Climate panel: Time for a refit?09:55am on 11 Feb 2010Re. #67, Brian, your argument is fallacious because pollution levels are not proportional to population levels. When I was a child, pollution in our cities was far worse than it is now (because of the Clean Air acts). The London smog used to be famous throughout the world and there is no smog in London now.
It is perfectly feasible, using existing technology, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (and pollution levels generally) dramatically while the population continues to rise.
Climate panel: Time for a refit?09:43am on 11 Feb 2010Re. #64, LabMunkey: taking into account the points I made in #52, on what are you basing your statement that the IPCC has lost its credibility (other than among people with an agenda or among people who have been misled by the irresponsible and wildly exaggerated reports in the media)?
Global temperature change (over a significant period) is caused by a change in the balance between energy being absorbed by the atmosphere (from the sun) and energy escaping from the atmosphere. Greenhouse gas levels are one of the main factors that determine where that balance lies. The amount of energy being generated by the sun in another, and some other factors include aerosol levels, and long term changes in global cloud cover.
Whereas short term regional temperature changes are caused by changes in wind direction or intensity, or changes in ocean currents, or other changes in the distribution of energy within the atmosphere.
In the case of Washington (and the UK), the recent cold weather was simply a result of Arctic winds blowing into Washington (and the UK) - and as a result of those same winds, the Arctic and Canada both had a much warmer January than normal.
Try to show a bit of scepticism (in the true sense of the word), instead of accepting at face value what the so-called sceptics (who are mostly just propagandists) are telling you.
Climate panel: Time for a refit?09:15am on 11 Feb 2010Re. 54, FergalR, the Summary for Policy Makers is the only section of the IPCC reports that policy makers (including government ministers) read. As for the first sentence of your post, I have no idea what you are talking about, if anything; but if you are making a substantial point, then I suggest you provide a link to the quotes you are referring to, and I will be happy to comment on them.