Only 20% of IPCC scientists are actual climatologists!!

Fri Feb 20, 2009 1:29 pm » by **Drjones**

Maximum 20% of IPCC Have Ever Had Any Dealings With Climate... :help:

'During the question and answer session of last weeks' William Schlesinger/John Christy Global Warming debate, Schlesinger (alarmist) was asked how many members of United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) were actual climate scientists. It is well known that many, if not most, of its members are not scientists at all. Its president, for example, is an economist.' :shooting:

Full article here- http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/17/w ... h-climate/

A good set of recent vids on climate change here- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08hd141-Hac

Vids are about.....
The John Locke Foundation and Lenoir-Rhyne University's Reese Institute for the Conservation of Natural Resources hosted A Forum on Climate Change: Opposing Views, Feb. 11. 2009, at the Hickory (N.C.) Metro Convention Center. Dr. William H. Schlesinger, president of the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, and Dr. John R. Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, offered the opposing views. In this clip, Christy concludes his response, and John Brzorad begins the question-and-answer session.

Global "warming" is a hoax..yes the climate is changing but it's not us.. :look:

Fri Feb 20, 2009 1:56 pm » by **Notgeoffrey**

No great shock there. Although it is essential that there are non-climatologists for the analysis of social and economic impact, the small number of climatologists in the IPCC is indicative of the true motive behind the claims of anthropogenic global warming.

Money, fearmongering and control.

Now those who have had the dubious pleasure of seeing my previous posts may be a little surprised here. I am a very strong believer in the conspiracies surrounding and creating the man-made global warming myth. Something is very, very wrong with the way we are being presented the 'data'. Carbon dioxide levels in the air have indeed risen. The average surface temperature of the earth has indeed risen. These two facts are scientifically undeniable, but the premise that our production of carbon dioxode has led to the raised temperature is fundamentally flawed. You only have to see the ice core records to see without any doubt that rising CO2 lags behind temperature, not the other way around. Paleoclimatologists have estimated that the atmospheric CO2 concentration in the Jurassic period was as high as 11%, and yet the average temperature was only a few degrees above what we experience today.

I think that the overpowering driving force behind the global warming scaremongers is money, followed closely by a fear of change. The climate has changed in the past on countless occasions before human being even existed, let alone were producing large quantities of CO2. Life changed, species went extinct and others rose to fill the ecological niches. The oceans changed, the currents changed and the weather changed. It has all happened before, and life seems to still be thriving despite the upheaval.

So what if climate forces some species to become extinct? So what if our artificial boundaries are altered? Life is a dynamic equilibrium, not a snapshot to be kept constant at all costs. Evolution has been driven by changes in selective pressures for billions of years, and it is tremendously arrogant of us to think that we can stop it in its track. We are nothing more important than one more species of animal. What right do we have to decide the course of evolution?

I have to finish my little rant by agreeing 100% with Drjones...

Yes, the climate is changing, but it's not us. Spot on mate. :cheers:

Sat Feb 21, 2009 9:37 pm » by **Drjones**

I forgot to add,to be part of the IPCC,no experience on the climate required,full training given,apply here-

http://www.iwanttobeaclimatologistforthenwo.net :lol:

Good luck