Open Parachute had a amusing post on that topic “I thought the award for mistakes was mine!“.

One of my old papers has far more errors than the IPCC reports. These were all misspellings of my own name in the reference list.

Bloody spell checkers!

At least I usually write code far more than writing english, so at least the language and syntax gets checked by a compiler with no sense of humour and a fetish for valid machine code.

If the IPCC do something dumb that makes no difference to the underlying science —– they are completely discredited.

If a CCD walks into the room with his underpants on his head and declares that ‘therefore AGW is false’ —- laughing at him proves that AGW is completely discredited.

…did you actually go and read what Dr Roy is saying? he is a scientist, and used to work for NASA, so should be a good one too.

So you are impressed by a single scientist that USED to work for NASA?
Wonderful.

Then you’ll no doubt be really, really REALLY impressed by thousands of scientists who work for NASA….right now!
Read what NASA as to say on global warming.
They’re quite clear on the subject.

“According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007 and even the most committed global warming activists do not dispute this.”

UTTER BULLSHIT!

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2010/020310.html

Here’s what they actually say – you can read it for yourself in the link above.

“Arctic sea ice extent averaged for January 2010 was 13.78 million square kilometers (5.32 million square miles). This was 1.08 million square kilometers (417,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average for January, but 180,000 square kilometers (69,000 square miles) above the record low for the month, which occurred in January 2006.

Ice extent remained below normal over much of the Atlantic sector of the Arctic, including the Barents Sea, part of the East Greenland Sea, and in Davis Strait. The only region with above-average ice extent was on the Pacific side of the Bering Sea.”

If you continue to read what the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre say you will see that

“Analysis of data from the last three decades shows that the summer Arctic sea ice melt season now lasts nearly a month longer than it did in the 1980s. A later start of freeze-up and an earlier start to the melt season both contribute to the change.”

Hardly the start of the mini ice age and a total MISREPRESENTATION of what the scientists are saying.In fact they go on to say that the ice is disappearing at the rate of around 3.2% in January (supposedly the coldest month in the Artic winter) per decade at the present time.

David Rose again
“They say that their research shows that much of the warming was caused by oceanic cycles when they were in a ‘warm mode’ as opposed to the present ‘cold mode’.”

A complete misinterpretation of the Artic Oscillation. The effect of which of which is presented by Iprent in the graphic to this post, and which he goes at some length to explain.

From these two examples alone, if you take anything that David Rose says as true – then you are being very stupid indeed.

Now lookie here sonny! I’m white, male, and over 60 and so is Dr Jim S. And I think we could take offence at your stereotyping. Ageism is alive and well and living on the Standard!

By the way – a very good summary of the scientific process Lynn.

It is a sad commentary on the standard of journos in this country that almost everything they write or talk about is based NOT on the content of the issue – but on the personalities behind it. “Is Phil Goff going to win votes with this speach?” “Is his leadership under threat?” “Here’s John Key at the concert – will this win him a few votes” etc etc…..
I have no faith in any journalist today to actually report accurately or discuss an issue without them delving into personalities if they even deal with the issue at all! They seem to be only concerned about gamesmanship. Quite frankly the sooner newspapers bite the dust as they ultimately will – they are becoming less and less important every day and less and less financially viable – the better.

Scientists are not gods. They are human. So your point is?

According to an August 12, 2005 New York Times article, Spencer, along with another well-known “skeptic,” John Christy, admitted they made a mistake in their satellite data research that they said demonstrated a cooling in the troposphere (the earth’s lowest layer of atmosphere). It turned out that the exact opposite was occurring and the troposphere was getting warmer.

“These papers should lay to rest once and for all the claims by John Christy, Spencer and other global warming skeptics that a disagreement between tropospheric and surface temperature trends means that there are problems with surface temperature records or with climate models,’ said Alan Robock, a meteorologist at Rutgers University.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.8d6e5773c60565dfc6e882b0a8dcbf18.4e1&show_article=1

The same could be said of the IPCC:

[deleted]
[lprent: There is no reason to put the same link in twice in the same topic unless you're making a different point. I tend to regard that as a symptom of link whoring. ]

Here and here.

Are you sure that adding more means a linear increase in warming. There is an argument that the effect of C02 reduces in a logarithmic fashion as C02 increases.

Umm yes that is Climate 101.