IPCC – Consensus / ”2500 leading scientists”
|Posted by Administrator (admin) on 8th February, 2010|
Richard Lindzen: ”you don’t need ‘consensus’ if you have the arguments”.
Science is not determined by show of hands.
Despite the large number of people involved in the IPCC's 4th Assessment Report (AR4), 2007, just a few where involved in the central question, chapter 9: Do we have global warming due to human CO2-emissions?
Most of the contributors where involved in examining consequences of warming etc.
But the central message of chapter 9 – the cause of warming - appears to reviewed by just 62 people. And further more than half of the reviewers comments has been rejected.
One of the reviewers of the AR4, Dr.
One of the reviewers of the AR4, Dr.Andrew A. Lacis, a colleague to James Hansen at NASA GISS, gave the following comment to chapter 9 (the one where they decide that global warming is manmade), our bold:
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.
His comment was rejected with the following reply:
Rejected. [Executive Summary] summarizes Ch 9, which is based on the peer reviewed literature.
- More, see ”The petition”.
Last changed: 9th February, 2010 at 20:34:23Back