Comments on: People in Greenhouses Throwing Stones

By: Alex Tanner

Alex Tanner — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 01:10:00 +0000

The IPCC flyer refers to 6 years of science (i.e. 2001-2007) but the Kyoto Protocol was established in 1997… So the IPCC knew how to deal with climate change before researching the science? I don’t think so! Check the WG lists again for a “Mystic Meg, PhD”!

By: john a. bailo

john a. bailo — Sat, 12 Jan 2008 23:47:00 +0000

I’m reading the IPCC IV chapter on “Historic Overview of Climate Change”.

Right on the first page of that chapter, p. 95, I have to react. I think I can best summarize my argument as “The Lady [IPCC] Doth Protest Too Much”. It begins not with a simple argument of their position, but with a polemic which pretty much says that their theory is infalible and anyone who argues with any part of it is anti-science! These history of science facts (Kuhn, et. al) are things that even the readers of popluar science are familiar with — but they seem to suggest a dissident quelling effort going on even before the argument is made!

I will continue reading, but the alarm bells are already ringing…

By: Editors

Editors — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 09:42:00 +0000

Demesure, that would be most welcome.

Our address is at the bottom of the right hand sidebar.

We'd be grateful for any info on IPCC contributors that we've not been able to locate, or are from non english-speaking countries.

By: John A

John A — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 05:33:00 +0000

Of course, anyone can become an expert reviewer like for example, William “Stoat” Connelley although his expertise appeared limited to spelling and grammar.

They should have let Lambert in, because his comments would have been hilarious.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 08:32:00 +0000

Of the 14 French lead authors of WG1/AR4, 12 work in a laboratory of the archpowerful French CEA (commissariat à l'énergie atomique which translates into: commission of energy that-emits-zero-carbon).

If it is of any interest to you, I can retrieve the precise list.

Demesure

By: T. Greer

T. Greer — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 00:58:00 +0000

I was hoping you guys would come out with this soon. A shame that you couldn’t find the specifics for the NOAA/NASA scientists, but that is life.

I do look forward to your review of the reviewers. I hope you take the time out to check on the 62 scientist who reviewed chapter 9 of the WGI. I wonder how credible the reviewers of the report’s most critical chapter actually are.