Sams, dunno about the Indian report, perhaps you are right, but I read quoted slabs which gave me a different impression.
I think I'll probably leave it there, Sams, because you don't seem to be genuinely interested in convincing somebody who is undecided. After "appeal to authority" you've moved on to "change the subject". You seem to think the character analysis part is the most important part of the discussion .. rather than just a bit of seasoning ... presumably because you don't have to address the other points I made in my last post.
And believe it or not, I sincerely don't get the "sockpuppet" insult. I don't know who you are. Is "Sams" your real name? Are you a sockpuppet too? The argument doesn't do a lot for your credibility. i don't provide my personal details because I don't want my email clogged up with abusive messages, or people ringing me on my home phone and abusing me the way they abuse people in the forum. I haven't called you any names, SAMS, because that's another technique of dishonest argument. I wish you the best of luck in creating a better world. We all want it.

Bugsy, I don't think you need to defend Sams, he is more than capable of looking after himself.

Of course, YOU may be a sockpuppet. You could also be a "strawman sockpuppet" or even a "meat puppet".

Wikipedia is quite interesting, isn't it?

I don't believe that Sams is not being attacked by sockpuppets, because the writing style of each appears to be quite different.

Anyway, Sams is entitled to his point of view, and to promote it, even if I and many others consider his view to be wrong-headed.

Back to the subject. Here is another point of view about the IPCC process.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24315169-7583,00.html

Froggie: "I don't believe that Sams is not being attacked by sockpuppets"

Bit of a Freudian slip?

Of course, should the site admins decide to do an IP address check of the logs against the user names, the situation would become a great deal clearer.

I am happy to have my account checked. Anyone else volunteering?

I haven't defended Sams an any way, Froggie. He is far better at this particular branch of science than I. I just severely dislike sock puppets. It's a nasty way of pretending to have support when the reality is quite different or being able to post nasty comments without having it as a blot on your posting history. And it happens reasonably often around here. Isn't the internet wonderful?

Which also leaves open the question, if the Crock is not a sock puppet, then he/she/it is merely a rude individual. It's kind of odd isn't it, a lurker who appears to have read the forum for a reasonable amount of time, just has to bother to register and unload on Sams, because it seems that he (she?) is one of the few around these parts to have the tenacity and patience to bother responding to comments that quite frankly are often quite asinine in their ignorance (eg the molecular weight thing from Arjay, that made me LOL, no idea about quantum properties and absorption/emission spectra of electrons, great stuff).

And as if that isn't enough, what are the chances that TWO of them show up at the same time and do exactly the same thing?

IP check in aisle six, please.

Froggie

I am not surprised by your response, backed up by an architect John McLean ... goes by the tag 'Snowman' on OLO, but you knew that.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/12/monckton_watch_2.php#comment-681752

You link to McLean's OZ piece, another point of view is;

http://bravenewclimate.com/2008/09/09/spot-the-recycled-denial-iv-%E2%80%93-climate-case-built-on-thin-foundation/

___________

Crock
"Q&A, I think you misunderstand my point. i'll come back to it later."

Possibly, could you be more clear in your meaning.

Goodness. Looks like Bugsy wants it both ways. If I’m not a “sockpuppet”, then I’m a “rude individual.” or a “lurker.” It sounds like Bugsy’s running out of arguments too, so resorts to thinking up new names for me! I’m flattered, really. But is he sincerely holding him or herself and Sams as examples of “polite individuals”?

Conceptualise this,Bugsy: i was moved to enter the forum because I was frankly appalled by Sams’ arguing techniques . I happily admit that I can’t debate the science, but my issue with SAMS was NOT with his science, as you would realise if you had read my posts with even vague attention. I can question and challenge the techniques of argument, in particular “X august individuals and or organisations say this is true so don’t you dare question it/” and I think that is entirely appropriate given the kind of arguments that SAMS has been putting forward in that area of thought.

Of course I’m perfectly happy to have my record checked by the administrators. And I would love Sams to provide me with an apology when his allegation is proved wrong, but I suspect he’ll just think up a new name. Or let Bugsy do it for him.

Q&A: sorry, I’m only allowed 2 posts in 24 hours, I will endeavour to return to that subject tomorrow night.