tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11578122.post1837674637639631686..comments2023-11-02T05:48:48.115-04:00Comments on GayandRight: Another biased IPCC report: This time Greenpeace wrote the report!GayandRighthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08763498369390166108noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11578122.post-84039720955649273122011-06-17T10:56:27.732-04:002011-06-17T10:56:27.732-04:00Hammerfan: I disagree. I don't care who writ...Hammerfan: I disagree. I don't care who writes the report as long as the science stands up. <br /><br />My objection is that the headline states that the report is biased as a fact with only supposition to support it.<br /><br />reagrds,<br />JohnAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11578122.post-54172287309264962282011-06-17T10:23:43.102-04:002011-06-17T10:23:43.102-04:00No need to change the headline . The point of conc...No need to change the headline . The point of concern being what role does an activist play in what is supposed to be a scientific study.<br /><br />HammerfanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11578122.post-55605905202023567042011-06-17T09:54:46.914-04:002011-06-17T09:54:46.914-04:00Anonymous: I don't know your sources, but the...Anonymous: I don't know your sources, but the most recent information about volcanoes is <a href="http://www.agu.org/news/press/pr_archives/2011/2011-22.shtml" rel="nofollow">this report</a> which still states that anthropogenic output for 3 or 4 days is the same as annual volcanic output. This number has not changes in the last 10 years (at least).<br /><br />I could not find a reference for your other statement about <b>high Solar-Flux mode</b>. Do you have a reference? Thanks.<br /><br />Fred: still no retraction I see. Just out of curiosity, why do you not feel a need to retract the statement? Is there something in the IPCC report that I am missing or it is more of an "I am never wrong" type of thing?<br /><br />Regards,<br />JohnAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11578122.post-67825872308710004122011-06-16T17:33:09.608-04:002011-06-16T17:33:09.608-04:00One of the new subtle inserts to the latest report...One of the new subtle inserts to the latest report is that Volcano's add a big portion of the problem but it still ties in how we are causing the volcanos as the Earth changes from Global warming.<br /> But NASA has posted the facts on how the SUN is in a high Solar-Flux mode and solar flares have been heating up Mars as well and there are NO suv's on mars .Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11578122.post-52063733352504748322011-06-16T12:25:14.513-04:002011-06-16T12:25:14.513-04:00Oddsox: Two things. First, the press release you...Oddsox: Two things. First, the press release you linked to was produced by something called Energy Blueprint. By calling that the original press release you are saying that Energy Blueprint is the same as the IPCC. Do you have anything to back that statement up?<br /><br />Second, the IPCC press release is dated <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/news_and_events/docs/ipcc33/PRESS%20RELEASE%20Updated%20version%20-%20Potential%20of%20Renewable%20Energy%20Outline.pdf" rel="nofollow"> May 9, 2011</a>. Where is the original press release, I would like to see specifically where this one was change.<br /><br />Fred: It appears that your issue is with the press or environmental groups and not the IPCC. So any chance of correcting your headline?<br /><br />Thanks,<br />JohnAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11578122.post-80243018973855550442011-06-16T10:56:17.337-04:002011-06-16T10:56:17.337-04:00The original press release (http://www.energybluep...The original press release (http://www.energyblueprint.info/1327.0.html) did not say anything about the alternate scenarios. It's only now that the background of the report is released that they are mentioning any of the other information.OddSoxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06468564103308286485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11578122.post-15011290312338038112011-06-16T10:23:11.841-04:002011-06-16T10:23:11.841-04:00The IPCC press release clearly stated that the 77%...The IPCC press release clearly stated that the 77% represented the most optimistic scenario. It also stated that, depending on the assumptions made it could be as low as 15% (which is only slightly higher than it is now) so I don't see what the problem is.<br /><br />In regards to nuclear, again they clearly said they were looking at renewable sources. I tend to think that nuclear should be a component of the mix of energy sources, but it is not renewable.<br /><br />So I really can't see what they said that was so wrong!<br /><br />Regards,<br />John CrossAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com