Why? Because it is extremely alarmist
(Daily Mail) A climate scientist has accused the United Nations of being too alarmist over global warming – and demanded his name be removed from a crucial new report.
Professor Richard Tol, an economist at the University of Sussex, said fellow UN academics were exaggerating climate change and comparing it to the ‘apocalypse’.
His comments are a blow to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which on Monday will publish its first update in seven years on the impacts of climate change.
Scientists are taking long fossil fueled flights to Japan this week to agree on the final version of the scaremongering document.
Professor Tol is most definitely not a skeptic, he’s a big believer that “climate change” is mostly/solely caused by Mankind, but he also believes that the IPCC report will be overly-alarmist, but, then, that is the point of the reports, to scare the bejesus out policy makers in order to get them to Do Something
‘This has completely disappeared from the draft now, which is all about the impacts of climate change and the four horsemen of the apocalypse. This is a missed opportunity.’
Alas, Richard, highlighting doom and gloom is exactly what the IPCC and Warmists want
Last September the first report summarised the physical science of climate change, concluding that scientists are 95 per cent certain that humans are the ‘dominant cause’ of global warming. (and their prognostications have been 95% false)
The second part will set out the impact a warming world will have on people, economies, animals and natural ecosystems. (in other words, it should be made into a bad horror movie on SciFi)
The third part, to be finalised next month, will summarise possible mitigation – what we can do to reduce the problem. (taxation, more Big Government control of people and the private sector, more power to the UN)
And these same IPCC members still haven’t changed their own lives to match their apocalyptic rhetoric.
I go to see each day some websites and sites to read articles or reviews, however this webpage offers quality based articles.
Teach please put this in its proper context: how many scientists di NOT ask for their names to be removed.
so 1 scientist out of what ? 30? wanted his name removed (he was on the economic damage study) so lets see taht would be about 97% of them twere OK with the report. He thought the economic damages were over stated, NOT that it was AGW
“97% of them are ok with the report.” John-if 97% of the people in the room think your name is Joe, what’s your name?
409 authors agreed with the report and 1 withdrew his endorsement, that’s 99.8% in favor.
Dr. Tol, who withdrew, disagrees with Teach and his minion scientifically, in that Tol understands that global warming is occurring and results from man’s addition of CO2 to the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels.
Wow. You think that a group leader of the report withdrawing his support is not a big deal?
That shows how lost you really are.
This is not the first time the IPCC has had this problem. Previous reports had contributors saying the executive summary was not supported by the data. In addition, those same people said the executive summary was kept from their eyes, which is unheard of when a report like the IPCC issues is published.
The IPCC is crooked and the more people like Jeffery and john try to deny it, the more they show bias and the ability to deal with the truth.
(Oh, and by the way Jeffery, Al Gore and you are still hypocrites in the AGW debate and your unwillingness of you, Gore and people of your ilk to change your lifestyle shows that your talk about AGW is bluster and that you don’t actually believe what you type.
Actions speak louder than words Jeffery.)
[…] Coming Paradigm Shift on Climate: ATThe EPA Must Be Defunded: Bridget JohnsonClimate Scientist Demands IPCC Remove His Name From Report: […]