Al Gore doesn’t want to debate global warming

Jonathan Adler at the Volokh Conspiracy linked to a subscribers-only op/ed piece at the WSJ written by Jyllands-Posten culture editor Fleming Rose and Bjorn Lomborg on Al Gore’s refusal to debate global warming. Rose and Lomborg wrote (emphasis added):

The interview [with Gore] had been scheduled for months. Mr. Gore’s agent yesterday thought Gore-meets-Lomborg would be great. Yet an hour later, he came back to tell us that Bjorn Lomborg should be excluded from the interview because he’s been very critical of Mr. Gore’s message about global warming and has questioned Mr. Gore’s evenhandedness. According to the agent, Mr. Gore only wanted to have questions about his book and documentary, and only asked by a reporter. These conditions were immediately accepted by Jyllands-Posten. Yet an hour later we received an email from the agent saying that the interview was now cancelled. What happened?

One can only speculate. But if we are to follow Mr. Gore’s suggestions of radically changing our way of life, the costs are not trivial. If we slowly change our greenhouse gas emissions over the coming century, the U.N. actually estimates that we will live in a warmer but immensely richer world. However, the U.N. Climate Panel suggests that if we follow Al Gore’s path down toward an environmentally obsessed society, it will have big consequences for the world, not least its poor. In the year 2100, Mr. Gore will have left the average person 30% poorer, and thus less able to handle many of the problems we will face, climate change or no climate change.


Al Gore is on a mission. If he has his way, we could end up choosing a future, based on dubious claims, that could cost us, according to a U.N. estimate, $553 trillion over this century. Getting answers to hard questions is not an unreasonable expectation before we take his project seriously. It is crucial that we make the right decisions posed by the challenge of global warming. These are best achieved through open debate, and we invite him to take the time to answer our questions: We are ready to interview you any time, Mr. Gore — and anywhere.

But know-it-all Al would rather you just take his word for it. I guess he finds being questioned about his statements on global warming to be – well – inconvenient.

70 thoughts on “Al Gore doesn’t want to debate global warming

  1. Bob complains:
    I have to note how funny it is, by the way, that you have this same peanut gallery of Severian, White Rat, Lorica and Baklava who populate every single thread here, constantly stroking each other. Do you call each other up for mutual support when one of you faces a challenge? Would you fall over like a two-legged stool if enough of you weren’t there on any given day? It seems like quite a love-fest. I’m happy for you all, really.

    We are daily readers Bob, and discuss much here on a daily basis, sometimes agreeing, sometimes not, but most times we are along the same wave length on most htings.

    We aren’t democrats here, there is no ‘concerted effort’ to overpower you. We don’t send out smoke signals or phone calls to others to get help. we respond when and where we see fit. If you would care to peruse the achives ST has, you will see majority of discussions on almost ALL threads have most the same individuals talking and debating things, with others coming in to add to it. The ones you see now are loyal readers, not loyal as in mindless drones, but we think of ST’s place as a home to discuss our ideas.

    You won’t be shouted own or threatened with your life as I hear can happen in places like DU and KOS.

    Now as for Gobal warming, I was listening to a very good speaker on the radio about this on Bill Bennett’s show this morning and he makes more sense than most of the global warming alarmists.

    1st, one thing he mentioned was Kyoto, and it was said that if EVERY country in the orld follow ed the guildelines of Kyoto, in 50 years the effect would be something like .006 percent difference, not even measurable.

    Another thing brought up was that the earth is like a top, it is constantly spinning, and just like a top, the earth wobbles, and during those times we are further away from the sun (cooler), and other times we are closer (warmer). We also orbit the sun, and we never have the same orbit, the earth is constantly changing, small changes, but changes none the less.

    We are going through a slightly warmer period now, and it was not even the warmest time in history either. It has gone in cycles.

    I believe the NYT splashed the infamous polar bears are drowning (I thought they could swim – but that is another debate), also splashed about 10 years ago (the senator NC I think, brought this up) that within in 10 years we would be in another ice age.

    Oh and if you think celebrities have all the answers, I believe it was 10? 20 years ago? Ted Danson went on the record stating the world would end in 10 years if we didn’t recycle (something along that lines – I can find the exact idiocy if needed, but this wa just a point).

    There is no true proven without a doubt fact that gobal warming is man made, even meteorologist state this, but even then, there is just not enough evidence to suggest that. Is it possible, yes, anything is POSSIBLE, but lets have some proof to go along with the panic please.

    Oh, and one last thing, the senator in the interview stated one thing that stuck out on global warming…..follow the money.

  2. Bob wrote, “Of course it’s a silly argument to make that we need to be experts in every field to make informed decisions on government policy.

    No. We as expert Bob’s can discount substance with a slight of hand. And in the same paragraph make the argument that those receiving government grants to do research or clean as the wind driven snow. Look Bob. I’ll just assume you are naive on that one but your negligence that you showed Severian after all of his due diligence was arrogant. Sentence after sentence with substance and you didn’t deal with one sentence. Merely wave it off. Ignore it. It’s they typical liberal way. We’ve seen it here before Bob. Did you know that? We hope for an actual conversation one day.

    Bob wrote, “and that they all agree that global warming caused by human-generated greenhouse gasses is a real phenomenon.

    And others don’t Bob. That’s why it’s NOT consensus. There is real peer reviewed articles who measure the sun’s output and Severian gave you them. You dismissed them with a wave of the hand. Good JOB!!! You did due diligence. Climatologists don’t deal with sun output. They deal with “computer models” that turn out to be inaccurate every time. Truly. They and you can FEEL and AGREE with each other and FEEL some more but if you don’t accept input from others then how open minded are you truly. Can I refer to you as CM Bob (Close Minded Bob?) Or will you be different from here on out? EVERY ONE HERE has seen the climatologists’ reports and articles that you show us. It is pushed on us by the dominant media. We are open minded and have considered the input. It is part of a larger scale of data. History over 1,000’s of years as Severian wrote about. Sun output. Ocean output. Contradicting evidence from other scientific points of view that climatologists don’t even consider (and neither does CM Bob).

    CM Bob wrote dishonestly, “But if you’d rather scrap 100 years of scientific discovery

    No Bob. Nobody is asking to scrap 100 years of scientific discovery. We are all asking you to consider other fields and you call them crackpot because Bob is not only close minded but judgmental. CMJ Bob? OK. Really I’m having fun and you can do the name calling to. I don’t mind. The wit is intended to get you to think about what you are doing. But you can close your mind to that to.

    CMJ Bob wrote, “constantly stroking each other.

    Because we respect each other because we are a tag team of very intelligent people with great common sense. We’ve been around. We’ve debated greater than you. You CMJ Bob need to step up to the plate better with more due diligence. ;)

    CMJ Bob wrote, “Do you call each other up for mutual support when one of you faces a challenge?

    Nah. We are tough guys. Never even met each other. Each of us are great in our fields. I’ve read 1,000’s of pages of articles during and since my conversion from liberalism in 1991. We aren’t small potatoes yet we aren’t getting each of our sentences peer reviewed :o Little CMJ Bob humor there.

    ST wrote, “I can assure you, a ‘coordinated effort’ isn’t needed by any of them. –ST

    Same to you sis !

    Lorica asked, “In the world of science it is well known that the earth has been warmer than it is today, so my question is what happened then??

    Um. I’ll ingore the question. I don’t deal with substance buddy. \:d/

    Lorica affirmed what I’ve been saying by writing, “Since the majority of the science you linked to refuses to take into account the fossil record,

    Wup. I gotta go to my 8:00 meeting. Se ya’ll later

  3. Well, I see there’s nothing new from Bob. And on the same day the headlines are reading “Did Scientists Oversell Global Warming.” Heh.

    Notice the ever changing standards: First it’s “No one dissents, everyone agrees.” Then when shown that’s not true, it’s “The people who disagree aren’t scientists and are hacks.” When shown that scientists disagree, even climatologists, it’s “They’re paid off by the oil companies and there are no peer reviewed articles doubting AGW.” Then when shown peer reviewed papers, it’s “There aren’t enough of them.” When it starts cooling what will be the excuse then? “I never believed it” will probably be it.

    Sigh. This type of “argument” is typical of liberals. No WMDs at all, then when found, they are old and “safe” etc.

    At any rate, I read an interesting article for those of you who’d like to read it:

    Is there linkage between increasing solar activity and increasing global temperatures?

  4. Sev states:
    First it’s “No one dissents, everyone agrees.”

    You will assimilate and think like we tell you to think or we will yank your credentials, so says the Weather Channel.

    In the Weather Channel’s world, its ..think like we tell you too, or else.

    Why are Global warming alamrists so threatened by debate and different ideas? Al Gore, can you answer that pleae? Al? Did anyone see where Al Gore went? We can’t seem to find him when it comes to having a debate of ideas and theories………How Inconvienent.

  5. What perfect timing . . . I knew the peanut gallery would appreciate this latest news from AP:

    WASHINGTON – Human-caused global warming is here — visible in the air, water and melting ice — and is destined to get much worse in the future, an authoritative global scientific report will warn next week.

    “The smoking gun is definitely lying on the table as we speak,” said top U.S. climate scientist Jerry Mahlman, who reviewed all 1,600 pages of the first segment of a giant four-part report. “The evidence … is compelling.”

    Andrew Weaver, a Canadian climate scientist and study co-author, went even further: “This isn’t a smoking gun; climate is a batallion of intergalactic smoking missiles.”

    The first phase of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is being released in Paris next week. This segment, written by more than 600 scientists and reviewed by another 600 experts and edited by bureaucrats from 154 countries, includes “a significantly expanded discussion of observation on the climate,” said co-chair Susan Solomon, a senior scientist for the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. She and other scientists held a telephone briefing on the report Monday.

    That report will feature an “explosion of new data” on observations of current global warming, Solomon said.

    . . .

    Global warming is “happening now, it’s very obvious,” said Mahlman, a former director of NOAA’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Lab who lives in Boulder, Colo. “When you look at the temperature of the Earth, it’s pretty much a no-brainer.”

    Look for an “iconic statement” — a simple but strong and unequivocal summary — on how global warming is now occurring, said one of the authors, Kevin Trenberth, director of climate analysis at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, also in Boulder.

    The February report will have “much stronger evidence now of human actions on the change in climate that’s taken place,” Rajendra K. Pachauri told the AP in November. Pachauri, an Indian climatologist, is the head of the international climate change panel.

    An early version of the ever-changing draft report said “observations of coherent warming in the global atmosphere, in the ocean, and in snow and ice now provide stronger joint evidence of warming.”

    And the early draft adds: An increasing body of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on other aspects of climate including sea ice, heat waves and other extremes, circulation, storm tracks and precipitation.”

    The world’s global average temperature has risen about 1.2 degrees Fahrenheit from 1901 to 2005. The two warmest years on record for the world were 2005 and 1998. Last year was the hottest year on record for the United States.

    The report will draw on already published peer-review science. Some recent scientific studies show that temperatures are the hottest in thousands of years, especially during the last 30 years; ice sheets in Greenland in the past couple years have shown a dramatic melting; and sea levels are rising and doing so at a faster rate in the past decade.

    Did you knuckleheads get that? This report was compiled by 600 scientists, and then reviewed by 600 more. What puny scraps of propaganda can you offer in the face of this? What will have to say? What about the hockey stick? We’ll anxiously await your personal inspection and independent analysis of their data when the document arrives, Severian. Don’t let us down.

  6. What’s wrong, did the news about the IPCC’s new report demoralize you guys or something? Severian, are you hard at work crunching the numbers for your rebuttal? Did you catch the part about how the report has 1,600 pages? That must represent an awful lot of man-hours of research. How long will it take, Severian, for you and the two guys at to come up with an equivalent body of work to prove them all wrong? You’re way deep in the hole. You’d better get busy.

    By the way, I also read the following today:

    WASHINGTON, Jan. 22 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — A diverse group of U.S.-based businesses and leading environmental organizations today called on the federal government to quickly enact strong national legislation to achieve significant reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. The group said any delay in action to control emissions increases the risk of unavoidable consequences that could necessitate even steeper reductions in the future.

    This unprecedented alliance, called the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP), consists of market leaders Alcoa, BP America, Caterpillar, Duke Energy, DuPont, FPL Group, General Electric, Lehman Brothers, PG&E, and PNM Resources, along with four leading non-governmental organizations — Environmental Defense, Natural Resources Defense Council, Pew Center on Global Climate Change, and World Resources Institute.

    At a news conference today at the National Press Club, USCAP issued a landmark set of principles and recommendations to underscore the urgent need for a policy framework on climate change. The solutions-based report, titled A Call for Action, lays out a blueprint for a mandatory economy-wide, market-driven approach to climate protection.

    My, my, my. The consensus just keeps getting stronger, and you guys seem to be stuck farther and farther out to sea on a rapidly melting ice berg.

  7. Of course, it’s entirely possible that these USACP companies are pushing the government for new envrionmental regulations solely for the purpose of crippling their competitors and increasing their own market share. Color me skeptical.

    There’s something fishy about any group that calls for increased government regulation while simultaneously claiming to lay out a blueprint for “mandatory, economy-wide, market-driven” controls. Whenever you hear that, your BS detector should be going off loud and long.

  8. There is precedent, GWR, for some environmental groups like the Natural Resources Defense Council to work with industry on sincere efforts to reduce pollution. If I’m not mistaken, they did a collaboration with McDonalds to get rid of the old styrofoam “clam shell” containers in favor of paper and cardboard. It’s the kind of win-win, “market-based” approach than should warm the hearts of conservatives and liberals alike.

  9. Bob’s masters have spoken again. To whit, I point you a the following:

    Stephan Schneider … teaches at Stanford University….” and is the author of several IPCC chapters.
    “.. to get the public’s attention we have to draw up shocking scenarios using simple and dramatic statements. Possible doubts should only marginally be considered. Everyone needs to find the right balance between honesty and effectivity.” (23)

    So, one of the main authors of the last IPCC report admits that lying is OK if it’s for a “good” cause, and you still want to believe everything they say without question. The pro-AGW people are getting more and more aggressive as the science underlying this gets shakier and shakier. But not to worry, people like Bob will believe no matter what, and help them push their socialist utopian ideals of massive wealth redistribution on us all. God help us.

  10. And again Bob, when you can come back with one intelligent question about the actual science instead of bleating it’s consensus it has to be right, then you’ll be worth talking with. Of if you address the question of if they are so confident of their science why are they trying to silence discussion and debate? What are they afraid of, there may be something you say worth listening to.

    You really do a parrot impression remarkably well. Try coming up with an original thought, I know it’s hard for liberals, but try it, you’ll find it liberating.

  11. Did you catch the part about how the report has 1,600 pages?

    In Bob’s simple, untrained mind, that must mean something! You’re judging a not yet released report and assigning it a lot of credibility just because of it’s size?!? =))

    Early in my career I had a document sent back to me for more work because it wasn’t “long” enough. I was told, in no uncertain terms, that it had to be much longer to both 1) look “serious and scientifically sound” and 2) because that way fewer people would read anything other than the abstract and conclusion and there’d be less arguments about it that way. So, color me unimpressed.

  12. And one last comment, the IPCC, brought to you by the UN, the same agency that brought you the Oil For Food scandal and child sex rings around the world. Yeah, that’s credibility for you.

    Makes me wonder, if Bob’s such a believer, what has he done to reduce his carbon footprint? Stopped driving so much? Turned his thermostat settings to save energy? Or is he like most liberals, and expects the government to force others to do it? :-?

  13. Severian likes to pretend that nit-picking individual bits of data, like Mann’s original “hockey stick” chart, or questioning the motives of a researcher here or there because of one unclear or ambiguous statement they once made, while ignoring the overwhelming body of independent data collected by other scientists that supports global warming, is either an honest or typical way of disproving a scientific theory.

    This is the same approach that people who deny the theory of evolution often take. Scientists are constantly questioning and refining the details of the theory, even while completely accepting all of its basic premises. For example, does evolution proceed in a continuous or temporally punctuated manner? These are honest questions that real scientists ask, and their motive is to try to come as close to the truth as possible. But hacks with dishonest political agendas often use this quest for truth against the science, by trying to claim that questioning and refining the details means that the basic premise is in doubt. I refer back to the article from Science, where the author states:

    Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science. Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.

    Severian’s excruciatingly swollen ego notwithstanding, this debate is not about him or me. It’s about the overwhelming body of data, and the overwhelming majority of scientists around the world who work in this field, who are convinced that human-caused global warming is a serious problem. Try as they might, the tremendously powerful forces who want to deny the reality of global warming can do nothing more than nit-pick the science. Despite their enormous political power and financial resources, they have been unable to fill their own 1,600 page volume with data and analysis to rebut the scientific consensus. Since they can’t win on a playing field where only facts matter, they have tried to do an end-run around the science by mounting a huge PR campaign to create their own fictional world where facts don’t matter.

    I have to say, Severian, that I think you’re flailing here. I think all of the personal attacks against me—as if it mattered or I really cared—are the kind of thing that an angry and threatened person does. You’re backed into a corner and trying to hide your insecurity behind a façade of arrogance and bluster. As I said, you have a lot of catching up to do to make any kind of case for what your side is trying to claim. You really need to get going here, and the personal attacks are just wasting time. If the world needs your undivided talents as much as you seem to think it does, then you’re letting us all down.

  14. An open letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper:

    Dear Prime Minister:

    As accredited experts in climate and related scientific disciplines, we are writing to propose that balanced, comprehensive public-consultation sessions be held so as to examine the scientific foundation of the federal government’s climate-change plans. This would be entirely consistent with your recent commitment to conduct a review of the Kyoto Protocol. Although many of us made the same suggestion to then-prime ministers Martin and Chretien, neither responded, and, to date, no formal, independent climate-science review has been conducted in Canada. Much of the billions of dollars earmarked for implementation of the protocol in Canada will be squandered without a proper assessment of recent developments in climate science.

    Observational evidence does not support today’s computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future. Yet this is precisely what the United Nations did in creating and promoting Kyoto and still does in the alarmist forecasts on which Canada’s climate policies are based. Even if the climate models were realistic, the environmental impact of Canada delaying implementation of Kyoto or other greenhouse-gas reduction schemes, pending completion of consultations, would be insignificant. Directing your government to convene balanced, open hearings as soon as possible would be a most prudent and responsible course of action.

    While the confident pronouncements of scientifically unqualified environmental groups may provide for sensational headlines, they are no basis for mature policy formulation. The study of global climate change is, as you have said, an “emerging science,” one that is perhaps the most complex ever tackled. It may be many years yet before we properly understand the Earth’s climate system. Nevertheless, significant advances have been made since the protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases. If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.

    We appreciate the difficulty any government has formulating sensible science-based policy when the loudest voices always seem to be pushing in the opposite direction. However, by convening open, unbiased consultations, Canadians will be permitted to hear from experts on both sides of the debate in the climate-science community. When the public comes to understand that there is no “consensus” among climate scientists about the relative importance of the various causes of global climate change, the government will be in a far better position to develop plans that reflect reality and so benefit both the environment and the economy.

    “Climate change is real” is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural “noise.” The new Canadian government’s commitment to reducing air, land and water pollution is commendable, but allocating funds to “stopping climate change” would be irrational. We need to continue intensive research into the real causes of climate change and help our most vulnerable citizens adapt to whatever nature throws at us next.

    We believe the Canadian public and government decision-makers need and deserve to hear the whole story concerning this very complex issue. It was only 30 years ago that many of today’s global-warming alarmists were telling us that the world was in the midst of a global-cooling catastrophe. But the science continued to evolve, and still does, even though so many choose to ignore it when it does not fit with predetermined political agendas.

    We hope that you will examine our proposal carefully and we stand willing and able to furnish you with more information on this crucially important topic.

    CC: The Honourable Rona Ambrose, Minister of the Environment, and the Honourable Gary Lunn, Minister of Natural Resources

    – – –

    Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

    Dr. Tad Murty, former senior research scientist, Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans, former director of Australia’s National Tidal Facility and professor of earth sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide; currently adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

    Dr. R. Timothy Patterson, professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University, Ottawa

    Dr. Fred Michel, director, Institute of Environmental Science and associate professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Carleton University, Ottawa

    Dr. Madhav Khandekar, former research scientist, Environment Canada. Member of editorial board of Climate Research and Natural Hazards

    Dr. Paul Copper, FRSC, professor emeritus, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ont.

    Dr. Ross McKitrick, associate professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph, Ont.

    Dr. Tim Ball, former professor of climatology, University of Winnipeg; environmental consultant

    Dr. Andreas Prokoph, adjunct professor of earth sciences, University of Ottawa; consultant in statistics and geology

    Mr. David Nowell, M.Sc. (Meteorology), fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, Canadian member and past chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa

    Dr. Christopher Essex, professor of applied mathematics and associate director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.

    Dr. Gordon E. Swaters, professor of applied mathematics, Dept. of Mathematical Sciences, and member, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Research Group, University of Alberta

    Dr. L. Graham Smith, associate professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.

    Dr. G. Cornelis van Kooten, professor and Canada Research Chair in environmental studies and climate change, Dept. of Economics, University of Victoria

    Dr. Petr Chylek, adjunct professor, Dept. of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax

    Dr./Cdr. M. R. Morgan, FRMS, climate consultant, former meteorology advisor to the World Meteorological Organization. Previously research scientist in climatology at University of Exeter, U.K.

    Dr. Keith D. Hage, climate consultant and professor emeritus of Meteorology, University of Alberta

    Dr. David E. Wojick, P.Eng., energy consultant, Star Tannery, Va., and Sioux Lookout, Ont.

    Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, Surrey, B.C.

    Dr. Douglas Leahey, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary

    Paavo Siitam, M.Sc., agronomist, chemist, Cobourg, Ont.

    Dr. Chris de Freitas, climate scientist, associate professor, The University of Auckland, N.Z.

    Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

    Dr. Freeman J. Dyson, emeritus professor of physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J.

    Mr. George Taylor, Dept. of Meteorology, Oregon State University; Oregon State climatologist; past president, American Association of State Climatologists

    Dr. Ian Plimer, professor of geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide; emeritus professor of earth sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia

    Dr. R.M. Carter, professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia

    Mr. William Kininmonth, Australasian Climate Research, former Head National Climate Centre, Australian Bureau of Meteorology; former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology, Scientific and Technical Review

    Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute

    Dr. Gerrit J. van der Lingen, geologist/paleoclimatologist, Climate Change Consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand

    Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, professor of environmental sciences, University of Virginia

    Dr. Nils-Axel Morner, emeritus professor of paleogeophysics & geodynamics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden

    Dr. Gary D. Sharp, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, Calif.

    Dr. Roy W. Spencer, principal research scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville

    Dr. Al Pekarek, associate professor of geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud, Minn.

    Dr. Marcel Leroux, professor emeritus of climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS

    Dr. Paul Reiter, professor, Institut Pasteur, Unit of Insects and Infectious Diseases, Paris, France. Expert reviewer, IPCC Working group II, chapter 8 (human health)

    Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, physicist and chairman, Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland

    Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, reader, Dept. of Geography, University of Hull, U.K.; editor, Energy & Environment

    Dr. Hans H.J. Labohm, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations) and an economist who has focused on climate change

    Dr. Lee C. Gerhard, senior scientist emeritus, University of Kansas, past director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey

    Dr. Asmunn Moene, past head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway

    Dr. August H. Auer, past professor of atmospheric science, University of Wyoming; previously chief meteorologist, Meteorological Service (MetService) of New Zealand

    Dr. Vincent Gray, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of ‘Climate Change 2001,’ Wellington, N.Z.

    Dr. Howard Hayden, emeritus professor of physics, University of Connecticut

    Dr Benny Peiser, professor of social anthropology, Faculty of Science, Liverpool John Moores University, U.K.

    Dr. Jack Barrett, chemist and spectroscopist, formerly with Imperial College London, U.K.

    Dr. William J.R. Alexander, professor emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa. Member, United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000

    Dr. S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences, University of Virginia; former director, U.S. Weather Satellite Service

    Dr. Harry N.A. Priem, emeritus professor of planetary geology and isotope geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences; past president of the Royal Netherlands Geological & Mining Society

    Dr. Robert H. Essenhigh, E.G. Bailey professor of energy conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University

    Dr. Sallie Baliunas, astrophysicist and climate researcher, Boston, Mass.

    Douglas Hoyt, senior scientist at Raytheon (retired) and co-author of the book The Role of the Sun in Climate Change; previously with NCAR, NOAA, and the World Radiation Center, Davos, Switzerland

    Dipl.-Ing. Peter Dietze, independent energy advisor and scientific climate and carbon modeller, official IPCC reviewer, Bavaria, Germany

    Dr. Boris Winterhalter, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland

    Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden

    Dr. Hugh W. Ellsaesser, physicist/meteorologist, previously with the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Calif.; atmospheric consultant.

    Dr. Art Robinson, founder, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, Cave Junction, Ore.

    Dr. Arthur Rorsch, emeritus professor of molecular genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands; past board member, Netherlands organization for applied research (TNO) in environmental, food and public health

    Dr. Alister McFarquhar, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.; international economist

    Dr. Richard S. Courtney, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.

  15. Severian, you had to expect this. The following is the list of contributors to the IPCC 2001 report (apologies to Sister Toldjah for wasting her bandwidth. Sister he made me do it, I swear!). Severian, we’ve beaten on each other long enough and it’s reaching an absurd degree. Howzabout we call a truce and consider this topic beaten like a dead horse? It’s been fun — really. I’ll give you the last word to insult me some more. Best Regards . . .

    Annex A. Authors and Expert Reviewers

    Daniel Bouille Fundecion Bariloche
    Marcelo Cabido IMBIV, University of Cordoba
    Osvaldo F. Canziani Co-Chair, WGII
    Rodolfo Carcavallo Department of Entomology
    Jorge O. Codignotto Laboratorio Geologia y Dinamica Costera
    Martin de Zuviria Aeroterra S.A.
    Sandra Myrna Diaz Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biologia Vegetal
    Jorge Frangi Universidad Nacional de la Plata
    Hector Ginzo Instituto de Neurobiologia
    Osvaldo Girardin Fundacion Bariloche
    Carlos Labraga Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Cientificas y Tecnicas, Centro Nactional Patagonico
    Gabriel Soler Fundacion Instituto Latinoamericano de Politicas Sociales (ILAPS)
    Walter Vargas University of Buenos Aires – IEIMA
    Ernesto F. Viglizzo PROCISUR/INTO/CONICET

    Susan Barrell Bureau of Meteorology
    Bryson Bates CSIRO
    Ian Carruthers Australian Greenhouse Office
    Habiba Gitay Australian National University
    John A. Church CSIRO Division of Oceanography
    Ove Hoegh-Guldberg The University of Queensland
    Roger Jones CSIRO Atmospheric Research
    Bryant McAvaney Bureau of Meteorology Research Centre
    Chris Mitchell CSIRO Atmosphere Research
    Ian Noble Australian National University
    Barrie Pittock CSIRO (Climate Impact Group)
    Andy Reisinger Ministry for the Environment
    B. Soderbaum Greenhouse Policy Office, Australian Greenhouse Office
    Greg Terrill Australian Greenhouse Office
    Kevin Walsh Principal Research Scientist CSIRO Atmospheric Research
    John Zillman Vice-Chair, WGI

    Renate Christ IPCC Secretariat
    Helmut Hojesky Federal Ministry for Environment
    K. Radunsky Federal Environment Agency

    Q.K. Ahmad Bangladesh Unnayan Parishad

    Leonard Nurse Coastal Zone Management Unit

    Philippe Huybrechts Vrije Universiteit Brussel
    C. Vinckier Department of Chemistry, KULeuven
    R. Zander University of Liege

    Epiphane Dotou Ahlonsou Service Météorologique National
    Michel Boko Universite de Bourgogne
    Annex A Authors and Expert Reviewers

    Permanent Mission of Bosnia & Herzegovina
    Pauline O. Dube University of Botswana

    Gylvan Meira Filho Vice-Chair, IPCC
    Jose Roberto Moreira Biomass User Network (BUN )

    Brad Bass Environment Canada
    James P. Bruce Canadian Climate Program Board
    Margo Burgess Natural Resources Canada
    Wenjun Chen Natural Resources Canada
    Jing Chen University of Toronto
    Stewart J. Cohen Environment Canada
    Patti Edwards Environment Canada
    David Etkin Environment Canada
    Darren Goetze Environment Canada
    J. Peter Hall Canadian Forest Service
    H. Hengeveld Environment Canada
    Pamela Kertland Natural Resources Canada
    Abdel Maaroud Environment Canada
    Joan Masterton Environment Canada
    Chris McDermott Environment Canada
    Brian Mills Environment Canada
    Linda Mortsch Environment Canada
    Tad Murty Baird and Associates Coastal Engineers
    Paul Parker University of Waterloo
    John Robinson University of British Columbia
    Hans-Holger Rogner University of Victoria
    Daniel Scott Environment Canada
    Sharon Smith Natural Resources Canada
    Barry Smit University of Guelph
    John Stone Vice-Chair, WGI
    Tana Lowen Stratton Dept. Foreign Affairs and International Trade
    Roger Street Environment Canada
    Eric Taylor Natural Resources Canada
    G. Daniel Williams Environment Canada (retired)

    E. Basso Independent Consultant

    Du Bilan China Institute for Marine Development Strategy
    Z. Chen China Meteorological Administration
    Liu Chunzhen Hydrological Forecasting & Water Control Center
    Zhou Dadi Energy Research Institute
    Qin Dahe China Meteorological Administration
    Xiaosu Dai IPCC WGI TSU
    Lin Erda Chinese Academy of Agricultural Science
    Mingshan Su Tsinghua University
    Yihui Ding Co-Chair, WGI
    Guangsheng Zhou Chinese Academy of Sciences
    Z.C. Zhao National Climate Center

    Ramon Pichs-Madruga Vice-Chair, WGIII
    A.G. Suarez Cuban Environmental Agency

    Czech Republic
    Jan Pretel Vice-Chair, WGII

    Jesper Gundermann Danish Energy Agency
    Kirsten Halsnaes Riso International Laboratory
    Erik Rasmussen Danish Energy Agency
    Martin Stendel Danish Meteorological Institute

    Timothy Carter Finnish Environment Institute
    P. Heikinheimo Ministry of Environment
    Raino Heino Finnish Meteorological Institute
    Pekka E. Kauppi University of Helsinki
    R. Korhonen VTT Energy
    A. Lampinen University of Jyväskyla
    I. Savolainen VTT Energy

    Olivier Boucher Universite de Lille I
    Marc Darras Gaz de France
    Jane Ellis OECD
    Jean-Charles Hourcade CIRED/CNRS
    J.C. Morlot Environment Department
    M. Petit Ecole Polytechnique

    B.E. Gomez Department of Water Resources
    M. Njie Department of Water Resources

    Heinz-Jurgen Ahlgrimm Institute for Technology & Biosystems
    Rosemarie Benndorf Umweltbundesamt
    Peter Burschel Technische Universitat Munchen
    Ulrich Cubasch Max Planck Institut für Meteorologie
    U. Fuentes German Advisory Council on Global Change
    Joanna HouseMax Planck Inst. Biogeochemie
    Jucundus Jacobeit Universitaet Wuerzburg
    Eberhard Jochem Vice-Chair, WGIII
    Harald Kohl Federal Ministry of the Environment
    Petra Mahrenholz Federal Environmental Agency of Germany
    I. Colin Prentice Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry
    C. le Quéré Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry
    Sarah Raper University of East Anglia
    Ferenc Toth Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research
    Manfred Treber Germanwatch
    R. Sartorius Umweltbundesamt
    Michael Weber Ludwig-Maximilians Universität München
    Gerd-Rainer Weber Gesamtverband des Deutschen Steinkohlenberghaus

    G. Koppany University of Szeged
    Halldor Thorgeirsson Ministry for the Environment

    Murari Lal Indian Institute of Technology
    Rajendra K. Pachauri Tata Energy Research Institute
    N.H. Ravindranath Indian Institute of Sciences
    Priyadarshi Shukla Indian Institute of Management
    Leena Srivastava Tata Energy Research Institute

    R.T.M. Sutamihardja Vice-Chair, WGIII

    Simon Krichak Tel Aviv University

    Filippo Giorgi Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics (ICTP)
    Annarita Mariotti ENEA Climate Section

    Kazuo Asakura Central Research Institute (CRIEPI)
    Noriyuki Goto University of Tokyo, Komaba
    Mariko Handa Organization for Landscape and Urban Greenery Technology Development
    Hideo Harasawa Social and Environmental Systems Division
    Yasuo Hosoya Tokyo Electric Power Company
    Y. Igarashi Ministry of Foreign Affairs
    Takeshi Imai The Kansai Electric Power Co., Inc.
    M. Inoue Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry
    Hisashi Kato Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry
    Naoki Matsuo Global Industrial and Social Progress Research Institute (GISPRI)
    Hisayoshi Morisugi Tohoku University
    Tsuneyuki Morita National Institute for Environmental Studies
    Shinichi Nagata Environment Agency
    S. Nakagawa Japan Meteorological Agency
    Yoshiaki Nishimura Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry
    Ichiro Sadamori Global Industrial and Social Progress Research Institute (GISPRI)
    Akihiko Sasaki National Institute of Public Health
    Shojiro Sato Chuba Electric Power Co.
    A. Takeuchi Japan Meteorological Agency
    Kanako Tanaka Global Industrial and Social Progress
    Tomihiro Taniguchi Vice-Chair, IPCC

    Richard S. Odingo Vice-Chair, WGIII
    Kingiri Senelwa Moi University

    Paul Desanker University of Virginia

    Gustavo Albin Permanent Representative Mission of Mexico

    Abdelkader Allali Ministry of Agriculture, Rural Development and Fishing
    Abdalah Mokssit Centre National du Climat et de Recherchco Meteorologiques

    Alphonsus P.M. Baede Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI)
    T.A. Buishand Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute
    W.L. Hare Greenpeace International
    Catrinus J. Jepma University of Groningen
    E. Koekkoek Ministry of Housing, Spacial Planning and the Environment
    Rik Leemans National Institute of Public Health and Environmental Protection
    K. McKullen Greenpeace International
    Bert Metz Co-Chair, WGIII
    Leo Meyer Ministry of the Environment
    Maresa Oosterman Ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken
    M.B.A.M. Scheffers National Institute for Coastal and Marine Management
    Rob Swart Head, WGIII TSU
    H.M. ten Brink ECN
    Aad P. van Ulden Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute
    J. Verbeek Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management

    New Zealand
    Jon Barnett Macmillan Brown Centre for Pacific Studies, University of Canterbury
    Vincent Gray Climate Consultant
    Wayne Hennessy Coal Research Association of New Zealand, Inc.
    Piers Maclaren NZ Forest Research Institute
    Martin Manning Vice-Chair, WGII
    Helen Plume Ministry for the Environment
    A. Reisinger Ministry for the Environment
    J. Salinger National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd (NIWA)
    Ralph Sims Massey University

    Garba Goudou Dieudonne Office of the Prime Minister

    Sani Sambo Abubakar Tafawa Balewa University

    Torgrim Aspjell The Norwegian Pollution Control Authorities
    Oyvind Christophersen Ministry of Environment
    Eirik J. Forland Norwegian Meteorological Institute
    S. Gornas University of Bergen
    Jarle Inge Holten Terrestrial Ecology Research
    Snorre Kverndokk Frischsenteret/Frisch Centre
    A. Moene The Norwegian Meteorological Institute
    Audun Rossland The Norwegian Pollution Control Authorities
    Nils R. Saelthun Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Administration
    Tom Segalstad University of Oslom Norway
    S. Sundby Institute of Marine Research
    Kristian Tangen The Fridtjof Nansen Institute

    Mohammed bin Ali Al-Hakmani Ministry of Regional Municipalities, Environment & Water Resources

    Tariq Banuri Sustainable Development Policy Institute

    Eduardo Calvo Vice-Chair, WGIII
    Nadia Gamboa Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru

    Lewis H. Ziska International Rice Research Institute

    Jan Dobrowolski Goetel’s School of Environmental Protection & Engineering
    Zbyszek Kundzewicz Polish Academy of Sciences
    Miroslaw Mietus Institute of Meteorology & Water Management
    A. Olecka National Fund for Environmental Protection and Water Management
    M. Sadowski National Fund for Environmental Protection and Water Management
    Wojciech Suchorzewski Warsaw University of Technology

    Vasile Cuculeanu National Institute of Meteorology and Hydrology
    Adriana Marica National Institute of Meteorology and Hydrology

    Yurij Anokhin Institute of Global Climate & Ecology
    Oleg Anisimov State Hydrological Institute
    Igor Bashmakov Centre for Energy Efficiency (CENEF)
    Igor Karol Main Geophysical Observatory
    Alla Tsyban Institute of Global Climate and Ecology
    Yuri Izrael Vice-Chair, IPCC

    Alioune Ndiaye Vice-Chair, WGII
    Sierra Leone
    Ogunlade R. Davidson Co-chair, WGIII
    Slovak Republic
    Milan Lapin Comenius University
    South Africa
    Gerrie Coetzee Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism
    Bruce Hewitson University of Capetown
    Steve Lennon Eskom
    Robert J. Scholes CSIR

    Sergio Alonso University of the Balearic Islands
    Francisco Ayala-Carcedo Geomining Technological Institute of Spain
    Luis Balairon National Meteorological Institute
    Felix Hernandez CSIC
    Don Antonio Labajo Salazar Government of Spain
    Maria-Carmen Llasat Botija University of Barcelona
    Josep Penuelas Center for Ecological Research & Forestry Applications
    Ana Yaber University, Complutense of Madrid

    Sri Lanka
    Mohan Munasinghe Vice-Chair, WGIII
    B. Punyawardena Department of Agriculture

    Nagmeldin Elhassan Higher Coucil for Environment & Natural Resources

    Marianne Lillieskold Swedish Environmental Protection Agency
    Ulf Molau University of Gothenburg
    Nils-Axel Morner Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics Stockholm University
    Markku Rummukainen Swedish Meterorological and Hydrological Institute

    Christof Appenzeller Federal Office of Meteorology and Climatology (MetroSwiss)
    Fortunat Joos Vice-Chair, WGI
    Herbert Lang Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich (ETH)
    José Romero Office Federal de l’Environnement, des Forets et du Paysage
    T. Stocker University of Bern

    M.J. Mwandosya Centre for Energy, Environment, Science, and Technology
    Buruhani S. Nyenzi Vice-Chair, WGI

    United Kingdom
    Nigel Arnell University of Southampton
    C. Baker Natural Environment Research Council
    Terry Barker University of Cambridge
    K. G. Begg University of Surrey
    S.A. Boehmer-Christiansen University of Hull
    Richard Courtney The Libert
    K. Deyes Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
    Thomas E. Downing Environmental Change Institute
    University of Oxford
    Caroline Fish Global Atmosphere Division
    Chris Folland Met Office, Hadley Centre
    Jonathan Gregory Hadley Climate Research Centre
    Steve Gregory Forestry Commission
    David Griggs Head, WG-I TSU
    Joanna Haigh Imperial College
    M. Harley English Nature
    Susan Haseldine Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA)
    John Houghton Co-Chair, WG-I
    Mike Hulme University of East Anglia
    Michael Jefferson World Energy Council
    Cathy Johnson IPCC, Working Group I
    Sari Kovats London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
    David Mansell-Moullin International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association (IPIECA)
    Anil Markandya University of Bath
    A. McCulloch ICI Chemicals & Polymers Limited
    Gordon McFadyen Global Atmospheric Division Deparment of the Environment, Transport and the Regions
    A.J. McMichael London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
    Aubrey Meyer Global Commons Institute
    John Mitchell Hadley Center
    Martin Parry Jackson Environment Institute
    J.M. Penman Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions
    S. Raper University of East Anglia
    Keith Shine Department of Meteorology, University of Reading
    P. Singleton Scottish Environment Protection Agency
    Peter Smith IACR-Rothamsted
    P. Smithson University of Sheffield
    Peter Thorne School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia
    P. van der Linden Met Office Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
    David Warrilow Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
    Philip L. Woodworth Bidston Observatory

    United States
    Dilip Ahuja National Institute of Advanced Studies
    Dan Albritton NOAA Aeronomy Laboratory
    Jeffrey S. Amthor Oak Ridge National Laboratory
    Peter Backlund Office of Science and Technology Policy/Environment Division
    Lee Beck U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
    Leonard Bernstein IPIECA
    Daniel Bodansky U.S. Department of State
    Rick Bradley US Department of Energy
    James L. Buizer National Oceanic & Amtospheric Administration
    John Christy University of Alabama
    Susan Conard Office of Science and Technology Policy/Environment Division
    Curt Covey Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
    Benjamin DeAngelo U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
    Robert Dickinson University of Arizona
    David Dokken University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
    Rayola Dougher American Petroleum Institute
    William Easterling Pennsylvania State University
    Jerry Elwood Department of Enegry
    Paul R. Epstein Harvard Medical School
    Paul D. Farrar Naval Oceanographic Office
    Howard Feldman American Petroleum Institute
    Josh Foster NOAA Office of Global Programs
    Laurie Geller National Research Council
    Michael Ghil University of California, Los Angeles
    Vivien Gornitz Columbia University
    Kenneth Green Reason Public Policy Institute
    David Harrison National Economic Research Associates
    David D. Houghton University of Wisconsin-Madison
    Malcolm Hughes University of Arizona
    Stanley Jacobs Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University
    Henry D. Jacoby Massachusetts Institute of Technology
    Judson Jaffe Council of Economic Advisers
    Steven M. Japar Ford Motor Company
    Russell O. Jones American Petroleum Institute
    Sally Kane NOAA
    T. Karl NOAA National Climatic Data Center
    Charles Keller IGPP.SIO.UCSD
    Haroon Kheshgi Exxon Research & Engineering Company
    Ann Kinzig Arizona State University
    Maureen T. Koetz Nuclear Energy Institute
    Rattan Lal Ohio State Universtiy
    Chris Landsea NOAA AOML/Hurricane Research Division
    Neil Leary Head, WGII TSU
    Sven B. Lundstedt The Ohio State University
    Anthony Lupo University of Missouri – Columbia
    Michael C. MacCracken U.S. Global Change Research Program
    James J. McCarthy Co-Chair, WGII
    Gerald Meehl NCAR
    Robert Mendelsohn Yale University
    Patrick Michaels University of Virginia
    Evan Mills Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
    William Moomaw The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University
    Berrien Moore University of New Hampshire
    James Morison University of Washington
    Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta USEP/NHEERL/WED
    Camille Parmesan University of Texas
    J.A. Patz Johns Hopkins University
    Joyce Penner University of Michigan
    Roger A. Pielke Colorado State University
    Michael Prather University of California Irvine
    Lynn K. Price Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
    V. Ramaswamy NOAA
    Robert L. Randall The RainForest ReGeneration Institute
    Richard Richels Electric Power Research Institute
    David Rind National Aeronautics and Space Agency
    Catriona Rogers U.S. Global Change Research Program
    Matthias Ruth University of Maryland
    Jayant Sathaye Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
    Michael Schlesinger University of Illinois-Urbana-Champaign
    Stephen Schneider Stanford University
    Michael J. Scott Battelle Pacific Northwest Nat’l Laboratory
    Roger Sedjo Resources for the Future
    Walter Short National Renewable Energy Laboratory
    Joel B. Smith Stratus Consulting Inc.
    Robert N. Stavins John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University
    Ron Stouffer US Dept of Commerce/NOAA
    T. Talley Office of Global Change, U.S. Department of State
    Kevin Trenberth NCAR
    Edward Vine Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
    Henry Walker U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
    Robert Watson Chair, IPCC
    Howard Wesoky Federal Aviation Administration
    John P. Weyant Energy Modeling Forum, Stanford University
    Tom Wilbanks Oak Ridge National Laboratory

    Armando Ramirez Rojas Vice-Chair, WGI

    Chris Magadza University of Zimbabwe
    M.C. Zinyowera MSU Zimbabwe Gvt

  16. Bob, I think you put too much stock in the IPCC, which has proved itself to be untrustworthy and duplicitous (emphasis added):

    A Major Deception on Global Warming
    Op-Ed by Frederick Seitz
    Wall Street Journal, June 12, 1996

    Last week the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations organization regarded by many as the best source of scientific information about the human impact on the earth’s climate, released “The Science of Climate Change 1995,” its first new report in five years. The report will surely be hailed as the latest and most authoritative statement on global warming. Policy makers and the press around the world will likely view the report as the basis for critical decisions on energy policy that would have an enormous impact on U.S. oil and gas prices and on the international economy.

    This IPCC report, like all others, is held in such high regard largely because it has been peer-reviewed. That is, it has been read, discussed, modified and approved by an international body of experts. These scientists have laid their reputations on the line. But this report is not what it appears to be–it is not the version that was approved by the contributing scientists listed on the title page. In my more than 60 years as a member of the American scientific community, including service as president of both the National Academy of Sciences and the American Physical Society, I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report.

    A comparison between the report approved by the contributing scientists and the published version reveals that key changes were made after the scientists had met and accepted what they thought was the final peer-reviewed version. The scientists were assuming that the IPCC would obey the IPCC Rules–a body of regulations that is supposed to govern the panel’s actions. Nothing in the IPCC Rules permits anyone to change a scientific report after it has been accepted by the panel of scientific contributors and the full IPCC.

    The participating scientists accepted “The Science of Climate Change” in Madrid last November; the full IPCC accepted it the following month in Rome. But more than 15 sections in Chapter 8 of the report–the key chapter setting out the scientific evidence for and against a human influence over climate–were changed or deleted after the scientists charged with examining this question had accepted the supposedly final text.

    Few of these changes were merely cosmetic; nearly all worked to remove hints of the skepticism with which many scientists regard claims that human activities are having a major impact on climate in general and on global warming in particular.

    The following passages are examples of those included in the approved report but deleted from the supposedly peer-reviewed published version:

    “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.”

    “No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed to date] to anthropogenic [man-made] causes.”

    “Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced.”

    That was from the mid-90s. How can we trust that the same tactics haven’t been used again today? Furthermore, why would the IPCC feel the need to do such a thing in the first place?

  17. It gets even worse ST:

    Update (p.m.): If you’re wondering about this procedure which, to my knowledge, is unprecedented in public commission reporting, here’s what IPCC procedures (section 4) say about Technical Report acceptance:

    Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers or the Overview Chapter.

    So the purpose of the three-month delay between the publication of the Summary for Policy-Makers and the release of the actual WG1 is to enable them to make any “necessary” adjustments to the technical report to match the policy summary. Unbelievable. Can you imagine what securities commissions would say if business promoters issued a big promotion and then the promoters made the “necessary” adjustments to the qualifying reports and financial statements so that they matched the promotion. Words fail me.

    IPCC insiders should not be allowed to change a comma of the WG1 Report after Feb 2, 2007 to “ensure consistency” with the Summary. If the two are inconsistent, let the chips fall where they may.


    So, they are up to their old tricks again. Also, they closed off acceptance of papers before the recent ones published showing that the oceans have been cooling for the past 2-3 years, and deliberately did not go back and incorporate that data as it completely destroys their model based ramblings.

    But talking to people like Bob is a waste of time, he is a fundamentalist on this issue, with a completely closed mind, as sadly so many others are. Unlike most of us, these people actually seem to enjoy it when people pee on their heads and tell them it’s raining. Hopefully, though, the links and information in this thread will prove enlightening to more open minded and rational people, which is the entire reason I kept posting. It was obvious from the start that Bob would never actually read or think about this for himself, you can only hope that the thread will prove enlightening to others.

    Having sat on peer review panels, and panels choosing which articles are to be accepted for publication, I am fully aware of how political and pet theory biases can impact what gets published. I have over 20 published scientific and technical papers and have co-authored two books, so I don’t need others to “explain” the system to me, especially people who have absolutely no experience with this.

    This article is an excellent look at the kind of mindset that the environmental extremists have and which leads to the kind of inane overreaction we see on a daily basis out of them. ;)

Comments are closed.