Comments on: Friday Linkzookery – 03 Jul 2009

By: Sam

Sam — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 01:58:53 +0000

Care to share any examples of papers within the IPCC report which contradict other papers within the IPCC report?

And even if that is the case, it doesn’t excuse Carlin et al one iota.

By: Nicholas

Nicholas — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 13:20:50 +0000

Sam, no, the studies selected by IPCC are not internally consistent as a whole. They just gloss over the inconveniently inconsistent bits. I know because I’ve read many of the studies which disagree with their report, which were glossed over, ignored or flat out suppressed.

By: Sam

Sam — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 01:57:46 +0000

p.s.
OCR translations of the PDFs of the secret suppressed report, then run through plagarism checkers show that some un-attributed sections have the same exact wording as an op-ed piece by Patrick Michaels.(not that he’d mind much)
http://tinyurl.com/p4yb6f

By: Sam

Sam — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 00:30:14 +0000

The studies submitted to the IPCC and repeer-reviewed for that purpose, are internally consistent as a whole. The ’support’ in Carlin’s ‘report’ are internally INconsistent as a whole. Big difference, Big, Huge.

By: Nicholas

Nicholas — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 05:26:23 +0000

A lot of studies the IPCC rely on are contradicted by other studies too. However, that only seems to be a problem for “contrarians” huh?

By: Sam

Sam — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 16:53:34 +0000

p.s.
In case you are having trouble figuring out Wood for Trees, here is my graph:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/last:132/trend/plot/wti/last:132

‘last 132′, is the past 11 years in terms of months.

By: Sam

Sam — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 16:35:15 +0000

Murdoc,
One of Carlin’s sources believes that the rise of Stalin and Hitler were due to Cosmic Cycles. Some of his sources contradict ‘findings’ of other sources he uses; many contradict established science data. Some are just blog entries and un-peer reviewed papers.

And for his claim that the earth has been cooling over the past 11 years. Check it yourself: http://www.woodfortrees.org/

HIs oddest claim is implying that no amount CO2 increase can ever be harmful to humans, because it’s been beneficial so far. Google lake Nyos in Africa.

By: Vitor

Vitor — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 15:15:46 +0000

LOL at being illegal to catch raindrops. This kind of stupidity just reinforce my liberatian views. =)

By: Nadnerbus

Nadnerbus — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 00:15:21 +0000

Don’t you know? The science is settled. There is no questioning it now. A lot of scientists signed something saying so. Move on here, nothing to see now. If the repercussions of this fact are that government authority and control of the nation and the individuals in it is greatly increased, then that’s just a coinquidink. The left would never use a scientific theory to try to re engineer society in its own image. And you sir, for questioning it, are like a holocaust denier.

I’m liking the Daniel Defense offering for us California schmucks. I already built one for myself a couple years ago, but if I hadn’t I’d definitely check this out. With a couple tools and entry into a free state (or willingness to commit a felony), the bullet button can be removed and a standard mag button installed. That way when I visit the parental units in Idaho, I can convert my girl into a boy.

You out of staters can scoff, and well you should. But this whole off-list/bullet button thing has been a big step in the right direction for California, and I’m glad to see it. Just hoping the c*ck suckers in Sacramento are too busy screwing up the rest of the sate to take the time to ban these now.

By: Murdoc

Murdoc — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 20:04:55 +0000

Whew! I should have known that anything “contrarian” should just be dismissed by putting quotes around “report”. Glad to know that the contrarians are just making up stuff while the government agency overseeing things has it all under control.

Anyway, I completely admit to having little detailed knowledge about this particular story. However, you write

Re: EPA ‘Suppressed’ ‘Report’

When the link and story are both clearly

E-mails indicate EPA suppressed report skeptical of global warming

The story is about and says that the “an EPA center director” named “Al McGartland” sent an email dismissing the report. Does McGartland not work for and speak for the EPA? Did not the email noted have the intent to put a lid on the report? (Sorry, the ‘report’.)