Michael Mann puts it most eloquently:

http://m.livescience.com/39957-climate-change-deniers-must-stop-distorting-the-evidence.html

" It happens every six years or so: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) publishes its assessment of the current state of scientific understanding regarding human-caused climate change. That assessment is based on contributions from thousands of experts around the world through an exhaustive review of the peer-reviewed scientific literature and a rigorous, several-years-long review process. Meanwhile, in the lead-up to publication, fossil-fuel industry front groups and their paid advocates gear up to attack and malign the report, and to mislead and confuse the public about its sobering message.

So in the weeks leading up to the release of the IPCC Fifth Assessment scientific report, professional climate-change deniers and their willing abettors and enablers have done their best to distort what the report actually says about the genuine scientific evidence and the reality of the climate-change threat. [FAQ: IPCC's Upcoming Climate Change Report Explained] "

" This time, however, climate-change deniers seem divided in their preferred contrarian narrative. Some would have us believe that the IPCC has downgraded the strength of the evidence and the degree of threat. Career fossil-fuel-industry apologist Bjorn Lomborg, in Rupert Murdoch's "The Australian," wrote on Sept. 16: "UN's mild climate change message will be lost in alarmist translation." On the other hand, serial climate disinformer Judith Curry, in a commentary for the same outlet five days later, announced, "Consensus distorts the climate picture."

So, make up your mind, critics: Is it a "mild message" or a "distorted picture?" Consistency, they might well respond, is simply the "hobgoblin of little minds" after all — but in reality, that's only if you ignore the foolishness."

Poirot and friends, we are wasting our time. You cannot change stupidity.

David

Wow! This post certainly has produced some opposition, about which more in a moment. But let me thank 'jeremy' for providing what I should have done — the link to Roy Spender's website. I do always provide links, and I don't know how I missed doing so in this case — perhaps because I was travelling.

Jeremy is not persuaded by Roy Spencer or his work, and that's his privilege. I like what Spencer does, because he builds it on data. No doubt he makes errors, as I do, but when he makes a mistake he refers to that after the discovery. If he is challenged, he takes on the challenge. I like that. It is uncommon in climate science.

What is plain (to me, anyway) from the adverse comments here is that the production of the Summary for Policymakers will be greeted with a great deal of approval from those who think that people like me are in the pay of Big Something, or 'dupes'. As it happens, I'm neither, a non-believer, who calls himself an agnostic.

It's probably time I wrote about what it is that makes me an agnostic, and what that is. I can't do it justice here, but it will appear on my website tomorrow, if any of you are interested.

Don Aitkin,

It's not about "belief" (as you, no doubt, are well aware) It's about empirical evidence.

Using the term "believer", I think, is disingenuous. It's designed to subliminally impart the notion that climate science has somehow morphed into a belief system akin to religion. Do you have a similar opinion regarding other areas of science?

".... I like what Spencer does, because he builds it on data...."

Here's a paper that's based on real world data.

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2012/20120803_DicePopSci.pdf

jeremy,

"Either way it seems to justify putting Aitkin on your "don't bother to read" list."

Yes, indeed, climate change "sceptics" who are actually qualified and know what they're talking about, seem rather rare.

The ramping up of hysteria by the alarmists and sundry superior types sitting on their perches like Vultures waiting for some bad news about climate so they can say "I told you so" increases as the evidence against AGW becomes overwhelming.

Poirot links to a disgraceful effort by Hansen and some others with a prominent photo of a bushfire to prove the point that AGW is real; is that what you meant by "empirical evidence" Poirot?

All the examples used by Hansen, droughts, bushfires etc as proof of AGW have been demolished elsewhere.

In the real world of empirical evidence another paper showing the total failures of the climate models which underpin AGW:

http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs/Climate%20change/Climate%20model%20results/over%20estimate.pdf

Nothing will change the 'minds' of AGW believers because they believe in AGW; as simple as that; it is a belief and ideology; it was never a science, just an ideology, and a pernicious, anti-human one at that.