(Previous post cont.)
The body of statistical evidence in chapter 8, when examined in the context of our physical understanding of the climate system, now points to a discernible human influence on the global climate. "( IPCC, Climate Change 1995, Chapter 8, 439)

Santer also deleted these key statements from the expert-approved chapter 8 draft:

"None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed (climate) changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases."

"While some of the pattern-base studies discussed here have claimed detection of a significant climate change, no study to date has positively attributed all or part (of the climate change observed) to (man-made) causes. Nor has any study quantified the magnitude of a greenhouse gas effect or aerosol effect in the observed data -- an issue of primary relevance to policy makers."

"Any claims of positive detection and attribution of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced."

"While none of these studies has specifically considered the attribution issue, they often draw some attribution conclusions, for which there is little justification."

"When will an anthropogenic effect on climate be identified? It is not surprising that the best answer to the question is, "We do not know."

Santer single-handedly reversed the "climate science " of the whole IPCC report -- and with it the global warming political process. The "discernible human influence" supposedly revealed by the IPCC has been cited thousands of times since in media around the world and has been the "stopper" in millions of debates between non-scientists.

The journal Nature mildly chided the IPCC for redoing chapter 8 to "ensure that it conformed" to the report's politically correct Summary for Policy Makers. In an editorial, Nature favoured the Kyoto treaty.
(cont. next post)

(Previous post cont.)

The Wall Street Journal, which did not favour Kyoto, was outraged . Its condemning editorial, "Coverup in the Greenhouse, " appeared 11 June 1996. The following day, Frederick Seitz, former president of the National Academy of Sciences, detailed the illegitimate rewrite in the Journal in a commentary titled, "Major Deception on Global Warming."
(End of quote)

Raycom,

This year is 2011, not 1995/6. This strikes me as the weakest of weak "evidence", that is in any event 15 years old.

Given that you are so confident in your assertions about how IPCC misrepresents facts surely you must have current evidence that is much more compelling that this?

If you can't produce a basis for your assertions then all you are contributing is an unsubstantiated opinion best kept to yourself.

Rich2

Nothing has changed since Santer's deception.

You should be familiar with more recent misrepresentations, such as : the 'hockey stick' scandal; alarmist outcomes generated with unvalidated IPCC climate models ; the Climategate scandal; IPCC claims re Himalayan glaciers disappearing by 2035, destruction of 40 percent of the Amazonian rain forest, halving of African agricultural production.

The IPCC continues to rely on assertion, which it effectively uses to con politicians et al into believing in the dangerous AGW hypothesis. It has not been able to produce any compelling scientific evidence that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are the driver of global warming.

Raycom,
I can understand that in the reams of detailed, comprehensive scientific literature that the IPCC has put out, drawn from hundreds of scientists from all over the world, then subject to numerous editing processes some mistakes slip through. But to then say that the discovery of these somehow renders the basic conclusions wrong seems to me ridiculous. A view no doubt shared by all the national science academies around the world that continue to endorse the IPCC conclusions. Applying the same standards to the work of Pilmer and Monckton for example, quickly generates infinitely more errors that do cause their conclusions to be shown as wrong.
I cannot for the life of me see why you cling so tenaciously to your conclusions about AGW in the face of such overwhelming evidence and based on the flimsiest of so called evidence. The only way to understand your position is to look beyond the rational and to delve into the world of psychology.

Rich2
The simple fact is that the IPCC has failed to prove the dangerous AGW hypothesis. Given the IPCC's failure to do so after more than US$100 billion of research expenditure worldwide since 1990, there is no point asking you to provide compelling scientific evidence to prove your convictions. History will prove you all wrong.

Despite its inability to substantiate the existence of dangerous AGW, the IPCC has been able to con millions of people including politicians, scientists and socalled scientific societies, of the political correctness of AGW -- which can be regarded a psyhcological success .

“It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period.”
Professor Richard Feynman, Nobel Laureate in Physics