Dude, the IPCC report was written by politicians not scientists. And they used data from a college magazine and the guy that wrote the article they used said he made it up.
It's best to walk away and hope everyone forgets, then in a few years when global cooling is all the rage we can start again anew. . On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 7:30 AM, Vivec <[email protected]> wrote: > > http://www.grist.org/list/2011-05-11-nine-of-the-ten-loudest-climate-denying-scientists-tied-to-exxon > > "The "900+ papers" list is supposed to be proof that a large number of > different scientists reject the scientific consensus on climate change. > Climate sceptics do like big numbers: 'More than 500 > scientists<http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=4&sqi=2&ved=0CDIQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailymail.co.uk%2Fnews%2Farticle-481613%2FGlobal-warming-Its-natural-say-experts.html&rct=j&q=more%20than%20500%20scientists%20climate&ei=jBCoTdiFA9CbhQe0wLjGCQ&usg=> > dispute > global warming' was the story a few years ago. In December it was ' more > Than > 1000<http://www.climatedepot.com/a/9035/SPECIAL-REPORT-More-Than-1000-International-Scientists-Dissent-Over-ManMade-Global-Warming-Claims--Challenge-UN-IPCC--Gore> > International > Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims'. > > Once you crunch the numbers, however, you find a good proportion of this new > list is made up of a small network of individuals who co-author papers and > share funding ties to the oil industry. There are numerous other names on > the list with links to oil-industry funded climate sceptic think-tanks, > including more from the International Policy Network (IPN) and the Marshall > Institute. > > Compiling these lists is dramatically different to the process of producing > IPCC reports, which reference thousands of scientific papers. The reports > are thoroughly reviewed to make sure that the scientific work included is > relevant and diverse. > > Sceptic organisations have been successful in dumping large lists into the > public domain to suggest that there is significant scientific divergence > from the consensus. This is partly due to the fact it is time consuming > analysing such lists." > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:337788 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
