"Our scientists"
"Scientists say"
A quick glance at that shows that is said, oh, about three thousand times or so.
Funny how those scientists are all nameless and thus cannot have their credentials or numbers questioned (I suppose somebody learned something from the Steve Project). The one name they seem prepared to give out is John F B Mitchell, whom they dishonestly state "is a lead author in the IPCC" (he was a convening lead author for the first and third reports and lead author for the second from Working Group I but does not appear to be associated with them now, a bit of info you can only find if you dig past their misleading blurb on him). What were the reports in question?
Well, quoting from Wikipedia, the Working Group I's third report (ie, 2001) key conclusions were:
--
1. An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system (The global average surface temperature has increased over the 20th century by about 0.6C; Temperatures have risen during the past four decades in the lowest 8 kilometres of the atmosphere; Snow cover and ice extent have decreased)
2. Emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols due to human activities continue to alter the atmosphere in ways that are expected to affect the climate (Anthropogenic aerosols are short-lived and mostly produce negative radiative forcing; Natural factors have made small contributions to radiative forcing over the past century)
3. Confidence in the ability of models to project future climate has increased (Complex physically-based climate models are required to provide detailed estimates of feedbacks and of regional features. Such models cannot yet simulate all aspects of climate (e.g., they still cannot account fully for the observed trend in the surface-troposphere temperature difference since 1979) and there are particular uncertainties associated with clouds and their interaction with radiation and aerosols. Nevertheless, confidence in the ability of these models to provide useful projections of future climate has improved due to their demonstrated performance on a range of space and time-scales [8].)
4. There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities
5. Human influences will continue to change atmospheric composition throughout the 21st century
6. Global average temperature and sea level are projected to rise under all IPCC SRES scenarios.
--
These reports were published by unanimous agreement of the scientists involved (like all IPCC reports), which would certainly include Professor John F B Mitchell.
There's no indication as to why he's suddenly done an aboutface on over 10 years of being in the IPCC, nor why he apparently is willing to support a site that insinuates those reports that he lent his expertise, credibility, research and support to were a "swindle". Perhaps that will be one of the "questions" we're promised he, the only named expert on their site (and indeed is referred to singularly as "our expert", and as an "independant expert"), will answer "soon".
But somehow I rather don't think so.
"Scientists say"
A quick glance at that shows that is said, oh, about three thousand times or so.
Funny how those scientists are all nameless and thus cannot have their credentials or numbers questioned (I suppose somebody learned something from the Steve Project). The one name they seem prepared to give out is John F B Mitchell, whom they dishonestly state "is a lead author in the IPCC" (he was a convening lead author for the first and third reports and lead author for the second from Working Group I but does not appear to be associated with them now, a bit of info you can only find if you dig past their misleading blurb on him). What were the reports in question?
Well, quoting from Wikipedia, the Working Group I's third report (ie, 2001) key conclusions were:
--
1. An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system (The global average surface temperature has increased over the 20th century by about 0.6C; Temperatures have risen during the past four decades in the lowest 8 kilometres of the atmosphere; Snow cover and ice extent have decreased)
2. Emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols due to human activities continue to alter the atmosphere in ways that are expected to affect the climate (Anthropogenic aerosols are short-lived and mostly produce negative radiative forcing; Natural factors have made small contributions to radiative forcing over the past century)
3. Confidence in the ability of models to project future climate has increased (Complex physically-based climate models are required to provide detailed estimates of feedbacks and of regional features. Such models cannot yet simulate all aspects of climate (e.g., they still cannot account fully for the observed trend in the surface-troposphere temperature difference since 1979) and there are particular uncertainties associated with clouds and their interaction with radiation and aerosols. Nevertheless, confidence in the ability of these models to provide useful projections of future climate has improved due to their demonstrated performance on a range of space and time-scales [8].)
4. There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities
5. Human influences will continue to change atmospheric composition throughout the 21st century
6. Global average temperature and sea level are projected to rise under all IPCC SRES scenarios.
--
These reports were published by unanimous agreement of the scientists involved (like all IPCC reports), which would certainly include Professor John F B Mitchell.
There's no indication as to why he's suddenly done an aboutface on over 10 years of being in the IPCC, nor why he apparently is willing to support a site that insinuates those reports that he lent his expertise, credibility, research and support to were a "swindle". Perhaps that will be one of the "questions" we're promised he, the only named expert on their site (and indeed is referred to singularly as "our expert", and as an "independant expert"), will answer "soon".
But somehow I rather don't think so.