Ha! Proof that the IPCC report IS wrong - now what do you say?

LOL Now you're the one who's teasing the "little ones."

Truthfully this news is a little sad. I know some like to accuse AGW proponents of being personally invested in the idea, but I really would welcome the news that the IPCC had overestimated, rather that understimated, the severity of the situation.

The IPCC had to operate on a consensus basis. That always tends to move the conclusions away from the more extreme positions of an issue.

What would be funny is hearing the "skeptics" comments about a report that actually WAS written by alarmists. The constant accusations by "skeptics" that the IPCC is a group of alarmists is pure ignorance on their part.

The IPCC puts out a good, comprehensive (yet conservative) analysis of all the published research on climate change. It's not perfect, but it's the best we have to determine the actual state of climate change and the most informed projections of future consequences.

you have this backward. because of the fact the IPCC report delivers an concept, the load of knowledge is on the proponents of the thought. it particularly is the way technology works. of course, you could desire to argue that the IPCC isn't probable a scientific physique, yet a political one. i could nevertheless evaluate the load of knowledge to be on them, in spite of the shown fact that, in the event that they're asking me to alter my life type.

It seems to be a common held belief (by deniers) that their is no debate in scientific cycles, there is and one of the main ones even with many who contributed to the IPCC is that the figures that the IPCC were releasing were to conservative. In spite of the silly conspiracy theories that show up here all this shows is that they were to conservative

"Ha! Proof that the IPCC report IS wrong - now what do you say?"

All this would mean is that the IPCC estimates for temp and sea rise are also underestimated, what do I say, damn!

I don't know if "wrong" is the word I'd use. It's been judged to be conservative, but it was a remarkable effort given what was involved.

The fact of the matter is we can run all the models 1,000 times over, we can hash over the data and talk until we're blue in the face, but we've got to collectively get serious about what's happening. Later we can point fingers or toss one back and say, "I remember when."

The U.S. position looks pretty silly about now, doesn't it?

Can you provide a link for your source? I like to read things in context and with appropriate references.

I think the IPCC tried to walk a fine line. I know there was a lot of debate about sea level rise, with many scientists arguing that the IPCC value was too low. Sometimes new papers came out too late for inclusion into the report, which might have made things seem even more dire. They had a set of criteria that they used for their research, one of which was publication date, and I think they stuck by it. Later research will be seen in the next report.

For believers this means the end of the world will be this month instead of 3 months from now.

They are not motivated by empirical data, and instead ignore data to the contrary no matter how compelling. An objective person tries very hard to avoid personal investments in a specific result.

someone should step outside & check the actual temperature occasionally. instead on engaging in retorical flights of fantasy.

emissions up=average temperature down? whats up with that?

My gauges state CO2 levels are now a bazillion times higher than any number anyone else can possibly come up with....yet this summer is STILL colder than any I can recall in the last decade or two. I guess the IPCC can't predict the future OR determine the influence CO2 plays on the environment.