Qanda
1) I am seeing Aussie reviews of Hansens “Storms Of My GrandChildren” . Have you read it yet? How about giving OLO a review.

2) Oh, and an afterthought re: “The globe is warming, believe it or not - pedants won't change that fact.”

If the IPCC version of global warming is a “FACT” …why would Phil Jones have said the majority of (IPCC affiliated) scientists ,and Phil Jones himself , still do NOT think the debate is over!

I was lead to believe, by previous qanta postings, that such a consensus was the infallible measure/arbiter!

So, if that consensus says “it’s not over” doesn’t that throw into doubt your conclusion.And where does that place you– you can’t be a sceptic since you’re already SURE– you’d have to be either heretic, or worse…A DENIER !

qanda, you keep asking the same questions but not reading the answers?

You ask, in relation to the criticisms of the IPCC and the CRU, << Can you be more specific? What mistakes, half truths and lies are you referring to? >>

You have already been given 19 examples of precisely this (see Posted by spindoc, Friday, 26 February 2010 12:35:12 PM). These are the published admissions by the very people and bodies that created the assessments you directed us to with your link.

In a later post you were asked if you wished to challenge those admissions when I posted this;

<< 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. >>

You ask for evidence, the evidence is provided; you ignore it and ask again?

What do you want from OLO?

Horus

I got the book from Amazon.com, you can get some very good book reviews there.

As to your afterthought, you’re not the only one misinterpreting a few things. In terms of AGW, we have to be able to separate the signal from the noise – 15 years doesn’t quite cut it. If you do the time series analysis going back at least 30 years then yes, it is unequivocal, the globe is warming. However, in geologic time, the planet is in a cooling trend. It is ludicrous for people like Bob Carter to suggest global warming stopped in 1998, or as he is now saying, 2001. Give him a bit longer and he could well say 2005 or even 2009.

Horus, not even Newton’s theory of gravity, or Einstein’s theory of general relativity, is the science absolute – that is why scientists still have a day jobs.

________________________

spindoc says to me:

<< You ask, in relation to the criticisms of the IPCC and the CRU, “Can you be more specific? What mistakes, half truths and lies are you referring to?” >>

No, I did not ask this.

What I said (to Hasbeen) was:

“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?”

spindoc, you are either;

• Deliberately distorting my question
• Deliberately misrepresenting what I asked of Hasbeen
• Deliberately changing the goal posts
• Deliberately engaging in “bait and switch”
• Deliberately introducing a school of red herrings
• Deliberately raising a field of strawmen

OR

• Lacking comprehension skills

My guess is a combination of all, together with you whimpering and crying out ...“what about me”

If you want to keep banging on about a reference, to an item, in another chapter, even in another working group report, just keep sounding off like a fog horn - someone might take you up on it, but not me.

qanda, this thread is about the “spin” created by the media and, allegedly, by myself and others.

Your posts are confined to attacking the messengers, you have not responded to a single point in relation to media releases.

You have been given 19 recent media releases. I ask again, which ones in your view are spin and by who?

If your next post is another attack on OLO’ers, we can all reasonably conclude that you cannot substantiate your allegation that any of them are spin.

Why can’t you just say “sorry I got it wrong”?

Examinator opened the thread by reference to Maxwell Boykoff:

"One problem occurs when outlier viewpoints are not individually evaluated in context,"

"A variety of influences and perspectives typically have been collapsed by mass media into one general category of skepticism. This has been detrimental both in terms of dismissing legitimate critiques of climate science or policy, as well as amplifying extreme and tenuous claims."

“Such claims are amplified when traditional news media position no credible contrarian sources against those with scientific data, in a failed effort to represent opposing sides,"

Another issue in mass media is the tendency to flatly report on both the claims of contrarians, as well as the accusations made about their claims and motives. The ensuing finger-pointing plays into the conflict, drama and personalized stories that drive news. It also distracts attention from critical institutional and societal challenges regarding carbon consumption that calls citizen behaviors, actions and decisions to account.

"Reducing climate science and policy considerations to a tit-for-tat between dueling personalities comes at the expense of appraising fundamental challenges regarding the necessary de-carbonization of industry and society,"

Precisely, and if the preceding posts are anything to go by, no wonder he’s missing in action.

_____________

Spindoc << qanda, this thread is about the “spin” created by the media and, allegedly, by myself and others ... Your posts are confined to attacking the messengers, you have not responded to a single point in relation to media (releases) >>

You must have missed this:

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.

Thank you qanda, not a single reference to the 19 media releases?

I rest my case.