Global warming - IPCC chairman says lalalalala, won't listen

[mybrainhurts]

Sums up the circus that is the UN IPCC...

http://climateresearchnews.com/2008/12/ipcc-will-n...

Story said:

IPCC Will Not be Influenced by New Papers - Pachauri Should Resign

According to The Guardian, IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri has stated that the IPCC will not be influenced by new research. In a remarkable response to leading climate alarmist James Hansen’s claim that the lPCC AR4 report is two years out of date, Pachauri is reported to have said that this is “not a valid position.” “What the IPCC produces is not based on two years of literature, but 30 or 40 years of literature. We’re not dealing with short-term weather changes, we’re talking about major changes in our climate system. I refuse to accept that a few papers are in any way going to influence the long-term projections the IPCC has come up with.”

Why then are we spending so much money on climate research? Despite being a relatively young science, and the fact that we are a long way short of fully understanding the climate system, particularly the influence of solar factors, the head of the IPCC has decided that the ’science is settled.’ Apparently man can predictably manipulate both atmospheric CO2 and the climate.

Of course, climate alarmists and climate realists will disagree with Pachauri for different reasons - alarmists because they believe new research will show the ‘problem’ is worse than we thought, realists because a fuller understanding of the climate system will demonstrate that the ‘enhanced greenhouse’ effect is small or insignificant, with strong negative feedbacks rather than Hansen’s ‘all feedbacks are positive’ claim. Furthermore, objective climate policy analysts will point out that the true scale of the task and costs of ‘decarbonisation’ are currently drastically underestimated by the IPCC.

Climate Research News will continue to publicise new research and policy analysis that Pachauri wants the IPCC to ignore. The science or the policy isn’t settled, but Pachauri’s fate should be - he must resign from the IPCC in order to allow someone who is better qualified and genuinely objective to take over.

Pachauri's comments lifted from here ----> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/dec/09/...

[slideways]

[mrmaggit]

And there's me thinking that our climate was primarily driven by that big yellow thing in the sky.

Just goes to show, doesn't it?

[gopher]

For anyone who wants to know what difference new (and old) research makes they might want to read the NIPCC report which gives some balance to the doom mongers wailing. (pdf, might be best to to a save as)

[ShadownINja]

WTF. How can you not be influenced by new research? Oh, hang on, they're all self-serving little sts aren't they.

Where IS that article where a scientist admits that he and other scientists only jumped on the bandwagon because he knew he'd get all the research funding he could want?

Edited by ShadownINja on Friday 12th December 07:39

[Jasandjules]

Now, call me a cynic, but is there any chance that the "new research" shows one or more of the following:

1. The planet isn't getting hotter
2. Human CO2 cannot affect the planet
3. The sun does affect the temperature on Earth

[cptsideways]

Jasandjules said:

Now, call me a cynic, but is there any chance that the "new research" shows one or more of the following:

1. The planet isn't getting hotter
2. Human CO2 cannot affect the planet
3. The sun does affect the temperature on Earth

More like tax hikes are less possible