Slashdot Mirror

You are WRONG. And the fact that you don't admit you are wrong makes you a valid target for insults, because rationality doesn't work on you.

Well that's certainly persuasive. Would you care to start insulting my ancestral line next ?

But as to being right or wrong it's an interesting choice to place yourself on let's read from theTHE BOOK OF THE CLIMATE APOCALYPSE

James Hansen predicting Manhattan being underwater
https://www.salon.com/2001/10/...

Or particularly ironic with the predictions of the end of snow
http://www.climatedepot.com/20...
https://www.theguardian.com/en...

50 million climate refugees anyone ?
https://www.theguardian.com/en...

For someone who bills themselves as an atheist you seem to have more blind faith than the typical millennial cultist and are considerably more dogmatic as well.

It's not science it's religion

b) This new paper couldn't possibly be wrong.

As opposed to James Hansen predicting Manhattan being underwater
https://www.salon.com/2001/10/...

As Opposed to the end of winter snow ?
http://www.climatedepot.com/20...

https://www.theguardian.com/uk...

Still waiting for the ice free arctic btw

As Opposed to the UN (you know the IPCC people) Predicting 50 million refugees from rising seas

https://www.theguardian.com/en...
That's another one where the original material has been taken down in embarrassment BTW

As opposed to Florida being scourged to the limestone by Hurricanes

As opposed to the Ice age we were going to be in

As opposed to the population bomb that had civilization collapsing by now

As opposed to the predictions that we would be out of oil, out of metals and out of just about everything by now.

According to Hansen
https://www.theguardian.com/en...

Still waiting for those 50 million climate refugees predicted by the UN
http://www.spiegel.de/internat...

Or how are things on the West Side of Manhattan these days ?
https://www.salon.com/2001/10/...

Then again snow is supposed to be a thing of the past as well
http://www.climatedepot.com/20...

Slight problem: Al Gore does not own a private jet, and he buys carbon credits to offset any commercial airline travel.

The second biggest ice sheet, Greenland, seems to be adding mass since it's at a record level. And overall, snow accumulation in the Northern hemisphere is on a decidedly upward trend over the last 30 years.

The GRACE satellites beg to differ. They show Greenland losing ice mass at a rate of about 280 gigatons per year from 2002 to 2016.

Greenland Ice Loss 2002-2016

The second biggest ice sheet, Greenland, seems to be adding mass since it's at a record level. And overall, snow accumulation in the Northern hemisphere is on a decidedly upward trend over the last 30 years.

Winters will be milder! No, wait, I mean winters will be more extreme!

Combined, Antarctica (~90%) and Greenland (10%) contain ~99% of all freshwater on Earth. Antarctica is increasing its total ice mass. And surprisingly to many, Greenland is as well. Now, the other 1% of freshwater - all those glaciers - may be losing, but they are offset by what is happening on the two main ice sheets. Overall, the world seems to be accumulating ice in spite of localized losses, meaning the global climate is towards ice accumulation whilst local weather may be towards ice loss.

MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen: Believing CO2 controls the climate ‘is pretty close to believing in magic’ http://www.climatedepot.com/20...

See subject. There is probably no better way to damage the climate change debate than to make absolutely absurd predictions. Just shut up. Keep the hyperbolic fear-mongering out of the discussion. http://www.climatedepot.com/20...

Medieval warm period was global: http://science.sciencemag.org/...
http://co2science.org/data/mwp...
http://www.climatedepot.com/20...

What I asked, was not "why is this posted", but why does it matter to the climate debate? People are saying (incorrectly), things like "See, even Trump agrees, it must be true!"

So, I ask, why would his agreeing make it true, if his disagreeing would not have made it false? See, what I mean, Sparky?

Can we report that Trump says climate change is a hoax?

Remember that whole "fake news" thing? Yep, I bet you do. Your comment is coming based on that fake news.

http://www.americanthinker.com...

http://www.killclimatedeniers....

http://www.climatedepot.com/20...

Calling upon the government to execute those with a different point of view is something I'd consider a death threat.

There is not ratified treaty, there is nothing beyond a gentlemen's agreement that other people won't behave badly. It is not often you find agreement between such idealogically disparate organizationshttps://www.cato.org/publications/testimony/pitfalls-unilateral-negotiations-paris-climate-change-conference or https://thinkprogress.org/no-the-paris-climate-agreement-isnt-binding-here-s-why-that-doesn-t-matter-62827c72bb04 or even http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/09/01/un-paris-climate-pact-remains-non-binding-meaningless/

as for the laws of nature, suckers stop chanting and start running now. Zika forever. http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/zika-virus-travel-brazil-male-infertility-sterility-south-america-central-america-caribbean-a6834091.html

You're confusing the *global* CO2 with the human-caused CO2. And it's a common mistake, because they are deliberately encouraging that confusion. If you do enough research for yourself (and I recommend that you do, because you won't believe me if you don't), you'll find that 2% - 6% is the accepted range. I just split it at 4% for the purposes of the example. Also...here's 31,487 scientists that say there is no AGW: http://www.petitionproject.org... Plus, these 1000: http://www.climatedepot.com/20... ...and here's 1350+ peer-reviewed papers that say you're wrong: http://www.populartechnology.n...

40 years ago everyone was convinced the earth going into a global ice age...

You point to an article titled "Scientific Opinion" and want me to believe it is science? Science isn't opinion. And Opinion isn't science. You might want to recall that Piltdown Man was once Science Opinion.

Except for the consideration of too much CO2 and too much heat. Not to mention the disruptive effects on human infrastructure.

Pure speculation (Subjective). .

Look, if you want to go to the IPCC

IPCC has been caught fudging numbers. Pointing to made up data to support claims isn't really all the productive.

But since you like using Opinion as science here:

http://www.climatedepot.com/20...

http://mediatrackers.org/wisco...
http://www.washingtontimes.com...
http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news...
http://www.campusreform.org/?I...
http://www.mediaite.com/online...
http://taxprof.typepad.com/tax...
http://www.climatedepot.com/20...
http://freebeacon.com/issues/s...
http://overlawyered.com/2015/0...
http://legalinsurrection.com/2...
http://dailycaller.com/2014/03...

Sure, let's use "inflection point" - I'll pick the maunder minimum...or the medieval warm period...or the holocene optimum :)

We've got plenty of evidence of inflection points. Plenty of moments where temperatures started ticking up, and plenty of moments where temperatures started ticking down. The ice core records actually show a fairly regular pulse, with pleasant interglacials (like the one we're in now) much rarer than the cold, deadly earth.

Let's try this thought experiment - what if you're right, and AGW is both real and significant - and it's the only thing that delays or mitigates the next ice age? What happens if it is our CO2 emissions that *save* the planet? Would you be on the other side of the fence, demanding more offshore oil exploration, or natural gas drilling? Would you be demanding the dismantling of solar plants and wind farms? Would you encourage a massive program of scientists to study ways of injecting more CO2 into the atmosphere?

Now, some people are honestly thinking their thoughts and actions regarding AGW are just to save the planet, with no other motives. Others have the amazing ability to prescribe the exact same remedy no matter what the problem is (for example, the late Stephen Schneider - http://www.climatedepot.com/20...).

Which type do you think you are?

Except the people actively shutting down scientists that don't conform to the agenda:

http://www.climatedepot.com/20...

http://www.natureworldnews.com...

http://godfatherpolitics.com/2...

Its all fine and dandy to call me names, but do you have any proof of the contrary?

I'll submit as exhibit A, all the western governments public budget reports for the last 3 decades.

Oh yeah, and this too:

Main Signatory of that RICO letter, been siphoning up to a Million a year from grant money he's getting through his NGO for a part time job.
http://www.climatedepot.com/20...

Direct documents are here:
http://www.guidestar.org/ViewP...
http://state-employees.findthe...
http://www.guidestar.org/FinDo...

You should tell them that those in glass houses shouldnt throw stones.

http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/temperatures-were-warmer-than-today-for-most-of-the-past-10000-years/question-4723358/
Fifteen thousand years ago, temperatures rose 10 to 20 degrees in just one century.........

About 12,800 years ago we plunged into the Younger Dryas...... When we came out of the Younger Dryas, temperatures again
shot upward, rising 15 degrees in just 40 years.

The end of the Younger Dryas cold period warmed by 9F ( 5C) over 30-40 years and as much as 14F (8C) over 40 years.

http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/01/16/scientists-balk-at-hottest-year-claims-we-are-arguing-over-the-significance-of-hundredths-of-a-degree-the-pause-continues/
Climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke Sr., commenting on claims that 2014 was the warmest year on record: 'We have found a significant warm bias. Thus, the reported global average surface temperature anomaly is also too warm.'

Global climate changes have been far more intense (12 to 20 times as intense in some cases) than the global warming of the past century, and they took place in as little as 20–100 years.

Oh...sorry....you just wanted me to post a single already-posted graph. I guess I didn't follow your instructions properly, huh?

I have seen the reports. I do not know if they are accurate or reliable. I am asked to present citations for this. Yet, I have repeatedly seen people claim that Big Oil supports AGW deniers but no one ever gives any citations to support that stance. It is just accepted as true.

Well here are some citations for what I said. I will repeat that I do not know if they are true, so don't respond by telling me they are biased sources:

http://www.climatedepot.com/20...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/la...

Even that promoter of non-skeptical acceptance of global alarmism "Skeptical Science" admits that Big Oil now supports AGW alarmism:
http://www.skepticalscience.co...

There are more. How about some citations supporting the allegation that Big Oil supports AGW skeptics?

Even the IPCC has said the same thing, ask them.

It's your priests spreading inconsistent messages, don't ask me to make sense of them.

The IPCC says that. Others too

Facts, or 2014 wasn't the warmest year once NOAA and NASA got called out on changing how their methodology once they made the claims. In fact 2014 was only .02C higher than the second highest year, well within the margin of error.
(Sorry I can't provide a link to NOAA showing this, because they quietly corrected their website about 2 weeks after their alarmists press conferences and didn't have a press conference to cover their retraction)

So please continue the lies. They are becoming easier and easier to debunk and showing more people "on the fence" about AGW who the liars are.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/do...

The report is a little big, heading toward 46 Megabytes, but I'm certain there is a typo in there that will allow you to refute the whole concept of AGW.

Have at it.

But wait! There's more!

Climate data online

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-w...

Paleoclimatology data

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-...

Probably what people are referring to in trying to say there has been no warming recently is the Monckton analysis:

http://www.climatedepot.com/20...

He's an interesting character, for those who like to talk about Mann's irascibility. He wants scientists to be Christian, (or other appropriate religion) and wants climate change supporters to wear Swastikas in order to identify them.

I only put that in here because deniers like to talk about Mann's personality, yet one of deniers biggest hero's is a hoot in his own right. But if he were correct, it doen't matter. Science is not right or wrong based on personality.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/ind...

But he's pretty well been debunked now.

http://transitionculture.org/2...

The online presentation is the link you want.

Here is a response to the movie "The Great global Warming Swindle" a movie about how global warming isn't. It's a little sarcastic and snarky, but you might understand that.

http://www.durangobill.com/Swi...

The first instance is telling. Altered graphics and ommission of data thatat doesn't agree with a conclusion. Omitting the last 20 years temperature data is plain and simple - fraud in the name of denialism.

Anyhow, these are sources you can readily access via the internet. If you need more, I can find them for you. But you have an exercise first. Just one, taken from the last link. Explain how omitting the 20 years of data to prove the average global temperature is not increasing is ethical and honest, and adequate proof or disproof of anything. Might as well just drop all of the high temps, re-average, and claim it's getting colder. Yet it is the deniers "trump card".

And this is why deniers bear a strong relation to creationists. The Monckhaven analysis is brought up time and again despite it being proven false. Not a whole lot unlike creationists continuing to cite the "humans walking with dinosaurs" fossil, or "the eye is so complex" arguments or polonium halos or variable speed of light, or even the grandaddy of them all "Humans did not evolve from Monkeys or Apes", which is true enough, but only because humans and apes and monkees evolved from some common ancestor a long long time ago.

I would be leery about listening to Judith Curry. She is often wrong: https://www.skepticalscience.c...

I'd be leery of a series of greeny globalwarmy newsy 'Hottest Year' claims that are weighted heavily on surface thermometer readings and beat the previous record by "a tiny, effectively unmeasurable 0.02C" that is (conveniently, suspiciously) not divulged in the press release, an amount which is within the margin for error... lest people suspect that they are being emotionally manipulated in a very unscientific way. When you responsibly consider statistical error, 2014 is a tie year.

For a more reasoned compilation of sources on temperature data related to this announcement, check the sources cited on this evil page of devil-spawn skepticism at Climate Depot.

These announcements are good for only two things:
1. scaring people for political purposes
2. playing THE HOTTEST YEAR EVER! drinking game

We have a winner. Let's all have a drink.

much ado bout nothing.

It's not a coincidence that the solutions to "global warming" are an environmentalist's wet dream.

Wake up! You are being played. Why since 1880? Why not measure all the way back to the Medieval Warming period? Why not further? Maybe because it makes their claims bunk.

Lies. For the truth, read this.

Just shut up and send them some bags of grain right?

We send them our industrial base. We also send them signed trade agreements with MFN status.

They send us finished goods made safely outside the Environment. And sans any OSHA EPA NLRB costs, tariffs or the slightest customs impediment. Thus, we are free to pad our regulatory nest however much we need to gratify our environmental virtues.

And this scheme works ok until you create a huge cohort of former-middle-class-now-subsistence-worker voters. Those folks have no patience for hypocrite climate warriors.

The GP is dead-on correct. Cold, hungry people don't count carbon molecules while sitting in the dark.

The above might eventually make sense to the common mope — after enough of his wealth and liberty are outlawed. But I am far more cynical. You see, our elites don't actually work with this calculus. To them, "environmentalism" is a means to power, because nothing is beyond the scrutiny of their green tyranny.

Not to burst your bubble ... O what the hell.

Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis

Report: 1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against Man-Made Global Warming Alarm

No reason to mention the pro-AGW impending doom papers, no one doubts their existence.

My thoughts -- Yes, some GW is related to CO2, at least some fraction of the additional CO2 is due to man's activity, in particular burning of carbon fuels. It may even be a serious problem. BTW, what is the optimal level of CO2 anyway, be sure to show your work.

slashdot today!? ... difference between North and South

There is a distinction between the two, of course, but it is without difference to the topic of this thread. Both ice-caps were supposed to shrink (with dire consequences for the rest of the world, of course).

One expedition set out to measure the loss of the ice, found itself stuck in it — not that it changed the leading professor's opinion about the global warming...

The Antarctic sea ice extent was not and is not projected to shrink in the near term. It was expected to expand as a result of the influx of fresh water from increasing land ice melt. As the planet continues to warm it will reach a point where the ice extent will start shrinking again (as the 0C starts pushing further south), but that isn't projected to happen until later this century.

slashdot today!? ... difference between North and South

There is a distinction between the two, of course, but it is without difference to the topic of this thread. Both ice-caps were supposed to shrink (with dire consequences for the rest of the world, of course).

One expedition set out to measure the loss of the ice, found itself stuck in it — not that it changed the leading professor's opinion about the global warming...

The 1998 starting date is always used by AGW deniers. Always.

Here is a "denier" graph using a starting date other than 1998. That was very easy to find. I suppose you will complain about the data set they are using. (The RSS data shows the least amount of warming.) Fair enough. Here's a "denier" graph showing where the trend lines hit zero for the various datasets. You will note that not one of them uses 1998 as a start point.

What if we take into account the margin of error, where we can't rule out a trend of zero? (from here)

For UAH: Since March 1996: CI from -0.001 to 2.341
For RSS: Since December 1992: CI from -0.015 to 1.821
For Hadcrut4: Since November 1996: CI from -0.003 to 1.184
For Hadsst3: Since August 1994: CI from -0.014 to 1.666
For GISS: Since October 1997: CI from -0.002 to 1.249

I don't see 1998 anywhere.

What about mainstream sources? Here is a link to the journal Nature that acknowledges the "mysterious" 16 year pause.

Judith Curry writes: "Depending on when you start counting, this hiatus has lasted 16 years. Climate model simulations find that the probability of a hiatus as long as 20 years is vanishingly small. If the 20 year threshold is reached for the pause, this will lead inescapably to the conclusion that the climate model sensitivity to CO2 is too large. Further, 20 years is approaching the length of the warming period from 1976-2000 that is the main smoking gun for AGW."

Look at the RSS Data. The satellite data fits the null hypothesis well enough. It's only with the "adjustments" to the land stations that you get pronounced warming over the past 100 years. (You can cherry pick your own data set for entertainment, but it's far less alarming than the BS land data in any case.)

But the interesting point isn't really is the Earth warming - certainly at some time scale it is. The interesting point isn't how much is human activity affecting this, vs the normal climate cycle (which I'm not believing anyone on till the models accurately predict divergence form the null hypothesis). The interesting question is do we want it warmer or colder. Funny how the left mostly lives on the coasts, where warming is more threatening (well, I'm in Seattle, and so I'm screwed either way - the glaciers were quite a bit south of here last time around IIRC).

On top of that you can't ignore the heat stored in the oceans and that hasn't slowed down at all.

Is that heat we can't measure, but must be stored in the oceans otherwise we'd be wrong?

July 1936 was the hottest month in the temperature record, then it wasn't, now it is again; so who is the denialist? RSS temperature data set shows no warming for 17 years and even hunts at a possible cooling, UAH temperature record shows no significant warming for 17 years and the USCRN even shows a 10 year pause in warming; so again who is the denialist?

It's what the scientists believe.

Really, there's a whole lot of weirdness going on in the IPCC. They come out and claim increasing certainty in global warming, while supporting scientists ask how there can be increasing certainty when their own experiments have lower confidence. The viewpoint from the United States is distorted due to inferior technology and medieval scientific procedures; the modern world has advanced far beyond the primitive tribes of the far west.

1. Warming is happening.

link

Well, let's start with your first point. No global warming for 210 months. You lie, period, end of story. Everything else you say I'm just going to assume is also a lie.
AGW supporter trumped by actual science and fact! Easy as 123!

"And this is why we fail."

Yep. That's why you fail. We KNOW that the survey that reported a 97% consensus was, in fact, bogus. 75 or so cherry-picked responses out of a 10,000-person survey is not anything a responsible statistician would call valid. And the "expert" doesn't even try to defend it. He does a fine job of moving the goalposts, but he doesn't support the actual claim at all. Because, of course, he knows it's bogus. We also know, from the science, that there is no significant evidence that "climate change" has been increasing either the number or severity of extreme weather events. And so on. The real question here is why a politician is actually asking perfectly legitimate questions, but is being labeled stupid on Slashdot for doing so. This is the domain of ideologues, not science.

You forgot to mention Al Gore. Seriously, this post explains why we'll never be able to defeat politicians on the ground of scientific illiteracy.

"And this is why we fail."

Yep. That's why you fail.

We KNOW that the survey that reported a 97% consensus was, in fact, bogus.

75 or so cherry-picked responses out of a 10,000-person survey is not anything a responsible statistician would call valid.

And the "expert" doesn't even try to defend it. He does a fine job of moving the goalposts, but he doesn't support the actual claim at all. Because, of course, he knows it's bogus.

We also know, from the science, that there is no significant evidence that "climate change" has been increasing either the number or severity of extreme weather events. And so on.

The real question here is why a politician is actually asking perfectly legitimate questions, but is being labeled stupid on Slashdot for doing so.

This is the domain of ideologues, not science.

http://www.climatedepot.com/20...

Well we seem to be breaking all time cold and snowfall records so...

That is, quite frankly, offensive, and shows ignorance about the work of real scientists.

When cosmetologists work on a model, they refine and test their techniques until they can successfully predict how everything will turn out, and in fact time proves their predictions right. To put it another way, if they consistently gave a bad haircut, they would go out of business. Because it turns out that models can't stand a bad haircut.

Climatologists, on the other hand... well, don't take it from me. Read Feynman on cargo cult science in general, and Richard Lindzen on climate alarmism in particular.

Bottom line -- shame on you for lowering cosmetologists to the level of (OK... _some_) climatologists.

Extreme weather is becoming more prevalent

Citation needed. Actually, don't bother — I'll offer evidence to the contrary. In 2005 US was hit with 14 hurricanes, 10 in 2012. The average for period between 1944 and 2005 is 6. Is there a rise? Hardly — between 1885 and 1889 there were 26...

Though attempts are made regularly to tie a particular weather-event to the evil human-caused climate change, they are routinely debunked and never repeated — until the next such event.

None of the dire predictions made 40, 30, 20, or 10 years ago came to life. Over the years, we moved from the threat of "Global Cooling" (temperatures, supposedly, falling), to "Global Warming" (temperatures, supposedly, rising) to "Climate Change" (direction-neutral term finally, so brochures don't need to reprinted as often) to, indeed, "Extreme Weather".

The label may be different, but the proposed "action" is always the same — citizens are urged to surrender more and more control over their lives to their governments, while the governments in turn are asked to surrender to the United Nations — because those omniscient and benevolent bureaucrats just know better than the poor little people, bless their little hearts.

If you intend to engage in adult conversation, kindly cease your condescension.

Sorry about that, most of the links you have ever provided me with are full of tabloid ad-homs about "greedy scientists selling their soul", so I figured snaky catches your attention. ;)

Nothing below the above sarcastic apology is intended to be insulting / snarky / sarcastic / offensive / condescending. I have used "scare quotes" in places where I lack a more descriptive phrase.

Seriously Jane, why do you go to Senator James (coal state) Inhofe's propaganda site to read their interpretation of what "peer-reviewed and/or science-oriented journals" say about climate change? Why not go directly to where the cream of the climate science community hangs out ?

I know you pride yourself on being a skeptic and we've talked about self-skepticism before, so in all seriousness here's the challenge.

Take a random climate depot article about the AR5, take a random climate science article about the AR5. Pick out a few random contradictions between the two articles that can be resolved by checking the AR5. Let me know how you go, no need to respond here if you don't have the time right now, I will remember for next time we cross paths. In the spirit of non-snarkyness. I'm willing to spend an hour or so to do a similar self-assessment on my own claims if you can offer one that you think may help me see "the error of my ways".

Personally I think that if your not concerned about climate change and the current political response then you are simply not paying attention. So use the PRIMARY source Jane, it's more ardours than the myriad he-said-she-said sources but it will free your mind as it did mine in the mid 90's. When/if that happens you will understand why I (unintentionally) haunt your posts. There is no shame in ignorance or falling for corporate propaganda, however refusing to use basic research techniques such referring to primary sources to resolve apparent contradictions, is just another way of saying "wilfully ignorant".

Seriously, I was you in my early 20's, albeit with a different subject, when you try the exercise above your going to get pretty pissed at the people who have "brainwashed" you into doing their bidding. If you want a "mastermind propagandist" to focus you anger then Inhofe is the common thread that runs through the vast majority of links you have thrown at me. When you see one of their victims in the future you will want to shake them like I shake you every now and then (often without realising it's you before I hit submit). So here's a couple of obvious questions you might ask about me...

Why do I care if you or anyone else is "brainwashed" by corporate propaganda?
Why did I spend 30 minutes typing up this reply??

Simple succinct answer from "the greatest polymath of all time" - "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities" - Voltaire.

I'm not immune to that law of human behaviour and neither are you, I have no other motive to convince you AGW is a problem other than my 3 grandkids will have to live with our collective decisions. I may "take the piss" every now and then but if you can manage to take a step back from the verbal duelling thing we have going, you might be able to see that I am a

Screaming is the only thing the Alarmists know how to do. Well, that and call names if you mention that all they know how to do is scream.

I guess they missed this, I know, I know, "but, but. but it's a Denier site!" Try to put aside your innate bigoted attitudes and look at the data. It's historical (i.e. not made up with computer models).

"Climate is defined as the statistics of weather"

I know what climate is, and you know from our past conversations that I know that. If you intend to engage in adult conversation, kindly cease your condescension. Nobody ELSE in this thread has so far seen fit to engage in that kind of behavior.

"And no, despite what the opinion pages of the Washington post says"

I didn't pull any of my information here from the opinion pages of the Washington post. The ultimate sources have all been from peer-reviewed and/or science-oriented journals, except for THIS exchange with Dr. Richard Lindzen, which was quoted online elsewhere and in some newspapers.

"the IPCC are even more pessimistic about the outlook than they were in 2007 and much more certain that the warming trend seen over the last century is entirely due to man"

Repeat: those are the conclusions in their summaries. The question is (and this was the entire point of this thread): does the science contained in the reports actually support those conclusions? Many scientists are saying no.

"You have willing put your mind in a political cage and it has blind sided you to common-sense and introspection."

This is pretty hilarious. I have cited peer-reviewed papers, and statements by scientists who support the position I have described. Do you feel like rebutting what they had to say? Links are above. Feel free. Until then, I have no reason to take you seriously.

They do?

Sounds like a climate scientist at MIT has called the IPCC report a joke, and he used to be on the UN IPCC panel. So I guess you'll have to ignore that little fact and continue on with name calling because once again you have lost the debate.

"Simply false" ? Only to the left wing AGW proponents driving their SUVs and flying around every week in their private jets, while living in the huge mansions, buying carbon offsets from a company they own.

Oh, and here: http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/09/01/antarctic-ice-sheet-growing-study-mass-gains-of-the-antarctic-ice-sheet-exceed-losses/