IPCC Bungling Twerps

[DodgyAgent]

Fair enough. When he stops the ranting and generalisations that sell newspapers and makes specific points I may be able to counter them.

In other words making a counter argument of any sort is beyond you

[sasguru]

FTFY

So you're saying the group of scientists from various countries that comprise the IPCC don't know what science is?
Have you any evidence for that or are you just being (yet another <<sigh>>) cretin.?

[sasguru]

In other words making a counter argument of any sort is beyond you

I can't make a counter argument to a rant, no.

[amcdonald]

So you're saying the group of scientists from various countries that comprise the IPCC don't know what science is?
Have you any evidence for that or are you just being (yet another <<sigh>>) cretin.?

Have you any evidence that they do ?

[DodgyAgent]

I can't make a counter argument to a rant, no.

Give this one a go:

a pre-announcement to the effect that “climate scientists” are now “95 per cent certain” that humans are to blame for climate change; an evidence-free declaration


Is this indeed spin or is there some hard evidence to support it?

[pjclarke]

Okay, scratch 'unsubstatiated', substitute 'wrong'.

James Delingtool:

At the heart of the problem lie the computer models which, for 25 years, have formed the basis for the IPCC’s scaremongering: they predicted runaway global warming, when the real rise in temperatures has been much more modest. So modest, indeed, that it has fallen outside the lowest parameters of the IPCC’s prediction range

Nope:

He's just writing an opnion blog, most of his 'facts' aren't actually, you know, true.

[SimonMac]

Whats this got to do with the Independent Police Complaints Commission

[sasguru]

Give this one a go:

a pre-announcement to the effect that “climate scientists” are now “95 per cent certain” that humans are to blame for climate change; an evidence-free declaration


Is this indeed spin or is there some hard evidence to support it?

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.

[pjclarke]

Is this indeed spin or is there some hard evidence to support it?

The report (AR5) is about to be published abd has been widely leaked. Previous one is here

Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007

Chapter Nine is the one you want..

[DodgyAgent]

Okay, scratch 'unsubstatiated', substitute 'wrong'.

James Delingtool:

Nope:

He's just writing an opnion blog, most of his 'facts' aren't actually, you know, true.

Let us assume that these are accurate. What do they tell us? Is the planet warming more than is desirable? Is it a cyclical phenomenon? Is it man made? If it is does it matter? If we spend vast fortunes on reducing carbon output will it make any difference? - in other words can we make a difference?