Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Environment & Energy
In reply to the discussion: Don't believe the extremists: No Big Changes In Leaked Draft AR5 Report [View all]Nederland
(9,976 posts)93. The criticism Reiter was making was of SAR, not AR4.
That is quite clear if you read the text of his appearance before Parliament.
As to which one isn't qualified, if Reiter's claim that "not one of the lead authors had ever written a research paper on the subject" is true, I'd have to ask you which one you think was qualified.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
115 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Don't believe the extremists: No Big Changes In Leaked Draft AR5 Report [View all]
Nederland
Dec 2012
OP
And there's no sign that we are deviating from the highest-carbon scenarios.
GliderGuider
Dec 2012
#11
They don't even assess drought. Hopefully that's changed before AR5 is finished.
joshcryer
Dec 2012
#15
Which is how I'm beginning to think the IPCC should conduct it's business as well.
AverageJoe90
Dec 2012
#63
Nope, sorry - and the Chicken Little cartoon was the last straw - hot-button for me
hatrack
Dec 2012
#90
Isn't it perhaps possible that methane may not have as much of a impact.....
AverageJoe90
Dec 2012
#61
You aren't allowed to allude to that "possibility" without a leaked IPCC AR5 snippet to back you up
NoOneMan
Dec 2012
#64
He is not qualified according to the criteria Rajendra Pachauri claimed was used
Nederland
Dec 2012
#84