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

[cry-mate]..climate gate is very real
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/climategate.php

Poirot,

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

I don’t normally ask questions to which I don’t already have the answers. I have given you the published list of “scientists” contributing to both the IPCC and the NIPCC. I don’t have to investigate further, I’ve already done my research, when are you going to do your research or refute.

[Deleted for abuse.]

spindoc,

I'll state again, the NIPCC is a sham.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/09/18/fox-equates-faux-un-climate-report-with-the-rea/195947

"Fox News is glossing over the near-unanimous consensus* on climate change by citing a fringe study that claims the phenomenon is minor and "not dangerous." But the network did not mention the latter's industry ties or dubious pedigree.....'

"However, Fox News omitted what is expected to be the signature finding of the IPCC, an unpaid group that works to summarize the state of climate science and has been called "inherently conservative" in its approach -- that "the odds are at least 95 percent that humans are the principal cause" of climate change (short-term trends do not undermine this verdict).

The NIPCC report, meanwhile, was compiled by paid contributors and did not go through rigorous peer review. Furthermore, the body that published it is a joint project of three fossil-fuel-backed groups, including the Heartland Institute, which earned its bona fides as "the world's most prominent think tank promoting skepticism about man-made climate change" through stunts like associating "belief" in the issue with the Unabomber. Previous editions of the NIPCC report have been called "dishonest" and "not a credible scientific undertaking." Fox News mentioned none of this.

In emails to Media Matters, major climate scientists criticized the network for citing the NIPCC in the same breath as the IPCC.

Kevin Trenberth, National Center for Atmospheric Research:

The NIPCC has no standing whatsoever. It is not a reviewed document, it is not open for review at any point and it contains demonstrable garbage and falsehoods. In contrast the IPCC process is rigorous, open and there are 2 major reviews. This is irresponsible journalism.

Michael Oppenheimer, Princeton University:

The NIPCC statement run by Fox is flat out wrong. Media who cite both IPCC and NIPCC in the same breath (or in close proximity) are clearly either uninformed or attempting to confuse the public, unless of course, they are attempting to clear up any confusion about the two organizations by making clear that NIPCC does not represent the expert consensus on climate change. If NIPCC is ever cited, it should be within the latter context."

[Deleted for abuse.]

NIPCC..receives no government..or corporate funding.
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2013/10/prweb11238362.htm

Just weeks before..the IPCC released its major report on September 27, NIPCC release.. its own 1,000-page report listing..some 50 climate scientists as authors,..contributors,..or reviewers.

While the IPCC/reports growing..confidence that climate change is man-made..NIPCC finds just the opposite:..The human impact is likely to..be very small,..and a modest amount of warming..would probably produce..just as many benefits as costs.

In a new and smaller report issued today,..four of the lead authors of the NIPCC report..Dr. Craig-D..Idso,..Dr.Robert M..Carter,..Dr. S. Fred Singer,..and Dr. Willie..Soon

..offer a withering critique..of the IPCC’s Summary for Policymakers, a 30-page summary..of the much larger repor.. that is still being revised...Among the..“retreats”..they identify in the IPCC’s latest report:

*.Global temperatures..stopped rising..15 years ago.despite rising levels..of carbon dioxide,..the invisible gas..the IPCC claims is responsible for causing global warming.
* .Temperatures were warmer in many parts of the world approximately 1,000 years ago, during the so-called Mediaeval Warm Period.
*..Antarctic sea ice extent is increasing rather than shrinking.
*..Climate computer models fail to reproduce the observed reduction in surface warming trend over the past 10–15 years.

Read the report here.
http://heartland.org/policy-documents/scientific-critique-ipccs-2013-summary-policymakers

The scientists..also fault..the IPCC..for claiming the warming of the late twentieth century..was “unequivocal”..when many temperature databases..*show no warming,

and..for saying..changes..since 1950 were..“unprecedented”
when..the historical record..contains many examples..of changes more rapid..or more extreme..due to natural causes.

The scientists..are especially critical..of the IPCC’s claim that it is..“95% confident..global warming..is man-made and will be harmful.

“This terminology..is unscientific,”..they write.
“It has been used..improperly..to create a false impression of increasing..statistical/certainty..through the most recent IPCC assessment reports....

IPCC’s quasi-numeric..*confidence statements..represent considered ‘expert opinion,’..reflecting a process..not very different from a show of hands..around a discussion table.

The terminology confers..an impression*..of scientific rectitude onto.a process t..hat is inescapably/subjective..and has been widely criticized..as misleading.”

The complete 18-page..critique is available.online at Heartland.org

The Heartland Institute..is a 29-year-old national nonprofit organization headquartered..in Chicago,..Illinois

spindoc,

You're the one pigeonholing my "thousands of scientists" statement as being in reference to the IPCC.

I simply inferred that there are thousands of scientists involved in the legitimate study of global warming - most who of whom, judging by published peer-reviewed papers, are likely to back AGW.

You can keep pretending you have driven me down a one way alley if you wish.

I'm not getting in a lather about it.