Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
Roger Chapman wrote:

On 03/12/2011 11:22, Nightjar wrote:


http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/12...et_carbon_leve
ls/

I mean it must have caused it. Nothing else changes climate
like CO2,
does it? Stands to reason dunnit?

Interesting linked stories there too:


http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03...lankton_boost/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06...pig_melt_clue/

The Register does seen to have an agenda.


http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/11...blem_in_global
_warming/

Apparently that being to publish facts that you find unpalatable.

If you don't see any bias in the slant The Register gives to its
stories
disparaging AGW then there is no hope for you.

I see a lot more bias in the IPCC report, such as asking contributors
whether they think that human activity has had an influence on climate
change, without any mechanism for ranking how serious they think that
influence has been, failing to give actual figures for the responses
but, instead, grouping them into categories labelled with leading
terms,
such as 'likely' (which covers anything from 66% to 95% - a huge gap
with a great potential for being used in a misleading manner) and a
large number of breaches of the protocols that exist to ensure that
reports are unbiased. That is far more serious than any bias in an
online article, as the IPCC report is what governments use to justify
their policies and it should be both unbiased and be seen to be
unbiased.

Are you really being serious?

How else do you express the results of an opinion poll but by grouping
answers into bands. Try and find faults in the theory if you will but
citing the results of an opinion poll as evidence of malpractice
really does take the biscuit.

Why does something like an IPCC Report contain a ****ing opinion poll in
the first place? Or are they looking forward to "Strictly Climate
Change" on BBC1 next year?

That was this year: I think its called Frozen Planet or something.