"The bureaucrats had multiplied the effect of melting ice from the Greenland and West Antarctic Ice Sheets by 10."
How can they possibly justify that? Monckton claims the "error" was corrected silently, but worryingly, nobody else noticed...
"So the true increase in radiative forcing was 1 percent, not 20 percent. The IPCC has exaggerated the CO2 effect 20-fold."
He mentions the lack of the Stefan-Boltzmann law from the 2007 report. This is a fundamental law in climate science, indeed, I used it at University when studying a couple of courses in the climate. Practicality's Blog covers this too.
"For half a century we have been measuring the temperature in the upper atmosphere - and it has been changing no faster than at the surface. The IPCC knows this, too. So it merely declares that its computer predictions are right and the real-world measurements are wrong."
And there was me thinking that observations in science were held as being pretty close to being absolute proof... Unless, of course, there are things interfering with the observations.
"If we deny them the fossil-fuelled growth we have enjoyed, they will remain poor and, paradoxically, their populations will continue to increase, making the world’s carbon footprint very much larger in the long run."
An interesting parallel is drawn between global warming, and the banning of DDT which was used to control Malaria... DDT was dangerous, but Malaria was even worse - as the recent reversal of this decision shows.
Socialism at its finest - keeping the poor in a state of poverty, and keep them dependant on the government to bail them out...
As reported here, scientists are grumpy about the UN plans for a global tax on carbon.
"What we see unfolding in Bali is one of the major final stepping stones on the road to a complete globalist stranglehold on reducing the living standards of everyone in the industrialized world, and a scheme to prevent the third world from ever lifting itself out of poverty."
The overwhelming message from the letter written to the UN, is this: adapt!
"the IPCC's conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions."
NASA has recently come under fire for being crap - oops, there goes the quality control procedures! My favourite line is in the comments...
"If AGW were a company, this is really all I would need to refuse to invest in it, or sell my stock if I held any. For NASA to be in effect leaving its independent role to endorse a partisan site linked to Gore is quite wrong, and undermines its credibility."
The question is really, how to make other folk realise this?
El Reg reports that the famous climate models aren't really modelling the climate as we know it... Pesky reality, not matching the simulations!
That's the trouble with computer models - as Johnny and I have discussed on many occasions, computers just don't work the way we want them to... If observations are just not up to what the models say they should be - what should we believe? Well, as a scientist, I'd go with the observable every time. And when you consider the funding put into the AGW debate, then suddenly everything becomes clear...