You have reached your use by date on this, rstuart.

You put up, as evidence, material from the villain itself, the IPCC.

Its function is to pretend that the Summary is a scientific document.

Here is what Chris Landsea, an IPCC scientist said:
“I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I
view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being
scientifically unsound. As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in Dr.
Trenberth's actions and have retained him as a Lead Author for the AR4, I
have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR4.
Chris Landsea 17 January 2005”

I posted, on this thread, a copy of an email from Trenberth demonstrating that he has the same dishonest attitude as when he was engaged on the Summary.

As to comparing Carter to Lowe, please tell me when Carter was exposed as lying on oath, as Ian Lowe was.

As to publications by Carter, there have been many. The paper being attacked by Trenberth, in respect of which I posted his email, was the peer reviewed paper which showed that climate follows natural cycles.

The assertion that human emissions have any effect on climate could only be sustained if a difference in the natural cycles, arising from human emissions, could be demonstrated. The alarmists tried for years to demonstrate such a difference, but could not scientifically demonstrate it.

Speaking of advertence to facts, you said there had been six enquiries clearing the Climategate miscreants. In fact there have been four purporting to clear them, none of which, as I previously explained, are properly constituted to investigate or decide on the matter. If you know of a real enquiry, then tell me. Otherwise, stop talking nonsense.

Do not accuse me of falsehoods, based on the fact that you do not know what you are talking about

@Leo Lane: You put up, as evidence, material from the villain itself, the IPCC.

Only because you did it first Leo. It was you who referred to the IPCC authors. I then looked at the bit you you were referring to - the author list, and your claims about it (they were not climate scientists) and found you were flat out wrong. If you won't want the IPCC report dragged into the debate - avoiding dragging it into the debate in the first place would be a good start.

@Leo Lane: Do not accuse me of falsehoods, based on the fact that you do not know what you are talking about

I am accusing you of telling falsehood because what you are talking about is well documented, easily found, and when you look it up is clearly false. Anyone reading this doesn't have to rely on me. They can just check it themselves. If you don't like being shown up like this try sticking to the truth.

On reflection, rstuart, I concede your point that the authors of the Summary are the persons listed as authors.

The document is edited, not authored, by politicians, to ensure that the document says what they wish it to say, if that varies from what the scientists say.

That is why the scientific graph in the Fourth Summary, which varied from the text, was not picked up before the document was released.

The people who tampered with the text were unqualified, and did not realise that the science which remained in the document, after their editing, proved them wrong.

I grant that were it not for your persistence, rstuart, I would have continued in that error.

@Leo Lane: I grant that were it not for your persistence, rstuart, I would have continued in that error.

I appreciate the acknowledgement. For what it's worth Leo Lane my best moments where are when I am corrected. That's when I learn something new. It happens often enough.

@Leo Lane: As to comparing Carter to Lowe, please tell me when Carter was exposed as lying on oath, as Ian Lowe was.

I can't. But then I am not sure about what Lowe did either. Yes, it could have been a deliberate lie. But he could have just made a mistake, then was too embarrassed admit to it. In any case "not lying under oath" is pretty low base you are setting for Carter. It seems to me neither man is going to give you a balanced view.

@Leo Lane: you said there had been six enquiries clearing the Climategate miscreants

I got the figure of 6 from Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy#Inquiries_and_reports which said quote: "Six committees investigated the allegations and published reports detailing their findings." The claim is referenced, and the reference lists the 6.

@Leo Lane: four purporting to clear them

I don't know that any "cleared them", in the sense of given them a perfect pass. However quoting Wikipedia again: "none of the inquiries found evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct". To me that is all that matters.

@Leo Lane: none of which, as I previously explained, are properly constituted to investigate or decide on the matter.

I confess I don't even know what that means Leo Lane. They were investigated and at least three of those investigations were by independent outsiders. I'll list the independent ones:

- House of Commons Science and Technology Committee http://www.deccanherald.com/content/61233/uk-climategate-inquiry-largely-clears.html
- United States Environmental Protection Agency http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-10899538
- Department of Commerce http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2011/02/24/science-climategate-noaa.html

That and the score line (6-0) seals it for me. I imagine it would seal it for most people.

@Leo Lane: Do not accuse me of falsehoods, based on the fact that you do not know what you are talking about.

There you go Leo, another "falsehood".

And your beloved Bob continues to fake it too:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/07/13/bob-carter-does-his-business/#more-3954