APP - Placeholder for climate FAQs

[Cypress]

Good thing he put in a place-marker, now that you've put these questions here he'll have to start a whole new one next time he comes on the board...

For someone who egged on, cheerled, and participated in the internet smearing and slandering of perfectly innocent climate scientists, and also a black Dept. of Ag civil servant, in a comical rightwng attempt to smear their credibility and possibly cost them there jobs, I have to ask: Exactly what kind of buhddist are you?


A little historical perspective is due here:

In the 1990s, Climate gate Clowns told us that climate scientists were lying and fabricating data, and that actually the earth wasn't warming at all. It was allegedly all liberal lies.

In the past 9 months, Climate gate clowns pursued the preposterous assertion that a worldwide cabal of lying climate scientists had fabricated and lied about data to show human induced climate change. And that the 5 investigations that cleared them, somehow are in cahootz to cover up the lies.

Investigate the investigators? Is that really all you dudes have?



Hey dudes, you've been wrong on all counts regarding climate science for 20 years. Just deal with it. Is it really that hard to admit you were wrong on an anonymous message board to people who don't even know you?


Grow up dudes!

Carry on!

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

For someone who egged on, cheerled, and participated in the internet smearing and slandering of perfectly innocent climate scientists, and also a black Dept. of Ag civil servant, in a comical rightwng attempt to smear their credibility and possibly cost them there jobs, I have to ask: Exactly what kind of buhddist are you?

ROFLMAO.... "perfectly innocent climate scientists".... seriously... you crack me up sometimes Cypress.

In the 1990s, Climate gate Clowns told us that climate scientists were lying and fabricating data, and that actually the earth wasn't warming at all. It was allegedly all liberal lies.

Sorry, but if 2006 is 'outdated' and 2001 is 'seriously outdated'... then nothing that occurred in the 1990's is relevant to any discussion.

In the past 9 months, Climate gate clowns pursued the preposterous assertion that a worldwide cabal of lying climate scientists had fabricated and lied about data to show human induced climate change. And that the 5 investigations that cleared them, somehow are in cahootz to cover up the lies.

Again... answer the questions gumby....

1) WHO paid for the 'independent' reviews?

2) WHO selected the panel members?

3) WHO WERE the panel members?

4) Did the panel include ANY skeptics or were they all scientists who have already proclaimed AGW to be 'consensus'?

5) Do YOU contend that the questions raised were all answered by the panels?

6) Why do you continue to cower and run every time these questions are asked of YOU?

Investigate the investigators? Is that really all you dudes have?

No it is not 'all we have'... it is all you are willing to look at. Everything else you proclaim as 'rightwing' or 'outdated' regardless of what is posted.

Also... we are not saying 'investigate' them... we are asking you WHO THEY ARE. Something YOU SHOULD KNOW if you wish to put any sort of credibility to their findings.

Hey dudes, you've been wrong on all counts regarding climate science for 20 years. Just deal with it. Is it really that hard to admit you were wrong on an anonymous message board to people who don't even know you?

Hey 'dude'.... No... I have been quite correct for the past 15 years. There has been NO significant warming over that time frame. You on the other hand continue to rely upon cherry picked data that ignores the history of the planet and the changes it has gone through. You proclaim 'warmest decade' in recorded history as if that means something.... given that those records being quoted only go back to 1880.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

and with that... time for Cypress to start yet another thread on this topic.

 

[Cypress]

Another Lying Scientific Agency

What you're going to get now is just a rehash of all the material you previously covered and all the challenges/questions you previously answered and met. That's all the neocon numbskulls and corporate dupes have...continual repeating of the climate denying talking points and lies. Hell, the jokers on these boards STILL won't fully admit that the Climate Gate bullhornings ADMITTED PUBLICALLY THAT THEY WERE WRONG. Once you've reduced them to this, just walk away and watch the maudlin exchanges where you are personally attacked and the SOS is regurgitated over and over.

totally man. At this point, climate science denial, and climate gate nonsense is a running joke that informed and enlightened people just laugh at. The foot stomping, conspiracy theorizing, and willful science-denial does has a modest amount of comedy value. So enjoy it while it lasts!


This is Hilarious.....Climate Gate Clowns petitioned USEPA to stop regulating CO2

Clearly, another lying reputable Scientific agency...


Shorter version:

Climate Gate Clowns and other Science-Deniers petition USEPA to stop plans to regulate CO2, citing the fact climate science is bogus and based on asserted worldwide conspiracies of lying scientists.

USEPA action: The Climate Gate Clowns petitions are dismissed out of hand, and the science supporting human-induced climate change and CO2 regulation is robust, compelling, and backed by voluminous science and multiple lines of evidence. (read: regulatory speak for the science is unimpeachable, and regulation is completely merited)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

July 29, 2010

Action

EPA determined in December 2009 that climate change caused by emissions of greenhouse gases threatens the public's health and the environment. Since then, EPA received ten petitions (read: from Climate Gate Clowns) challenging this determination. On July 29, 2010, EPA denied these petitions.

The petitions to reconsider EPA's "Endangerment Finding" claimed that climate science can't be trusted, and asserted a conspiracy (There's your Money Quote! LOL) that calls into question the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) , the U.S. National Academy of Sciences , and the U.S. Global Change Research Program. After months of serious consideration of the petitions and of the state of climate change science, EPA found no evidence to support these claims.

The scientific evidence supporting EPA's finding is robust, voluminous, and compelling. Climate change is happening now, and humans are contributing to it. Multiple lines of evidence show a global warming trend over the past 100 years. Beyond this, melting ice in the Arctic, melting glaciers around the world, increasing ocean temperatures, rising sea levels, altered precipitation patterns, and shifting patterns of ecosystems and wildlife habitats all confirm that our climate is changing.

Scientific Basis Cited by USEPA to Support Regulation of CO2 and Human-Induced Climate Change and Deny the Climate Gate Clown Petitions:

Links:
• Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act
• Climate Science Assessment reports (IPCC, NAS, NOAA, USGCRP)
• Recent inquiries and investigations of the CRU emails and IPCC
• Indicators of Climate Change in the United States
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/petitions.html

"[T]here is a strong, credible body of evidence, based on multiple lines of research, documenting that climate is changing, and that these changes are in large part caused by human activities... . Climate change... poses significant risks for – and in many cases is already affecting – a broad range of human and natural systems."

--'Advancing the Science of Climate Change,' May 2010, National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences

• Myths vs. Facts

Scientific Assessment Reports
• Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report
• National Academy of Sciences: America's Climate Choices
• NOAA: State of the Climate in 2009
• U.S. Global Change Research Program: Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States

Recent inquiries and investigations of the CRU emails and IPCC
Recent investigations and inquiries into the emails by other organizations have all resulted in clearing the scientists of alleged wrong-doing.
• The Independent Climate Change E-mails Review (University of East Anglia)
• Report of the International Panel set up by the University of East Anglia to examine the research of the Climatic Research Unit (University of East Anglia)
• The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (U.K. House of Commons Science and Technology Committee) (PDF) (61 pp, 313K)
• Assessing an IPCC assessment – An analysis of statements on projected regional impact in the 2007 report (Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency) (PDF) (100 pp, 1.9MB)
• RA-10 Final Investigation Report Involving Dr. Michael E. Mann (Pennsylvania State University) (PDF) (19 pp, 779K)

Petitions of Climate Gate Clown Deniers Dismissed by USEPA, July 2010

Denial of Petitions for Reconsideration of the Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/petitions.html

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=663778&postcount=3

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

again, as always, Cypress posts yet another government agency 'we want more power over you' report. Again, as always, the coward runs away from answering basic questions that he SHOULD be able to answer since he relies so heavily on his 'unimpeachable' scientists.

Again... answer the questions gumby....

1) WHO paid for the 'independent' reviews?

2) WHO selected the panel members?

3) WHO WERE the panel members?

4) Did the panel include ANY skeptics or were they all scientists who have already proclaimed AGW to be 'consensus'?

5) Do YOU contend that the questions raised were all answered by the panels?

6) Why do you continue to cower and run every time these questions are asked of YOU?

7) Why do you say the debate is over, when your master (jones) states that there is still much we do not know and that he doubts many scientists would state the debate is over?

8) why, if man is causing catastrophic global warming due to CO2 release, has the temperature not significantly increased (on a global average) in the past 15 years?

 

[Cypress]

Logical Fallacies

-Loaded question is an informal fallacy. It is committed when someone asks a question that presupposes something that has not been proven or widely accepted; a question based on a flawed or fabricated premise.

-Assertion: Proof by assertion is a logical fallacy in which a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction. Sometimes this may be repeated until challenges dry up, at which point it is asserted as fact due to its not being contradicted (argumentum ad nauseam). In other cases its repetition may be cited as evidence of its truth, These types of assertions are provided without any substantiation or evidence to support their validity or their premise (see for example: 9/11 truthers; Climate Gate Clowns; Birthers).

-Conspiracy Theory: refers to any fringe theory which explains an historical, current event, or scientific tenet as the result of a secret plot by conspirators of almost superhuman power and cunning: See for example, Climate Gate.




As for questions on climate change that have been asked over and over and over......


Reputable Science and Credible Links

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=683374&postcount=1

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Maybe this will give the anti-science climate gate clowns and idea of just how settled the question of ACC is in the scientific community.

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/ssi/climate-change-statement-from.pdf

Of course god knows you can't trust a bunch of left wingnut conspirators like these. /sarcasm

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Logical Fallacies

-Loaded question is an informal fallacy. It is committed when someone asks a question that presupposes something that has not been proven or widely accepted; a question based on a flawed or fabricated premise.

-Assertion: Proof by assertion is a logical fallacy in which a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction. Sometimes this may be repeated until challenges dry up, at which point it is asserted as fact due to its not being contradicted (argumentum ad nauseam). In other cases its repetition may be cited as evidence of its truth, These types of assertions are provided without any substantiation or evidence to support their validity or their premise (see for example: 9/11 truthers; Climate Gate Clowns; Birthers).

-Conspiracy Theory: refers to any fringe theory which explains an historical, current event, or scientific tenet as the result of a secret plot by conspirators of almost superhuman power and cunning: See for example, Climate Gate.

It is a good thing none of the following fall into your above three categories. Which I am sure means that you will finally answer them.....

1) WHO paid for the 'independent' reviews?

2) WHO selected the panel members?

3) WHO WERE the panel members?

4) Did the panel include ANY skeptics or were they all scientists who have already proclaimed AGW to be 'consensus'?

5) Do YOU contend that the questions raised were all answered by the panels?

6) Why do you continue to cower and run every time these questions are asked of YOU?

7) Why do you say the debate is over, when your master (jones) states that there is still much we do not know and that he doubts many scientists would state the debate is over?

8) why, if man is causing catastrophic global warming due to CO2 release, has the temperature not significantly increased (on a global average) in the past 15 years?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Maybe this will give the anti-science climate gate clowns and idea of just how settled the question of ACC is in the scientific community.

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/ssi/climate-change-statement-from.pdf

Of course god knows you can't trust a bunch of left wingnut conspirators like these. /sarcasm

No... you cannot trust you left wing nuts.... that is obvious by your repeated attempts to run away from answering BASIC questions to which you should be capable of answering.

Why do you continue to refuse to answer the basic questions?

It is THAT attitude of 'we will not answer any critique or question' that leads people to label your beliefs as RELIGIOUS rather than SCIENTIFIC.

Scientists are NOT afraid to answer questions as to how they arrived at their conclusions.

Scientists are NOT afraid to have others review their data and calculations.

Supporters of "independent reviews" should not run in fear when someone asks basic questions like "WHO did the review" or "WHO selected the panelists".

Yet you and Cypress and Taichi continually run away from answering them.

I wonder why??? What is it that you have to hide?

 

[Damocles]

For someone who egged on, cheerled, and participated in the internet smearing and slandering of perfectly innocent climate scientists, and also a black Dept. of Ag civil servant, in a comical rightwng attempt to smear their credibility and possibly cost them there jobs, I have to ask: Exactly what kind of buhddist are you?


A little historical perspective is due here:

In the 1990s, Climate gate Clowns told us that climate scientists were lying and fabricating data, and that actually the earth wasn't warming at all. It was allegedly all liberal lies.

In the past 9 months, Climate gate clowns pursued the preposterous assertion that a worldwide cabal of lying climate scientists had fabricated and lied about data to show human induced climate change. And that the 5 investigations that cleared them, somehow are in cahootz to cover up the lies.

Investigate the investigators? Is that really all you dudes have?



Hey dudes, you've been wrong on all counts regarding climate science for 20 years. Just deal with it. Is it really that hard to admit you were wrong on an anonymous message board to people who don't even know you?


Grow up dudes!

Carry on!

It becomes more apparent that you don't answer those questions for a reason. Maybe you'll answer this one. Why are you avoiding answering the questions that Superfreak asked? Is it just ignorance, or is it delibarate?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Bottom line.... once again Cypress runs away from answering the simple questions. His continued refusal to do so can mean only one thing... He knows the answers will make his religion look bad. Thus he will continue to run away like a coward rather than stand up and defend his religion.

 

[Cypress]

It becomes more apparent that you don't answer those questions for a reason. Maybe you'll answer this one. Why are you avoiding answering the questions that Superfreak asked? Is it just ignorance, or is it delibarate?

You want me to prove, demonstrate, or corroborate that five investigations into "Climate Gate" were credible and legitimate?

HaHa!! Man, you, Dixie, and Tinfoil are really whacked out. Stop wasting my time, bro. You were wrong about climate gate, you were wrong about climate science. You've been completely outclassed, and you can't come up with any reputable science. Just deal with it, you've been totally outclassed, and the science is completely against you. Just running around a thread, stomping your feet, and hollering doesn't change that.

If you have something other than rightwing sources that have concluded that five investigations into climate gate were a fraud, and that we should investigate the investigators, feel free to post it!

Otherwise, I dismiss the bogus and hilarious premise of your "questions". You obviously have a lot of time at work to go round and round on complete baloney, I don't.



If you actually want answers to questions, refer to the OP. It's chock full of massive amounts of credible science

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=683374&postcount=1

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

You want me to prove, demonstrate, or corroborate that five investigations into "Climate Gate" were credible and legitimate?

HaHa!! Man, you, Dixie, and Tinfoil are really whacked out. Stop wasting my time, bro. You were wrong about climate gate, you were wrong about climate science. You've been completely outclassed, and you can't come up with any reputable science. Just deal with it, you've been totally outclassed, and the science is completely against you. Just running around a thread, stomping your feet, and hollering doesn't change that.

If you have something other than rightwing sources that have concluded that five investigations into climate gate were a fraud, and that we should investigate the investigators, feel free to post it!

Otherwise, I dismiss the bogus and hilarious premise of your "questions". You obviously have a lot of time at work to go round and round on complete baloney, I don't.



If you actually want answers to questions, refer to the OP. It's chock full of massive amounts of credible science

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=683374&postcount=1

LMAO... you are such a complete hack/moron/lemming....

NO ONE is asking you to PROVE anything.... the questions you continue to run from like the coward you are....

Again... answer the questions gumby....

1) WHO paid for the 'independent' reviews?

2) WHO selected the panel members?

3) WHO WERE the panel members?

4) Did the panel include ANY skeptics or were they all scientists who have already proclaimed AGW to be 'consensus'?

5) Do YOU contend that the questions raised were all answered by the panels?

6) Why do you continue to cower and run every time these questions are asked of YOU?

7) Why do you say the debate is over, when your master (jones) states that there is still much we do not know and that he doubts many scientists would state the debate is over?

8) why, if man is causing catastrophic global warming due to CO2 release, has the temperature not significantly increased (on a global average) in the past 15 years?

They do not ask you to PROVE anything Cypress... they simply ask you to list Who was on the panels, Who selected the panels... etc....

That should be simple for someone like you who has sooooo much knowledge with regards to the climatologists being 'cleared by independent panels'.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

From Cypress....

Otherwise, I dismiss the bogus and hilarious premise of your "questions". You obviously have a lot of time at work to go round and round on complete baloney, I don't.

This is truly funny as it comes from the idiot that has now started at least a dozen threads on this topic. All of which he ducks answering very simple questions that he should be able to answer. yet he rather runs around shouting 'consensus!' and 'I am too busy DUDE!'

Bottom line.... Cypress is a coward. A coward that knows his religious beliefs are bogus and thus continues to run anytime someone posts anything that detracts from what his masters have instructed him to say.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

No... you cannot trust you left wing nuts.... that is obvious by your repeated attempts to run away from answering BASIC questions to which you should be capable of answering.

Why do you continue to refuse to answer the basic questions?

It is THAT attitude of 'we will not answer any critique or question' that leads people to label your beliefs as RELIGIOUS rather than SCIENTIFIC.

Scientists are NOT afraid to answer questions as to how they arrived at their conclusions.

Scientists are NOT afraid to have others review their data and calculations.

Supporters of "independent reviews" should not run in fear when someone asks basic questions like "WHO did the review" or "WHO selected the panelists".

Yet you and Cypress and Taichi continually run away from answering them.

I wonder why??? What is it that you have to hide?

Ahh yes. In other words all scientist are left wing nuts and these prestigious profesional scientific organizations are really just fronts for ideological socialist liberal organizations.

You're either paranoid or delusional or both. No one is running away from your questions. Their silly assed rhetorical devices and I've played "raise the bar" one to many times with Dixie and his ilk to play it with you.

Dude, you need to face the fact that the preponderance of the scientific communities, based on the facts and peer reviewed data, accept the factual basis for ACC.

I mean for christ sakes. Do you have any idea how silly you look accusing the American Chemical Society of being a bunch of liberal wingnuts? I mean that's just hillareous comdey to pretend that these prestigious scientific organizations are fringe political activist.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

It becomes more apparent that you don't answer those questions for a reason. Maybe you'll answer this one. Why are you avoiding answering the questions that Superfreak asked? Is it just ignorance, or is it delibarate?

It's deliberate on my part. Their stupid and largely irrelevent question. This comedy of trying to create some sort of conspiracy theor out of scientific research is exactly what Cypress said it is. A logical fallacy. Even if we did take the time to determine how these committees were formed and why Rush Limbaugh wasn't a member of the panel and that the panels were fair, investigative and objective, you'll just raise the bar for a higher level of proof. Why should I play that game?

Here, I'll help you do it your self. Here's the investigation.

http://live.psu.edu/fullimg/userpics/10026/Final_Investigation_Report.pdf

It was funded by the tax payers of Pennsylvania. (i.e. Penn State University).

The PSU board of Trustees appointed them.

The panel was of 5 PSU Faculty members who work outside the realm of climate research. The were neither supporters or critics of climate research.

Why should the panel consist of any skeptics? That's an asinine proposition. The panel should be objective and not biased one way or the other. This is science. Not Fox News.

Again, another asinine question. It was not the function of this panel to verify the factual basis of ACC or answer questions on the topic of ACC. That's the job of scientist. It was the job of this panel to investigate the serious accusations of misconduct by Professor Mann.

No ones running. Your just playing "raise the bar" as I fully expect you to do after you read my post answering your questons.

You're accusation of others claiming "The Debate is over" is a strawman. We are claiming that there is a broad consensus in the scientific community supporting ACC. It is you who are accusing these scientist of having an ideological political agenda, when in fact, you and the right wing critics do.

and lastly there is sound peer reviewed data that indicates your claim to be wrong.

Now go ahead. Raise the bar as expected.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Ahh yes. In other words all scientist are left wing nuts and these prestigious profesional scientific organizations are really just fronts for ideological socialist liberal organizations.

Not in the least. YOU and CYPRESS are left wing nuts. The actual SCIENTISTS... like Phil Jones, state that there is still much they do not know and that they do not think the debate is over.

It is the left wing nuts like you and Cypress that pretend the debate is over.

You're either paranoid or delusional or both. No one is running away from your questions. Their silly assed rhetorical devices and I've played "raise the bar" one to many times with Dixie and his ilk to play it with you.

The above IS running away. There is nothing rhetorical about them. You and Cypress proclaim that these independent reviews have exonerated the scientists, yet you refuse to even mention WHO it was that paid for the review, WHO it was that selected the panel and WHO it was that was on the panel.

How can you put ANY credibility behind the 'independent' reviews if you cannot answer WHO was on the panels?????

Dude, you need to face the fact that the preponderance of the scientific communities, based on the facts and peer reviewed data, accept the factual basis for ACC.

Oh look... another 'dude' you must face facts.... all the while YOU refuse to even address the facts.

I mean for christ sakes. Do you have any idea how silly you look accusing the American Chemical Society of being a bunch of liberal wingnuts? I mean that's just hillareous comdey to pretend that these prestigious scientific organizations are fringe political activist.

where did I accuse the American Chemical Society of any such thing? I stated YOU and CYPRESS were friggin left wing nuts.

Yet again, another left wing nut who is too frightened to answer simple questions.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

It's deliberate on my part. Their stupid and largely irrelevent question. This comedy of trying to create some sort of conspiracy theor out of scientific research is exactly what Cypress said it is.

ROFLMAO....

So the make up of the panels that exonerated the climatologists is IRRELEVANT?

So we could have simply put any five-nine people off the street on these panels? Because it wouldn't matter?

So if BP were to hire a panel that ended up 'finding' that BP was not responsible for the oil spill. Would you simply say the panelists credentials were 'irrelevant'?

 

[Cypress]

Maybe this will give the anti-science climate gate clowns and idea of just how settled the question of ACC is in the scientific community.

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/ssi/climate-change-statement-from.pdf

Of course god knows you can't trust a bunch of left wingnut conspirators like these. /sarcasm

Good call, on the vast left wing scientific conspiracy!

Yo, that’s just a partial list of internationally-recognized reputable scientific institutions that concur with human-caused climate change.

It would be the greatest hoax in human history if all these scientists and science organizations are lying, deceiving, or have been willfully duped into a global conspiracy of fraudulent science. I stand in awe that anonymous rightwing message boarders have uncovered a global plot that has easily duped the most brilliant scientists on the planet!

But there’s not doubt that the hapless band of climate gate clowns are sticking to their story! I guess, sadly, once you are addicted to noted science denier blogs like ClimateFraudit, and Wattsupwiththat.com, it’s apparently impossible return to the world of reason and facts....

The academies of science of the following 33 nations or regions have issued statements accepting global warming as real and human-caused:

Australia
Belgium
Brazil
Cameroon
Canada
Caribbean
China
France
Germany
Ghana
India
Indonesia
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Kenya
Madagasgar
Malaysia
Mexico
Nigeria
New Zealand
Russia
Senegal
South Africa
Sudan
Sweden
Switzerland
Tanzania
Uganda
United Kingdom
United States
Zambia
Zimbabwe

The following internationally-recognized scientific organizations have also issued statements accepting human-caused global warming. "No...scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change."


American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Association of State Climatologists
American Geological Institute
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
American Meteorological Society (AMS)
American Physical Society
Arctic Climate Impact Assessment
Australian Coral Reef Society
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Engineers Australia
Environmental Protection Agency
European Academy of Sciences and Arts
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
European Science Foundation
Federal Climate Change Science Program
Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of Australia
Geological Society of London
Institute of Biology (UK)
InterAcademy Council
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
International Association for Great Lakes Research
International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
International Council on Science
International Union for Quaternary Research
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies
National Association of Geoscience Teachers
National Center for Atmospheric Research
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Research Council
Network of African Science Academies
Pew Center on Climate Change
Polish Academy of Sciences
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
Royal Society of New Zealand
Society of American Foresters
State of the Canadian Cryosphere
The University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
UN Project on Climate Variability and Predictability
Union of Concerned Scientists
United Nations Environment Program
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
US Geological Survey
U.S. Global Climate Change Program
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute
Woods Hole Research Center
World Health Organization
World Meteorological Organization
World Wildlife Fund

http://logicalscience.com/consensus/consensusD1.htm#international

 

[Mott the Hoople]

ROFLMAO....

So the make up of the panels that exonerated the climatologists is IRRELEVANT?

So we could have simply put any five-nine people off the street on these panels? Because it wouldn't matter?

So if BP were to hire a panel that ended up 'finding' that BP was not responsible for the oil spill. Would you simply say the panelists credentials were 'irrelevant'?

Just as expected....raise the bar. Five scientist from completely divergent fields aren't good enough because they are scientist and, by your standards, incapable of being objective in this mater.

Boy, that was sooo hard to predict.

Look your just making another strawman. These weren't just anyone off the street. These were 5 prestigious peers of Professor Mann at PSU who were outside his area of research that were objectively investigating allegations of serious misconduct by Prof. Mann. The conclusion of this independant and objective panel is that the allegations were with out merit. Deal with it.