Thanks Tony 153, for clarifying your mindset as a fraud-backer.
You commend the BOM, the same BOM that told the outright lie about our temperature record earlier this year. It demonstrated the desperation of the AGW fraud-backers to show an upward trend in temperature where none exists. The bright idea about the warming hiding in the ocean did not stand up to scrutiny, but that does not deter you from talking nonsense.
Gore’s film told 35 lies in 19 minutes, and if any of it coincided with reality, it is purely by accident
Have you left school yet, Tony? Your posts are quite puerile.

I always find it strange how Don Aitkin always seems to be able to find a couple of slightly prominent people who support his opinions and then parades those people as fountains of truth. This time we have two British politicians, who's apparent claims to fame are they studied some science at University. I am sure there are other British politicians who studied science at University who did not vote against the Energy and Climate Change Select Committee’s report on the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change Fifth Report, but why did Don not mention them?

It is simply one great argument from authority and a not very convincing argument at that. Rather than an argument from authority, how about explaining how the IPCC summary for policy makers is wrong?

Don, perhaps you could start with the first highlighted statement in the report:

"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased"

Agronomist if you wish anyone to pay any attention to these wild statements you claim are facts, put some proof with them.

Any idiot can make claims, or refer to some unknown authority.

From Hasbeen “Agronomist if you wish anyone to pay any attention to these wild statements you claim are facts, put some proof with them.”

First claim: that British MPs with a science degree did not vote against the Energy and Climate Change Select Committee’s report on the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change Fifth Report and Don Aitkin does not mention them.

Membership of the relevant committee is here http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmselect/cmenergy/587/58701.htm

As well as Lilley and Stringer, Dr Phillip Lee, and Sir Robert Smith studied science at university. Neither voted against the report, neither were mentioned by Don Aitkin.

Second claim: that the IPCC wrote: “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased”

You can find the quote here http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf

Agronomist,

You cite the AR5 SPM as follows (my numbers allow me to comment later): '(1) Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and (2) since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. (3) The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, (4) sea level has risen, and (5) the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased.'

You ask for my reaction(s). (1) I think it is likely that the climate system has warmed, but the data do not allow us to say accurately by how much, let alone whether or not the warming is harmful to humans or 'the eco-system'. Some of the consequences of the warming since 1979 seem to have been beneficial. There seems to have been no warming of any significance in the last decade or so.

(2) The palaeo data do not allow us to say whether or not observed recent changes are unprecedented, though they can be suggestive. Palaeo data come with their own errors, and a broad-scale — our recent changes are measured in years, but that is too fine a scale for ice-cores.

(3) These changes are not linear. Some glaciers are advancing, and the amount of ice does not seem to have changed much (Antarctic sea-ice is at record levels, and Antarctica contains about 90 per cent of the world's ice).

(5) Yes, green house gases have been increasing while temperatures have not. You really have to search the Report to find any recognition of this fact.

(4) Sea levels have been rising slowly and steadily for a long time, according to tide gauges. Current levels at 3mm per year, do not suggest anything dramatic.

(5) Greenhouse gas emissions have been rising while temperature seems not to have done, something that is hidden in AR5.

A dramatic introduction that is so easily questioned hardly inspires confidence in the rest of the report.

So I watched the youtube video that Tony153 linked. Seems an odd way to refute the religous nature of the climate change movement by suggesting I watch a video featuring some the the priests of the movement (Trenbath, Mann etc).

As mentioned earlier, I expect the IPCC to slowly become less relevant as people wake up that the predicted appocolpse has not happened. Data and facts do not compete well in an argument against faith, but slowly think will win out.