Grunff wrote:

Peter Ashby wrote:

Okay then, the IPPCC report found that it was so highly probable that
the observed warming is anthropogenic as to render the difference
between this wording and Dave's so minor as to be ridiculously pedantic.

Not even that.


As a scientist I was convinced by the science in the report before last
and reasonably persuaded long before that.

As an ex-scientist, I am left entirely unconvinced.

For what reasons? What about the physics of greenhouse gases is wrong?
What about the computer models is wrong? Noting that the more detail is
put in the closer they get to the observed situation (always a good sign
when modelling). What about the historical correlations of CO2 levels
with temperature going back a long way now?

Picking up a few dissenters is also not what you might think. Some will
have had their names removed because the report as not radical ENOUGH,
not because they were sceptics.

Sure, but you get whacos and self-serving grant chasers in all disciplines.

So more ad hominem attacks on people in lieu of argument. You do know
that many scientists who contributed were absolutely disgusted that the
strength of the science got watered down by the politicians? THAT is
much more likely explanation than that they disagreed fundamentally with
what was a watered down conclusion. The fact is that the science is
firmer than the IPCC report says it is.

Peter
--
Add my middle initial to email me. It has become attached to a country
www.the-brights.net