Bonmot,

This is where/how the proponents of AGW lose at lot of credibility:
“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.”

It has become something of a standard that those who believe in AGW will seek to discredit the messenger rather than analyse the message. Such is not a scientific approach –it is more akin to a defence of a religion.

I urge you to buy the book and read his analysis,it is very thorough and his sources are "peer reviewed".

And then there’s this:
“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.”

( to use “scientific community” as if there is this monolith block that supports your position is inaccurate –but for the sake of simplicity we’ll let it by)

Why was the same “scientific community” silent in the face of the “ factual errors” in Al Gore’s An inconvenient Truth ?

Why in the face of the IPCC climategate revelations was the response of practically all of the proponents of AGW on OLO, one of “we need to prosecute the hackers” rather than, “ We need to do a thorough investigation into the workings/ methodology of the scientists involved”

It appears that for quite a number, the AGW platform has become a quasi–religion.

Er, Horus
It has become something of a standard that those who DON'T believe in AGW will seek to discredit the IPCC (the messenger) rather than analyse the message.

The 1000's of papers referenced in the IPCC reports are peer reviewed too. While I have placed an order and will read "Chill" (and place it alongside my copy of Heaven & Earth) I suspect you haven't read any of the scientific papers referenced in AR4.

It is well known in the "scientific community" that Al Gore is not a scientist, he is a politician. He got the Nobel Peace prize not for the science, but for drawing attention to the seriousness of global warming and its potential impact on world peace. That is an inconvenient fact, but there you are.

Horus, you may not like the results of the investigations that were conducted in the aftermath of 'climategate' but the science still stands. As to others who post here, and their history, I can't answer for them.

I would agree that most people really haven't got a clue about the science, but that in and of itself does not mean the science is wrong, or that you should equate science with a religion, it most definitely isn't.

Bonmot,

"It has become something of a standard that those who DON'T believe in AGW will seek to discredit the IPCC"

During the course of these discussions I don’t believe I have said anything derogatory about the IPCC!


But hey, since you brought it up: “The 1000's of papers referenced in the IPCC reports are peer reviewed too”

Er, what happened with these, then:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/20/himalayan-glaciers-melt-claims-false-ipcc?CMP=AFCYAH

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/09/hockey-stick-graph-ipcc-report

http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/IPCC_AfricaCrops.htm
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7017907.ece

Seems like they dont need too much outside help --in the IPCC(self) discrediting dept.

Horus, I have read some of your OLO history – it’s not rocket science to see what you think about the IPCC. Your link to media shock jocks like Fred Pearce, Jonathan Leake and the Guardian newspaper, together to some other obscure web site about ‘applied information systems’, is to demonstrate what, scientific understanding?

What, you can't link to research institutions, or academies of science, or recognised individuals or establishments that actually study, report and disseminate the scientific research? Must you just rely on MSM or something you picked up from some blog?

Sheesh, your last post is akin to linking to Andrew Bolt, Piers Akerman, or some other unbeknown and obscure web site - the epitome of rational, forthright and logical thinking? Most would say not.

The AR4 contains 4 substantial reports together with a comprehensive technical summary. What, or which part, do you think is demonstrably flawed to the extent that you think your last post indicates?

You now seem to be focusing on impacts and what to do about them (yes, there is a difference between WG1, WG2 and WG3) rather than the basis of the science itself – well done, welcome to the challenge of preparing for the future and not living in an insular society.

Bonmot,

<<< Your link to media shock jocks like Fred Pearce Jonathan Leake and the Guardian newspaper,... your last post is akin to linking to Andrew Bolt, Piers Akerman>>>

The links were commenting on IPCC errors.
The fact that you’re no wiser –and are still bleating :
<<< What, or which part, do you think is demonstrably flawed>>>
I can only guess, shows that your were so busy trying to heap scorn on the source , that you forgot to read the content!
So let me give a summary:
http://www.thegwpf.org/news/509-the-never-ending-scandal-new-list-of-errors-in-ipcc-report.html

Hardly the sort of mistakes (if mistakes they were?) that a careful, scientific body would be expected to make.

And, your holier-than-thou tone is a more than a little hollow when one considers some of the colourful characters the IPCC has shared the rostrum with.

<<<What, you can't link to research institutions, or academies of science, or recognised individuals or establishments that actually study, report and disseminate the scientific research? Must you just rely on MSM or something you picked up from some blog?>>>

You confuse IPCC “consensus” with scientific community consensus. What you should have said was you hadn’t seen any such studies. But the fact that you haven’t seen such studies is likely to be more a failing in you observational skills than any reflection as to the existence or veracity such studies.

Here’s one you can start on –when you finish digesting it I’ll get you more:
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/05pielke.pdf

Bonmot,
<<< welcome to the challenge of preparing for the future and not living in an insular society>>>

If the opposite to being insular is to uncritically adopt the latest craze –give me a little insularity!

“Germany led the world in putting up solar panels, funded by E47 billion ($66bn) in subsidies. The lasting legacy is a massive bill and lost of inefficient solar technology sitting on rooftops throughout a cloudy , delivering a trivial 0.1 per cent of the total energy supply” [Bjorn Lomborg – The Australian 14/10/10]

If the IPCC and its confederates had not played new-world-order games, we may have been a lot further down the road to a cleaner environment and more sustainable society.