Hi qanda,

<< I think it despicable that supposedly ‘open-minded’ journalists spruik their own biased “opinions” in the name of balanced reporting.>>

Well said, it is despicable, how dare journalists have an opinion? Just to add insult to injury, we now have politicians in the US having an opinion, truly shocking. Fortunately, these US politicians are only, as you rightly point out, just a “US Senate (minority) committee”, phew! Good job they are not “serious” politicians, I mean it’s not like they can do anything. Well, apart from setting in motion 16 separate legal challenges to the EPA legislation, one of them the State of Texas.

The Senate Report of course, has absolutely no impact on AGW, (sic.) mostly because the US Senate “minority” committee is the opposition (really?). All they can possibly do is stop further carbon legislation in its tracks, start litigation against the EPA, create the opportunity for class action, make sure that any body/entity/person found to be guilty of supplying the US federal government with false/misleading/erroneous statements which result in US taxpayers being duded, will go directly to goal for up to five years.

As you will have seen from the Senate Report, (if you actually read it?) the reach of US jurisdiction extends to all those “contributing” to that EPA policy decision. Is that why de Boer “resigned” from the UN this week?

We don’t need to ask “you” questions about “the science” because it has already gone way past science. The significance of the “insignificant” US Senate (minority) Committee may have escaped your attention. It serves only one purpose, and that is to get AGW in front of the US Courts.

If you think for one instant that the AGW movement, the IPCC, the CRU or any other contributor to US legislation, has a chance of survival against to US Constitution, you have rocks in you head.

I won’t ask you to bet on it, but I do suggest you sit back and watch. Forget the media, the whole game is now being played with adults.

Re qanda

Now look what you’ve gone and done, Spindoc …you’ve spoiled qanda’s little fantasy.
There’s not supposed to be any scientists opposed to the AGW dogma (or, so he tells himself ).

But don’t you just love the characteristic qanda response :

“Oh please spindoc, that US Senate (Minority) Report into the CRU (hot off the press).

I assume you know the background of Senator Inhofe - you are spinning it just like he does, as usual.”

Now, watch, qanda’s going tell us that senator Inhofe somewhere, somehow, committed some sin that was-- forever damning .
Perhaps he questioned the veracity of mother Teresa … or perhaps he was seen leaving a porn shop ! And this means ( in qanda-think) that every authority cited on that report is not just discredited, but of low moral fibre.


Re Examinator,

1) “This article and the research behind it proves my point, with a detail study.”
All the article indicates, is that there is a assistant professor out there who wants to have the word “assistant” removed from his handle.
But if he honesty thinks that up till now, the AGW/IPCC case hasn’t had a fair run in the media, he's having himself on.

2) “I resisted the term AGW because it is sensationalised and misses the essential point, Preferring the more accurate less sensational ACC”
LOL--In keeping with the theme of honest reporting :up till very recently Examinator has used the acronym “AGW” .
It was only after qanda made the snobbish remark that is was no longer PC, that Examinator decided to ditch AGW for ACC.
Funny how he presents it as being a long hold position!

On the contrary Horus, there are a few genuine "sceptics" (in the scientific sense) I quite respect - if you have understood any of my previous posts on the subject, you would know of whom I refer.

Indeed, some share the same research interest. However, whilst we may respectfully disagree on some of the nuances (something of which I know you wouldn't understand, let alone appreciate) we encourage each other to pursue our hypotheses.

The problem you and the rest of the cynics have is that you really think there is a tsunami against the science - that to me, just demonstrates how ignorant of the science you are, sorry.

The globe is warming, believe it or not - pedants won't change that fact. There is much study into its attribution, and there is very robust evidence to significantly link that attribution to human induced causes - whether you believe that or not, I really don't give a damn.

And it was a George W Bush policy advisor who popularised the term "climate change" for what is now being referred to in geological time as the anthropocene.

Yes spindoc, it is despicable that supposedly ‘open-minded’ journalists spruik their own biased “opinions” in the name of balanced reporting.

When a supposedly ‘open minded’ journalist like Fred Pearce (or Jonathan Leake, or Andrew Bolt, or Piers Akerman, or .... you get the drift) infuses their own opinion into what a scientist like Ben Santer has actually said, it is shocking.

For example (in the link above) Fred Pearce not only repeats unfounded allegations against Santer, but also does not provide a balanced account of the rebuttals to them. Rather, Pearce opines that Santer is engaged in political tampering.

And from your snarky comment above, it appears you are ok with this - and you call yourself a sceptic, what a joke.
____

examinator

You might be interested in this interview with Gerry North:

http://podcasts.aaas.org/science_podcast/SciencePodcast_100219a.mp3

Scientists have received a lot of flack lately and self opinionated journos and media shock jocks just want to sensationalise a story, and they are being cheered on by the blinkered sensationalist spindoctors of this world.

Qanda, until you post at least one bit of hard evidence, that CO2 has anything to do with global warming, you are only passing so much hot air.

While you're at it you could explain why the laws of physics should be suspended, when we think about AGW, & only about AGW.

qanda, the following is a very small sample of international media reports. Question, what did the AGW’ers get right? And who is “spinning”?

IPCC admits what they got wrong:
Melt Himalayan glaciers by 2035;
Endanger 40 percent of Amazon rainforests;
Melt mountain ice in the Alps, Andes, and Africa;
Deplete water resources for 4.5 billion people by 2085, neglecting to mention that global warming could also increase water resources for as many as 6 billion people;
Lead to rapidly increasing costs due to extreme weather-related events; and
Slash crop production by 50 percent in North Africa by 2020.

In addition, the IPCC:
Incorrectly stated that 55 percent of the Netherlands lies below sea level;
Included a diagram used to demonstrate the potential for generating electricity from wave power that has been found to contain numerous errors; and
Used a biased report by the activist group Defenders of Wildlife to state that salmon in US streams have been affected by rising temperatures.
Downplayed the increase in sea ice in the Antarctic to dramatize the observed decline in sea ice in the Arctic.

NIWA’s Tim Mahood admits on 29 January that NIWA does not hold copies of the original worksheets.'" No SOA, no validation of NZ Temps.

Prof Jones has admitted that some of the paperwork underpinning his research on temperature records from weather stations in China has been lost.
Prof Jones has admitted there has been no warming since 1995.
Prof Jones has admitted that this is not the warmest period on record, the MWP was.

CRU researcher and programmer Ian “Harry” Harris writes:
“The expected Canadian stations temp records for 1990-2003 period is MISSING, I can make it up. So I have.”
“Another problem that's based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform data integrity; it's just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they're found.”
“to actually allow the operator to assign false WMO codes!! But what else is there in such situations? Especially when dealing with a 'Master' database of dubious provenance (which, er, they all are and always will be).”