And to think I was taking you seriously, Shiner the Hoax Master.

Shiner's laws so far:
1) The (Government conspiracy people of Shiner's choice) organised to fly two aeroplanes into the Twin Towers
2) They then made them fall down with explosives to finish the job
3) And used a massive laser to do stuff to some cars on the ground
4) And then went "nah, not us, terrorists"
5) SARS is a hoax
6) Avian 'flu is a hoax
7) Swine 'flu is a hoax
9) Cervical Cancer Jabs is a hoax
10) Global Warming is a hoax, tens of thousands of scientists "debunked"
11) There is no oil depletion. The stuff just makes itself underground.
12) Nobody ever landed on the Moon, another hoax
13) Shiner is always right, of sorry, that's not a hoax

This might be a good place to explain your mad theories.
Leave the rest to the grownups.

OK, here is Shiners first point: IPCC was basing glacier melting theories on magazine clippings.

The media has been giving climatologists are hard time, recently. Mistakes have been made. The mistakes made were not of any great significance, in terms of our overall understanding of the role of CO2.

Here is the famous glacier part of the report:

"Himalayan glaciers cover about three million hectares or 17% of the mountain area as compared to 2.2% in the Swiss Alps. They form the largest body of ice outside the polar caps and are the source of water for the innumerable rivers that flow across the Indo-Gangetic plains. Himalayan glacial snowfields store about 12,000 km3 of freshwater. About 15,000 Himalayan glaciers form a unique reservoir which supports perennial rivers such as the Indus, Ganga and Brahmaputra which, in turn, are the lifeline of millions of people in South Asian countries (Pakistan, Nepal, Bhutan, India and Bangladesh). The Gangetic basin alone is home to 500 million people, about 10% of the total human population in the region.

Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world (see Table 10.9) and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate. Its total area will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 km2 by the year 2035 (WWF, 2005)."

Here is the link: http://www.ipcc.ch/publication…..0-6-2.html

The sub-sentence being disputed is this: "likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high"
AS you can see, it talks about 'likelihood', not certainty. Nevertheless, it appears that a correct date for complete disappearance should have been around 2130, so it was an error.

Further down it states its best estimate of remaining glazier size 100,000 km2 at year 2035, based on the observed retreat record for the major glaciers. I do not think this is being disputed.

In any case, the principle of disappearing glaciers is not being disputed by anyone of repute. It is merely the rate of retreat that was not correct

Further down the report states:
"The current trends of glacial melts suggest that the Ganga, Indus, Brahmaputra and other rivers that criss-cross the northern Indian plain could likely become seasonal rivers in the near future as a consequence of climate change and could likely affect the economies in the region. Some other glaciers in Asia – such as glaciers shorter than 4 km length in the Tibetan Plateau – are projected to disappear and the glaciated areas located in the headwaters of the Changjiang River will likely decrease in area by more than 60% (Shen et al., 2002)."

You will notice that this statement is properly referenced to originating scientific paper and is not disputed by anyone. So the consequences of the glacier retreat are not disputed either, only the rate.

On the other hand the link, below, will take you to a lecture delivered by Richard B. Alley of Penn State, an important member of the IPCC whose work centres on the historical/geological record i.e. the last few million years.

The historical/geological record indicates that increasing CO2, increases global temperatures and that we can find no alternative causal agent that can explain away past periods when the Earth's temperature was higher – or lower.

It's worth watching, not just because of this clear message, but also because of the clear exposition of the scientific method that Alley includes, within his delivery. He repeats that there is no absolute proof but that the correlations are too close to be ignored.

The argument that there is no absolute and final proof is often used but so much of what we learn from science is bounded by the same proviso, we examine the evidence and derive a theory that gives the closest approximation to the data.

The only real test is to burn all of the fossil carbon and see what happens. There are those who apparently want to try this……. Generally, they have no idea what they are talking about or they work for oil and coal companies!

http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm…..A23A.shtml

Do you have any supplementaries on this specific issue?

More Shinerisms:

"Paul is wearing his green dog collar while on this thread.

He's gone all 'brown cords and clipboardy' while on survey duties.

Distraction therapy while the IPCC approaches the point of 'peak crumble'?

INTERNATIONAL scientists have called for the world's peak climate change body to be revamped or scrapped after damaging controversies that have dogged the expert panel in recent months."

I don't normally read The Australian, but I looked it up, and of course, its nonsense again:

- how many scientists, which scientists, what are their names – it does not say. It quotes two scientists agreeing with that view and two others disagreeing with it. So perhaps it is these TWO scientists the headline refers to.

Yet again Shiner proves his arguments can't be relied upon.

But he is much better at personal attacks. He mentions several in practically every single one of his posts in reply to mine. Oh well, sure sign of having little to contribute.