http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/09/28/m......pcc-has/

"I think that the latest IPCC report has truly sunk to level of hilarious incoherence. They are proclaiming increased confidence in their models as the discrepancies between their models and observations increase."

"Finally, in attributing warming to man, they fail to point out that the warming has been small, and totally consistent with there being nothing to be alarmed about. It is quite amazing to see the contortions the IPCC has to go through in order to keep the international climate agenda going."

Now, maybe you can tell me why we should have want to do anything other than line our bird cages with anything Dr. Richard Lindzen has to say.

Care to comment on the Koch brothers study?

Danny-

How can you say that about Rachel Maddow? You already conceded in another thread that you don't watch "ole Rachel." Do you really watch Ed Schultz?

Why would you or I do anything other than line our bird cages with a study done by the Koch brothers?

Care to comment on Dr. Richard Lindzen's comments?

http://www.thegwpf.org/ipcc-sausage-factory-95-figure-meat/

"Reporter: I’m hoping you can answer a question about the upcoming IPCC report. When the report states that scientists are “95 percent certain” that human activities are largely to cause for global warming, what does that mean? How is 95 percent calculated? What is the basis for it? And if the certainty rate has risen from 90 n 2007 to 95 percent now, does that mean that the likelihood of something is greater? Or that scientists are just more certain? And is there a difference?

Judith Curry: The 95% is basically expert judgment, it is a negotiated figure among the authors. The increase from 90-95% means that they are more certain. How they can justify this is beyond me.

Reporter: You mean they sit around and say, “How certain are you?” ”Oh, I feel about 95 percent certain. Michael over there at Penn State feels a little more certain. And Judy at Georgia Tech feels a little less. So, yeah, overall I’d say we’re about 95 percent certain.” Please tell me it’s more rigorous than that.

JC: Well I wasn’t in the room, but last report they said 90%, and perhaps they felt it was appropriate or politic that they show progress and up it to 95%.

Reporter: So it really is as subjective as that?

JC: As far as I know, this is what goes on. All this has never been documented."

Maybe Bob or Magnus can show us where the IPCC documents how they come up with the 95% number? Judith was nice enough not to just say that they pulled it out of their you know what's.

Rockwall.

1. I cannot comment on Lindzen or Curry because I a) haven't seen their detailed arguments and b) I probably don't know enough climate science to have an informed opinion. They are a qualified and educated minority. I can't comment on the detailed arguments of the vast majority of climatologists who disagree with Lindzen and Curry. It is simple dishonesty to pick one or two whose conclusions I like and say that they must the ones with the best science.

2. Um, you do know that the IPCC documents are due to be released on Monday, don't you? Unlike the psychic Delingpole, I cannot read what isn't yet released.

Am I wrong?

Rockwall was a much nicer guy when he refused to discuss controversial subjects.

1. Judith Curry has an excellent blog here: http://judithcurry.com/, which you should take a look at. Quite thought provoking. You might especially enjoy this blog entry: http://judithcurry.com/2013/08/20/scient......asoning/


2. No, I didn't. I thought they were released yesterday. I've certainly seen plenty of direct quotes from them to indicate they had been released.

And that's where we're different Al. I never thought you were a nicer guy.

Rockwall
The giant chip on your shoulder makes you walk with a limp. LOL

Al you are the one always calling names at people you disagree with. YOU have the little man chip on your shoulder.

If you don't want to believe James Delingpole, or Judith Curry or Dr. Richard Lindzen, then I suggest you listen to George Carlin's comments on the IPCC report.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W33HRc1A6c

It's true. There are a handful of scientists in various disciplines, including climatology, who have published articles saying that AGW is a myth or that its models are seriously flawed. They are regularly cited as authoritative by those seeking to debunk AGW.

It is also true that there are a handful of scientists in almost every discipline, who have published articles or given interviews in which they've "authoritatively stated" that tobacco is harmless, that 9/11 was an inside job and that there are secret colonies on the dark side of the Moon.

They, too, are regularly cited as "authoritative" by conspiracy theorists.

Personally, I put a little more faith in a world wide scientific consensus that I do in reports from the fringes.

You can always count on Danny to rear his ugly head whenever he gets a chance to insult me. I draw these uptight people like fly's. I guess it's because they resent my joie de vive. LOL

EXCUSE ME Bob but I have been on one of those secret colonies.

Problem is the ONLY album we were allowed to play was Pink Floyds Dark Side of the Moon. Great album but after a few decades it gets tiresome!

Al it is when YOU start calling names and when you say things about others having a chip on their shoulder. I just keep hoping you look in the mirror. Hope springs eternal.

Yes mother

FWIW Lindzen has also publicly argued that no link between smoking and lung cancer has yet been shown. Interesting fellow.

Sounds like one of the Heritage foundation "researchers" who provided faux "studies" about smoking to their employers at the tobacco industry.

It always comes down to "follow the money." The reason big oil funds anti-AGW propaganda is because the reality of AGW would require corrective measures that would cut into their profit margins. So they finance bogus research, attempt to discredit mainstream science, and create phony grass-roots movements to divert attention from their actual agenda.

When they inadvertently fund a study that actually CONFIRMS AGW (as happened to the Koch brothers), they simply act as if the study never happened.

If we didn't currently have a House majority that actively promotes scientific illiteracy, we'd be better able to develop constructive solutions to the problem. Simply pretending it doesn't exist just allows the Kochs and their ilk to continue to line their corporate pockets while destroying the environment.