http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/at-climate-change-summit-in-warsaw-countries-look-to-lay-foundation-for-global-pact/2013/11/11/ee891286-4b0a-11e3-ac54-aa84301ced81_story.html
This link, to the Washington post reminds us 190 country,s are meeting to discuss climate change.
Abbott sent only a public servant, who he will take no notice of.
Do not despair those who like me are concerned at the fragility of anti climate change charges.
For just as the climate is speaking to those who will listen.
The world is becoming more aware that Australia under a leader that deny science has dropped the ball.
And as sure as the sun rises a day of reckoning comes to those who deny science

i had read intro/scanned the names refuting the conclusion
but..now see where i went wrong[not simply re-quoting..a proper author

<<..Viewing the Cook paper..in the best possible light, Cook and colleagues can perhaps claim a small amount of wiggle room in their classifications..because the explicit wording of the question..they analyzed is simply..whether humans have caused some global warming.

By restricting the question to such a minimalist, largely irrelevant question..in the global warming debate...and then..*demanding an explicit,..unsolicited refutation..of..*the assertion..in order to classify a paper as a ‘consensus’ contrarian,

Cook and colleagues..misleadingly induce people..to believe 97 percent of publishing..scientists believe in a global warming crisis when..that is simply not the case.

Misleading the public..*about consensus opinion regarding global warming, of course, is precisely what the Cook paper sought to accomplish.

This is a tried and true ruse..*perfected by global warming alarmists...Global warming alarmists use their own biased, subjective judgment..to misclassify published papers*..according to criteria that..is largely irrelevant*..to the central issues in the global warming debate.
.. Then, by carefully parsing the language..of their survey questions and their published results,..the alarmists encourage..the media and fellow global..warming alarmists...to cite these biased, subjective, totally irrelevant..*surveys as conclusive evidence..for the lie**that nearly all scientists..believe humans..are creating a global warming crisis.

These biased, misleading,and totally irrelevant “surveys” form the best “evidence” global warming alarmists can muster in the global warming debate...And this truly..shows how embarrassingly feeble their..alarmist theory really is.

aahhh/men
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/

may we agree..to disagree..the case
is too polluted..as we now..clearly..can see

belly..please explain what this graph..is saying
http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/ipccchart.gif

IPCC predictions..are..in yellow/orange,
real world temp=in blue/green

the real..life situation..becomes MORE CLEAR,,here
http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/greenlandicecoretemps.jpg

Cossomby,

Isn’t that your core problem? << you presume >>?

We used to say in “real” business that anyone who “assumes” makes an “ass” out of “you” and “me”.

In the corporate real world where employees were held accountable for authority, accountability and responsibility, we always accepted the word “assume/presume” as an acknowledgement of guilt and the laying of blame.

Which invoked the response, please “ Clear out your desk, collect your long brown envelope from the HR Office and you will then be escorted by Security to the front door”.

We used to fire most of the Pressumer’s/Assumers because this indicated that they were full of bulltish, a waste of investor capital and a drain on shareholder return on investment.

In the rare instances where the decision to fire these misfits was challenged, we never even turned up at the appeal because it was embarrassing for the appellant, they used to do more of what it was that got them fired in the first place.

Looking forward to your “appeal” Cossomby.

spindoc,

Please don't insult my intelligence with this bleat: : ".... expert reviewer of every IPCC Assessment Report...."

"Expert reviewers" are not appointed by the IPCC...they volunteer and sign on their own undertaking that they have some expertise.

Monckton has signed up as an "expert reviewer".(Says it all)

Don't think I'm going to fall for that one....it's another BS area where denialists seek to gain faux legitimacy in the climate debate.

Here's the background on Vincent Gray:

http://www.desmogblog.com/vincent-gray

"Gray often introduces himself as an IPCC expert reviewer. He says that "I have been an 'Expert Reviewer' for The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) since its first major Report in 1990."

He uses this as justification for his continuous attack on the IPCC, having called the panel "fundamentally corrupt," and describing their scientific methods as "unsound." Gray also published a book critiquing the IPCC titled The Greenhouse Delusion. The book describes the panel has having "not convincingly made its case that increases in carbon dioxide levels are occurring and [sic] that increase will have harmful effects." [1]

Although the National Post suggests that "no one has been a more faithful reviewer than Dr. Gray," all it takes to be an expert reviewer is to refrain from publicly commenting on the draft. So just about anyone who requests to see a draft of the IPCC's report is qualified to be an IPCC expert reviewer."

........

You write:

"NIPCC issued its current report, Climate Change Reconsidered II (CCR-II), a book of more than a thousand pages citing nearly 5,000 peer-reviewed scientific references and written or reviewed by some 50 climate scientists."

"...50 climate scientists."

Well I bet if we examined the credentials of the "50 climate scientists, we soon find that many of them don't hold qualifications in the areas they're dealing with.

This what a comprehensive list of climate scientists looks like

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ar5/ar5_authors_review_editors_updated.pdf

Your NIPCC is a joke of major proportions.

And your attempt to hold them up as an equivalent body to the IPCC is even more laughable.

Ah Poirot,

Poirot- A legendary character in detective novels that uses intellectual capability to solve crimes.

Doing a Poirot- Those who seek to adopt these legendary skills to purport to be intellectually superior.

Having a Poirot Moment-Those who when asked the question “what time is it”, reply with “it is a green one with a long zipper down the side”

You start with << Please don't insult my intelligence with this bleat >> To which we might well reply we don’t, you are doing a great job all on your own.

So, with much pseudo–intellectual might you seek to interrogate the credentials of the NIPCC but fail to acknowledge the credentials of the IPCC? How curious?

So how many of the NIPCC members that you lampoon are actually members of the Heartland Institute?

How many of the “thousands of scientists” supporting the IPCC can you name? I’ve already given you my list. Names, qualifications, allegiances, associations, memberships and employers. I’ve listed all published lead authors for the IPCC.

Where is your list? Please substantiate your case.

So, to your link to “IPCC names”

You don’t read, you don’t understand, you don’t comprehend, you don’t form your own opinion, you “feel” rather than read, you have fallen into the trap of proselytisation and belief in the opinion of others rather than thinking for yourself.

So where are these “many thousands” of IPCC scientists to which you refer? You can either substantiate your claim or admit you are a liar. Your choice.

You, on the other hand chose to perpetuate the vexatious debate of “us vs them’. This is because without this “off line” debate you are reduced to a shell of complicity within your own ideology.

You Poirot, are a figment of your own alarmism. There is little else left in your life and you must sustain it to salvage the last remnants of your imagined sanity.

What are you going to do when this all goes down the “dunny”?

spindoc,

Those names represent substance.

If you wish to investigate further, I suggest you do your own research.

".....You can either substantiate your claim or admit you are a liar."

(Careful there with your reference to "liar". It's prohibited around here to explicitly call fellow posters liars)

And to top it all off, you then come up with some duffer who swans around saying he's an "IPCC expert reviewer", therefore attempting to grab for himself a little legitimacy.

But I don't fall for that clap-trap.

Sorry 'bout that.

The bottom line is that you "skeptics" on this thread keep throwing up your wonderful devices - and I keep hitting them on the head with a Poirot-shaped mallet.

Sorry 'bout that.