Thanks kevro, although my personal interests are far more spiritual I can often spend hours a day reading new climate data and have done for some years. It's not possible to stop sharing them once I found they weren't what our esteemed politicians were telling us as if I know differently (and others as well) and do and say nothing then no one else will have the chance to find out.

And these are for mountaingoat


“Such changes may be independent responses to a common forcing (e.g.greenhouse gases); however, it is also possible that some of the land warming is a direct response to changes in the AMO region. If the long-term AMO changes have been driven by greenhouse gases then the AMO region may serve as a positive feedback that amplifies the effect of greenhouse gas forcing over land. On the other hand, some of the long-term change in the AMO could be driven by natural variability, e.g. fluctuations in thermohaline flow. In that case the human component of global warming may be somewhat overestimated.”


"Projections of climate change and its impacts beyond about 2050
are strongly scenario- and model-dependent, and improved projections
would require improved understanding of sources of uncertainty and
enhancements in systematic observation networks. {WGII TS.6}"


"Uncertainty in the equilibrium climate sensitivity creates uncertainty
in the expected warming for a given CO2-eq stabilisation
scenario. Uncertainty in the carbon cycle feedback creates uncertainty
in the emissions trajectory required to achieve a particular
stabilisation level."

------------------------------------------

Now I think even you wouldn't expect me capable of using such technical rebuttals, but the first is from the recent BEST analysis of the recent temperature records, while the other two are from the IPCC itself as a policy guideline (among many similar) for reading their reports and associated material. I'd suggest everyone also does the same thing for the scientists themselves are certainly not sure, that is reserved for the politicians and media. The IPCC repeat such caveats in every one of their reports, even more so in the latest one, and it seems only the skeptics are bothering to read and apply them.

Cherry picking out of the full context of a massive report is trite.

Just saw this, the whole point is if you make general caveats and rules they incorporate everything else within the reports. It's not cherry picking, it's the wide context everything else needs looking at from. You don't set general rules and call them cherry picking when the complete set of findings must follow them, and many of these clearly haven't. The whole point is that had they applied the rules their own leaders (the IPCC) had made then many of the reports would never have even made it to the end as they'd have been weeded out. That means that in order to cherry pick you have to wade through miles of dross to pick out the relevant material. These rules are supposed to stop such random and ridiculous material even being considered as subject matter, let alone treated with equal status as hard measurements. It has brought the whole area into total disrepute and I'm sure Newton and Einstein are turning in their graves looking at how a proud academic area has become sold down the river by politics.