That’s a sweeping dismissal, an insult plus a casual ad hominim.

Not much of a contribution.

I find fanu’s quotes from the IPCC quite interesting.

And as for cherry picking, isn’t that the basis of the entire IPCC ethos? It doesn’t exactly diverge far from where you would expect it to go, given its name.

It is not the Independent Panel to Comprehend Climate, it is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It was never going to announce that Climate Change is nothing to do with mankind and governments can now withdraw from the whole policy area, putting Pachauri et al out of lucrative and high profile jobs. It has an agenda and it fulfils it. Given this fact, any (cherry-picked of otherwise) comments in an official IPCC publication which in any way retreat from rampant warmism are notable and significant.

Even if the publication that highlights them is not to your preferred political hue.

Your opinion is absolutely relevant and valuable. An absence of the correct training is not a barrier to understanding and judgement. There is a problem in the communication of “Climate Science” and that problem is the failure to fully acknowledge the uncertainties. It is not a matter of how much CO2 affects global temperature but whether it has any measureable effect at all.

If the talks manage to address this failure to communicate in some way, they will have been very valuable.

I believed the clearly communicated message of the IPCC until I became troubled by the hyperbole and the changes to the Hockey Stick.

The message is being changed every year to maintain the maximum fear and hysteria based on an unravelling thread of evidence.

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/environment/pollution/over-3-million-hectares-of-land-too-polluted-to-farm-in-china/articleshow/28131838.cms

As was once pointed out on The Oil Drum website, if we were serious about preventing climate change through limiting emissions from fossil fuels, the solution would be caps on production and supply, (approx 6 nations with potential extra available capacity for oil or coal), not attempting to influence the behaviour of 7 billion consumers.

This therefore calls into question why we need to communicate it at all? Scientists need to communicate with each other of course, but there is little need to communicate past that, as a limit on production would translate into price increases, which in turn would cause a reduction in use, finally increasing efficiency and availability of other energy sources.

At least these were the results seen from the 1970s OPEC oli shock.

So why are we asking people to save the planet by using less, while at the same time attempting to dig out the remaining coal and suck the oil and gas as fast as is possible?

I think this blog’s analysis of the economic system we are burdened with helps answer these questions..

As to the questions of whether climate change is real and what is causing it? I’m not a climate scientist and have no way of telling you for sure.

http://bit.ly/1gCwjPp

http://www.globalresearch.ca/global-warming-and-the-ideology-of-anthropogenic-human-caused-climate-change/5357415
Throughout this evidentiary inquiry into anthropogenic climate change, the following connections have been witnessed:

1) the statistical manipulation and censorship of data by leading anthropogenic climate scientists [Phil Jones, Michael Mann],

2) the intrinsic bias towards anthropogenic causal forces inherent in Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change forecast models [Herrera, detailing omission of solar activity],

3) the admission of systemic uncertainties inherent in climate forecast methodologies [UK National Weather Service],

4) the widespread unknown variables identified by NASA [solar irradiance, aerosols/dust/smoke, clouds, the carbon cycle, ocean circulation, precipitation and sea level rise], 5) the corporate, industrial and banking interests behind major proponents of anthropogenic climate change [Barclays, BP, Endesa, Fortis, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley et al], and

6) the calculated ideological premise that human beings are the source of all environmental problems and thus an enemy to humanity itself [Club of Rome]. Subsequently, the consequences of this prevailing worldview must be addressed.

Hi Stevie,

Tease away, I do like a bit of banter and as Schiller said,
“Man is never so authentically himself as when he is at play.” -Johann Schiller.

The physical evidence of mankinds vandalism is all around and there are lots of things we can do or demand to secure a better course for our societies.

My suspicion of the CO2 ´´Scapegoat´´to pose the question David did on Syria `Que Bono´´

Someone perhaps posed the question posed the question of ´´how can we tax or monopolise the air we breathe´´, it seems to me the answer from the Powers that be, is that we should tax the exhalation and not the inhalation.

A perfect regressive tax it is too with the burden falling on the poorest.

I was amused to see that Skeptical science quoted Al Gore the other day, he is warning of a Carbon Bubble. I think he means a rush for Carbon Credits when people realise they need them.

As a fully paid up tree hugger I am fully in tocuh with my inner Swampy. I am also a country Lad more at home in the Countryside than the city.
I was struck by something I read the other day concerning Wordsworth and Coleridge and their common muse of nature. They both loved and drew inspiration from it but as a City type Coleridge felt apart from it and almost awkward or shy of it. Wordsworth had a more natural affinity to it.

I can’t find the exact quote but this is a good blog on Dejection an Ode.

http://romantics-uab.blogspot.se/2010/09/coleridges-dejection-ode-stanza-4.html

I’m sorry I can’t go on with this further I have my 4 year ld son to entertain.

You might enjoy my Improvised performance called 3rd Eye wide stuff its

a 936 hz drone and I am playing in the key of Eb minor( D#minor) ( tuned to 432hz A.
Version with introduction.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtpErn9Ohx8

Shorter Version.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6k0DzgmyJb8

On Belief and action this from Bentham on his usury paper.

´´These are among the string of propositions which every man finds handed down to him from his progenitors: which most men are disposed to accede to without examination, and indeed not unnaturally nor even unreasonably disposed, for it is impossible the bulk of mankind should find leisure, had they the ability, to examine into the grounds of an hundredth part of the rules and maxims, which they find themselves obliged to act upon´´.