Here’s a direct quote from Darriulat’s submission
:
The way the SPM deals with uncertainties (e.g. claiming something is 95% certain) is shocking and deeply unscientific.
For a scientist, this simple fact is sufficient to throw discredit on the whole summary. The SPM gives the wrong idea that one can quantify precisely our confidence in the [climate] model predictions, which is far from being the case. [bold added]
Darriulat says
“the main point to appreciate” is that,
because the Summary was written for policymakers rather than for other scientists, it “can not be a scientific document.” His next remarks deserve to be displayed on every billboard in Times Square:
------------------------------------------------------
Darriulat seems to be attacking the IPCC from a scientific purest point of view.
And as we all know, AGW isn't based upon anything the IPCC says or does.
I certainly don't base my conclusions and opinions on anything the IPCC publishes. Look in the literature base, and what the professional scientific bodies are saying about AGW and the resultant climatic changes that awaits humanity.
Where does Darriulat refute the science of AGW?
As usual the denialists grab at any straw they can to attempt muddying the waters in the public realm.
End of story,.... nice and concise end to that rightie con theorists account of the world as we know it
Forum
Pages: 
