(Previous post cont.)
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)

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. Yet it has not been able to produce any compelling empirical scientific evidence that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are the driver of global warming.

Yep it's quite amazing --when one runs through Raycom's list --just how many fudges the IPCC has been involved in.

Another telling factor is --on a quick scan of this thread-- of the three true believers in AGW, two offer nothing but personal abuse.

Perhaps here is the reason the IPCC is not claiming AGW caused the typhoon at Tacloban.
7,000 dead, prison at Tacloban wrecked, 200 rebels escaped, 1898;
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/44204307

Has anyone heard about this in major media, like in the pro CO2 lobby ABC and SMH?

cohenite,

"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."

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/4/045022

"Although it is generally believed that the increase in the mean global surface temperature since industrialization is caused by the increase in green house gases in the atmosphere, some people cite solar activity, either directly or through its effect on cosmic rays, as an underestimated contributor to such global warming. In this letter a simplified version of the standard picture of the role of greenhouse gases in causing the global warming since industrialization is described. The conditions necessary for this picture to be wholly or partially wrong are then introduced. Evidence is presented from which the contributions of either cosmic rays or solar activity to this warming is deduced. The contribution is shown to be less than 10% of the warming seen in the twentieth century."

Sorting through the waffle designed to make the author seem impartial, the key points in John Burnheim's article are.

Some climatologists, including "eminent" ones are sceptical about global warming.

Climate scientists base their findings on computer modelling which scientists from other disciplines do not trust.

The best indicator of who is right on this topic could be gleaned from the exchange between cohenite and ozdoc at the beginning of the replies. Cohenite submits a reasoned argument complete with supporting links, ozdoc submits a sneery one liner directed at cohenite.