Don't tell me Mhaze has run?

Max,

The Working Group reports are prepared by the scientists in the IPCC. Its far from a perfect system as the Himalayan debacle demonstrated but it is, finally, the considered opinion of those scientists who get to decide what goes into the report and what gets left out.

The SPM on the other hand is prepared by and signed off by governments (" The final draft of the report is distributed to governments for a final round of written comments on the SPM, before governments meet in plenary session to approve the SPM line by line and accept the underlying report. (See IPCC Factsheet – How does the IPCC approve reports?)". All relevant governments have to agree to each line in the SPM. So in the end, its a political document emphasising those parts of the relevant WG that the politicians want emphasised. As such its a political document based on aspects of the science, not the science itself.

That it ends up in the same PDF is neither here nor there.

I hope that brings you up to speed.

BTW Max, while you're acquainting yourself with the IPCC reports you might like to look at what they say about climate forcings. Previously you wrote "Read the IPCC papers. They account for all the forcings". That's about as wrong as any one sentence can be but at the time I let it pass because there was so much else I had to set you straight on and I figured you couldn't handle too much at once. Rather than accounting for all the forcings AR5 agreed that the know little about the extent or even the sign of the forcings.

Oh dear oh dear;
You know what is wrong about all this climate arguing ?
It ends up with people who probably have a lot in common getting
annoyed with each other calling one side flat earthers and the other
dupes of the greens and UN.

It is all so unnecessary. It does not matter who is right and who
is wrong, we cannot afford to dig and drill out all the fossil fuel
that will/might/never cause the temperature to rise.

The whole thing is a total waste of money which would be better put
into research on energy storage systems.
We have very little time left. We have just wasted 10 years since
peak crude oil arguing about the weather and now we have peak coal
and still we argue about the weather.

Aaaarrrggghhhh !

mhaze, you can refer to the IPCC if you like and try and debate its meaning, meanwhile:

Sudan-
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/08/sudan-floods-160805164516083.html

Illinois-
http://chicagoweathercenter.com/blog/cloudbursts-friday-hit-illinois-state-fair-in-springfield-with-more-than-5-56-of-rain-3-44-of-it-in-just-one-hour-while-drenching-rains-submerge-sections-of-the-chicago-area-int-he-wake-of-the

Louisiana-
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/weather/louisiana-flooding-u-s-s-worst-disaster-hurricane-sandy-red-n632496

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/08/19/110000-homes-worth-a-combined-21-billion-are-in-louisianas-flood-affected-zones-study-says/?utm_term=.048e6fed345a

Macedonia-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/ap/article-3727795/Storm-leaves-15-dead-6-missing-22-injured-Macedonia.html

India, Bangladesh, Nepal-
http://www.ifrc.org/en/news-and-media/news-stories/asia-pacific/india/millions-hit-by-floods-and-landslides-after-severe-monsoon-rains-72397/

US general comments-
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-29/forget-tornadoes-rain-bombs-are-coming-for-your-town

China-
https://www.rt.com/news/352888-china-floods-millions-displaced/

mhaze, your normal response is to minimalist these events where people are killed, or billions of dollars worth of infra structure, homes and cars are severely damaged or lost. Millions of people have been impacted, the examples provided have all happened within a current 30 day time frame.

Max,

Now let's see if I've got this straight - you're complaining that I'm narrowing the focus to the globe while you're expanding the focus to the regional. Surely even you see the logic error there.

Basically what's happening is that the global data isn't doing what the activists want so they create regional data via untested (and probably untestable) models. And then the usual purveyors of the gullible buy in and assume that what is data is wrong and what isn't data is true. oh well!

Bazz,

The definition of peak oil (and peak this and peak that) has changed as circumstances have changed. Its not really possible to argue that peak oil hasn't occurred when the goal posts keep changing. So what is your understanding of the term 'peak oil'?

maze,

1. Is the Summary for Policy Makers written BY the scientists FOR the politicians?

Yes or no?

2. Did your Denialist heroes just cherrypick the working group’s *global* findings, and completely ignore their *regional* findings on extreme weather events?

Yes or no?

3. To rephrase the question above, do the Working Group papers on REGIONAL extreme weather events actually agree with the SPM after all?

Yes or no?

4. Does ‘Glaciergate’ demonstrate that the IPCC peer-review process actually works after all, and will eventually admit and expose error when they are exposed?

Yes or no?

What if all your suspicions about climate change are false, and it actually is as advertised? What if you could drop a paranoid conspiracy theory worldview and have a little bit more confidence in the scientific process? Wouldn’t it be good to just leave all that suspicion and paranoia and conspiracy rubbish behind, and actually accept what the science is telling us: that there’s a problem, but there’s also a good solution?