Comments on: Dessler’s Grist to the Sceptics’ Mill http://www.climate-resistance.org/2008/02/desslers-grist-to-sceptics-mill.html Challenging Climate Orthodoxy Tue, 16 Mar 2010 09:12:39 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: john a. bailo http://www.climate-resistance.org/2008/02/desslers-grist-to-sceptics-mill.html/comment-page-1#comment-216 john a. bailo Thu, 21 Feb 2008 01:06:00 +0000 http://climateresistance.wordpress.com/2008/02/17/desslers-grist-to-the-sceptics-mill/#comment-216 To put Dessler to bed, I actually downloaded, printed and read parts of the IPCC IV. The whole thing reads like a public school science textbook for stuggling students at an inner city high school -- the kind where the 10th graders read like 4th graders and science means a picture of an astronaut on the cover.<br/><br/>No real scientist would ever deign to criticize the IPCC report, because it's not a scientific paper. It is polemic that throws in a lot of references to scientific papers and they says "see, I told you so". <br/><br/>Scientists, by nature, focus on small areas of clearly identifiable research. They want results that can be quantified. Something as sweeping as the IPCC report would never be reviewed because it's not science. <br/><br/>As far as the under pinnings of the report, one thing that stands out it that it spends pages and pages trying to justify itself. Look, Albert Einstein didn't go around gladhanding people and writing essays about how he must be rigth -- he published simple papers that laid it out and said "look, here it is..." and the world said "yeah". It's the exact opposite of the IPCC.<br/><br/>One major flaw in the whole process in the complete lack of papers that show any attempt to research real world climate and weather behavior. I went to Google Scholar to find the 1000 papers that the IPCC, Gore and Dessler talk about and I did a search that asked to omit the papers that had the word "model" in them. The number of papers shrunk to about 70.<br/><br/>The real vastness of the manipulation, fraud and tragedy of the IPCC will be felt in decades to come. To put Dessler to bed, I actually downloaded, printed and read parts of the IPCC IV. The whole thing reads like a public school science textbook for stuggling students at an inner city high school — the kind where the 10th graders read like 4th graders and science means a picture of an astronaut on the cover.

No real scientist would ever deign to criticize the IPCC report, because it’s not a scientific paper. It is polemic that throws in a lot of references to scientific papers and they says “see, I told you so”.

Scientists, by nature, focus on small areas of clearly identifiable research. They want results that can be quantified. Something as sweeping as the IPCC report would never be reviewed because it’s not science.

As far as the under pinnings of the report, one thing that stands out it that it spends pages and pages trying to justify itself. Look, Albert Einstein didn’t go around gladhanding people and writing essays about how he must be rigth — he published simple papers that laid it out and said “look, here it is…” and the world said “yeah”. It’s the exact opposite of the IPCC.

One major flaw in the whole process in the complete lack of papers that show any attempt to research real world climate and weather behavior. I went to Google Scholar to find the 1000 papers that the IPCC, Gore and Dessler talk about and I did a search that asked to omit the papers that had the word “model” in them. The number of papers shrunk to about 70.

The real vastness of the manipulation, fraud and tragedy of the IPCC will be felt in decades to come.

]]>