"I haven't verified the source but I am told the graph I posted is from the IPCC draft report. Ie, it is how the IPCC see they are traveling."

Its been more than 5hours now, any chance you've had a look at the leaked draft and found that graph Sean?

"And yet the graph you posted starts in 1990. Sorry am I missing something?"
I expect a competent English as a Second Language tutor.

@Mr Tanner
No, as it happens I wasn't planning on reading the leaked draft, but the authors of the draft are more than welcome to read my comments on The Conversation.

If you did read it, you wouldn't find it.

Good onya for posting a link to a denialist invention and passing it off as the IPCC's without verification.

Science and Reality Denier: "It is just those pesky temperatures that refuse to come to the party."

I don't know what temperatures you're talking about but the ones measured by GISS, CRUT4 and NCDC have certainly come to the IPCC party. Slap bang on it if you allow for 1990 being warmer than trend: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/fake-skeptic-draws-fake-picture-of-global-temperature/

Thank you Mr Tanner for your comment made in very best tradition of climate science. Technically correct, but malicious and with the obvious intent to deceive.
For myself I took it from this blog: http://ktwop.wordpress.com/2012/12/15/leaked-ipcc-draft-report-shows-that-global-warming-models-are-codswallop/ , someone who "denies" AGW but it is hardly the main focus of his blog. He took the graph from Anthony Watts's blog, someone who I don't read because I find his scattergun approach off-putting.
Now, you are absolutely correct, this precise graph is not contained in the draft report, but as you are doubtless well aware something very very close to it is. In fact if you go to Chapter 1 of the draft report, you will find this almost identical graph on page 39
http://www.stopgreensuicide.com/Ch1-Introduction_WG1AR5_SOD_Ch01_All_Final.pdf
For those who can't bothered navigating through the document it appears that Anthony Watts has had the temerity of joining the black bars with white lines. Now possibly the addition of these white lines makes a significant difference to those deeply initiated in the arcane arts of climate science, but it doesn't to me or the general scientifically literate person but without specialist knowledge who I presume reads this site.
I would like to reiterate my thanks to Mr Tanner for perfectly illustrating a point that I have long known but feel few people would accept. That is the extreme bad faith and intellectually dishonesty with which climate change proponents commonly display. It is as if they are themselves aware of the junk science status of the stuff they are trying to foist on others and know that it would never survive genuine good faith critical evaluation. I have yet to encounter one who has a genuine interest in science at all.

Sean: "Technically correct, but malicious and with the obvious intent to deceive."

What a hypocrite.

I am glad you share my feeling of disdain

@Sean Lamb

What you do not explain to Mr Tanner is that you have linked to that graph before. When you used it previously you claimed that it showed that temperatures had only risen 0.2 of a degree and that scientists were wrong in predicting that we had already committed to 2 degrees of warming.

When it was pointed out to you that the graph was based on a 1961-1990 baseline (an IPCC convention) and the 2 degrees refers to pre-industrial temperatures, did you admit that you were wrong. Did you correct the record?

No. As Chris O'Neill says - you are a hypocrite.

And for someone who claims to not read WUWT and the other climate crank sites, you are always coincidentally of course discussing the same talking points as the cranks.

"When you used it previously you claimed that it showed that temperatures had only risen 0.2 of a degree and that scientists were wrong in predicting that we had already committed to 2 degrees of warming."
No I didn't.
Was it with this knee-jerk dishonesty and misrepresentation of climate change proponents? Why is your belief in your own ideology so meager you have to continually distort your opponents arguments?

@Sean Lamb

"When you used it previously you claimed that it showed that temperatures had only risen 0.2 of a degree and that scientists were wrong in predicting that we had already committed to 2 degrees of warming."

Sean says "No I didn't."

You are a liar Sean. Unfortunately the comment has been moderated but there will be other readers who recall the comment. And you and I know that you are lying.

I remember writing the comment fairly precisely - I could even reconstruct the gist of it. And I said no such thing.
I would appreciate an apology for the liar remark - except of course you are climate change proponent and ad hominem attacks are all you have.

Sean Lamb: "That is the extreme bad faith and intellectually dishonesty with which climate change proponents commonly display."

What a shameless hypocrite. I point out the intellectual dishonesty in his statement "It is just those pesky temperatures that refuse to come to the party" with my comment:

"I don't know what temperatures you're talking about but the ones measured by GISS, CRUT4 and NCDC have certainly come to the IPCC party. Slap bang on it if you allow for 1990 being warmer than trend: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/fake-skeptic-draws-fake-picture-of-global-temperature/ "

and then Sean Lamb has the hide to complain about extreme bad faith and intellectually dishonesty!

Is there a limit to this man's hypocrisy?

Mr O'Neil, am I to take it that you are calling me a hypocrite because I refused to engage with you on your opinions of the temperatures of 1990? I had no idea that you were such a delicate petal.
Just a word of warning, I am unlikely to engage with you in future unless your comments reach a certain level of scientific coherence.
Do try not to be upset by this

Mr Lamb. I am simply stating the evidence that you are intellectually dishonest (and hence a hypocrite) viz, the assertion "It is just those pesky temperatures that refuse to come to the party."

That evidence is not dependent on any response by you.

"Just a word of warning, I am unlikely to engage with you in future unless"

I didn't realize you are such a delicate petal.

Not at all, I just don't see any reason to suffer fools gladly. It appears you believe that someone who disagrees with your interpretation of data is a hypocrite. I have a feeling you only a very vague idea of what they term actually means.

"I just don't see any reason to suffer fools gladly."

Apart from yourself. The problem is you just cannot see that making statement like "It is just those pesky temperatures that refuse to come to the party", without proof, is intellectually dishonest.

"I expect a competent English as a Second Language tutor."

Ok. Firstly, A coherent sentence might help you out here.
Secondly:
"... if only climate change supporters were as good at science as they are at ad hominen attacks and smears..."

Insults are unnecessary.

You make a point saying it is common for climate scientists to measure from 1992 and quality it with a graph charting from 1990. Go figure.

@Michael Brown - thanks for the link - looks interesting reading so I'll head into it in the next couple of days. Cheers :)

Instead of claiming 'complete ignorance', why don't you respond to actual points being made?

Michael, can you explain the lag between the temperature changes and co2 in ice cores (600-100yrs roughly)? Can you offer an explanation for the shift from interglacial to glacial – mapping co2 levels certainly can’t? These cycles have occurred for millennia without any assistance from AGW. Please note that this is NOT to deny human responsibility for the post-industrial co2 emissions only to query their influence on the warming and cooling cycles of the Earth.

John Philip

OK, I'll bite if the moderator will allow:

"Michael, can you explain the lag between the temperature changes and co2 in ice cores (600-100yrs roughly)? " Yes. 600-100yrs is roughly the overturning time of the ocean so that is about how long it will take for for water with a different CO2 content to reach the surface after surface temperature changes due to orbital cycles (Milkankovitch Cycles) have caused the surface CO2 concentrations to have an effect. Overturning time is the main limiting factor on howfast CO2 can contribute to climate change - unless a few smartich apement decide to open up another source of CO2 called Fossil Fuels.

"Can you offer an explanation for the shift from interglacial to glacial – mapping co2 levels certainly can’t? These cycles have occurred for millennia without any assistance from AGW. "

Yep. Milankovitch Cycles. Various cyclical variations in the Earths orbit, extremely well understood by thre astronomers, lead to slow variations in the amount and timing of the arrival of solar radiation. This produces small changes in temperature. This is then magnified by several other factors. CO2 - see my previous answer. The Earth's Albedo due to changes in ice & snow cover (and to alesser extent dust due to desertification). Methane production. Vegetation cover and type. All these factors magnify the original forcing caused by the Solar cycles. This is why the Ice Age cycles are very well correlated with the Milankovitch forcing.

So what is different now? CO2 is one of the control knobs that influences the Climate - not the only one.Some times other aspects of the climate get hold of that knob. Today it is Anthropogenic because this time we are the ones twisting the knob. And we are twisting it HARD.

Now, a question for you John:

Have you never heard any of this before? Are you so new to uncertainty about AGW that you have never heard any of this? If your answer is yes, I hope I have shed some light.

If your answer is no, what have you been doing all this time?

Excellent, I think the next decade or so is going to provide us Science Deniers with much enjoyment.
Nothing dramatic, I expect there will be some very modest rises in temperature, just enough to keep the Climate Change tragics interested and keep finding more and more handwaving arguments why catastrophe is just around the corner, just you wait....
Why poke fun at believers in the Mayan calender when it is so much entertaining to point fingers at climate change scientists and laugh?

"Sean Lamb seems to believe (please correct me Sean if I misinterpret you) that this conclusion is not justified."
No, no, you are absolutely right.
"This must mean that these scientists are fundamentally mistaken or are cooking the data in some monumental and coordinated way. "
I tend to prefer the madness of crowds type explanations myself.

I should say I am not a scientist and have no qualifications in either physics or atmospheric sciences - although I did manage to measure the speed of light at 85 kilometers per hour in a 1st year physics lab once - hence I would not be able to generate work of sufficient quality of publish in a peer review journal. I'm sure in the long run they will get a good model, but the process will be a bit like economists, every new economic crisis breaks their previous model.

The article finishes with---"Consequently, the current draft of the IPCC’s 5th Assessment report concludes that it is virtually certain that humans are causing climate change." Now do we take that to mean all human activity, such as cultivating land , cutting down trees, driving cars, building houses,making wind turbines and sealing bitumen roads. So what is the percentage of the effect of co2 compared to all the other human influences. Has anyone estimated the rising population effect?

If the science is so sound , why has the Australian 12 tidal stations air temperature readings for the last 20 years shown no average trend rise in temperature? The WACIMATE site says--Comparing 1990-1999 with 2000-2009, the average mean temperature across all 26 "high quality" locations fell by 0.0006C.
The 16 inland Western Australian locations from 1900---2008 had an increase maximum of 0.76 degrees C ,but the towns of ALBANY,BUNBURY,BUSSELTON ,GERALDTON,and PERTH had an increase of 2.28 degrees. From those records it is obvious that CO2 is not the major factor.

OK, you might say you can not use isolated areas to prove a point, but the climate commission said Fremantle sea levels were rising faster than the Australian average ,but the "WEST" had an article on Wed 12th Dec that showed the land had been falling recently by 6mm per year due to water extraction. Do you think we should question the science?

Jo Nova and Bob Carter presenting peer reviewed research to backup the climate denial argument. There is always a first time for everything. Bring it on.

Whenever you are asked for peer reviewed science to back up your claims Geoffrey you run away.

http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/11/15/why-climate-deniers-have-no-credibility-science-one-pie-chart
Of 13950 peer-reviewed scientific articles on climate in the Web of Science between 1991 and 2012, only 24 reject global warming.

Geoffrey Henley says: "Denigration of those who legitimately question some of the tenets of AGW by the likes of smear and sneer campaigners such as John Cook (formerly a self-employed cartoonist)"

What a blatant piece of hypocrisy. He complains about smear and sneer and then does it in the very same sentence himself! You couldn't make this up.

"articles by Jo Nova, Bob Carter and other prominent sceptics .. could no doubt present a compelling argument against CAGW and back it up with peer reviewed research."

You would say that, wouldn't you?

@ Mike Hansen

Lots of peer reviewed research listed at these sites which contradicts the so-called consensus.

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/

http://www.co2science.org/

http://www.c3headlines.com/

I don't take any notice of the rubbish dished up by desmogblog. This statistic sounds like a contrived one just like the 97% one.

@Geoffrey Henley

Lots of peer reviewed research listed at these sites...

Yet you always struggle to link to it ... is this secret peer reviewed research?

@ Chris O'Neill

"Geoffrey Henley says: "Denigration of those who legitimately question some of the tenets of AGW by the likes of smear and sneer campaigners such as John Cook (formerly a self-employed cartoonist)"

So where is the smear is this sentence? Enlighten me.

"You would say that, wouldn't you?"

Only because it's true. tee hee

Geoffrey Henley: "So where is the smear is this sentence?"

So what, pray tell, was your purpose in just mentioning that John Cook was formerly a self-employed cartoonist? Was it to demonstrate how well-qualified he is for the task here? Yeah right.

""You would say that, wouldn't you?"

Only because it's true. tee hee"

You would say that, wouldn't you?

Geoffrey Henley: "Lots of peer reviewed research listed at these sites which contradicts the so-called consensus."

Psst, I'll let you into a secret Geoff. Just because a website says the peer reviewed research it lists "contradicts the so-called consensus" doesn't mean that it really does. CO2 science is notorious for indulging in proof by inconsequential or contradictory information as I discovered myself a long time ago. An extensive list of these is provided here: http://itsnotnova.wordpress.com/2012/09/03/novas-warm-period/

CO2science's favorite pastime is moving the medieval warm period in time whenever it moves from place to place. Rather like moving the target to catch whichever direction the randomly fired bullets happen to be going in.

John Phillip: "The author of this piece has made a number of claims about what the IPCC report and “a number of studies” (which and by whom?) NONE of which are referenced"

What are you talking about? He provided a link to a discussed list of citations: http://www.skepticalscience.com/cosmic-rays-and-global-warming-advanced.htm

"John you REALLY dropped the ball on that one."

You seem to be awfully eager to find fault when there is none. One could even suspect that you are biassed.

"growing evidence"

In climate science denier speak, that means a number of climate denier blogs have made the claim. It may have even made into an oped for the WSJ or Fox News.

Interesting point, Peter.
Mike H - have you got a rebuttal to the information referenced in Peter's comment?

Peter said "... the growing evidence that climate sensitivity may be much lower than is stated ... If this turns out to be correct, the 20 year scaremongering about catastrophic climate change has even less to support it than before."

Peter, linking to Judith Curry's blog post does not have the credibility of linking to peer-reviewed papers published in credible journals. Therefore, your assertion that there is "growing evidence" that sensitivity is lower than projected by the vast majority of published literature, is unsupported. Which published papers claim that sensitivity is much lower than suggested by the IPCC? Is your claim to this effect supported by published, original scientific research, or just by posts at your favourite blogs?

If Judith Curry's blog post makes it into peer-reviewed, published literature, then it will have some weight. In fact, if it survives the rigour of peer review, it would place her in a favoured position when the Nobel Prizes are being handed out, as it goes against what we currently understand of atmospheric physics.

What you refer to as "the 20 year scaremongering about catastrophic climate change" is, in fact, scientific research that goes back about 150 years, not just 20. Do you call all research that you don't agree with "scaremongering"? Do you regard all scientists as scaremongers, or just those who present papers that contradict your preferred world-view? Perhaps you subscribe to the theory that AGW is a hoax perpetrated by the conspiracy of a world-wide cabal of corrupt scientists (presumably co-ordinated by an evil mastermind), for which no shred of evidence has ever been found?

Climate scientists and peak scientific bodies around the world will heave a huge sigh of relief, if Judith Curry's opinion turns out to be right, but the weight of evidence is against her. The more likely outcome is that she will be found to be wrong: does this not make you a teensy bit alarmed, or will you just find another straw to cling to?

"Mike H - have you got a rebuttal to the information referenced in Peter's comment?"

What information would that be?

If you follow Lang's link to Curry's blog, it links to another blog and an editorial in Murdoch's WSJ. The denier blogs can generate a self-referencing eco-system of denial faster than any single person can keep up. Most of the claims are recycled with today's claim contradicting yesterdays.

If Lang wants to reference some peer reviewed science then we can have a discussion.

For example, earlier this year we did have a discussion on climate sensitivity here based on this scxience journal article "Climate Sensitivity Estimated from Temperature Reconstructions of the Last Glacial Maximum" by Schmittner et al which the "skeptics" erroneously claimed supported low sensitivity.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/334/6061/1385.short

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Schmittner-climate-sensitivity-goood-bad-ugly.html

"the real world of uncertainties"

Unfortunately the real world also has vested interest and self-serving dishonesty. That you were as influenced as you were by the memes thrown up by climategate shows how successful dishonesty can be when uncertainty is involved. Getting the best action to a difficult and complex problem requires everyone to be honest but it only requires a small amount of dishonesty for enormous amounts of honest effort to be trashed.

Sorry, posted this on wrong thread

Other than the fact that Lomborg has been repeatedly debunked, and shown to be, at the very least, dishonest about the science of climate change, you continue to mimic the fake skeptic meme of calling the thing "CAGW," even going as far to suggest James Hansen calls it that: the *only* folks who refer to the state of the science with a "C" in front of AGW, are the hardcore denialists. That sir, makes most, if not all, of what you assert highly suspicious.

Your "retired geologist' moniker provides you no special ability to assess those who actually DO specialize in this field of study: As a geologist myself, i know that and try not to rewrite. misquote, or misinterpret those that have spent their lives studying this. As a practicing scientist, I trust in the peer-review process.

Peter, you do realise Lomborg has been caught out with flimsy reasoning and wishful thinking, do you not? There is even a book detailing his errors: look at http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/02/21/book-review-the-lomborg-deception.html

If Lomborg is what you call an expert on the economics of climate change, I must respectfully disagree with your judgement.

When choosing whose expertise to rely on, it pays to investigate your candidates very thoroughly, to avoid embarrassing mistakes.

Doug Hutcheson,

"When choosing whose expertise to rely on, it pays to investigate your candidates very thoroughly, to avoid embarrassing mistakes"

Pity the Alarmists don't practice what they preach. When will you realise that 20 years of pushing your 'big brother knows best', big government, regulatory approach will not work. After 20 years of failed climate conferences you'd think they realise by now. But, oh no, they just continue to pedal their irrational beliefs. You really should listen more and 'tell' less.

Lomborg is absolutely correct and has been all along. You just haven't got the capability to understand it nor the capacity to challenge your beliefs. The 'Progressives' have been blocking progress for 50 years and continue to do so. Global CO2 emissions are 10% to 20% higher now that they would have been if not for the 'Progressives' blocking development of nuclear power. Worse still, we are on a much slower path to reduce emissions over the next few decades because you blocked the development of nuclear power. I know you can't understand this. And I know why. It is because your ideology rules what you believe.

Carbon pricing can’t work in the real world – there is a better way

Professor William Nordhaus is arguably the world authority on carbon tax. In a paper in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, ‘Economic aspects of global warming in a post-Copenhagen environment’, http://nordhaus.econ.yale.edu/documents/Nordhaus_Copenhagen_2010_text.pdf Nordhaus says:

"The results of the present study suggest that several policies could limit our “dangerous interference” with the climate system at modest costs. However, such policies would require a well managed world and globally designed environmental policies, with most countries contributing, with decision makers looking both to sound geosciences and economic policies. Moreover, rich countries must bring along the poor, the unenthusiastic, and the laggard with sufficient carrots and sticks to ensure that all are on board and that free riding is limited. The checkered history of international agreements in areas as diverse finance, whaling, international trade, and nuclear non-proliferation (36) indicates the extent of the obstacles on the road to reaching effective international agreements on climate change."

In other words, carbon pricing cannot succeed in the real world.

His Table 2 ‘Costs and benefits of the Copenhagen Accord through 2055’ shows why. The costs would be far greater than the assumed benefits:
• Abatement cost = $2,060 billion
• Benefit (climate damages avoided) = $413 billion

No country can justify committing to a policy that will cost $5 for every $1 of benefit. And the compliance costs are not even included. They would be huge. Furthermore, as most people realise, the assumed benefits are highly uncertain.

There is a much better way.

Peter said "Lomborg is absolutely correct and has been all along", then accuses anyone who questions his wisdom, of being an ideologue. Apparently, I am unable to recognise Lomborg's wondrous infallibility, due to my inferior intellect. How dare I criticise the mighty Lomborg? Sigh. By relying on what has been demonstrated to be poor advice, Peter has shown himself to be the one driven by ideology, rather than evidence. DNFTT.

Doug Hutcheson,

You should consider the ad hom comments you make because they actually apply to you. You say some of the most inane things and there is no point trying to explain anything to you. My last comment that you just replied to was responding to the comment of yours which opened: "Peter, you do realise Lomborg has been caught out with flimsy reasoning and wishful thinking, do you not? There is even a book detailing his errors:"

What an absolutely stupid thing to say. There are stacks of books saying that IPCC is wrong in many places, but does that mean they are correct? Do you you accept them? Do you even read them? Are you interested? No you simply dismiss them because you don't like the message. Your comments are unhelpful. They are a waste of time, like most of the CAGW Alarmists.

Clearly my last comment didn't mean anything to you, or more likely you don't like the facts. I suspect the latter.

@Peter Lang on William Nordhaus

Gobsmacking hypocrisy from Peter Lang.

He quotes Nordhaus who is pointing out the difficulty in achieving global climate agreements in the face of the campaign of climate science denial " the unenthusiastic, and the laggard " as a reason for not arguing for global climate agreements.

Lang consistently misrepresents Nordhaus.

Here is an article by Nordhaus in the NY review of books where he lays into people like Lang who misrepresent his position.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/mar/22/why-global-warming-skeptics-are-wrong/?pagination=false

"My study is just one of many economic studies showing that economic efficiency would point to the need to reduce CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions right now, and not to wait for a half-century. Waiting is not only economically costly, but will also make the transition much more costly when it eventually takes place. Current economic studies also suggest that the most efficient policy is to raise the cost of CO2 emissions substantially, ..."

Peter Lang: ""Peter, you do realise Lomborg has been caught out with flimsy reasoning and wishful thinking, do you not? There is even a book detailing his errors:"

There are stacks of books saying that IPCC is wrong in many places, but does that mean they are correct?" Do you you accept them? Do you even read them? Are you interested? No you simply dismiss them because you don't like the message."

Oh I get it. You're demonstrating by comparison that you simply dismiss the books pointing out Lomberg's flimsy reasoning and wishful thinking because you don't like their message.

Thanks for confirming what we think of you. You have been most helpful.

Chris,
Zealots don't 'think'. They don't think they need to think because they reckon know all that needs to be known.

You wont get this, but other readers might:
http://judithcurry.com/2012/12/22/the-goldilocks-principle/

I found Judith Curry post yoking too many disparate uses of the Goldilock principle to be very useful. But the reference to the book the Goldilock planet certainly refers to something I have long believed
[quote]Climate change is a major topic of concern today and will be so for the foreseeable future, as predicted changes in global temperatures, rainfall, and sea level continue to take place. But as Jan Zalasiewicz and Mark Williams reveal in The Goldilocks Planet, the climatic changes we are experiencing today hardly compare to the changes the Earth has seen over the last 4.5 billion years. [/quote]
Namely we know there will be negative feedbacks limiting runaway climate change otherwise the planet would not have maintained life for so long.

Hansen says:

"Lang consistently misrepresents Nordhaus."

Not true. It is Alarmists that do the misrepresenting. Here is my response to a classic example on the Alarmists' propaganda/spin site (un)SkepticalScience

http://skepticalscience.com//news.php?f=nordhaus-sets-the-record-straight-climate-mitigation-saves-money#82373

@Sean Lamb
"the climatic changes we are experiencing today hardly compare to the changes the Earth has seen over the last 4.5 billion years"

The next step Sean is to look at what those changes actually consisted of and decide whether they will be compatible with 7+ billion people living on the planet

20,000 years ago during the LGM there were vast ice sheets covering much of North America, northern Europe and Asia. A completely different world. The usually accepted estimates put the LGM at 4 to 7°C cooler than current temperatures. These numbers are in the same range of the temperature increases we are looking at by 2100 if we continue emitting fossil fuels at the current rate. Do you really think the world will be the same?

or

"tropical vegetation, including palms and relatives of today’s tropical Baobab trees, was growing on the coast of Antarctica 52 million years ago. These results highlight the extreme contrast between modern and past climatic conditions on Antarctica and the extent of global warmth during periods of elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.
Around 52 million years ago, the concentration of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere was more than twice as high as today. "

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/08/120801132339.htm

"Namely we know there will be negative feedbacks limiting runaway climate change otherwise the planet would not have maintained life for so long."

No one explains it better than Richard Alley.
http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.shtml

I heartily recommend readers to follow Peter's link to Skeptical Science and read the whole article and its comment thread. In particular, note that Nordhaus specifically stated "My research shows that there are indeed substantial net benefits from acting now rather than waiting fifty years". Which part of this is ambiguous?

Peter seems confused about the relative evidentiary weight of blog posts, compared with that of peer-reviewed papers containing original research and published in reputable journals. Providing links to Judith Curry's blog is not as valuable as providing links to the original research she has had published in reputable journals, in support of the opinions expressed on her blog. Readers may be interested in googling "Berkley Earth Surface Temperature Project", to get an idea of recent work she has been involved in: when the results of the project proved that the Earth is warming as predicted, she disagreed with the rest of the team. See http://berkeleyearth.org/faq/ - especially http://berkeleyearth.org/faq/#disagreement

http://skepticalscience.com/ is one place (there are plenty) where readers will find scientists discussing the science, answering readers' questions and linking to peer-reviewed, published papers. It seems Peter regards original, published research as 'alarmist', 'propaganda', and 'spin', if it disagrees with his world view.

Doug Hutcheson,

SkepticalScience is just a junk web site owned by a trained "communications" expert - i.e a propoganda agent an spin merchant. Sure they selectively report on the papers that support their beliefs and spin the alarmist story. You just have to read the title of the threads to see it is nothing more than a trash site promoting fear mongering. It is rubbish. And gullible people like you lap it up. You aren't capable of challenging your beliefs or thinking critically.

Your comment on the Nordhaus demonstrates you lack of ability to think clearly. You simply accept what supports your ideologically based beliefs,

The author of the article, clearly has no understanding of what he has written about. The should be clear to you from his responses to my first two comments on the thread. He hadn't a clue what he was doing.

You say: "Nordhaus specifically stated "My research shows that there are indeed substantial net benefits from acting now rather than waiting fifty years". Which part of this is ambiguous?"

Yes he did say that. That is his conclusion. That is saying what the orthodoxy wants him to say. But just read my comment. What he also explains are the assumptions (academic and totally impracticable in the real world) on which he has done his analysis and then drawn his conclusions. The assumptions are not realistic so the policies cannot be achieved. Is that to difficult for you to understand (I expect in your case the answer is "Yes").

20 years of failed Climate Change conferences should make it absolutely clear to all but the most extreme ideologues that the policies advocated by the so called 'Progressives' will not work. They are really bad polices. You just don't realise it.

So called 'Progressives' have been blocking progress for 50 years. If you want to make progress, you need to lead your ilk away from blocking rational and achievable policies. They are available and have been for decades. They are blocked by the 'Progressives'.

What are the objectives?

If we make robust policy we can deal with the GHG issue and other issues as well. So why don’t we put our effort into robust decision analysis (as suggested in the World Bank report: http://econ.worldbank.org/external/default/main?pagePK=64165259&theSitePK=469382&piPK=64165421&menuPK=64166093&entityID=000158349_20120906142854)?

What would a robust policy response give us?
1. ‘No regrets’ policies
2. economically beneficial (for all the world)
3. improved health (reduced toxic pollution) everywhere
4. greater energy security (for all the world)
5. fresh water supply
6. improved education for everyone (and improved communications for all)
7. reduced black carbon
8. reduced GHG emissions

How could this be achieve?

Most people recognise that carbon tax and renewable energy will not make the slightest difference to the climate. Most people also realise it is virtually impossible to get world agreement to penalty schemes like carbon pricing and emissions targets and timetables.

Bad policies:
• Penalty schemes
• Targets and timetables
• More regulations
• Taxes, penalties and restrictive trade policies
• Carbon pricing
• Renewable energy
• Aid/bribes

Good policies:
• Reward schemes
• No Regrets
• Less regulations
• Freer trade
• Globalisation
• Wealth creation for whole world
• Adaptation
• Remove impediments on low cost nuclear
• Developed countries develop low-cost, low-emissions alternatives to fossil fuels. Produce them commercially and compete to produce them for the world – competition to bring costs down and improve the technologies

• Adaptation is the main component – it will provide results and improved conditions immediately, whereas mitigation may have an effect in 50 years and beyond.

Developing countries need freer trade and infrastructure strengthening (e.g. improved governance), not aid. Giving developing countries aid is equivalent to giving an unemployed person the dole rather than skills development and a job. We give out aid while restricting trade. And we block development of the least cost way to reduce emissions. We have it backwards.

In short, IMO, more regulation is the wrong approach. We’ve been trying this, globally, for 20 years. It clearly is not working and, IMO, cannot work. There is a better way.

Peter, it is good that you have opinions and are prepared to share them. We already have a good idea of the value of your opinions, given that you are content to provide links to blogs, without once troubling yourself with the science. It must be calming to regard Lomborg and Curry as experts worth listening to, because they tell you what you want to hear. Of course, you have many more people to turn to for advice. Let me guess: you place Monckton and Watts up there on the same pedestal. Your full list of advisors would be entertaining to read.

Sadly, science and economics keep raising their little heads, triggering a violent reaction from you. If only science sites like Skeptical Science and Real Climate would recognise your superior intellect, life would be less stressful.

Unfortunately, with my lesser abilities, I am foolish enough to require multiple lines of evidence before accepting anyone's opinion. That's what must annoy you about Skeptical Science: they won't let you get away with making comments that you can't back up with evidence. I suggest you stay with the sort of site where unsupported statements are acceptable to the moderators.

Now, take a few deep breaths and repeat a hundred times this calming mantra: "I am always right. I do not need to research my facts. I do not need to provide robust evidence when debating people who disagree with me. Personal attack is the best way to win someone over to my way of thinking. Science should be ignored when making policy decisions. AGW is a global conspiracy, which has been running for 150 years and I believe this as an article of faith, without having, or needing, any evidence for it. God is on my side. Amen."

I am so obviously inferior in my thinking that I shall not try to change your mind about anything. All I shall do in future is correct your more egregious mistakes, for the sake of anyone following this thread. Please do not regard these corrections as personal attacks, because they will not be addressed to you, O Great Wise One. I abase myself.

Doug Hutcheson,

You say: “without once troubling yourself with the science.”

Not true. But your problem is you can’t se anything other than ‘the science’ as you call it. You don’t understand that there are other important issues other than “the science”. Furthermore, you are interested in only “the science” that supports your beliefs.

For example, you and the other alarmists cannot provide persuasive, quantitative answers to questions about the impacts of AGW. When asked you resort to rants, scary adjectives, exaggeration and misinformation. Basically you have no idea how to answer the questions about costs and benefits of GHG emissions.

There is no persuasive case to justify the policies you advocate – such as carbon pricing and renewable energy. I realise you will deny this. That is because you don’t understand anything outside your narrow field of interest (which is pretty irrelevant anyway). Just as the author, Dana1981, of the nonsense piece on Nordhaus on SkepticalScience demonstrated he (Dana1981) didn’t have the faintest understanding of what he was talking about.

You are focused on temperatures and the like. These inform the climate sensitivity estimates. However, the estimates of climate sensitivity are highly uncertain and the uncertainty has hardly changed in 20 years. There is nothing to suggest it is likely to change much any time soon.

But there are other important factors needed for informing policy. The most important four are:
1. Climate sensitivity
2. damage function
3. decarbonisation rate
4. probability that the chosen policy will deliver the expected results

The failure of 20 years of climate conferences, which have been pushing the loony-Left’s agenda of ‘big-brother knows best’, big government, big regulation, have failed. That couldn’t be clearer, unless you are an ideologue. So the answer to #4 is clearly NOT the policies the Left has been advocating for the past 20 years. [as an aside, it is interesting to note that world energy intensity of GDP and carbon intensity of energy had been decreasing for the whole 20th century until we started trying to control it by regulation. Then it started increasing again. It’s not entirely due to Kyoto type policies, but it is clear they are not the right policies.]

How long will you and your ilk continue to advocate policies that will not work in the real world?

There is a better way. We should focus on #3 ‘decarbonisation rate’. If we address we will have a robust policy that will deliver not only GHG reduction but also many other benefits as I listed in my previous comment.

How can we increase the global decarbonisation rate?

To increase the decarbonisation rate most of the focus needs to be on technologies that will allow fuel switching from fossil fuels to near-zero emissions energy. The early effort should be focused mostly on electricity generation because that is where we can make the largest cuts most quickly.

However, here is one of the major blocks to progress. Renewables can achieve almost nothing in CO2 reductions. Just accept it; it is a fact (explained previously and in many comments on this active TC thread: https://theconversation.edu.au/wind-is-no-answer-if-it-leads-to-higher-emissions-11369. Instead, what is needed is low-cost nuclear power. The problem is renewables are a matter of faith for ‘Progressives’ and nuclear is hated by ‘Progressives’. So, progress on decarbonisation is blocked.

Progress is blocked by the relentless and intransigent opposition of the ‘Progressives’.

Therefore, the question is: how can we get the ‘Progressives’ to stop blocking progress. How can we get the ‘Progressives’ to not only allow progress on decarbonisation, but to enthusiastically advocate it? That is a question for you and your comrades to address. It’s up to you. You and your ilk are the block.

If you are interested in becoming a bit more informed about the issue of decarbonisation rate and what can be achieved here are three links that will provide some useful background:

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-2593-2008.08.pdf

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com.au/2010/07/decelerating-decarbonization-of-global.html

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com.au/2011/02/reality-check.html

Peter said "For example, you <ad hom snipped> cannot provide persuasive, quantitative answers to questions about the impacts of AGW".

Persuasive? That depends upon one's ability to sort the wheat from the chaff. For example, I do not expect to persuade Peter to examine all the evidence impartially, no matter how much sense it makes to do so.

Quantitative? In many respects, Peter is right. The warming we are heading for has never been matched in the history of human civilisation, so all the impacts are impossible to predict. Some changes, however, are happening now. We cannot predict when the Arctic will be effectively ice free, but we can see summer ice extent up there is in a death spiral. We cannot tell by how much the oceans will become less basic (more acidic), but we can see it happening now.

Part of our inability to project outcomes is due to our inability to predict what the world governments will do about mitigating emissions. We have no prescience to tell us just how much more carbon (carbon dioxide, methane etc.) humanity is going to pump into the atmosphere. What we do know, from modelling and from real-world examples happening today, is that a warmer world is likely to be a place humanity would rather not occupy. Unfortunately, we have no alternative planet to go to when we have finished trashing the one we currently have.

All science can do is present the facts as they are understood: what our civilisation does with this information is up to the politicians. Policy needs to be informed by science, but rightly should be determined by electorate. Anyone who understands the multiple lines of evidence pointing to the reality of human-caused global warming should be actively and urgently raising the issue with their elected representatives.

Failure to act is not failure of science, but failure of the political system.

Doug Hutcheson

"<your entire ad hom comment and rant snipped>"

According to IEA (2012) http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/CO2emissionfromfuelcombustionHIGHLIGHTS.pdf (p90) global emissions intensity has declined by just 0.8% between 1990 and 2010. This is important. Decarbonisation of the global economy is not happening, despite 20 years of global climate change conferences, Kyoto Protocol, EU Emissions Trading Scheme, and massive funding and regulatory intervention to mandate and favour renewable energy. We would need to achieve decarbonisation at the rat of about 5% to 6% pa to achieve the targets being advocated http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com.au/2010/07/decelerating-decarbonization-of-global.html

Clearly the policies being attempted are wrong. The evidence couldn’t be clearer. The ‘big brother knows best’ policies being advocated will not work in the real world.

I've explained what are sort of polices are needed in previous comments. But you either ignored them or didn't want to know.

John

The American Meteorological Society journal link is to Curry's own "Uncertainty Monster" paper which is now about **18 months old** and was critiqued at Skeptical Science in **August 2011** at the following link. For her own reasons, Curry includes a link to this article in many (most) of her posts whether it is relevant or not.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Mythic-reasoning-uncertainty.html

The topic of her blog post was the AR5 report which was only leaked **a few days** ago. Her references are a WSJ oped from Matt Ridley and a blog post from Nic Lewis.

Here is an excoriation of Ridley's WSJ piece including a letter from one of the scientists that Ridley quotes rejecting his claims.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/12/20/1365671/error-riddled-matt-ridley-piece-lowballs-global-warming-discredits-wall-street-journal-world-faces-10f-warming/

Back to Curry - before she starts on about applying her eyecrometer to a graph in the leaked draft of AR5, she concedes that the IPCC estimate of sensitivity is the same as it was in 2007.

What is the rationale for ‘very unlikely’ below 1.5C? Because we cannot explain past climate if it is lower than that.

"There have been a number of studies that calculate climate sensitivity directly from empirical observations, independent of models.
Lorius 1990 examined Vostok ice core data and calculates a range of 3 to 4°C.
Hoffert 1992 reconstructs two paleoclimate records (one colder, one warmer) to yield a range 1.4 to 3.2°C.
Hansen 1993 looks at the last 20,000 years when the last ice age ended and empirically calculates a climate sensitivity of 3 ± 1°C.
Gregory 2002 used observations of ocean heat uptake to calculate a minimum climate sensitivity of 1.5.
Chylek 2007 examines the period from the Last Glacial Maximum to Holocene transition. They calculate a climate sensitivity range of 1.3°C and 2.3°C.
Tung 2007 performs statistical analysis on 20th century temperature response to the solar cycle to calculate a range 2.3 to 4.1°C.
Bender 2010 looks at the climate response to the 1991 Mount Pinatubo eruption to constrain climate sensitivity to 1.7 to 4.1°C."
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity-intermediate.htm

Also tie the following to Glenn Tamblyn's description of the Milankovitch Cycles given to you earlier.
"The main limit on the sensitivity value is that it has to be consistent with paleoclimatic data. A sensitivity which is too low will be inconsistent with past climate changes - basically if there is some large negative feedback which makes the sensitivity too low, it would have prevented the planet from transitioning from ice ages to interglacial periods, for example. Similarly a high climate sensitivity would have caused more and larger past climate changes."
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity-advanced.htm

Mike Hansen wrote:

“If you follow Lang's link to Curry's blog, it links to another blog and an editorial in Murdoch's WSJ. The denier blogs can generate a self-referencing eco-system of denial faster than any single person can keep up. Most of the claims are recycled with today's claim contradicting yesterdays.”

Apart from this being dishonest, as pointed out in another comment, soon after Hansen linked to ClimateSpectator (an extreme CAGW Alarmist web site) and said:

“This article from consultants Pitt&Sherry and based on NEM data shows that wind is displacing black coal.
http://www.climatespectator.com.au/commentary/emissions-gone-wind

And a little later he wrote:
"John The American Meteorological Society journal link is to Curry's own "Uncertainty Monster" paper which is now about **18 months old** and was critiqued at Skeptical Science in **August 2011** at the following link”

SkepticalScience, for goodness sake. This site is an example of one of the extreme alarmist web sites. The owner is a trained spin merchants. It is extremely biased as a scan through the headings makes obvious. It is a CAGW alarmist propaganda, pure an simple.

A day ago, Hansen wrote “As for the IPCC Temperature projections” with links to The Conversation and two links to SkepticalScience.

It is hypocritical of Hansen to make pejorative remarks about respected Climate Scientist Judith Curry and criticise links to other blog sites in her lead article, then do the same himself to junk blog sites like Climate Spectator and SkepticalScience..

A rephrasing of Mr Hansen’s comment would seem to be appropriate:

“The CAGW Alarmist blogs can generate a self-referencing eco-system of scaremongering faster than any single person can keep up.”

@Peter Lang

The Curry post you linked to references a WSJ oped and another blog.

These are some of the peer reviewed science articles that the Skeptical Science post on climate sensitivity that I linked to discussed.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/295/5552/113.abstract
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/knutti/papers/knutti06jc.pdf
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v440/n7087/abs/nature04679.html
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v347/n6289/abs/347139a0.html
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2007GL032759.shtml
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00382-010-0777-3
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2008/2008_Hansen_etal.pdf
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Book_chapters/Rahmstorf_Zedillo_2008.pdf

Do you notice the difference?

@Peter Lang

"Hansen linked to ClimateSpectator (an extreme CAGW Alarmist web site)"

Climate Spectator - owned by Rupert Murdoch.

Peter - your tinfoil hat is slipping.

Mike, I should also have thanked you for the detailed explanation of sensitivity that you provided. It helped a lot. The point that I'm still chasing is the disparity I referred to. Cheers and thanks again.

John. This is a leaked draft of AR5 which is embargoed and not due for release until September next year. People are obviously reluctant to quote from it directly despite Rawls lack of integrity.

This is taken from a Rawls quote of the IPCC report :
"There is very high confidence that natural forcing is a small fraction of the anthropogenic forcing. In particular, over the past three decades (since 1980), robust evidence from satellite observations of the TSI [total solar irradiance] and volcanic aerosols demonstrate a near-zero (–0.04 W m–2) change in the natural forcing compared to the anthropogenic AF increase of ~1.0 ± 0.3 W m–2."

i.e. total solar irradiance (the sun) and volcanic aerosols combined have had a slight cooling effect (-0.04 W m2) i.e. they are moving in opposite directions to the anthropogenic forcing.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc-draft-leak-global-warming-not-solar.html

Also check out Zeke Hausfather's comment at the former TV weather presenter's blog.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/13/ipcc-ar5-draft-leaked-contains-game-changing-admission-of-enhanced-solar-forcing/#comment-1172525

"7.4.5.3 Synthesis
Although there is some evidence that ionization from cosmic rays may enhance aerosol nucleation in the free troposphere, there is medium evidence and high agreement that the cosmic ray-ionization mechanism is too weak to influence global concentrations of CCN or their change over the last century or during a solar cycle in any climatically significant way. The lack of trend in the cosmic ray intensity over the last 50 years (Agee et al., 2012; McCracken and Beer, 2007) provides another strong arguement against the hypothesis of a major contribution of cosmic rays to ongoing climate change."

John P

John Cook actually gave some references in his piece. Here are the 3 levels of rebuttal to the general 'It's The Sun' skeptic argument. Between them there are several dozen references to papers on various aspects of this.I suggest you read through them and follow the links.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-intermediate.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-advanced.htm

Then there is PMOD. A compilation of satellite observations of the Sun from various satellites:

http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant

John P

A cooment on Judith Curry and her take on the SOD 12.2 Fig 1 graph. If you look at every paper they cite and the graph they present from them they show 2 things.
1. The Probability Density Function (PDF) for the estimates from each paper.
2. Beneath them horizontal lines with a circle. Each of these horizontal lines is I presume the indication of 1 standard deviation from the median point for it's corresponding PDF - the text isn't clear on this. Very few of those lines project below CS = 2. While a number of them do project significantly to the right.
3. FAR more importantly, the circles represent the median value for each PDF. Effectively the weighted average of the probabilities; the most likely value. NONE of these are lower than 2.0. But some do stretch towards 4. Most cluster closer to 3.0. Hence the IPCC's estimate.

What Judith Curry did was look at just the PDF curves and say - 'well it looks to me like there might be a few there'.

Violating one of the basic insights of Statistics. An eyeball is not a Statistical Tool.

Also the text for Box 12.2, which this figure is associated with, comments that several of the papers that made low estimations have been criticised in the scientific journals. The one that leaps of the page for me is Lindzen & Choi 2011. A rewrite of Lindzen & Choi 2009 with all the major flaws still included.

What is missing from the graph for me is that they seem to have divided the papers up into groups.I would like to know what the different groups are so we have a sense of how much weight we should give each paper.

Here is an example of how IPCC misrepresented an important climate sensitivity chart in AR4:
http://judithcurry.com/2011/07/05/the-ipccs-alteration-of-forster-gregorys-model-independent-climate-sensitivity-results/

And here is another example of an important paper climate science (this one on climate sensitivity) not being able to be reproduced because the data is 'lost':
http://judithcurry.com/2012/06/25/questioning-the-forest-et-al-2006-sensitivity-study/

These are important papers because they are based more on empirical data than 'tuned' models

Some useful resources - videos from an actual climate scientist.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/12/online-video-lectures-on-climate-change/

And for the big picture view - Dr Richard Alley's AGU talk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RffPSrRpq_g

Mike Hansen, Glen Tambling,

It is common practice on the alarmist sites to delete the comments they don't like. Here is an example (alleged) poste today on RealClimate by blogger :oneuniverse":

oneuniverse | December 23, 2012 at 9:50 pm | Reply
"I left the following message at RealClimate, which went into moderation for a while, and was then deleted. :

O’Donnell et al., used in the plotted graph, is missing from the references.

O’Donnel, Ryan, Nicholas Lewis, Steve McIntyre, Jeff Condon: Improved Methods for PCA-Based Reconstructions: Case Study Using the Steig et al. (2009) Antarctic Temperature Reconstruction, J.Climate, 24, 2099-2115, doi:10.1175/2010JCLI3656.1 (2011)"

Sorry, I just noticed I posted the wrong link for the quote in the previous comment. Here is the correct link:
http://judithcurry.com/2011/07/05/the-ipccs-alteration-of-forster-gregorys-model-independent-climate-sensitivity-results/

John stated in his article a citation to this which the IPCC would use:

"More recently, UK scientist Mike Lockwood concluded that “…solar forcing has declined over the past 20 years while surface air temperatures have continued to rise…”."

But you knew that, didn't you?

Chris, I am after a link or reference to the page in the IPCC report. That's all I'm after. If an article quotes the IPCC report in its very title, I don't think it's asking too much for that reference. Do you?

"If an article quotes the IPCC report"

It quoted a leaked report. I don't see any great significance in what a leaked report actually says given that it is largely a literature survey of literature that is already available anyway. Perhaps John doesn't feel like responding to some request without any great significance, especially when you could easily do your own homework yourself. Perhaps you just want to score a point by complaining that he doesn't respond to you.

Chris, the author has made a statement. All I am asking for is the reference to that fact in the document from which he claims it was taken. I have read the Summary for Policy Makers and the Technical Summary without finding any reference to John's assertion. If the IPCC made such a claim, a claim upon which this whole article was based, surely he must be able to provide a reference for it. If that's not the case, then John has just made an incorrect assertioin that only serves to cast doubt on his credibility and, by association, the skepticalscience website for which he blogs.
I don't honestly think that's what he's doing. All I want is the reference. It's simple. I think you are looking for something that's not there, so dont be so defensive. I really am not looking for an angle or anything like that, I have a few weeks holiday and want to do some more reading on this matter - no deeper conspiracy than that. Cheers

"I have a few weeks holiday and want to do some more reading on this matter"

So you should have plenty of time to find what you're looking for without bothering anyone else.

Ah, Chris, that's my point. I cant find the relevant info in the IPCC report that John has quoted, so I just want him to direct me to it. It doesn't have to be John doing that - anyone who can direct me to that section of the report would recieve my thanks. Why are you so concerned? I am fine with his referrals to the links at the skepticalscience site, but that is not the report that he quoted. Surely you agee that statements such as John's need to be referenced?

"Surely you agee that statements such as John's need to be referenced?"

Not something I really care about considering how extremely easy it is to find. My quotation of Mike Lockwood should have given you a clue. He's cited in Chapter 10, so I've saved you the trouble of searching in anything else.

Chris, Cheers! Thanks for that.How did you find it so quickly?
Thanks again, John.

Someone was talking about the climate sensitivity graphs in that chapter. I thought it was likely to be in the same chapter, especially considering its title is Attribution of Climate Change.

Ok CHris, I'll bite - nothing in Ch10 about sun and climate moving in opposite directions. Any ideas? Cheers

Yeah. That makes sense. I saw the credit to Lockwood that you mentioned and thought for sure that'd be it. Oh well, there was a far bit in that chapter that was pretty interesting. I'll persist with the rest of it and who knows, John might be on hols and come back with the desired reference. Thanks again for your help. Cheers

John Phillip asked:

"John Cook, you've titled this article "Sun and climate moving in opposite directions, says leaked IPCC report ". Could you please provide a reference in the IPCC documents which supports this statement? (I've been waiting for you to do this for a week...)"

He has not received a reply from John Cook. He's received the usual pejorative comments and avoidance by doomsayser Chris O'Neil. But the question remains unanswered. In one of Chris O'Neil's many comments he said: he wasn't concerned whether John Cooks's claims about what IPCC said were referenced or not.

It seems IPCC said no such thing as John Cooks attributed to them. (but still waiting for John Cook to provide a reference to the relevant passage). At the moment, it seems John Cook just made it up. And Chris O'Neil and the other doomsayers just lap such nonsense up, because it fits with their beliefs.

I said in earlier comments that SkepticalScience is a junk web site, run by people who specialise in spin and propoganda. This sub thread under John Phillip's comment is an excellent example that supports what I said in my earlier comments.

The doomsayers just lap up the CAGW alarmism from sites like SkepticalScience and RealClimate. They demonstrate the traits of gullible teenagers and young adults in the way they swallow it all so readily.

@John Cook. John, thanks for the reply. I think you'd agree that going through the whole (draft) report is um...a bit dry? I'll get onto ch8. Thanks again, JP.

Dr Leif Svalgaard, a leading heliologist, disagrees with your assertion: According to him and others in the field, the Dalton Minimum was not as large nor as accountable for the "Year Without a Summer" as has been previously thought. More importantly, if you do indeed have a viable source of information, or peer-reviewed articles, that support that "fluctuating CO2 levels that follow after temperature rise" is indeed the case, that would be ground-breaking information, overturning atmospheric science extending as far back as Arrhenius in the late 1800s and many, MANY other earth scientists since. could you please link us to those sources?