2 thoughts on “US Congress Votes To Eliminate US Funding For United Nation’s IPCC”
Warwick I wouldn’t get too excited; so far as I’m aware it’s still got to get through whatever their version of the Senate is and even if that happens then the President can veto it
Does anyone know what is the update on the actions against the EPA in various US states
There’s an analysis by Joseph D’Aleo, CCM, AMS Fellow at wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/21/ten-major-failures-of-so-called-consensus-climate-science/#more-36364
The author says
In the attached analysis we take a look at the IPCC based science. We are going to ignore all the many ‘gates’ that were uncovered like the Himalayan glaciers, Amazon rain forests, how many real scientists there were who authored the key summaries and all the issues as to whether the summaries truly reflected the scientific information in the chapters and despite claims to the contrary, how a significant percentage of citations were not peer reviewed.
We will not attempt to address the issues of sensitivity for CO2 or solar and cloud and water vapor feedbacks relative to the models. We will also ignore the many model shortcomings – like inability to forecast regional patterns, ocean oscillations, etc. Each of these alone discredit the consensus ‘settled science claim.
We will focus on how actual data compares to the consensus science, model based virtual world view of climate’
This is an analysis of real world data against what computer models say with links to the papers (part 1 and 2) at the above link
outcome? CAGW fail
Leave a Reply
Primarily exposing faulty methodologies behind global temperature trend compilations
Warwick I wouldn’t get too excited; so far as I’m aware it’s still got to get through whatever their version of the Senate is and even if that happens then the President can veto it
Does anyone know what is the update on the actions against the EPA in various US states
There’s an analysis by Joseph D’Aleo, CCM, AMS Fellow at wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/21/ten-major-failures-of-so-called-consensus-climate-science/#more-36364
The author says
In the attached analysis we take a look at the IPCC based science. We are going to ignore all the many ‘gates’ that were uncovered like the Himalayan glaciers, Amazon rain forests, how many real scientists there were who authored the key summaries and all the issues as to whether the summaries truly reflected the scientific information in the chapters and despite claims to the contrary, how a significant percentage of citations were not peer reviewed.
We will not attempt to address the issues of sensitivity for CO2 or solar and cloud and water vapor feedbacks relative to the models. We will also ignore the many model shortcomings – like inability to forecast regional patterns, ocean oscillations, etc. Each of these alone discredit the consensus ‘settled science claim.
We will focus on how actual data compares to the consensus science, model based virtual world view of climate’
This is an analysis of real world data against what computer models say with links to the papers (part 1 and 2) at the above link
outcome? CAGW fail