Horus, why did you not provide a link, or citation? Or are you just trying to find something, anything, to justify your stance of inaction?

Bonmot,

1)Full citation: Taylor Peter, CHILL , Clairview 2009 --It’s a book, I don’t believe it’s on the net.

2) “ to justify your stance of inaction?” --Far from inaction, I’m all for renewable energy –I even turn off my lights for TWO hours on “Earth Hour” day/night.

Mark, when you forecast - or imply likelihood of - much reduced emissions through to 2100 on the basis of recent, mostly Global Financial Crisis related slowing of the growth of CO2 (which you fail to mention), you clearly imply, but don't actually say, the IPCC failing to predict it represents a general failure of their capacity to forecast anything (such as climate consequences of emissions growth), yes I think you are being disingenuous.
You are engaged in ongoing efforts to undermine the credibility of climate science as well as policy to slow future emissions growth - to prevent the high-end scenarios - and this is one more example of that.

No comment Mark?

I'd have thought you would have a long list of quotable quotes from these "various personalties" and "important people". Seeing as how your whole argument hinges on it, and they must be very important for your indignation at how the IPCC has failed to set them straight and shopuld not simply ignore them.

I for one would really like to know who they are, as they do appear to be dishonestly driving an agenda.

Who are they Mark? They can't be MacGuffins can they?

Thanks Horus, I'll read some book reviews.
Your 2nd para is encouraging.
I don't do the Earth Hour thing - I just economise on my bills without living in the dark ages :)

Hi Horus
Looked at some “Chill” reviews on Amazon (good place to buy some books now).
Alastair McIntosh gave a 4 star rating (not bad) for good reason

http://tinyurl.com/chill-review

and I found his comments about another reviewer quite pertinent

http://tinyurl.com/McIntosh-comment

Anyone can write a book Horus, and anyone can use a book to push a perceived agenda - not quite like peer reviewed scientific papers in well recognised scientific journals though.

I am reminded of Ian Plimer’s “Heaven & Earth” - the scientific community generally ‘bagged’ it for the factual errors it contained and his reticence in correcting them after its first publication.