Hansen colleague rejected IPCC AR4 ES as having “no scientific merit”, but what does IPCC do?

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.

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

Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995


The academic at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that he has trouble ‘keeping track’ of the information.
Colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers.
Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’.
The data is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ used by climate change advocates to support the theory.

Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.
And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.
The admissions will be seized on by sceptics as fresh evidence that there are serious flaws at the heart of the science of climate change and the orthodoxy that recent rises in temperature are largely man-made.
Professor Jones has been in the spotlight since he stepped down as director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit after the leaking of emails that sceptics claim show scientists were manipulating data.
The raw data, collected from hundreds of weather stations around the world and analysed by his unit, has been used for years to bolster efforts by the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to press governments to cut carbon dioxide emissions.



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html?ITO=1490

I wonder if any of the data used to push "global warming" being caused by man is true.
I think an investigation of those pushing this should be done and heads should roll for the false data.

Global warming is not caused by man. Mother earth has done this many times before. The magnetic force is weaker than it has been and that lets in more radiation from the sun. If man thinks he can control mother nature then he had better think again.

Man is just using it as an excuse to box us in even more and make money doin' it.

i farted ooops sorry people i destroyed 2/3rds of the ozone

damn it! I knew it was you!

Not " man ". Liberals.

Plain and simple.

News flash... it was never together. In fact, before we had 'Global Warming' we had a form of the same in a big 'Global Cooling' theme. A con is a con and a lie is a lie... which leaves little good to say about Uncle Sam (the D.C. one, for those of you with an uncle named Sam like me).
The truth is, that we only get hemispheric warming. It happens for half a year, and is called Summer.

i feel a force thats disturbing..Nuke Liewalker

I was wondering where that green cloud came from.

Not true.

What is wrong with trying to keep the planet we need to survive clean and healthy?

I just cannot figure that out.

It is not even optional that we HAVE TO HAVE THIS PLANET TO SURVIVE so what is the problem with doing what we can to keep it healthy?

It just seems so stupid to fight against keeping the planet healthy!!!!

Not true, your not true.

Using it to tax everyone on obvious life functions, such as breathing in oxygen and breathing out carbon dioxide has nothing to do with keeping the planet healthy, that's what is wrong with it.

Also, obviously, the ones pushing carbon taxes depend on people with no education whatsoever and that's why they had such a support. There are at least a 100 million times more stupid people on this world than educated ones.

That's probably the most dangerous thing on this planet. Billions of uneducated people herded around like sheep in any direction. That's why we have such a crap economy in the first place as well.

Bush being voted into office proves your last statement.

In everything there are over zealots but keeping our planet healthy is a big BIG issue and it is our responsibility no matter the cost to do it.

We should want to do it for our children's children's children. And all inbetween.

It's not that I don't want the planet to be healthy. It's that I'm against starving plants for no reason. Plants use CO2 to grow. Global warming people use bad science to make people think CO2 is bad. Basically, if they had any REAL EVIDENCE that it hurt the planet, I'd give it some consideration. However, as it is every argument made for global warming has no evidence that is not outweighed by evidence with better scientific backing! I don't know, maybe it's me... but I just don't feel like rewarding lies.

Guess what?
In Texas, they are producing CO2.
If it's such a bad thing, why are they allowed to build plants to produce CO2?

There you go again.

No point in you actually saying anything with any substance since that argument seems to work so well for that little box you live in...lmao

Al Gore....Liberal.

Nancy Pelosi...Liberal.

How many Conservatives do you see screaming about how we're all gonna die if we don't allow government to control our lives???

It actually MIGHT have, in the relatively near future, BECOME optional if Obama hadn't decided to completely kill NASA's manned space flight program.

Gotta have more money for the banks....and Government Motors still isn't profitable. Don't forget all the handouts to the pathetic masses who NEED our Government to give them stuff they haven't worked to earn.

Considering that every living thing expels waste and we are the worst of all living things in that department there is no way in hell that we are not affecting our environment for the worst.

How long it will take to do ourselves in is anyones guess but it will happen. Why not try to stop it from happening as fast if we know that we are wasteful poisoning creatures like we know we are.

Well since it isn't just liberal who say this, I had to state the truth.

There are conservatives who know we are poisoning ourselves to death and are probably profiting off it somehow. Don't play me for a fool, I am not conservative.