I have written extensible about the inner workings of IPCC, it’s working groups, the different revisions including the important ”The Second Order Revision” or SOR; who commented on what, the reviewers and what chapters they commented on, who many comments per reviewer per chapter, total comments per reviewer etc.
The crucial roll of the “editors”. In chapter 9 62 scientists commented but NEARLY 60% was rejected by the “editors”. I further have written about the percentage of comments that was rejected per chapter and per revision.
And the ”serious vested interest” among many of these commentators (57%).
And the strange facts that authors of chapters commented and proposed changes to their OWN chapters. (One author made 282 comments to the chapter he himself contributed to).
And did you know that it was ONLY 5 “scientists” who commented on all 11 chapters in SOR in WG1?
And that16 countries plus the EU Commission made 639 comments to SOR?
Here is ONE MORE very good example of how the chapters lead authors manipulated the reports.
This example is from chapter 9
And remember, Andrew Lacis is a colleague of Hansen at GISS.
See some of my old posts about IPCC:
Andrew Lacis Bio here:
His expert comment (9-67on First-Order Draft 16 November 2005) here
Click on the photos and they get bigger
Hansen’s colleague eviscerates AR4 Chapter 9
Feb 9, 2010 Climate
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?
Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>
Etiketter: Al Gore, Carbon Trading, CO2, Etanol, EU, EU Parlamentet, Global Warming Hysteri, Havsis, Havsnivå, IPCC, Isbjörnar, Journalism, Klimatmodeller, Korruption, Kyoto, Media, News, Obama, Orkaner, Politik, Press, Riksdagen, Snötäcket, Temperaturdata, UN, Vindkraft