[Sherman Logan]

A group of scientists have challenged the IPCC to admit that there is no evidence that human activity drives climate change.

The reporter uses very sloppy language here. What he means to say is that the IPCC's position should not be considered proven by the evidence.

There is of course a great deal of evidence that can be interpreted to support the IPCC's position. The dispute is specifically with regard to how this this large body of evidence should be interpreted, not whether it exists.

There is a great deal of difference between saying there is no evidence, and saying that a position has not been proven.

[edcoil]

Lets just say the muslims making oil and the communist chinese make products are the only producers.

[reasonisfaith]

Sloppy evidence is much worse than sloppy language.

Like the hockey stick graph.

[RogerFGay]

Actually, the scientists said "there is no observational evidence in measured data going back 22,000 years or even millions of years that CO2 levels (whether from man or nature) have driven or are driving world temperatures or climate change."

I think you're presenting your own view rather than being objective about what the scientists have said.

[YOUGOTIT]

Your wrote: “There is of course a great deal of evidence that can be interpreted to support the IPCC’s position.”

And where is this evidence? It was much warmer during the period of 900 to 1300 CE than today and the temperature has gone lower since 1998 in the present era. The southern ice cap has increased in size and the northern water ice is at normal (who knows what normal is since we have no idea how much ice was there in 1000) but we do know (or that is what the scientist say) that there was NO ice there for millions of years.

The normal cycles of the earth, sun and the universe are NOT being influenced by humans. If humans influence climate change then there has never been a climate change in the history of the earth.

[b4its2late]

I think the FReeper poster is the reporter.

[devere]

“There is of course a great deal of evidence that can be interpreted to support the IPCC’s position.”

OK, you supply the graph illustrating all that evidence. Otherwise, please recant.

[Always Right]

There is of course a great deal of evidence that can be interpreted to support the IPCC's position.

There is evidence we had very modest warming in the 20th century. But there is no evidence that links CO2 to the change. The historical data suggests that temperatures drives atmospheric CO2, not the other way around.