Talk:Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change/Archive 3

message: (William M. Connolley 08:59, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The first IPCC Assessment Report in 1990 found that the climate record of the past century was "broadly consistent" with the changes in Earth's surface temperature, as calculated by climate models that incorporated the observed increase in greenhouse gases. This conclusion, however, appears suspect considering the climate cooled between 1940 and 1975, just as industrial activity grew rapidly after World War II. It has been difficult to reconcile this cooling with the observed increase in greenhouse gases.
This is nonsense. There is no problem at all addressing the small cooling phase: its sulphates, mostly: see http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-4.htm. Inhofe has deliberately avoided using the TAR. His comments are either ignorant or deliberately misleading. Now, there is nothing wrong with reporting that he doesn't like the IPCC, but there is no point repeating verbatim incorrect arguments.
I've removed:
*: The IPCC report was replete with caveats and qualifications, providing little evidence to support anthropogenic theories of global warming. The preceding paragraph in which the "balance of evidence" quote appears makes exactly that point.
*: It reads: "Our ability to quantify the human influence on global climate is currently limited because the expected signal is still emerging from the noise of natural variability, and because there are uncertainties in key factors. These include the magnitude and patterns of long-term variability and the time evolving pattern of forcing by, and response to, changes in concentrations of greenhouse gases and aerosols, and land surface changes."
*: Moreover, the IPCC report was quite explicit about the uncertainties surrounding a link between human actions and global warming. "Although these global mean results suggest that there is some anthropogenic component in the observed temperature record, they cannot be considered compelling evidence of a clear cause-and-effect link between anthropogenic forcing and changes in the Earth's surface temperature."
*: Remember, the IPCC provides the scientific basis for the alarmists' conclusions about global warming. But even the IPCC is saying that their own science cannot be considered compelling evidence.
Because it was inserted into a criticism of IPCC section. I can't any of that as critical of the IPCC.
* Why can't you remove now? (SEWilco 20:39, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  SEW's addition: Inhofe, Christy: now Gray etc etc 

message: Read the changes you are making each time you revert, or don't edit.  In order to make Wikipedia work, you need to in good faith consider all edits on their merits.  You're not contributing in a positive way if you don't read the edits.  A good indicator that you aren't reading and fairly considering edits is when you find yourself repeatedly reverting highlighted spelling errors back into an article.  How many times are we going to criticize the IPCC for not having ass cement before someone bothers to read what they're editing?  Yes, that means you WMC and Marco Krohn.  Together you've reverted at least five times in two days       without reading what you were reverting.   — Cortonin | Talk 01:18, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Another unread edit, courtesy of Vsmith .  Please pay attention to the talk page...   — Cortonin | Talk 02:59, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK - will put those 4 s's back in next time, missed 'em in all that voluminous badmouthing :-). Vsmith 03:31, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Read