Hi Luci; I've read Weart but not for a while; I recalled that Lubos had given him a serve way back when:

http://motls.blogspot.com.au/2007/06/realclimate-saturated-confusion.html

I wish you guys would address the issues; Stockwell has written a paper detailing how the solar variation can explain temperature and because you can't or won't understand it you default back to mummy's AGW apron strings.

The author of this gibberish is a believer; his belief in the integrity of the IPCC and the science of the consensus amply demonstrates that.

The author's comment about climate models is particularly insightful:

"Computer models have an enormous advantage over models that depended on human calculations. Because they are so fast, they enable us to calculate very precisely just what difference it would make if certain measurements were inaccurate by some particular margin."

This guy hasn't got a clue; it is not computational speed which is the problem but the assumptions the climate computers are modelled with [this guy doesn't know the difference between a model and a computer which is used to calculate the model parameters]. The climate models have either misunderstood the roles of water, clouds and the sun. If you don't believe me read the emails where the climate scientists admit that.

Now luci and the other one, ozdoc; same something sensible.

Wow! The global warming mob are really scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Forced to admit no warming for 16 years, & many of their other clams becoming more doubtful daily, as more new evidence is produced in peer reviewed studies, they have turned to the dreamers.

We get psychologists, psychiatrists, & now Philosophers, & all the other types who have to take their shoes off to count above ten dragged in to try some new red herrings.

Well sorry John, you're on a fools errand. You'd be much better off going back to where you can't be proved wrong. It is very dangerous staking your reputation on things you don't understand.

The IPCC's latest report claims that there is increasing certainty that CO2 will cause dangerous global warming over the course of the 21st century. This assertion is based on an aggregate of computer models of the world's climate developed by climate modellers around the world.

However, in relying on those models, the IPCC fails to address the growing gap between the model predictions and actual measured temperatures, viz. University of Alabama, Huntsville Campus (UAH) Lower Troposphere satellite measurements, and combined sea-surface temperature records compiled by the Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office and land surface temperature records compiled by the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia.

Whereas the models predicted increasing temperature with increasing CO2 emissions, there has been no statistically significant increase in global temperature in the past 15 years, despite the increases in anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

This clearly suggests that the computer models grossly overstate the sensitivity of global temperature to anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

Luciferase
Glanced at your link about the sun connection.. no-one now doubts that there is a connection between the solar cycles and climate, but there is a lot of argument about just how much the warming that occurred between the mid-70s and the turn of the century was due to changes in the sun.. the link is supposed to have broken down. Also, no-one is sure of the mechanism. If you want confirmation of this try this 2009 paper from the proceedings of the Royal Academy A http://www.atmos.washington.edu/2009Q1/111/Readings/Lockwood2007_Recent_oppositely_directed_trends.pdf
The solar physicist Mike Lockwood who co-authored the paper agreed that there was substantial evidence for such a link, but that the link broke down in the past 40 years.. that may be so, or it may be the result of our poor understanding of the link.. whatever. But the people who wrote the item you linked are guilty of not being aware of the latest research in this area..

Raycom did Mummy read that big IPPC report for you or did you just copy and paste from whatsupwiththat.tard?

Cobber the hound
The IPCC has form when it comes to misrepresenting the facts. Ben Santer was involved in one such exercise in 1995, which is worth recounting.

S Fred Singer and Dennis T Avery, in their book 'Unstoppable Global Warming' published by Rowman and Littlefield in 2007, give the following account (see pp 120-121):
(Start of quote)
"The IPCC's Climate Change 1995 was reviewed by its consulting scientists in late 1995. The 'Summary for Policy Makers' was approved in December, and the full report , including Chapter 8, was accepted. However, after the printed report appeared in May 1996, the scientific reviewers discovered that major changes had been made "in the back room" after they had signed off on the science chapter's contents. Santer, despite the shortcomings of the scientific evidence, had inserted strong endorsements of man-made warming in Chapter 8 (of which he was the IPCC-appointed lead author):

"There is evidence of an emerging pattern of climate response to forcing by greenhouse gases and sulfate aerosols ... from the geographical, seasonal and vertical patterns of temperature change ... These results point toward a human influence on global climate. (IPCC, Climate Change 1995, Chapter 8, 412)

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)

(cont.in next post)