Why would an AGW denier be advertising the Royal Society climate change summary guide?

I have to say I am perplexed by this as well.

The Royal Society is pretty much unequivocal in belief that man is causing a significant portion of climate change through greenhouse gas emissions and land use changes.

The efforts of the contributor in question to twist the statements of the RS to support his political affiliations is odd yet sickly amusing.

I only worry that many reading this forum, and unaware of the untruthfulness of this contributor, believe that he speaks the truth.

Richard this is a good question as the Royal Society report on Climate Change is indeed not as black or white as many alarmists like to portray. I tend to stay away from the rhetoric in the report like what is included in your question, not because I disagree with what is said, but because it is the actual numbers that are input into the computer models and I feel that it is only fair that people should be aware of these vast ranges and uncertainties.

Sure enough the Royal Society say that AGW is highly likely however as can be seen from the data in the report the actual results of AGW are extremely uncertain and therefore I am very sceptical of the predictions of doom and gloom made by many of the alarmists here!!!

You can thumb me down however the facts (Numbers) of The Royal Society Report speak for themselves.

Because they want to impress people with their 'superior knowledge' knowing full well 99% of the people do not bother to check.

It's the Ann Coulter tactic, as described in Al Franken's "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them".

I have confronted this particular AGW denier repeatedly in the past here on YA for mistakenly referring to the Royal Society as if they back up his point, for blatantly inserting his own personal opinion into quotes of the society's Guide on the Science behind Global Warming and for quote-mining (ie the guide's statement on IPCC findings are referred to as Royal Society knowledge).

Not surprisingly, this Royal Society fan has now blocked me from further participating in his 'highly interesting' questions.

A long standing and well demonstrated lack of understanding of even basic science.

Because he found a phrase that he can cherrypick and take out of context to make it seem like the Royal Society is 'skeptical' of AGW.

Dishonest cherrypicking seems to be the favorite pastime of most AGW deniers. Those like Monckton cherrypick small amounts of data to support their ridiculously wrong conclusions.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/monckton-myth-7-sn...

Those like the deniers on this site, who don't even have sufficient scientific knowledge to dishonestly manipulate data, will instead dishonestly manipulate phrases and quotes. That's why they became so obsessed with Climategate - they were able to take phrases like "hide the decline" out of context to make it seem like climate scientists are a bunch of frauds. No intelligence or scientific ability necessary - just quote mine and misrepresent what the scientists actually say. The same is true with misrepresenting the Royal Society.

Deniers are a desperate bunch.

It's called preaching to the ignorant. LOL! Sorry just a joke.

Because he knows exactly what he's doing. He knows what the Royal Society stands for. He knows that what he i9s doing is cherry picking. He also knows that his main goal in here is to troll these forums and try and cast doubt where there is really no doubt to cast.

Because they think that cherry-picking phrases out of context and misrepresenting what others say qualifies as legitimate research, and because they believe all conflicting evidence is the result of criminal data manipulation by a vast global conspiracy of various anti-conservative and un-American political groups.

Ditto to Rio's answer.

Excuse me, but didn't you just cherry pick 57-59?