But DavidK, I was not telling any scientists they don't know what they are talking about. Why would I do that? I was quoting from the IPCC's synthesis long report. The report, like the summary for policy makers, is out there for the intelligent public not just for the scientific community.

This, from the IPCC report, does seem to me to be indicating that 111 of 114 models were wrong and, as I said, exaggerated the warming.

Once more: "For the period from 1998 to 2012, 111 of the 114 available climate-model simulations show a surface
warming trend larger than the observations".

I would no more seek to argue about climate science with a climate scientist such as yourself than I would with a climate scientist like Roy Spencer.

But I can read and understand an IPCC report that is released for the public. And I can have a view about climate alarmism.

Surely you are not suggesting that only scientists should decide what is to be done about the increased CO2 emissions and the 0.8 degree warming since 1880?

Barry, quote from the IPCVC all you like but please just don’t cherry pick. Even the intelligent public knows that 1998 was one of the warmest years on record due to a larger than normal El Nino event.

Even a non-scientist like yourself, who has been following the ‘public debate’ about global warming, should know that if you picked 1997 or 1999 as the start date for a 15 year time series statistical analysis, then you would get a completely different set of results.

If you can, try it yourself: analyse the trend starting in 1992 till 2006. You will find that the trend line is about 50% larger (faster) than the average.

If you could conduct the analysis , you would also find that ‘natural variability’ had a ‘dampening’ effect from (say) 1997 but amplified human induced global (surface) warming from 1992.

Barry, the point is, it is easy for a non-scientist to quote things out of context – many so called ‘sceptics’ do this unintentionally. However, many others do it deliberately to push their own ideological gambit. I’m sure you would understand why.

Barry, please try and understand this, also from the report:

“The long term climate model simulations show a trend in global-mean surface temperature from 1951 to 2012 that agrees with the observed trend. There are, however, differences between simulated and observed trends over periods as short as 10 to 15 years (e.g. 1998 to 2012).”

I know Roy Spencer, and I empathise with him. For someone so religious I can understand why he would try so fervently to disprove Man’s influence in global warming, much preferring it to be the domain of God.

Barry, you also say you “can read and understand an IPCC report that is released for the public.”

Sorry, no you can’t – you take things out of context. Whether you do this deliberately or not is beside the point.

cont'd

Cont’d

Barry, you go on to say;

“Surely you are not suggesting that only scientists should decide what is to be done about the increased CO2 emissions and the 0.8 degree warming since 1880?”

No, I’m not saying that at all - tacky that you would suggest it, but there you go.

One more thing; I can have a view about 'climate alarmism' too.

From my perspective, it comes in two forms: from people like Flannery and Gore, and from ignorant and pernicious 'nay-sayers'.

DavidK, the quote from the IPCC report establishes that I was not 'making stuff up'. I was not cherry-picking, as I was not making any claim about warming or otherwise but rather establishing that the IPCC itself acknowledges that its models got it wrong.

The significance of 1998-2012 (and presumably why the IPCC report specified that period in part of its report) is that the experts, drawing on the models, had been telling us that the planet would continue to warm at rates greater than eventuated.

Your dismissive remark about climate scientist Roy Spencer does you no credit. Anyone interested can read Spencer's website here: http://www.drroyspencer.com/about/ He argues that natural variation is the principal factor not CO2 emissions.

I'm not sure what you have in mind when you say "ideologically driven". If you are suggesting that I have to see things in a certain way - am wedded to a position - then you are wrong.

My blog attempts to offer a Marxist-influenced left-wing perspective against pseudo-leftism and that includes opposition to the green world outlook.

As for "nay-saying", if you are applying that to me, then again you have it wrong. To challenge and to question is not "nay-saying" which implies a definite final position.

spindoc,

"If the alarmism and 98% agreement were valid, this would be reflected in political decisions...."

Oh really?

Like this you mean?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-12/china-and-us-agree-on-ambitous-gas-emissions-targets/5886200

"China and the United States have agreed on a set of ambitious greenhouse gas emission targets, with Beijing setting a goal for its emissions to peak "around 2030".

It is the first time China, the world's biggest polluter, has set a date for its emissions to stop increasing, and the White House said China would "try to peak early".

At the same time the US set a goal to cut its own emissions of the gases blamed for climate change by 26-28 per cent from 2005 levels by 2025."

How bloody embarrassing that Australia under the Abbott Govt has been in full-revved reverse on this issue.....out on a limb all by themselves with their science denying buddies, Canada.

byork

Deny it all you want ... but you were cherry picking, taking IPCC stuff out of context.

(psychologists and behaviourists have a term for those excuses)

Re Roy, your gullibility is not so astounding.

Goodbye.

...

Poirot,

You forgot to mention NZ, but stay tuned.