What's this? IPCC scientists questioning their own science?

That is the very danger of the AGW theory, all this rush to action when they still aren't sure where they are rushing to or the exact reasons why. These are actual dollars of lost production we are talking about, not just some abstract intellectual discussion.

I think one reason they feel the need to rush into action and start the process of diminishing economic returns is that they know deep down that when everybody understands the true scope of the scam their opportunity to act will come to a close.

Political groups are trying to grab greater power over our standard of living, given the chance they will take from the haves to give to the have nots and at the same time either intentional or not, make sure all classes have less, all over an unproven theory popular among the elitists.

Cindy - thanks for pointing out either your serious lack of critical thinking or plain dishonesty.

""Also pertinent is the recent report by the Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change concluding that natural causes are likely to be the dominant cause of global warming, signed by 23 experts, including two highly qualified Australian scientists."

IPCC's OWN REPORT Bob..... Come on!!!!!"

That was not from the IPCC report. It was from the Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change (NGIPCC). The pathetic skeptic get-together in New York last March, and hosted by the equally pathetic heartland institute.

I feel I should point out, since you seem blissfully unaware, that the Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change isn't affiliated with the real IPCC in any way. It's a denialist think tank run by Fred Singer, the report was published by the Heartland Institute. In other words, it's nothing any reasonably intelligent person should take seriously.

As to your article, meh. It's just another rehashing of the same denialist garbage we've been over dozens of times before. Nothing worthwhile in it at all.

I assume by your "Funny" comment to Bob you are claiming the story in your link is fact "the Australian?" if you had looked at the link more closely you would have seen it is an "opinion piece" not a report, by a retired economist, Des Moore.

Another thing mentioned in the link,

"Also pertinent is the recent report by the Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change concluding that natural causes are likely to be the dominant cause of global warming"

The "Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change" is the work of Fred Singer, Grand Father of the denier movement, which is probably why the piece didn't mention him by name. The link below shows the same old trick as with the Oregon petition many of those listed as Engineers, Chemists and Economists.

Facts indeed!

Actually it is probably good that things like this keep getting posted as it is so easy to see through if you bother to do even a small Google search

Thanks Cindy.

The "Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change" is NOT the same as the IPCC. The IPCC is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It is a rather pathetic ploy to confuse people.

No.

The report you cite has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE IPCC "QUESTIONING THEIR OWN WORK'. It simply cites a few "skeptics". And the author, a former Treasury secretary, presumably an economist, makes a number of assertions with no real scientific backup.

At least as many scientists think the IPCC is too timid.

"Of course, being a consensus document, a lot of the material that I think is reasonably well-supported also gets weeded out through that process. If the IPCC says it you better believe it and then leave room to think it is actually a lot worse than they have said."

Tim Flannery

There are a very few scientific "skeptics". But the government of Australia properly feels it wrong to bet the future well being of the country on the very long shot (100:1 against?) that they're right, and that EVERY major scientific organization is wrong. Note that that includes the National Academy of Sciences, the American Chemical Society, and the American Institute of Physics, few of whose members get funding for global warming research.

EDIT - I don't know what he's referring to, but it's NOT an IPCC report. THE IPCC IS THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE. The fact that he's trying to confuse people about that is telling. As is the fact he succeeded. Bet this question gets taken down by the asker.

I also find it very interesting that as time goes by, more and more scientists are questioning the IPCC theory.

I am not convinced one way or the other. The temperature data used is full of proved / possible errors, and the theory concluded by the IPCC is just based on ratio and proportion of CO2 to Temperature data.

I am amazed there isn't many more scientists questioning the data and conclusion.

When the empirical evidence is stacked against you, you have to change you stance in order to save your reputation. As the earth starts to cool I suspect you will see more and more scientists doing the same.

People on this board have tried to downplay the significance of the event by saying it has nothing to do about the planet heating up. But whenever we argue that the costs of cutting back on co2 is too high, they counter argue that the costs of doing nothing is greater. But they are making the assumptions that hurricanes like Katrina will become the norm. And these are cost analysis based on Kyoto targets, not the 60% reduction many governments are saying we must now take. So now that the evidence is saying hurricanes will not be the norm, why should we cut back on costly co2 emissions?

The report you linked to simply cites a few skeptics. There are plenty of those, mainly working for the oil companies. The IPCC hasn't changed anything. Read before you write.

2 aussy scientists signed it. i now believe you .

hasn't GW been disproven (according to you) every since you got on YA?