As for your statement: “… it’s [sic] estimates of temperature rise v CO2 emissions…” – I’m not sure what that means, other than that you are obviously not terribly involved with science.

Ahh. Gerd Leipold? What does he have to do with science? He’s a political activist with a pre-determined agenda; no different than James Inhofe. At least he doesn’t lie about who’s paying him.

Put your ax down and try to grasp the science, sonny. We’ve got big problems.

JF

Really? So it’s estimates of sea level rise have all be ‘conservative’ have they? And it’s estimates of temperature rise v CO2 emissions have been conservative too? And what about figures regarding malaria spreading to northern climes, those are conservative as well? Crikey, maybe that’s why Gerd Leipold of Greenpeace feels it necessary to ‘exaggerate’ his climate change claims – because the IPCC is being too ‘conservative’!

…but I fail to see how these two statements:

“Manmade CO2 emissions drive climate change, but other natural and human-related factors are also important.” …and:

“How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!”

..are at all contradictory.

No climate scientist of repute will say that we know where all of the energy in earth’s system is going to. But we know how much is going in – to a fair nicety. And what that will inevitably mean on a macro scale.

I find in Mr. Trenberth’s statements – both of them – a refreshing lack of hubris.

And now, in the recently released Copenhagen Diagnosis, it becomes clear how overly-conservative and careful the IPCC reports have all been.

In Mr. Milloy’s statements above, per usual, I find only politics and money.

JF