A GISS Scientist pans the IPCC Report

Filed under Global Warming
Tagged as , , , , , ,

You have to wonder…

The IPCC was so determined to get its proselytising message out there that it rejected all advice and all criticism pointing out its lack of evidential backing for the extraordinary claims that it wanted to make.  Not just from outsiders and skeptics, but also from its own troops.

Like a man called Andrew Lacis of GISS.  Yep, that GISS – Hansen’s GISS.  Lacis criticised the executive summary of Chapter 9 of the IPCC report thus:

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.

He’s talking about the summary of the chapter of the report that “establishes” that the global warming is man-made – the one that is the basis of the clarion call to action.

The man is one of the climate science community.  It is very clear from his criticism that he is a scientist on the side of the warmers.  It is also clear that he wants the findings presented with scientific rigour, open to testing and scientific debate.  Which is what I would expect from a scientist.  Scientists are not afraid to have their theories examined.  In fact, they actively want that to happen.  That’s how knowledge evolves.

But the IPCC, as he observed, is about promoting a political agenda.  It is not about knowledge.  Lacis’s criticism was rejected as summarily as those from outside the ranks of the AGW lobby.  Nothing was going to stop the IPCC from pressing ahead with their baloney.

Andrew Lacis, maybe you should contact Penn & Teller.  They may disagree with you, but they at least would discuss that disagreement rationally.

Reference: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/09/hansen-colleague-rejected-ipcc-ar4-es-as-having-no-scientific-merit-but-what-does-ipcc-do/

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

*
*

*