Politics And AGW/GW

[Chris Knight]

OK...let me put it this way: Find me one, just one, from that list who is a bureaucrat? If so many are, this should be easy......

Where did I suggest that any IPCC members were bureaucrats, anyway? Someone said that they knew a fair number of people on the IPCC who were not bureaucrats - I merely asked how many they knew, in relation to the whole IPCC crew so that I could get a fair idea of their knowledge of the non-bureaucratic proportion of IPCC members. I never even suggested that any of the IPCC were bureaucrats.

Roo - you are a twister!

And you didn't answer my questions.

[Roo]

Where did I suggest that any IPCC members were bureaucrats, anyway? Someone said that they knew a fair number of people on the IPCC who were not bureaucrats - I merely asked how many they knew, in relation to the whole IPCC crew so that I could get a fair idea of their knowledge of the non-bureaucratic proportion of IPCC members. I never even suggested that any of the IPCC were bureaucrats.

Roo - you are a twister!

And you didn't answer my questions.

Nooooooo, no, no. Just trying to to get past the sloppy throw away lines within this thread to what lies beneath. The original post (not yours, I admit) cited a report which described the scientists as bureaucrats. You then suggested that TWS could not know whether they were or not.

I have just suggested that actually, there is NO evidence to suggest that any of the IPCC scientists are bureaucrats and in fact a lot that suggests otherwise.

[Roo]

But Roo comes across as having one of the most entrenched view on here....

I've just seen this and I can't let that go!

I have NO entrenched view as regards climate change. As far as I know myself, it could be the sun, the wind, farting cows or spacemen with hairdryers. I have no way to evaluate the hard core science because I am not a hard core scientist. I'm not so daft as to think I understand it and I respect the qualification and training of those who do.

But, what I am entrenched about is good research and evidence and as far as I can see that balance comes down well and truly on the AGW side. If all that the skeptics can offer is a series of non-peer reviewed diatribes about AGW scientists then I think I'll stay where I am until some reasoned and supported evidence comes from the skeptical side. If it does then I'll be happy to move, Heck, I don't want global warming. Any excuse to believe it wasn't true would be great.

However, no-one has yet shown me anything which could disprove the general findings of the IPCC and what's more, alot of the skeptic stuff that has been shown is either inaccurate, badly researched or inaccurately related. The majority of the skeptical argument relies on scientific corruption, fiddling, ignoring the sun, ignoring volcanoes, etc, etc, etc, blah, blah: NONE of which I can find any evidence of, nor has anyone ever offered any solid proof of.

Therefore, on the balance of good research and consensual probability, I'm with the AGW scientists.

Edited March 13, 2009 by Roo

[Chris Knight]

Nooooooo, no, no. Just trying to to get past the sloppy throw away lines within this thread to what lies beneath. The original post (not yours, I admit) cited a report which described the scientists as bureaucrats. You then suggested that TWS could not know whether they were or not.

I have just suggested that actually, there is NO evidence to suggest that any of the IPCC scientists are bureaucrats and in fact a lot that suggests otherwise.

You are still twisting - I did not suggest that TWS could not know whether they were bureaucrats or not - of those that he knew - I accept he knows that that they were not bureaucrats - I merely asked how many he knew! The others that he did not know, I suggested he could not comment on their degreee of bureaucracy.

Er, I know a fair number of people who are on the IPCC and they are not bureaucrats at all.

laugh.gif

You also then presumably do not know the remainder of the people who are on the IPCC, and cannot comment whether they are bureaucrats or not? In science statistics deal with fuzzy quantities like this - how many people who are on the IPCC do you know, TWS? Knowing this fact, together with the published number of authors on the IPCC documents, we can then judge the validity of your comment.

Edited March 13, 2009 by Chris Knight

[Roo]

You also then presumably do not know the remainder of the people who are on the IPCC, and cannot comment whether they are bureaucrats or not?

Oh come on Chris....you're just wriggling cos I caught you out!

You have been trying to suggest all along that the IPCC scientists were bureaucrats as there was no way of proving otherwise, even if TWS knew some of them not to be. You know it, I know it.

And the fact of the matter is it is very easy to prove, with a little research, that they are not.

[And now before I get drawn into all this again, I'm off]

Edited March 13, 2009 by Roo

[Chris Knight]

Oh come on Chris....you're just wriggling cos I caught you out!

You have been trying to suggest all along that the IPCC scientists were bureaucrats as there was no way of proving otherwise. You know it, I know it.

And the fact of the matter is it is very easy to prove, with a little research, that they are not.

[And now before I get drawn into all this again, I'm off]

Bye, Roo

[Admiral_Bobski]

I've just seen this and I can't let that go!

I have NO entrenched view as regards climate change. As far as I know myself, it could be the sun, the wind, farting cows or spacemen with hairdryers. I have no way to evaluate the hard core science because I am not a hard core scientist. I'm not so daft as to think I understand it and I respect the qualification and training of those who do.

But, what I am entrenched about is good research and evidence and as far as I can see that balance comes down well and truly on the AGW side. If all that the skeptics can offer is a series of non-peer reviewed diatribes about AGW scientists then I think I'll stay where I am until some reasoned and supported evidence comes from the skeptical side. If it does then I'll be happy to move, Heck, I don't want global warming. Any excuse to believe it wasn't true would be great.

However, no-one has yet shown me anything which could disprove the general findings of the IPCC and what's more, alot of the skeptic stuff that has been shown is either inaccurate, badly researched or inaccurately related. The majority of the skeptical argument relies on scientific corruption, fiddling, ignoring the sun, ignoring volcanoes, etc, etc, etc, blah, blah: NONE of which I can find any evidence of, nor has anyone ever offered any solid proof of.

Therefore, on the balance of good research and consensual probability, I'm with the AGW scientists.

I note that you haven't yet PMd me to discuss the finer points of debate...

CB

[noggin]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

Oh, this is funny!

Sexism. Racism. Ageism. It's all here. Don't get yer IPCC mixed up with yer ICCC, neither.

Oh, you've just got to laugh, haven't you? :lol:

[Chris Knight]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

Oh, this is funny!

Sexism. Racism. Ageism. It's all here. Don't get yer IPCC mixed up with yer ICCC, neither.

Oh, you've just got to laugh, haven't you? :lol:

Shh... don't tell Roo, she's a little gingerish at the moment... miaow

[jethro]

I've just seen this and I can't let that go!

I have NO entrenched view as regards climate change. As far as I know myself, it could be the sun, the wind, farting cows or spacemen with hairdryers. I have no way to evaluate the hard core science because I am not a hard core scientist. I'm not so daft as to think I understand it and I respect the qualification and training of those who do.

But, what I am entrenched about is good research and evidence and as far as I can see that balance comes down well and truly on the AGW side. If all that the skeptics can offer is a series of non-peer reviewed diatribes about AGW scientists then I think I'll stay where I am until some reasoned and supported evidence comes from the skeptical side. If it does then I'll be happy to move, Heck, I don't want global warming. Any excuse to believe it wasn't true would be great.

However, no-one has yet shown me anything which could disprove the general findings of the IPCC and what's more, alot of the skeptic stuff that has been shown is either inaccurate, badly researched or inaccurately related. The majority of the skeptical argument relies on scientific corruption, fiddling, ignoring the sun, ignoring volcanoes, etc, etc, etc, blah, blah: NONE of which I can find any evidence of, nor has anyone ever offered any solid proof of.

Therefore, on the balance of good research and consensual probability, I'm with the AGW scientists.

Well that's not the way you come across I'm afraid.

Insisting that:

" The majority of the skeptical argument relies on scientific corruption, fiddling, ignoring the sun, ignoring volcanoes, etc, etc, etc, blah, blah: NONE of which I can find any evidence of, nor has anyone ever offered any solid proof of."

demonstrates why I think you're entrenched. Or have you missed the peer reviewed papers which support many a sceptic on here? Or is it just they don't come from the scientists whose opinions you respect? Some of us do actually understand and are capable of evaluating the science, although I do respect you for saying you don't, so prefer to defer to those who do.

[Chris Knight]

Well that's not the way you come across I'm afraid.

No, I agree - I ask a poster for a simple number that they used to back up an opinion they expressed on this thread, so I can compare that with another number that is available in the public domain and Roo butts in, challenges me, accusing me of suggesting various things which I have not said, and then hopping off, well, if I had a white feather, it's hers for the taking. Cheek!

[Devonian]

God this thread is getting childish. Chris Knight call Roo a 'twister' and a 'little gingerish' , Jethro joins in and calls Roo 'entrenched' and then goes on to claim the mantle of one 'capable of evaluating the science' for herself while belittling Roo because Roo (so Jethro seem to want us to think) can't. Pathetic.

And then, unbelievably, it's apparently not a total waste of bandwidth for some to quote an American blog than seems to spend an amazing amount of time rubbishing one specific UK newspaper. Huh?

And the science we've learnt today? Zero.

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

as far as I can see that balance comes down well and truly on the AGW side. If all that the skeptics can offer is a series of non-peer reviewed diatribes about AGW scientists then I think I'll stay where I am until some reasoned and supported evidence comes from the skeptical side.

However, no-one has yet shown me anything which could disprove the general findings of the IPCC and what's more, alot of the skeptic stuff that has been shown is either inaccurate, badly researched or inaccurately related. The majority of the skeptical argument relies on scientific corruption, fiddling, ignoring the sun, ignoring volcanoes, etc, etc, etc, blah, blah: NONE of which I can find any evidence of, nor has anyone ever offered any solid proof of.

Therefore, on the balance of good research and consensual probability, I'm with the AGW scientists.

Not sure how sceptics are supposed to disprove what remains an unproven theory in the first place. If the theory gained more conclusive proof (and hence evolved to not being just 'a theory') then there might be something for some of us to try and disprove. But the ball is still in yours and fellow AGW'ists court to put the meat on the bones first. It hasn't happened yet and cyclical and natural factors are slowly lining up to deal the theory an increasingly potential blow before any tangible proof and evidence of the alleged extent of AGW progressiveness is available.

When/if truth emerges the debate will open up and the credibility of the IPCC can be fully deemed. The most likely outcome IMO is that the tenure of their reports will be downgraded accordingly as cooling kicks in. The trouble is that we are all going to have to wait till later in the decade for this to gain momentum and therefore the circular argument and division is likely to persist for some time to come.

Edited March 13, 2009 by North Sea Snow Convection

[Roo]

I note that you haven't yet PMd me to discuss the finer points of debate...

I prefer to have my discussions in the open.

Sexism. Racism. Ageism. It's all here.

I rest my case. And this affects the scientific evidence how?

have you missed the peer reviewed papers which support many a sceptic on here

Clearly I have. I've seen page after page of blog, newspaper article and secondary reference. Would dearly love to see all the skeptical peer reviewed papers.

Some of us do actually understand and are capable of evaluating the science

So, leading on from that, would you claim to know more than the hundreds of IPCC scientists in consensus? If you do then that is arrogance in the extreme, and if you don't, how can you ever claim that their theories are wrong?

if I had a white feather, it's hers for the taking

Not at all. It's just that sometimes, after having done this for the gazillionth time, I feel that I probably should stop for the sake of my own sanity.

The climate threads are not about understanding the truth. They are about using conspiracy, misunderstanding, a little bit of knowledge and an awful lot of slander to try to diminish studies which not one person here truly understands nor has the knowledge to comprehend. They are unable to dismiss the science of AGW, but they can throw huge quantities of internet rubbish at it......

I am just the latest one in a long line to realise that and that is why I won't be posting here anymore.

[Admiral_Bobski]

I prefer to have my discussions in the open.

As do I, but our discussion a few days ago about debate (and whether or not parameters should be set) was off topic, so I invited you and Devonian to PM me if you wanted to continue the discussion elsewhere. Neither you nor Devonian have taken me up on my offer.

So, leading on from that, would you claim to know more than the hundreds of IPCC scientists in consensus? If you do then that is arrogance in the extreme, and if you don't, how can you ever claim that their theories are wrong?

It's a funny old consensus when most of the scientists disagree on details with other scientists within the same group. But you complained that there was no evidence that solar influences had been ignored - I have never said that they are ignored, but rather that there is such uncertainty around solar influences that their limited incorporation into climate studies negates the validity of such studies.

Here's a selection of quotes from the beloved IPCC's 4AR:

"However, estimates of some radiative forcings remain uncertain, including aerosol forcing and inter-decadal variations in solar forcing."

"For example, the attribution of recent warming to greenhouse gas forcing becomes more reliable if the influences of other external forcings, for example solar forcing, are explicitly accounted for in the analysis. This is an area of research with considerable challenges because different forcing factors may lead to similar large-scale spatial patterns of response (Section 9.2.2)."

"The effects of forcing uncertainties, which can be considerable for some forcing agents such as solar and aerosol forcing (Section 9.2), also remain difficult to evaluate despite advances in research."

"Uncertainties in external forcing were also reported, particularly in anthropogenic aerosol, solar and volcanic forcing, and in the magnitude of the corresponding climate responses. These uncertainties contributed to uncertainties in detection and attribution studies. Particularly, estimates of the contribution to the 20th-century warming by natural forcings and anthropogenic forcings other than greenhouse gases showed some discrepancies with climate simulations and were model dependent. These results made it difficult to attribute the observed climate change to one specifi c combination of external influences."

"Changes in insolation are also thought to have arisen from small variations in solar irradiance, although both timing and magnitude of past solar radiation fl uctuations are highly uncertain (see Chapters 2 and 6; Lean et al., 2002; Gray et al., 2005; Foukal et al., 2006). For example, sunspots were generally missing from approximately 1675 to 1715 (the so-called Maunder Minimum) and thus solar irradiance is thought to have been reduced during this period. The estimated difference between the present-day solar irradiance cycle mean and the Maunder Minimum is 0.08% (see Section 2.7.1.2.2), which corresponds to a radiative forcing of about 0.2 W m–2, which is substantially lower than estimates used in the TAR (Chapter 2)."

"The solar cycle also affects atmospheric ozone concentrations with possible impacts on temperatures and winds in the stratosphere, and has been hypothesised to influence clouds through cosmic rays (Section 2.7.1.3). Note that there is substantial uncertainty in the identification of climate response to solar cycle variations because the satellite period is short relative to the solar cycle length, and because the response is difficult to separate from internal climate variations."

"There are also large uncertainties in the magnitude of low frequency changes in forcing associated with changes in total solar radiation as well as its spectral variation, particularly on time scales longer than the 11-year cycle."

"In addition, the magnitude of radiative forcing associated with major volcanic eruptions is uncertain and differs between reconstructions (Sato et al., 1993; Andronova et al., 1999; Ammann et al., 2003), although the timing of the eruptions is well documented."

"Uncertainties also differ between natural forcings and sometimes between different time scales for the same forcing. For example, while the 11-year solar forcing cycle is well documented, lower-frequency variations in solar forcing are highly uncertain. Furthermore, the physics of the response to solar forcing and some feedbacks are still poorly understood. In contrast, the timing and duration of forcing due to aerosols ejected into the stratosphere by large volcanic eruptions is well known during the instrumental period, although the magnitude of that forcing is uncertain."

But ths is the politics of AGW thread, so I'll leave it there for now. Any discussion of the above points can be continued over in the General Discussion thread.

CB

[jethro]

God this thread is getting childish. Chris Knight call Roo a 'twister' and a 'little gingerish' , Jethro joins in and calls Roo 'entrenched' and then goes on to claim the mantle of one 'capable of evaluating the science' for herself while belittling Roo because Roo (so Jethro seem to want us to think) can't. Pathetic.

And then, unbelievably, it's apparently not a total waste of bandwidth for some to quote an American blog than seems to spend an amazing amount of time rubbishing one specific UK newspaper. Huh?

And the science we've learnt today? Zero.

Er excuse me, no belittling happened, Roo said she could not understand enough to evaluate, I respect her opinion of her capabilities and said so. Am I wrong for being capable of understanding the science?

Is it arrogant to say the IPCC have produced a report which has omitted information pertinent, perhaps crucial to their studies. The IPCC themselves say exactly the same thing. Remember, all I've ever said is I think the estimates of warming, which are attributable to us, has been over-estimated and the natural contribution under-estimated.

How is that sooooooo controversial?

Just seen your post CB; perfectly demonstrates my criticisms of the IPCC and their own admission of these omissions.

Edited March 13, 2009 by jethro

[Admiral_Bobski]

God this thread is getting childish. Chris Knight call Roo a 'twister' and a 'little gingerish' , Jethro joins in and calls Roo 'entrenched' and then goes on to claim the mantle of one 'capable of evaluating the science' for herself while belittling Roo because Roo (so Jethro seem to want us to think) can't. Pathetic.

And then, unbelievably, it's apparently not a total waste of bandwidth for some to quote an American blog than seems to spend an amazing amount of time rubbishing one specific UK newspaper. Huh?

And the science we've learnt today? Zero.

Well, in all fairness to Chris, Roo did twist his words.

In all fairness to Jethro, it isn't really childish to call someone "entrenched", and I saw no mantle-claiming in her post.

And, in all fairness, how much science are we going to learn in a thread on politics?

CB

[Solar Cycles]

Well, in all fairness to Chris, Roo did twist his words.

In all fairness to Jethro, it isn't really childish to call someone "entrenched", and I saw no mantle-claiming in her post.

And, in all fairness, how much science are we going to learn in a thread on politics?

CB

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[Methuselah]

Not sure how sceptics are supposed to disprove what remains an unproven theory in the first place. If the theory gained more conclusive proof (and hence evolved to not being just 'a theory') then there might be something for some of us to try and disprove. But the ball is still in yours and fellow AGW'ists court to put the meat on the bones first. It hasn't happened yet and cyclical and natural factors are slowly lining up to deal the theory an increasingly potential blow before any tangible proof and evidence of the alleged extent of AGW progressiveness is available.

When/if truth emerges the debate will open up and the credibility of the IPCC can be fully deemed. The most likely outcome IMO is that the tenure of their reports will be downgraded accordingly as cooling kicks in. The trouble is that we are all going to have to wait till later in the decade for this to gain momentum and therefore the circular argument and division is likely to persist for some time to come.

I think that you are both right and wrong, Tamara...You are right in that it is the job of the AGW camp to provide evidence in support of their own theory...But, I think we might disagree here a tad, it's the job of the 'sceptics' to provide back-up for their ideas? And, IMO, so far, there's been nothing much apart from 'It can't be down to CO2 so it must be down to something else.' arguments...

If the Sun cools down significantly over the coming decades, then I can see nothing other than global cooling. But, to infer from the recent rather pathetic 'cool-off', that this will happen is, IMO, putting the cart before the horse!

But, as it must, my mind will remain open...If I live long enough so as to look back in hindsight - I'll be in a better position to judge!

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

I think that you are both right and wrong, Tamara...You are right in that it is the job of the AGW camp to provide evidence in support of their own theory...But, I think we might disagree here a tad, it's the job of the 'sceptics' to provide back-up for their ideas? And, IMO, so far, there's been nothing much apart from 'It can't be down to CO2 so it must be down to something else.' arguments...

If the Sun cools down significantly over the coming decades, then I can see nothing other than global cooling. But, to infer from the recent rather pathetic 'cool-off', that this will happen is, IMO, putting the cart before the horse!

But, as it must, my mind will remain open...If I live long enough so as to look back in hindsight - I'll be in a better position to judge!

There is no difficulty whatsoever for sceptics in providing back up for their own ideas. There is no need just to throw non-stick adhesive mud!

The admitted uncertainties about feedback mechanisms that the IPCC confess (albeit in as veiled a way as possible) is something plenty to start the ball rolling. I have made enough posts here recently about doing a balanced evaluation of these - with the clouds feedbacks being an obvious example, especially bearing in mind the positive feedbacks assumed in this in terms of allegedly trapping vast amounts of CO2 is on very shaky ground. Particularly when you consider that up to 2/3rds of AGW bolt-on warming is riding on the IPCC and other warmist factions assumptions on this being right. It should be worrying for these people that in contrast to the assumed positive feedback amplifications of CO2, the cloud types and amplification mechansim might well work, in contrast, in reverse and the 'trapped' CO2 is instead lost forever into space as a manifestated huge negative feedback.

And then there is indeed the sun - which is perhaps the biggest and the most ridiculously underestimated factor of all..... Short term solar cycle patterns have been predicted wrongly by many on the AGW train (that includes NASA) so what confidence about long term predictions?

On the basis of the tidbits mentioned here alone, the sceptic argument is much more than any vague reference to 'it must be something else' retorts. The problem is that some sceptic argument is based on refuting theory rather than fact and is hampered through being based too much in providing alternative solutions to so many 'grey AGW' areas. That isn't making the best of the opportunities available. AGW people say that there can be no delay and we must all act now but they don't realise that effectively what this means is that they are risking a lot (for us all) by making 100% committed decisions to less than 50% certain outcomes. If there was a global level playing field and all eggs were not being put in a fledgling AGW theory arguement then the sceptic voice might be be able to expand its remit. Putting aside the usual extreme and unhelpful fringes that integrate in any body of opinion then the atypical moderate sceptic voice would be able to present the non-human evidence without having to try and rise above fending off forever escalating AGW hype instead.

The sceptic arguement doesn't know all the answers but then it isn't professing to be a huge active global pressure group presenting theory as fact and imposing change based on unproven selective science. Dealing with natural and cyclical factors is at least dealing with known history. Better the devil you know and all that surely?

The cart before the horse is trying to untangle the unknown human element first. Which brings me full circle back to that unpopularly received and oft ignored costing argument.... done in the right order.....yet again....

Edited March 14, 2009 by North Sea Snow Convection

[Methuselah]

Thank you for your response, Tamara. Indeed, you make very-well many points that we should all think hard about.

Take the feedbacks for example - I doubt anyone will really understand them all until after the fact so-to-speak? I do honestly believe that to a large extent here, we are all groping around in the dark...So, in one respect, 'doing nothing' and 'adopting the Greenist kneejerk approach' may have potentially similar outcomes: we will all sweat never knowing until afterwards whether-or-not we did the right thing?

Sorry about the 'mud' btw. It wasn't intended as such... :lol:

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

Thank you for your response, Tamara. Indeed, you make very-well many points that we should all think hard about.

Take the feedbacks for example - I doubt anyone will really understand them all until after the fact so-to-speak? I do honestly believe that to a large extent here, we are all groping around in the dark...So, in one respect, 'doing nothing' and 'adopting the Greenist kneejerk approach' may have potentially similar outcomes: we will all sweat never knowing until afterwards whether-or-not we did the right thing?

Sorry about the 'mud' btw. It wasn't intended as such... :lol:

The thing is, putting aside the question marks over CO2 entrapment, where the climate research side should be focussing and the targetting of financing etc into climate change (whatever any future change may or might not be be), I actually support some of the general environmental measures that AGW and Green supporters would advocate. But the crucial difference with me is that we should be doing prudent caring environmental things anyway regardless of whether our climate reflects a hothouse or an igloo.

The image that sceptical of AGW climate people often are tagged with of being wasteful, irresponsible and disrespectful in terms of how we look after our environment is very far from the truth. It is possible to be responsible in this way but still differ with others in terms of what makes our climate patterns ebb and flow each way B) .

Edited March 14, 2009 by North Sea Snow Convection

[Methuselah]

The thing is, putting aside the question marks over CO2 entrapment, where the climate research side should be focussing and the targetting of financing etc into climate change (whatever any future change may or might not be be), I actually support some of the general environmental measures that AGW and Green supporters would advocate. But the crucial difference with me is that we should be doing prudent caring environmental things anyway regardless of whether our climate reflects a hothouse or an igloo.

The image that sceptical of AGW climate people often are tagged with of being wasteful, irresponsible and disrespectful in terms of how we look after our environment is very far from the truth. It is possible to be responsible in this way but still differ with others in terms of what makes our climate patterns ebb and flow each way .

You are right enough...I don't see how I can argue with any of that? :lol:

I suspect somebody will though! B)

[Thundery wintry showers]

Some of the AGW sceptics in these threads perhaps don't help this image by repeatedly posting articles that suggest it. The writers of said articles typically support AGW on the grounds that it's some kind of Communist movement and that "unregulated free markets and maximisation of consumption and profits is the solution to everything". There are usually a lot of conspiracy talks in those articles as well, trying to make out that AGW is some kind of authoritarian conspiracy. No, while the spread of authoritarianism is indeed a big issue (and I've often stated my views on why it's happening in other threads) it has nothing to do with AGW, except perhaps that some might be using AGW as an excuse to push authoritarian agendas.

It is indeed unreasonable to lump all sceptics together with those people- but those who post articles like that are not helping the sceptic cause.

I had some issues with the debate about the IPCC "bureaucrats" with regards the argument, "just because your sample of the IPCC doesn't fall into that category, it's only a limited sample so it's meaningless". There is some truth behind it, in that you have to be careful to ensure that such samples are representative when doing that kind of thing- but on the other hand, the conclusion "therefore the IPCC are bureaucrats" doesn't even come close to following from the evidence. As with a lot of things, some of the criticisms of the IPCC are well-founded, but tend to be exaggerated completely out of proportion.

[noggin]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/1...climate-change1

Al Gore says that "the solutions to the economic crisis are also the solutions to the climate crisis".

Why does he say that, I wonder? I couldn't really glean his reasoning, from the article.

I don't think he's trying to back off from his stance to-date, so what is he talking about?

Or am I just being a bit thick, today? :lol: