More evidence the IPCC squelches the opinions of it's own reviewers which are contrary to the political party line from Bishop Hill: Hansen's colleague eviscerates AR4 Chapter 9
"While perusing some of the review comments to the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report, I came across the contributions of Andrew Lacis, a colleague of James Hansen's at GISS. Lacis's is not a name I've come across before but some of what he has to say about Chapter 9 of the IPCC's report is simply breathtaking. Chapter 9 is possibly the most important one in the whole IPCC report - it's the one where they decide that global warming is manmade. This is the one where the headlines are made. Remember, this guy is mainstream, not a sceptic, and you may need to remind yourself of that fact several times as you read through his comment on the executive summary of the chapter:
There is no scientific merit to be found in the Executive Summary. The presentation sounds like something put together by Greenpeace activists and their legal department. The points being made are made arbitrarily with legal sounding caveats without having established any foundation or basis in fact. The Executive Summary seems to be a political statement that is only designed to annoy greenhouse skeptics. Wasn't the IPCC Assessment Report intended to be a scientific document that would merit solid backing from the climate science community - instead of forcing many climate scientists into having to agree with greenhouse skeptic criticisms that this is indeed a report with a clear and obvious political agenda. Attribution can not happen until understanding has been clearly demonstrated. Once the facts of climate change have been established and understood, attribution will become self-evident to all. The Executive Summary as it stands is beyond redemption and should simply be deleted.
I'm speechless. The chapter authors, however weren't. This was their reply (all of it):
Rejected. [Executive Summary] summarizes Ch 9, which is based on the peer reviewed literature.
Simply astonishing. This is a consensus?"New York Times blogger Andrew Revkin on this topic:
"I have yet to see anyone provide definitive evidence — with no error bars — that the fingerprint of human-generated greenhouse gases (or other emissions or actions) is unequivocal. The only thing described as “unequivocal” in the report was the warming, not the cause, unless I really haven’t been paying attention for the last two decades."Exactly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Kudos to Andrew Revkin, you have been paying attention and are indeed "not as predictable as [the climategate gang] would like", to quote a Michael Mann email.
Read comment #42 on the New York Times blog, by John R. Christy, Director, Earth System Science Center, Distinguished Professor, Atmospheric Science, University of Alabama in Huntsville, Alabama State Climatologist
Other news today:
New research into greenhouse effect challenges theory of global warming
The end is not near
Droughtgate: Study Finds IPCC had Temperature - Drought Connection Backwards
The case for climate action must be remade from the ground upwards
Climate scientists hit out at 'sloppy' melting glaciers error
Climate Wars: Guardian special investigation
'Climategate' was PR disaster that could bring healthy reform of peer review
Post a Comment