“Which makes we wonder, Mr. Meyer, that if in fact “I make a lot of mistakes. My writing and position on climate change has evolved a lot since the beginning of this blog” should you be posting at all?”

The real question is should the IPCC be publishing at all?

I don’t recall anyone arguing that AGW is proven fake by virtue of the CRU emails, Mann’s data manipulation, Hansen’s unsupported ravings, or a plethora of other concerns. But many bloggers have used these as examples to refute Mr. Gore’s pronouncement that “the debate is over” or the unsubstantiated (and tired) claim that there is a vast consensus among scientists concerning AGW.

And lets leave the trolls to post their drivel. hunter proves the point that its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak (or post) and remove all doubt.

Notice that our friendly troll, at the end of the day seeks the same thing as the immature teen whining to silence skeptics.

The most important is a claim that global warming could cut rain-fed north African crop production by up to 50% by 2020, a remarkably short time for such a dramatic change. The claim has been quoted in speeches by Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, and by Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary-general.

…

The African claims could be even more embarrassing for the IPCC because they appear not only in its report on climate change impacts but, unlike the glaciers claim, are also repeated in its Synthesis Report.

…

The claims in the Synthesis Report go back to the IPCC’s report on the global impacts of climate change. It warns that all Africa faces a long-term threat from farmland turning to desert and then says of north Africa, “additional risks that could be exacerbated by climate change include greater erosion, deficiencies in yields from rain-fed agriculture of up to 50% during the 2000-20 period, and reductions in crop growth period (Agoumi, 2003)”.

“Agoumi” refers to a 2003 policy paper written for the International Institute for Sustainable Development, a Canadian think tank. The paper was not peer-reviewed.

I had a comment deleted from RealClimate that did nothing more than cite contrary evidence (in that instance NOAA and NWS reports from Alaska, where I live, that could not find any sign of global warming). That is the sort of thing religions do.

Additionally, as not-the-real-hunter so resolutely demonstrates, nothing says empty argument like ad hominem attack.

There is a different saying paralleling Napoleon’s quote: There is no point killing someone who is committing suicide.

“Which makes we wonder, Mr. Meyer, that if in fact “I make a lot of mistakes. My writing and position on climate change has evolved a lot since the beginning of this blog” should you be posting at all?”

Yup. They always undermine their own positions!

Nevertheless, I do have to point out that the comment “do much to undermine their own arguments” equally applies here. These things work both ways. If one is an outsider to this community, as I am, it becomes fairly apparent that the CS commentary is largely “unsupported” or supported by very questionable information – menacing emails sent by environmentalists, ‘proof’ that AGW is fake cross-posted by other marginally qualified or equally unqualified bloggers, and a string of pop-journalism from websources which have a decidedly conservative POV. For instance, can anybody find the above quote from Mr. Pachauri anyplace other than a) FOX News or b) an angry weather blog? Did anybody check?

Bridge-Dwellers like myself provide you with a valuable service – we remind you that you are preaching to the choir and that outside observers may not be as convinced of your reasoning and evidence as you are.

Which makes we wonder, Mr. Meyer, that if in fact “I make a lot of mistakes. My writing and position on climate change has evolved a lot since the beginning of this blog” should you be posting at all?

But such is the nature of blogging…