"Denial that experts selected by an organization (i.e. the IPCC) with substantial infiltration by 'big green' are objective arbiters of climate science."
I am supposed to take a statement like that seriously. It is clearly a biased remark that only serves to denigrate the IPCC. Who are these big green infiltrators ?

Sorry Don you are not being agnostic you demonstrating a serous bias in favour of those who dispute AGW by re posting such comments.
________________________________________________________________________________________________

Why have global temperatures not gone up in response to increases in atmospheric CO2?
They have
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/debunking-the-persistent-myth-that-global-warming-stopped-in-1998-20130927-2ui8j.html

Why did the IPCC’s models fail to predict this?
See first answer.

Where has the heat gone if CO2 is the cause of warming?
Most of it goes into heating the ocean a only a small fraction goes into increasing surface temperatures.

And why have all the IPCC’s “forecasts” failed to eventuate?
See you in 2100 then we can decide if the IPCC's forecasts were correct.

“I think that the latest IPCC report has truly sunk to level of hilarious incoherence,” Dr. Richard Lindzen told Climate Depot…

http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/29/top-mit-scientist-un-climate-report-is-hilariously-flawed/#ixzz2gKa69skm

”They are proclaiming increased confidence in their models as the discrepancies between their models and observations increase.”

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change claimed it was 95 percent sure that global warming was mainly driven by human burning of fossil fuels that produce greenhouse gases. The I.P.C.C. also glossed over the fact that the Earth has not warmed in the past 15 years, arguing that the heat was absorbed by the ocean.

“Their excuse for the absence of warming over the past 17 years is that the heat is hiding in the deep ocean,” Lindzen added. “However, this is simply an admission that the models fail to simulate the exchanges of heat between the surface layers and the deeper oceans.”

“However, it is this heat transport that plays a major role in natural internal variability of climate, and the IPCC assertions that observed warming can be attributed to man depend crucially on their assertion that these models accurately simulate natural internal variability,” Lindzen continued. “Thus, they now, somewhat obscurely, admit that their crucial assumption was totally unjustified.”

Also note this critique: http://joannenova.com.au/2013/09/ipcc-in-denial-just-so-excuses-use-mystery-ocean-heat-to-hide-their-failure/

Alice

David G

If you've been following the debate closely, then show the IPCC's working for how it reached it's figure of "95%" confidence that it's right, even though all its predictions have been wrong?

If you've been following the science closely, then where's ONE peer-reviewed article proving either:
a) the existence of the tropospheric hotspot by TEMPERATURE measurements, and
b) catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.

If you've been following the science closely, then answer the questions:
Why have global temperatures not gone up in response to increases in atmospheric CO2?
Why did the IPCC’s models fail to predict this?
Where has the heat gone if CO2 is the cause of warming?
And why have all the IPCC’s “forecasts” failed to eventuate?

You? Following the science? Ha! You have answered with NOTHING BUT personal vilification.

"why is it so important that you and he are right? Can't you handle uncertainty? Is it causing your world to fall apart?"

Your questions only make sense if you overlook the fact that all the money that has been spent on the global warming religion has been confiscated under compulsion. *If* everyone who claims to believe it's true and valuable, had shown willing to bear the costs of the research and the response themselves, there would be no issue.

But the exact opposite is true, isn't it?

In the last century the socialists killed over 100 million people after their belief system was shown to have *no rational basis*. They simply ignored that fact.

But if the policies of the warmists were carried out, they would cost the lives of many many many more millions than that, for the same reasons - statists with religious zeal, ignoring the fact that there's no rational basis for their beliefs, and presuming from unfalsifiable assertions a general right for government to take over any and every aspect of production!

Forget interrogating my personal motives - answer the questions or admit you can't!

More 'gish galloping' from jkj

http://www.omg-facts.com/Interesting/The-Gish-Gallop-Is-The-Debating-Techniqu/53793

Firstly, notice how ozdoc has not supplied any data or reason to support the hypothesis of catastrophic man-made global warming?

Notice how he didn't actually make any coherent statement in support of the proposition.

Notice how he hasn't answered any of the questions which prove the warmists wrong?

Notice how he doesn't admit he can't answer them?

What do we get? A link.

Follow the link and...

"Gish galloping" is supposedly "The person drowns the opponent in such a torrent of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments that the opponent can’t possibly answer every falsehood in real time."

Notice how there's no question of David G or anyone being called to answer "in real time"?

Notice how ozdoc doesn't give any *reason* for, or *identify* any alleged half-truths, lies or straw-man arguments on my part?

Notice how his post is either irrelevant to the topic of global warming, or assumes it's true from outset?

Come on guys. Got that evidence there yet? No, not dishonest links to irrelevance and fallacy. Evidence.

It's really pathetic and you can only wonder what motivates them. It's obviously not truth or science otherwise they wouldn't keep answering in nothing but fallacies and evasions.

You come across as a shrill, jkj.

AGW is not catastrophic, yet.