Paul Douglas: Summary on the State of the Climate
October 1, 2013
Summarizing the new IPCC Fifth Assessment is a job that will be ongoing for the next several years. Here Paul Douglas takes a pretty good 2 and a half minute swing.
with Peter Sinclair
Summarizing the new IPCC Fifth Assessment is a job that will be ongoing for the next several years. Here Paul Douglas takes a pretty good 2 and a half minute swing.
"The sharpest climate denier debunker on YouTube."
- TreeHugger
"@PeterWSinclair is a national treasure." - Brad Johnson, Publisher Hill Heat

October 2, 2013 at 2:46 am
Excellent short and snappy assessment – I wish our local kiwi denier would watch this, My Ken Ring regularly posts anti-AGW/Climate change science opinions on New Zealand’s Yahoo in an attempt to shape minds against the science, he does not allow comments so it is impossible to challenge his remarks. Mr Ring also predicts Earthquakes based on the moon and planet alignment (astrology) and authors yearly weather prediction almanacs for N.Z and Ireland (based on looking at previous official met office weather records) . If you are in a good mood feel free to have a look at his opinions (otherwise I strongly recommend you give it a miss) :
http://nz.news.yahoo.com/opinion/post/-/blog/19169147/climate-changers-dancing-in-the-streets/
October 6, 2013 at 8:07 am
… ok, I thought I was in a good mood, … but obviously not good enought to read through the entire stupidness in that Ken Ring article.
Btw… I noticed the strange focus on why it’s 95% certainty. It seems like it’s going to become a new denier talking-point that going from 90% to 95% would require some sort of hard mathematically calculated probabilistic uncertainty. – and since it isn’t then IPCC must be corrupt and the whole thing must be wrong.
Judith Curry also has been quoted feeding that talking-point.
Until now I haven’t been able to get anyone to give me a suggestion for another way a scientific panel for assessment of the evidence for at scientific theory should report it’s certainties.
It seems the deniers prefer just to critize and haven’t given it any thought how we would be able to – in general – formulate our certainty about scientific theories for the public and politicians …. besided (and this was the only suggestion): “Shut up”