@mhaze while speaking of 'errors' after talking much rubbish then says:

"so I won't torment you any longer on this."

ROTFLMFAO

Cute. Real cute. You're a blonde too, right? :-)

Is this how it's done on the IPA/OLO forum .... posting flippant bs. I hope I've now lowered myself down to OLOs standards.

Let me know if I need to go even lower to make the 'grade' for being a mindless OLO Ideological Troll where no matter how dumb as dirt an opinion is it's as sacrosanct as Holy Communion in the Catholic Church

Tom O',

Your naivety is rather touching:

"They are volunteers too btw, they receive no remuneration for their work or time."

So are they doing the work for the IPCC during their annual vacations or are they being paid during that time by their various employers? No need to answer.

The SPM is originally drafted by the scientists who wrote the relevant report. It is then subject to a line by line, word by word vetting by the government representatives who can and do delay the final report until they each and severally agree to every word, sentence and sentiment in the SPM.

More than one CLA has complained about the fact that the SPM vetting has resulted in it being no longer representative of the scientists views - see Tol and/or Robert Stavins who complained to the IPCC that the SPM should be renamed the Summary BY Policymakers.

I'll tell you what. Next time you want to post here, give me a line by line veto on everything you write and then we'll see if you still think you wrote it.

ant,
I know its a waste of bandwidth to even ask it but please show where I "admit to some kind of association with the pseudo science source of WUWT."

Did you read the WSJ article? Silly question. If you had you would have seen that it made a series of factual statements. If you want to reject the article do so by proving those statements wrong, not by meekly rejecting it because the author works for someone you don't like.
The Fairfax press reported this morning that the sun rose at 6:04am but since I don't like the Fairfax papers I'll assert that that is wrong! Honestly

CAPS for emphasis, putting my OLO training to work:

"I don't believe that NASA and the IPCC ARE FAKING THE DATA: I provide compelling evidence to show this.
Posted by Jennifer, 18 August 2016 - PG 7"

T. = Unsubstantiated LIBELOUS DEFAMATION

"It is NOT AD HOMINEM to point out that someone, like you, is USING THAT technique, and you are.
IF IF IF IF IF this is repeated at other sites, then NASA is dealing with data that is corrupted.
That is not a tangent, IT IS THE NUB of the matter.
Posted by GrahamY, 18 August 2016 - PG 6"

T. Oh dear, the brown shirts are a comin'. Does he know what the word *IF* means?
GY also asks "You tell me" but would GrahamY understand/believe it. She's been told why she is wrong (been repeatedly for years)

"What a NASTY discussion. Suggest that if you want to discuss the article you discuss the article rather than ABUSING THE AUTHOR. I've yet to see where anyone has made a substantive point against Jennifer's article."

T. GrahamY stop LYING. You need to read what people say and follow the urls. Then IF you still can't work it out, ask a respectful genuine question (absent the paranoia) and you would probably get a respectful answer.

Stop being a BIG MOUTH, it is NOT AD HOMINEM to point out that someone, like you, is USING THAT technique, and you are. :-)

"You seem to be adopting the technique of ad hominem that Cox used against Roberts, accusing him of believing that NASA faked the moon landings. That was inexcusable, ...."

T. Oh precious, you're sensitive over "imaginary adhom". Facts/Truth are that unimportant to you? What about Leo Lane and yourself GrahamY re insults and ad hom not addressing the content of a comment or article?

btw it is not ad hominem to point out that you are using that technique!

"Again, none of you has engaged with her criticism on this ground at all."
Posted by GrahamY, 18 August 2016 - PG 5

T. LIAR

Part 2:

"Yeah Thomas O'Reilly, we don't need any more link spam. You have posted so many times on this thread and you have yet to address yourself to Marohasy's primary issue which is with the adjustments on two datasets that cannot be justified on any scientific basis."

T. BIG-MOUTH LIAR

"Instruments were not moved."

T. BIG-MOUTH LIAR

"Nothing happened to require any sort of adjustment."

T. BIG-MOUTH LIAR

It's obvious there is no rebuttal to Marohasy's specific claims when the "consensus" sends Troll-bots like you along equipped with a link generator to renewable industry astro-turf operation desmog blog.
Posted by GrahamY, Sunday, 21 August 2016 8:59:44 PM - PG 13

T. and again A BIG-MOUTHED LIAR

Is this the right way do it on OLO GrahamY as per yourself and Leo Lane?

"Bigmouth O’Reilly says
That is nonsense, bigmouth.
You have been asked repeatedly to give a reference to science which shows any measurable man-made effect on climate, and you failed to do so."

T. LIAR

"You now assert THE LIE which I have just quoted."

T. LIAR = DEFAMATION

"Of course I understand that anything you say to support your position as a FRAUD-BACKER [=DEFAMATION] will be dishonest [=DEFAMATION] and untruthful [=DEFAMATION], like your statement which I have just quoted, so I will do my best to point out each further instance of YOUR LYING [=DEFAMATION] as it arises."
Posted by Leo Lane, Tuesday, 6 September 2016 9:57:08 PM - PG 45

I do hope I got that all down pat. I feel right at home now.

Thanks for the counselling and tips GrahamYoung. :-)

-

>>>You sought to disprove my point by asserting that only the second point was valid and/or that it superceded their global research. <<<
Comprehension dawns at last!

And did you actually READ chapter 10 which discusses WHY they're moving from global to regional models of extreme weather in particular? Because while there might be GLOBAL warming with a fairly uniform distribution of CO2 trapping heat (we'll ignore the albedo effects of the North Hemisphere supercontinents for the moment), the REGIONAL climate effects are far more diversified and complicated and specific to regional zones, and therefore global statements about extreme weather are almost useless.

I'll stop calling you a troll when you can admit that the report itself shows the regional modelling to be SUPERIOR to and the PREFERRED METHODOLOGY to the inferior global model that you harp on about. Not 'pertinent to your case' enough? That's because you're a cherrypicking denialist troll.

>>> Always believe the peer-reviewed science...unless it doesn't tell you what you want to hear. In that case go with the self-interested assertion.<<<

"Comprehension dawns at last!"

Glad to be of service.

Yes Max I have read AR5_WG1 including its SPM.

But no I didn't come across that part which opined that " the report itself shows the regional modelling to be SUPERIOR to and the PREFERRED METHODOLOGY to the inferior global model".

Perhaps you could enlighten us as to where it says that. Or was it just "the vibe of the thing…." (Dennis Denuto).

I won't hold my breathe waiting for enlightenment - although doing so would reduce CO2 levels and could be considered as my part in saving the planet.

I don't mind if you keep calling me a troll. Whenever I see you name-calling, I just see someone who has been badly mauled and who self-esteem has taken a hit trying to strike back in their own inept way. Its like being back in 3rd grade. I look forward to the "pants on fire" post.