Severin,

I read the articular that morning I read and contribute to unleashed too.
My approach to AGW/ACC is strictly functional i.e.management risk assessment based (as indicated)

I read as much as I can on the topic to reassess my confidence if needed.

I have argued from Day one for informed objective discussion on the topic sadly the less flexible members of society can't get past their vested interests and are indulging in tactics including, hoax, conspiracy theories ranging from the improbable to the absolutely foil hat brigade etc rather than objective analysis.

I noted on the BBC this morning the following story
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8550090.stm I've gone as far as downloading the source material. No doubt the some on line will be dismiss it as a cover-up or my least favourite "it's BS hmpf!"

Aw shucks examie, now I’m embarrassed. When I said “how dare you!” and qualified it with (you) “State the bleeding obvious” at

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10115&page=0

It was in response to your comment “Clearly many of the respondents didn't note that this topic is actually about the need for changing the IPCC.”

So yes, you were spot on because commenters were bagging the author for saying something that they themselves want done. It’s as if they hadn’t even read the article by Watson – they certainly didn’t seem to recognise or acknowledge his current position in writing that piece.

That is why I chimed in with Déjà vu - Robert Watson's article is well reasoned - but it will not remove hands from ears, or open tightly shut eyes. It certainly won't stop the screaming "I can't hear you!" – and that is exactly what is happening, go figure.
_______

Horus << Even the IPCC doesn’t say CO2 is THE cause, only a CONTRIBUTOR. >>

Of course, what you don't say (or can't grasp) is that it is significant (at 90 – 95 confidence levels).

And your bit about the glaciers, it’s the rate of melt that is alarming, not that glaciers retreat after an ice age ... another thing you fail to understand, but there you are.

Oh, for gods sake, will you people get off this vested interest by big oil etc rubbish.

Those with fossil fuel interests will make MUCH MORE money with a CTS. The only vested interests are from the pro CTS lobby.

The people who are against it are those with a bit more chemical/physics savy, & those who can see the that chicanery of the global warming mob was forced on them, when their theory FAILED.

Horus,

"I don't unconditionally support AGW/ACC and I resent being misquoted/misrepresented i.e.>" Examinator wants to be part of the IPCC party boy scene –he just wants to be loved by someone, ANY-ONE!<" (ad hominem) what part of the above don't you understand?

It's not as if what I'm saying is either new or different, from what I've been saying since joining OLO 2.5 years ago. A plain sorry or a commitment, to read what I say before commenting on my views will suffice.

I am well aware of your contrarian stance, you've stated it often enough.

My response was CLEAR, I too, have my concerns about the IPCC's bureaucratic methodologies/practices.

Think of it like this. Just because you MAY have gone to an ify school at teaching science or not interested enough, that doesn't change the basic science facts.

The IPCC didn't write the science they just collated, formalized it, if you like. The FACTS/SCIENCE determine the theory's credibility not the IPCC.

The IPCC isn't the issue it's the Facts.

-Have I read in detail the IPCC report.... No
-Do I quote it.... No
-Have I read any of his books...No
-Do I quote Gore...No

-Have I got the source papers, others and read at least THEIR conclusions?..Absolutely
-Have I read all those written on and in related topics?...No but there are discipline recognized seminal papers, offering both sides, that I have read.
-Do I understand every thing I read?...no but surrounding papers/explanatory notes give me gist.
-All the media sources I quote are only research starting points not the END.
-I usually go to source documents. IMO it give me a more realistic picture of what was said and what the science proves or doesn't prove.
Not some third party's (of undefined ability)take on it.

All the above is simply competent management techniques

Examinator,

RE : << what part of the above don't you understand? >>

So let me get this right--you can say :

To Runner: <<It has been explained. I guess you'll have to wait a while untill it comes out in a finger picture book>>

To anyone with a contrary view: <<Getting any of the current assemblage of contrarians to actually read something more than 700 words would be an achievement. For them understand it would be stupendous enlightenment.>>

To Hasbeen: <<Your overly simplistic black and white understanding is your problem not theirs>>

To Horus: <<Think of it like this. Just because you MAY have gone to an ify school at teaching science or not interested enough, that doesn't change the basic science facts>>.

And, that’s A-OK.

But when I say : <<Examinator wants to be part of the IPCC party boy scene –he just wants to be loved by someone, ANY-ONE!>>

It's ad hominem & abhorrent.

Perhaps that’s the part I DON’T UNDERSTAND .

RE: << The IPCC isn't the issue it's the Facts >>
There are no facts, only interpretations." - -- Friedrich Nietzsche

Examinator can you move over a bit?
Is there room along side you for me.
We think much a like on this issue.
No hold your head up, let the flung products of the other end of the male cow splatter you.
See you and I may not be totally right.
But those throwing?
Total wrong.
One mistake, one silly statement in so many pages.
The glaciers continue to melt.
Droughts spread if no longer here still grow in other places.
Population grows, it could not change the planet could it, or maybe it is.
The aim here is to out last us, talk over us,say we are at best uninformed, quote things written to say it is not true, make claims more than half the worlds climate change people are fools lier's, or mad.
Take it on the chin examinator, be brave your concerns for our world are worth it.
In any case I am a gardener and will bag it after the blokes run out of breath.