[chuckm]

Okay, jamesqf wants me to stop believing things and start thinking instead. NeilBlanchard want me to stop thinking and let the experts do that, saying it is "arrogant" for anybody else to question their conclusions. What to do?

Neil, I assume you are accusing me of being arrogant by disagreeing with these scientists. If it is arrogant to "reinterpret the data," then can you tell me how is that different than a dogmatic and authoritarian religion?

BTW, in reading that report, I happened to notice a GLARING error.

Since 1905 the average temperature of the planet, then at 14oC, has increased 2.5%, an unusually rapid rate (a 0.35oC rise). Over the last 25 years, from 1970 to 2005, it went up 4% (or 0.55oC). The total increase in global average temperature represents a rise of 5.4% (or 0.74oC) since 1750.

What's the problem? Simply this: units. They are using Celsius rather than Kelvin. Using Kelvin, 14oC becomes 287K. Recalculating the percentages, using Kelvin transforms the 2.5% into 0.11%. Next, using Kelvin transforms 4% into 0.19%. Finally, the scary 5.4% becomes 0.26%. Why is this important? Because 0oC represents only the temperature at which water freezes, nothing more. Picking that temperature scale only serves to blow the percentages higher. It is a disingenuous and self-serving choice of units.

Natural global temperature swings, whether up or down, took millennia to work themselves out. But over time the global climate itself is relatively stable and predictable.

Again, I've already shown that these generalizations are either false (again, the 8.2k event was a drastic 6oC shift that occurred in a 5 year time span) or gross misrepresentations (the Volstok ice cores show 8-10oC variations 5 times in the last 400 years... is that stable?).

IPCC scientists say that even if GHG concentrations remain at constant year 2000 levels (which have already been exceeded), the global average temperature will likely rise from 0.3 to 0.9oC per decade.

I find this assertion to be vague and nearly useless. The implication is that temperatures will increase by 0.3-0.9oC every decade forever and ever. Such an implication is ridiculous; at some point, the temperature rise will stop (basic thermodynamics!). Besides, earlier periods with high CO2 concentrations had temperatures that were as stable, though 2-3oC higher, as ours - see above . Instead, they should have said that temperatures will increase by 0.3 - 0.9oC each decade for the next x years. But leaving the blank implication is much scarier.

Again, challenge me with facts. Until I see you present facts, my response to you will be like the French soldier in Monty Python and the Quest for the Holy Grail:

Sir Galahad: Is there someone else up there we can talk to?
French Soldier: No, now go away or I shall taunt you a second time.