the real climate driver, page-30

I don't inhabit the stratosphere, and over the years I have come across a quite lot of people who are at least as intelligent as me. (I think Jim Cross is trying to say that I'm smarter than a lot of people. It's true that I am highly intelligent by most accepted definitions of the intelligence. My intelligence is no more to my credit than any other genetic/environmental trait I have, although I do try to use it to better my life and that of others. And being intelligent doesn't necessarily mean the same thing as being 'smart' (as in 'street smart').)

In any case, back to the topic. As BB has demonstrated, one only has to pick a page of the report at random to show how bad it is. Or good, if you think getting people like Jim to quote the article is it's aim.

The way to check it out is to go to any page, look at the references and go to the original papers. Note the paucity of original research by the authors - they pick out papers describing research carried out by other people and either misconstrue the findings or they quote papers that are themselves nonsense.

It's quite easy to show it's not a credible article. However it's a very long article and not worth the effort of going through every bit page by page. No-one of any 'intelligence' would rely on it after checking out the inaccuracies and misrepresentations in just a few pages taken at random from the article.

Skepticalscience.com spent a week pointing out the fallacies in 'prudent path'. It could have written about a lot more of them, but it did enough to show how worthless the Idso article is.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/prudent-path.html