To those who don't believe AGW is real

[sasguru]

religion
socialism

SAS you are sounding less and less scientific and more religous as time goes on.

Just a neutral observation, carry on squabbling.

I am religious about science and scientific about religion.
HTH

[tay]

Sir John Houghton FRS, former chair of Working Group I of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC).

Hang on.... this guy was involved in the group whoch the report is 'judging' (in part) and he was one of the authors... if you are religous about science you know that is deeply flawed right?

That doesnt mean the report isnt right, but I am very disappointed in the royal society for doing this.

[sasguru]

Hang on.... this guy was involved in the group whoch the report is 'judging' (in part) and he was one of the authors... if you are religous about science you know that is deeply flawed right?

That doesnt mean the report isnt right, but I am very disappointed in the royal society for doing this.

Nonsense. What's wrong with defending your work from cretins?
There is no ethical problem with that whatsover.
Would you rather the Royal Society didn't back what they think is true?
That's what they exist for surely.

[tay]

Nonsense. What's wrong with defending your work from cretins?
There is no ethical problem with that whatsover.
Would you rather the Royal Society didn't back what they think is true?
That's what they exist for surely.

Then it is def not independent in this instance. If you accept it is not an independant report, then cool.

Of course there is nothing ethically wrong with it! I never said there was. But you know very well in science you dont critique your own work in this manner and expect to be taken seriously as independent.

This is poor form the RS, and a betryal of a basic scientific principle.

[Diver]

Then it is def not independent in this instance. If you accept it is not an independant report, then cool.

Of course there is nothing ethically wrong with it! I never said there was. But you know very well in science you don't critique your own work in this manner and expect to be taken seriously as independent.

This is poor form the RS, and a betryal of a basic scientific principle.

Damn it!

I agree with tay

Now I have to

[Mailman]

"A June 2000 Business Week article referred to physicist Frederick Seitz as "the granddaddy of global-warming skeptics". Seitz was once a director and shareholder of a company that operated coal-fired power plants.

You know guru, its rather ironic that on the one hand you point out what you consider bias (ie. former director/shareholder of a dirty unnamed power plant) YET you cant work out the obvious bias of the geezer who wrote the Royal Society Report supporting and defending an earlier report he wrote

Mailman

[sasguru]

Then it is def not independent in this instance. If you accept it is not an independant report, then cool.

Of course there is nothing ethically wrong with it! I never said there was. But you know very well in science you dont critique your own work in this manner and expect to be taken seriously as independent.

This is poor form the RS, and a betryal of a basic scientific principle.

How is defending your work a betrayal of scientific principle?
It seems the Royal Society paper is a rebuttal of claims made against the earlier IPCC document and that the Royal Society backs the original paper. Stop citing the "scientific method" as if you know what it means.

[sasguru]

You know guru, its rather ironic that on the one hand you point out what you consider bias (ie. former director/shareholder of a dirty unnamed power plant) YET you cant work out the obvious bias of the geezer who wrote the Royal Society Report supporting and defending an earlier report he wrote

Mailman

The fact that you can't disntiguish the qualitative difference between the 2 proves beyond all doubt that you are a buffoon of the first order.

[Diver]

The fact that you can't disntiguish the qualitative difference between the 2 proves beyond all doubt that you are a buffoon of the first order.

But that's like writing your own References!

Oh! sorry sas

[ace00]

Phew, it's all going off, and I missed it!
Bit busy yesterday, those tapes don't change themselves you know......well actually they do, now we've got a tape robot, but someone's still got to hit the "on" switch you know, keep the robot company, talk to it sometimes, ask it how's things, ho-hum........
Anyway, global warming report, bit old but not seen it before, will take a look when I have time / nothing better to do and deliver a stunning riposte.

Here's some of that there science for sasguru:

(Temperature Increase = F(C2) - F(C1) where F(c)=Ln (1+1.2c+0.005c^2 +0.0000014c^3) and c is the concentration in ppm).