2 in the atmosphere hasn’t even started to make my eyes sting yet… :)


        Report this

        20

      • #
        michael hart

        And seeing as how it is a by-product of the brewing process, perhaps it’s God’s way of telling us that he loves us, carbon dioxide, and beer in equal amounts :)


        Report this

        80

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    What does, “affinity for climate change,” even mean?

    My first three guesses are:

    1. the fix is in

    2. the fix is in

    3. the fix is in

    Those are mine. What are yours? :-)


    Report this

    80

  • #

    You don’t want to automatically dismiss unpaid students.

    Gears grinding … remembering … Kirsten Byrnes, “Ponder the Maunder.”
    She was 15 and wrote an unpopular essay.


    Report this

    90

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      With our education system being what it is, surely there can be few kids left that have not been programmed for global warming since 1992.
      But this Kirsten kid means there is still hope. That is good news.


      Report this

      40

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      I don’t know… We can’t have a 15-year old outsmarting the IPCC, can we? Better do something about this fast so Al Gore and the EPA don’t notice. ;-)

      Or give this girl a medal!


      Report this

      70

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Perhaps Jo should approach her to see if she wants to do a guest post?

      I am serious. For one thing it would counter the assertion that all sceptics are just old people who don’t really understand the “proper science” that is taught today.

      ‘I mean, those “old” people still rely on something called empirical evidence. That is so “engineering” that it requires field work, experimentation, and observation. How antiquated is that?’ /sarc.


      Report this

      60

  • #
    markon

    What does IPCC Stand for?

    International Panel of Climate Criminals


    Report this

    70

  • #
    Safetyguy66

    “logic, reason, and empirical evidence” What sort of crazy talk is this ? Next you will be telling us the IPCC has something to do with science!


    Report this

    40

  • #
    Jon

    The climate Marxist cultural guard?


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Jaymez

    While I was battling the snow during my recent trip to the UK, (Snow is that stuff which was never going to fall again), a mate of mine was staying at one of the 14 new resorts recently built in the Maldives. He flew into one of the two new airports which have been built to burn aviation fuel to keep the high dollar passengers coming to this idyllic location in the middle of the Pacific Indian ocean. [fixed, mod oggi]

    There he and his wife stayed in air-conditioned exclusive villas, with spas and it’s own infinity pool. And had all the boating and diving facilities at their disposal. Any meal, or just drinks on the beach was a special event, to be enjoyed under the stars, with many candles and the food cooked close by with your own personal chef.

    My buddy sent me the menu for the especially arranged Earth Hour dinner. Before dinner they were reminded to turn off the lights, hair dryers, air-conditioning and fans, not the fridges, and go down to the beach to be surrounded by hundreds of candles large firewood fires and watch the food be cooked by chefs on portable stoves. My buddy sent me the menu:

    Earth Hour Dinner
    Earth Hour Menu Maldives

    He was crushed when I told him what Bjorn Lomborg had said about candals and CO2:

    “Hypothetically, switching off the lights for an hour would cut [carbon dioxide] emissions from power plants around the world. But, even if everyone in the entire world cut all residential lighting, and this translated entirely into CO2 reduction, it would be the equivalent of China pausing its CO2 emissions for less than four minutes. In fact, Earth Hour will cause emissions to increase. One candle is about the same as the fossil fuel used to produce energy to work a light, two candles and you have exceed the CO2 emissions from leaving all lights on

    Horrified he made a survey of staff and guests about their views on climate change and global warming. His summary of the survey results was to quote “none of the people here think there is a global warming or rising sea level problem. All the people I have met here think its a joke and these stories have been circulating for 40 years”

    He said there was definitely no reason to leave the Islands. But perhaps he could review the UN IPCC ‘s AR5 report on rising sea levels?


    Report this

    161

  • #
    Paul Coppin

    I understand there will be a skill-testing question before acceptance as a reviewer…

    Just one: Do you know what “confirmation bias” is?

    There is only one correct answer: “No”

    Students answering in the affirmative will be given an automatic fail and be passed over.

    Students attempting to actually define “confirmation bias” will be black-listed for the rest of their careers.


    Report this

    70

  • #
    Safetyguy66

    Also from the letter (too funny)

    “The
    presentation of findings will take place in Utrecht on the 13th of May 2013 from 14.00
    till 20.00 and includes a diner.”

    So they are giving away a restaurant to anyone who takes part? How do you get it home?


    Report this

    20

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      No, a Dinar (pronounced dee’nar) is a unit of currency used in Algeria, Iraq, Jordan, Libya, and Serbia. Currently one Dinar is worth about 0.864 cents US, or in other words, US$1.0 will get you 1158 Iraqi Dinar.

      So this proves, without any shadow of doubt, that the IPCC lied when they said that the reviewers would not be paid.


      Report this

      40

    • #
      Eddie Sharpe

      So just the promise of a Free Lunch (there’s no such thing ) for all their efforts. Keep them lean and hungry so yhey’ll write anything required


      Report this

      30

    • #
      Ace

      Dont be silly, it obviously means they are giving away a table with a fat man attached to it eating.


      Report this

      30

  • #
    AndyG55

    I can see the final IPCC reviewers being a whole bunch of Social, Literary, Arts, and Psychology PhD candidates, NONE of which have even the most simplistic grounding in anything even remotely connected to climate science. (similar to the Nonce)

    Another joke/farce in the making. :-)


    Report this

    30

  • #
    john robertson

    This could work out real well.
    Remember the Emperors new clothes?
    If the unpaid students are young enough, they will sink the IPCC.


    Report this

    40

  • #
    AndyG55

    Poor IPCC, all the real scientists have left, sick of having their reviews ignored,

    and sick of being misrepresented by the political arm of the WWF/Greenpeace green agenda in IPCC summaries and reports.

    No one of any standing is prepared to do the reviews any more.

    So they advertise for PhD students (probably art, socal studies etc) who already agree with their findings.

    This is what climate science peer review has sunk to !!

    Deeper and deeper into the muck!


    Report this

    60

    • #
      Winston

      And they (or at least Phil Jones) did say they would “redefine peer review”, so at least they kept their word on that one. Nice One thinks that should count for something, I’m sure.


      Report this

      70

  • #
    Tim

    If anyone was unsure about the IPCC being formed to arrive at predetermined outcomes – then here’s the proof. They just blew their cover.


    Report this

    30

  • #
    Ace

    Wouldnt it have been better to keep quiet on this whilst circulating the recruitment links among sceptical PHD students with time on their hands and motivation?


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Manfred

    It is said Nero fiddled (played his lyre) while Rome burned and yes, Caligula appointed his horse a senator (#11 – thanks Pointman!). Here we’re seeing a full blown orchestra(tion). The hapless PhD students will have relevant and interested supervisors metaphorically standing behind them – a golden chance to participate and to be seen to be doing so. By their participation, they will be scoring brownie points for their institutions and for their supervisors and they WILL be demonstrating how very, very keen they are not to stray from the well indicated path.

    A lot will be riding on their guaranteed bias nascent ability, and we have already witnessed what happens to their work (Marcott et al. 2013). I should also add that the IPCC has furnished itself with ‘deniability’. That is, it the whole thing goes tytz-up, they can blame the neophytic reviewers!


    Report this

    20

    • #
      Ace

      Caligula also built a b’strd great boat with a marble palace on it which was recovered in the 1930′s by draining the lake where it lay and re-filling it later.A museum was built around the boat. Fecklike five hundred feet long and half a mile wide. I exaggerate slightly.

      Then the boat was burned down during WW2. The Yanks blamed the Germans. The Germans blamed the Yanks. I buy the view the Germans did it deliberately as part of their pissy retreat from Italy: “If Mich Kannst haben it Du kannst either mate”.

      The museum still stands. It houses a model of the boat, about four feet long.

      Meanwhile. Ptolomy had a ship built with a crew of several thousand and equipped with a few hundred marines including cavalry for which stables were included. The ship was armed with artillery and underwater defensive grid. It was roughly comparable in length and width (though obviously not bulk or displacement) with a Nimitz class nuclear carrier of today. The only problem was it took an entire day to load the crew by which time the sun had set and naval operations ceased. It was effectively useless.

      I assure you, Ive only drunk coffee and lemonade tonight. Now for some whiskey.


      Report this

      20

      • #
        Ace

        Now the whiskeys kicking in…does anyone want to discuss project Habekuk.

        Quickly, before I confuse that word with “bukake”.


        Report this

        20

        • #
          Yonniestone

          Both compositions are similar, it’s the delivery that’s different.


          Report this

          00

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          Ace,

          How long is the handle on your shovel? I hear that you can dig yourself into a hole even faster if it’s short. Those long ones get in the way as you go down.

          You might try giving the shovel some of that whisky too.

          Your grip on ancient history is breathtaking. ;-)


          Report this

          00

  • #
    RoHa

    ” technically anyone can review an IPCC report, which is true. You can apply too.”

    Only if they pay me.


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Eddie Sharpe

    It’s just another covert ploy of Lewandowski’s, to see many skeptics apply and expose more skepticist ideation.


    Report this

    20

  • #
    ianl8888

    Further rigourous published science from James Hansen:

    http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/1/011006/pdf/1748-9326_8_1_011006.pdf

    Actually, quite astonishing for Himself


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      BS^2, (BS^2)^2? I don’t even know how much he’s compounded his line of bull. But no matter, it’s still the same old James Hansen. He gets worse with age — exponentially!

      NASA, how low are you going to fall?


      Report this

      00

  • #
    pat

    Bolt Blog: Lewandowsky accused of defamation
    He’s been pinged for, how shall we say it, making claims that don’t accord with the records, and now his latest paper has again been withdrawn from circulation by a journal while complaints of defamation and inaccuracy are checked out.
    From the complaint…
    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/lewandowsky_accused_of_defamation/


    Report this

    21

  • #
    • #
      Eddie Sharpe

      Wednesday was 10 years to the day since a suspicious fire destroyed what was left of Brighton’s derelict and crumbling West Pier, just before a £30 million redevelopment was to begin. For many years before that it seems Brighton hadn’t been ready to accept its fate, and even for years after the fire the shock has been too much to overcome.
      A lot of public money has been saved for spending on other causes, on the edge of Britain’s only Green Parliamentary Constituency,


      Report this

      20

  • #
    2dogs

    Looks like its co-ordinated by a graduate trainee.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    old44

    is Sportsbet running a book on which way the next IPCC Report leans?


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Jamie Spry

    Ironic to think, ‘students’ interested in becoming a reviewer for the latest IPCC report into man-made climate change, would have never experienced any statistically-siginificant Global Warming in their entire lives, assuming they are no older than 17 years or born after 1996.

    Can see the job-ad now:

    IPCC STUDENT REVIEWERS WANTED: Successful applicants must have had NO Global Warming experience i.e born after 1996 or be no older than 17 years of age. Apply here….

    ;)


    Report this

    10

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      On average a graduate student would be about 22 years plus. Consider the path to graduate student status: high school graduation at 18 and then 4 years of undergraduate work. So these would be really experienced young men and women with great talent and wisdom to bring to the job.

      I know because I knew exactly how to save the world at that age! Anyone doubt me? ;-)


      Report this

      10

  • #

    [...] can work on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s latest report as a “reviewer”? Here’s your chance to give governments the world over a blueprint for a radical left transormation… For the Dutch government, the PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency will conduct a [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Sonny

    The moon doesn’t even exist.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    rightlysouthern

    It was a Pilfering of the Commoners Cents,
    Advanced by Instruments Partaking Cursory Conclusions,
    `Twas the bloggers Incessant Particularly Palpitating Comments,
    Consistently Contradicting Pusillanimous Illusions.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    David

    An affinity with climate change’…

    Oh, right – we’ll get a totally unbiased bunch doing the peer reviewing, then..


    Report this

    10

  • #