Hasbeen, start here:

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch09.pdf

I can only suggest you read the report in full and actually read the referenced research findings, listed on pages 733 - 743

Most people won’t do this and are quite prepared to put their faith in media shock-jocks and self-opinionated bloggers.

Your last quip says it all really; you too are regurgitating ideological based nonsense.
____

spindoc

It is so very clear that you don't understand Gerry North and it is so very plain that you distort, misrepresent and take things out of context.

You poignantly state, “it has already gone way past science (sic).” I couldn't agree more - you put faith in what you want to believe in. Like I said, you a sceptic, what a joke.

qanda, this thread was started by examinator in an attempt to blame the MSM for the creation of skeptics and for the collapse of the AGW case. You call everything with which you disagree, spin.

My point, which I think has convincingly been made, is that what has been published by even the former supportive AGW media, particularly the Guardian and the BBC, is simply what has been admitted to, or acknowledged by the scientists and bodies involved.

It is not my spin; I didn’t write or publish it. If you cannot deal with the reality of what has been said by the IPCC, CRU, NIWA, Met Office, EAU, take it up with them.

If they did not agree with what they were quoted saying, we would see a retraction or legal action. In the absence of such, we can be sure that they did in fact make these admissions.

Their admissions I’m sure, leave you hollow and gutted. Frankly, I don’t know how you deal with it. You have probably been a believer for some years and I genuinely think you do believe what you’ve been told. You acknowledge it’s no longer about science yet you are still banging out science links? There are many in the same boat as you but it really is all over, save yourself from more anguish and move on.

If, on the other hand you really do wish to challenge the 19 acknowledged facts in my post of Friday, 26 February 2010 12:35:12 PM, then that’s fine with me.

The questions for you were << what did the AGW’ers get right? And who is “spinning”?

Qanda, you've got to be kidding.

What a pile of mistakes, half truths, & straight out lies, mixed up with so much bull sh1t & verbiage, to try to hide it all.

It damn near worked. I'm sure it's so badly written that it was done that way, to stop people reading it. They must have hoped everyone would give up in disgust, rather than start to analyes it all. There is not one thing in there that ties CO2 to global warming, or to anything else.

There is no hope for any one who can take this cr4p seriously.

Hasbeen, I think we’ve been “had”. The link posted by qanda seems to be just Chapter 9 from the IPCC TAR? There’s no date but that would place it circa 2007?

I’ve no idea why qanda places any significance on this document, especially since it has been systematically discredited by the same people who created it.

It does make great reading all the same, especially in light of the last three months and the whole “who said what and to whom”.

When you see references to such familiar names as Jones, Briffa, Wang, Trenbarth, Santer and Hansen in the context of recent admissions and the leaked programs, files and emails, it actually makes the whole debacle even more obvious.

The whole basis for this report was the “Gridded Surface Temperature Data Set”, the database now known as HadCRUT3. Moreover, that the data set had been run through the “AGW Simulator” HadCH3. These are part of the computer systems so comprehensively trashed in the HARRY_READ_ME programmer logs.

When you re-visit the report now, it looks impressive until you realize the whole thing is based upon statistical garbage. How would those authors feel, having put their names to it? We used to call such documents CLM’s, (career limiting moves).

Whilst I doubt we’ll get any sensible reply from qanda on this thread, I have to wonder why a three year old, publicly discredited assessment is still significant to qanda. It’s almost as if everything exposed in the media in past three months has simply not registered?

Is it simply “don’t want to go there”? Is it “can’t be bothered”? Beats me.

Hasbeen

Well done! You have just tried to read something that Joe & Jill Average would not even be aware of – and it was just one chapter (detection and attribution) out of the ‘The Physical Science Basis of Climate Change’ – itself only the first report (of the four) contained within AR4, published 3 years ago.

That one chapter is only a summary of the peer reviewed literature dealing with detection and attribution since the TAR. There has been robust research since then. And if you (anyone) had trouble understanding what was being said in that chapter, you (anyone) would have even more trouble understanding the referenced papers – not for the faint hearted.

Specialists write those papers, and specialists understand them. Have you ever seen a report from a medical specialist? Typically full of jargon and gobbledygook that completely eludes me – I just want to know why I’m sick, how serious the problem is, and what I should do about it.

You say the chapter on Understanding and Attributing Climate Change contains “a pile of mistakes, half truths, & straight out lies”.

Can you be more specific? What mistakes, half truths and lies are you referring to? These are serious allegations and I’m sure the specialists need to know. I’m being sarcastic of course. Thing is Hasbeen, that whole chapter does tie GHG emissions (and other natural forcings) to global warming.

I’d agree, there has to be a better way to filter and explain all this “cr4p” so that it can be more easily understood. That does not mean the “cr4p” is incorrect. The problem is, once you try to simplify it, things can be taken out of context, distorted or misrepresented (either intentionally or not) altogether.

Which brings me back on topic - it is so easy for the mainstream media to get it wrong (intentionally or not). I find it reprehensible that some (MSM shock and self opinionated ‘reporters/bloggers’) call for more openness, honesty and integrity in disseminating the science when they themselves blatantly lie, misrepresent and distort for their own agenda.

No kidding.

Spindoc

Real sceptics are also referenced; it’s just that there isn’t that many with published papers.

I bang on about the science spindoc because there are still some people out there that don’t understand the science. I would much prefer to move on like most other people – discussing what to do, when to do it, and by whom.

One minute we are asked to be more open, next minute we are told to fut the shuck up (or words to that effect) – go figure.