Skip to comments.
Hansen's GISS colleague declared that the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report had "no scientific merit".
Watts Up With That blog ^
| Tuesday, february 9, 2010
| Anthony Watts
Posted on 02/09/2010 10:49:30 AM PST by jpl
While perusing some of the review comments to the IPCCs Fourth Assessment Report, I came across the contributions of Andrew Lacis, a colleague of James Hansens at GISS. Laciss is not a name Ive come across before but some of what he has to say about Chapter 9 of the IPCCs report is simply breathtaking.
Chapter 9 is possibly the most important one in the whole IPCC report its 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. Wasnt 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."
Im speechless. The chapter authors, however werent. 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?
TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Front Page News; Government
KEYWORDS: amazongate; andrewlacis; carbontrade; climatechange; climatechangedata; giss; glaciergate; globalwarming; globalwarmingfraud; globalwarminghoax; globalwarmingscandal; globqalwarminghoax; hansen; ipcc; jameshansen; nasa; pachauri; pachaurigate
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-23 next last
Folks, this might just as big a revelation as the leaked internal e-mails. Lacis is not a skeptic, he works at NASA right along with Hansen! Astonishing doesn't even begin to cover this.
1
posted on
02/09/2010 10:49:30 AM PST
by
jpl
To: jpl
He is like the bad kid who is smart enough to figure out that dad is on to them and maybe they shouldn't keep up their old shenanigans and ‘run a tight ship’ for awhile.
His logical demand that global warming be factually established before a cause is assigned flies in the face of the “Red Queen logic” of most climate “scientists”; “sentence first, trial after”.
2
posted on
02/09/2010 10:53:32 AM PST
by
allmendream
(Income is EARNED not distributed. So how could it be re-distributed?)
To: cogitator
3
posted on
02/09/2010 10:54:16 AM PST
by
ConservativeMind
(Hypocrisy: "Animal rightists" who eat meat & pen up pets while accusing hog farmers of cruelty.)
To: jpl
Lacis may need to delve into the flaws in depth to get them to start listening.
4
posted on
02/09/2010 10:55:45 AM PST
by
HiTech RedNeck
(I am in America but not of America (per bible: am in the world but not of it))
To: allmendream
“bu-bu-bu-bu-but, that’s not POSSIBLE! how can all these peer reviewed, blued, and tattooed inbred slyentists be wrong?”
5
posted on
02/09/2010 11:00:16 AM PST
by
HiTech RedNeck
(I am in America but not of America (per bible: am in the world but not of it))
To: HiTech RedNeck
They openly said in their e-mail conspiracy that they were fighting against peer-review, and would “change what peer review means if we have to”.
They had to. They knew they had to.
This stuff wouldn't fly among real scientists, and only barely flew among climate “scientists” and only through constant manipulation and attempts to “game” or change the peer review system.
6
posted on
02/09/2010 11:04:09 AM PST
by
allmendream
(Income is EARNED not distributed. So how could it be re-distributed?)
To: jpl; Desdemona; meyer; Para-Ord.45; Normandy; mmanager; FreedomPoster; carolinablonde; bamahead; ...
7
posted on
02/09/2010 11:04:15 AM PST
by
steelyourfaith
(FReepers were opposed to Obama even before it was cool to be against Obama.)
To: steelyourfaith
8
posted on
02/09/2010 11:12:14 AM PST
by
bamahead
(Few men desire liberty; most men wish only for a just master. -- Sallust)
To: jpl
WOW!
9
posted on
02/09/2010 11:16:11 AM PST
by
MrDem
To: MrDem
WOW!
10
posted on
02/09/2010 11:16:43 AM PST
by
MrDem
To: jpl
>> Wasnt the IPCC Assessment Report intended to be a scientific document...
The first order problem.
11
posted on
02/09/2010 11:19:42 AM PST
by
Gene Eric
(Your Hope has been redistributed. Here's your Change.)
To: jpl
I love watching this slow train wreck, the next fool that needs to be hoisted on his petard is Hansen.
12
posted on
02/09/2010 11:20:54 AM PST
by
Brett66
(Where government advances, and it advances relentlessly , freedom is imperiled -Janice Rogers Brown)
To: jpl
"The presentation sounds like something put together by Greenpeace activists and their legal department."
yup, because that's essentially what it is!
This is a big deal - showing how the vaunted IPCC "process" took no account of criticism of such a fundamentally unsound and anti-scientific approach. IPCC credibility continues to swirl down the tubes.
13
posted on
02/09/2010 11:35:08 AM PST
by
Enchante
(If Obama referred to the "Press Corpse" the MSM might care about his IGNORANCE)
To: jpl
The real shocker is the msm direct complicitous activity in this scam. Actually CFRIMINAL activity.
Either they didn’t bother to read the Chapter 9 statement. Or they intentionally are continuing to LIE to the public regarding this GW/CC outrage.
14
posted on
02/09/2010 12:30:21 PM PST
by
Marty62
(former Marty60)
To: jpl; Marty62; allmendream; cogitator; ConservativeMind; HiTech RedNeck; bamahead; MrDem; ...
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
16
posted on
02/11/2010 11:04:22 PM PST
by
HiTech RedNeck
(I am in America but not of America (per bible: am in the world but not of it))
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
17
posted on
02/12/2010 12:00:14 AM PST
by
neverdem
To: HiTech RedNeck; iowamark
Go to thread linked at post #15 and then see post #13....supplied by iowamark
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach; iowamark
Is this coined from Barack Obama?
19
posted on
02/12/2010 9:18:46 AM PST
by
HiTech RedNeck
(I am in America but not of America (per bible: am in the world but not of it))
To: HiTech RedNeck
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-23 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson