http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/0...-does-ipcc-do/
February 9, 2010, 09:06:27 | Anthony Watts
The ever sharp Bishop Hill blog writes:
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?
(h/t to WUWT reader Tom Mills)