IPCC Bungling Twerps

[DodgyAgent]

The IPCC lay out their evidence carefully here

IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Now Delingpole has already admitted he hasn't read the primary sources (when challenged on this he claimed to have been "intellectually raped" - personally I think it's probably easy to rape an intellectual virgin ).
So unless he has specific items in that report he disagrees with and details, I would say he's talking bollux, wouldn't you?

BTW All this should be obvious to you. Unless you're JAC*

*Just Another Cretin, a handy acronym for CUK.

I cannot really call it an argument but at least you gave it a go

[sasguru]

Have you any evidence that they do ?

Yes the bits of their report I've read (I'm interested in the statistical bits since that is what I do)seems very carefully argued to me. In fact they err on the side of caution.
But of course it's easier to post bollux on a website than take the time to look at the evidence.

[sasguru]

I cannot really call it an argument but at least you gave it a go

That's why I'll do whatever it takes to get my offspring into a top university.
Otherwise they may end up like BB, Mac and you, feeling around like blind men in a fog of ignorance and stupidity.

[amcdonald]

Yes the bits of their report I've read (I'm interested in the statistical bits since that is what I do)seems very carefully argued to me. In fact they err on the side of caution.
But of course it's easier to post bollux on a website than take the time to look at the evidence.

Ah yes anything can be proved with statistics

But of course it's easier for climate 'scientists' to blindly make up 'evidence', and call everyone a cretin because you've decided the 'science is settled' when you've got research grants to rely on

[DodgyAgent]

That's why I'll do whatever it takes to get my offspring into a top university.
Otherwise they may end up like BB, Mac and you, feeling around like blind men in a fog of ignorance and stupidity.

If they were indeed blind they would enjoy the added benefit that they will not be able to look at you or read your drivel

[sasguru]

Ah yes anything can be proved with statistics

But of course it's easier for climate 'scientists' to blindly make up 'evidence', and call everyone a cretin because you've decided the 'science is settled' when you've got research grants to rely on

JAC. Next!

[sasguru]

If they were indeed blind they would enjoy the added benefit that they will not be able to look at you or read your drivel

JAC. Next!

[pjclarke]

Is the planet warming more than is desirable?

Yes. Our infrastructure, agriculture and civilisations are adapted to the relatively stable temperatures of the last 10-12,000 years.

Is it a cyclical phenomenon?

If so, the period is over 1,000 years, according to the proxy evidence. More likely the planet is simply obeying the laws of Chemistry and Thermodynamics.

Is it man made?

Very, very likely. Check out the Detection and Attribution chapter of AR4. There are temporal and spatial 'fingerprints' in the warming that match exactly what would be expected from Greenhouse warming, not from other causes.

If it is does it matter?

Its a less urgent global problem than say, war, poverty, clean water or food security, and the impacts will probably not be felt by my generation. I guess the difference is, nobody is trying to deny the reality of say, poverty in an attempt to delay action. Every report on the topic has concluded that money spent on mitigation has a positive benefit:cost ratio. We are going to mitigate, adapt or suffer.

If we spend vast fortunes on reducing carbon output will it make any difference? - in other words can we make a difference?

Why should it cost a fortune? Decarbonisation is entirely feasible without any loss of prosperity, indeed all the major parties are commiited to the transition to a low-carbon economy, which simply wouldn't be the case if they thought it would damage the chances of the political Holy Grail - economic growth.

[BlasterBates]

The latest IPCC report is now admiting natural factors are as powerful as CO2.

The observed reduction in warming trend over the period 1998–2012 as compared to the period 1951–2012, is due in roughly equal measure to a cooling contribution from internal variability and a reduced trend in radiative forcing (medium confidence). The reduced trend in radiative forcing is primarily due to volcanic eruptions and the downward phase of the current solar cycle. However, there is low confidence in quantifying the role of changes in radiative forcing in causing this reduced warming trend.”

IPCC to blame warming stop on volcanoes, solar cycle — has ‘low confidence’ in attribution | JunkScience.com


If the low solar cycle is causing the flattening (everyone knows the cooling is coming unless you're as thick 2 short plonkers), could it be that the unusually high solar cycle might have caused the warming in the first place.

it sure is fun watching them squirm

[amcdonald]

That's why I'll do whatever it takes to get my offspring into a top university.
Otherwise they may end up like BB, Mac and you, feeling around like blind men in a fog of ignorance and stupidity.

JAS!