I think it should be noted that Roger A. Pielke Snr. who's workgroups blog this is taken from is criticising the IPCC report and not the existence Climate Change it's self. If you go to this page and follow the Main Conclusions link in the right hand sidebar you will see that far from questioning the existence of climate change he is merely questioning SOME of the methods used by some scientists. The following is a direct quote from that page:

Humans are significantly altering the global climate, but in a variety of diverse ways beyond the radiative effect of carbon dioxide. The IPCC assessments have been too c...

I think it should be noted that Roger A. Pielke Snr. who's workgroups blog this is taken from is criticising the IPCC report and not the existence Climate Change it's self. If you go to this page and follow the Main Conclusions link in the right hand sidebar you will see that far from questioning the existence of climate change he is merely questioning SOME of the methods used by some scientists. The following is a direct quote from that page:

Humans are significantly altering the global climate, but in a variety of diverse ways beyond the radiative effect of carbon dioxide. The IPCC assessments have been too conservative in recognizing the importance of these human climate forcings as they alter regional and global climate. These assessments have also not communicated the inability of the models to accurately forecast the spread of possibilities of future climate. The forecasts, therefore, do not provide any skill in quantifying the impact of different mitigation strategies on the actual climate response that would occur.


-->

Also his son Roger A. Pielke Jr. is a professor in the Environmental Studies Program and holds a contrary opinion on the IPCC report and accepts the findings and the underlying science. I bet their family get togethers are a real hoot.

I accept the findings of the IPCC report and I know without any doubt Anthropogenic Global Warming is a scam.

But the findings of the IPCC report don't say that Anthropogenic Global Warming is a scam, in fact it says quite the opposite.

The SPM is not the report. The SPM is a political document written by politicians and abuses the IPCCs work.

The Summary for Policy Makers is part of the report. It is, as it's title suggests, a summary of the report written for policy makers by scientists. It does not abuse the IPCC's work, it is the IPCC's work. The list o...

I accept the findings of the IPCC report and I know without any doubt Anthropogenic Global Warming is a scam.

But the findings of the IPCC report don't say that Anthropogenic Global Warming is a scam, in fact it says quite the opposite.

The SPM is not the report. The SPM is a political document written by politicians and abuses the IPCCs work.

The Summary for Policy Makers is part of the report. It is, as it's title suggests, a summary of the report written for policy makers by scientists. It does not abuse the IPCC's work, it is the IPCC's work. The list of authors on the report contains no politicians only scientists.

IPCC, 2001? I though this was about the much more recent 2007 WG1 IPCC Report.

Regardless of that the 2001 report still does not say that there is has been no evidence detected to suggest the current warming trend is anthropogenic.

2001 Report

In section 12.6 (Concluding Remarks) of "The Scientific Basis" section of the report the following conclusions are stated which are then elaborated on.

20th century climate was unusual.

The observed warming is inconsistent with model estimates of natural internal
climate variability.

[i]The observed warming in the latter half of the 20th century appears to be
inc...

IPCC, 2001? I though this was about the much more recent 2007 WG1 IPCC Report.

Regardless of that the 2001 report still does not say that there is has been no evidence detected to suggest the current warming trend is anthropogenic.

2001 Report

In section 12.6 (Concluding Remarks) of "The Scientific Basis" section of the report the following conclusions are stated which are then elaborated on.

20th century climate was unusual.

The observed warming is inconsistent with model estimates of natural internal
climate variability.

The observed warming in the latter half of the 20th century appears to be
inconsistent with natural external (solar and volcanic) forcing of the climate
system.

The observed change in patterns of atmospheric temperature in the vertical
is inconsistent with natural forcing.

Anthropogenic factors do provide an explanation of 20th century temperature
change.

The effect of anthropogenic greenhouse gases is detected, despite uncertainties
in sulphate aerosol forcing and response.

It is unlikely that detection studies have mistaken a natural signal for
an anthropogenic signal.

This is from a six year old report and, as we all can see, the IPCC believed in anthropogenic climate change then as they do now in the 2007 report.

I have tried to find the statement in the report and cannot find any evidence to support your claim.

The report, which I provided a link to in my last post, is 785 pages long. The first chapter which is titled "The Climate System: an Overview" is an introduction to the report and finishes on page 98. So if this quote was contained in this report it would have been in the part of the paper which is setting out it's objectives, and therefore could not be considered as a conclusion on the state of anthropogenic climate change according to the IPCC.

It may be that you have a summarised version of the report or have taken this from another part of the report (there are 4 sections, but it is...

I have tried to find the statement in the report and cannot find any evidence to support your claim.

The report, which I provided a link to in my last post, is 785 pages long. The first chapter which is titled "The Climate System: an Overview" is an introduction to the report and finishes on page 98. So if this quote was contained in this report it would have been in the part of the paper which is setting out it's objectives, and therefore could not be considered as a conclusion on the state of anthropogenic climate change according to the IPCC.

It may be that you have a summarised version of the report or have taken this from another part of the report (there are 4 sections, but it is the first which deals with the dissemination of scientific data. The other sections deal with the impact of climate change, what can be done to mitigate this impact and a Synthesis Report which is a summary of the 3 previous volumes intended for governmental, commercial and media consumption).

If I am mistaken I would appreciate if you could point out exactly where this occurs. I have provided this link again HERE.

Regardless of one "quote" the conclusions, some of which I listed previously, are quite clear in the IPCC's support of the existence of anthropogenic climate change.

I feel you misunderstand me. I am, as most in the science community are, a believer that some of the activities of humans are having a detrimental effect on the environment. This is especially becoming increasingly significant in the effects which are changing the environment globally. I realise that there is by no means a consensus on the rate and magnitude of the change, but that there is on the effects, which will be felt worst by the poorest in the world and will place extreme pressure on the global economy.
As for being disagreeable I have merely been pointing out the shortcomings in your argument. The climate is far too complex an issue to be discussed in any real meaningful depth in a...

I feel you misunderstand me. I am, as most in the science community are, a believer that some of the activities of humans are having a detrimental effect on the environment. This is especially becoming increasingly significant in the effects which are changing the environment globally. I realise that there is by no means a consensus on the rate and magnitude of the change, but that there is on the effects, which will be felt worst by the poorest in the world and will place extreme pressure on the global economy.
As for being disagreeable I have merely been pointing out the shortcomings in your argument. The climate is far too complex an issue to be discussed in any real meaningful depth in a forum such as Clipmarks, which is designed in a way which showcases the breadth of the Internet rather than the depth of individual topics. Therefor this is more about soundbite opinions which, in this post, have relied on taking scientific content out of context and quoting it as scientific fact.

The exact quote does indeed exist in the 2001 IPCC report, but in the part of the paper which is setting out the objectives. Also note how the quoted passage differs from the one you gave earlier; instead of

"There is NO evidence to suggest the current warming trend is anthropogenic"

it says

"... does not mean an anthropogenic effect on the climate system has been identified."

two quite different things I'm sure you'll agree. The passage also goes on to say that

"A more detailed analysis is required to provide evidence of a human impact. Identifying human-induced climate change requires two steps. First it must be demonstrated that an observed climate change is unusual in a statistical sense. ... Having detected a climatic change, the most likely cause of that change has to be established. This is the attribution problem. Can one attribute the detected change to human activities, or could it also be due to natural causes?"