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

[jpl]

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?

[jpl]

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.

[allmendream]

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”.

[ConservativeMind]

Ping of note.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Lacis may need to delve into the flaws in depth to get them to start listening.

[HiTech RedNeck]

“bu-bu-bu-bu-but, that’s not POSSIBLE! how can all these peer reviewed, blued, and tattooed inbred slyentists be wrong?”

[allmendream]

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.

[steelyourfaith]

 

Trained Astronomer & Climate Superstitionist !

[bamahead]

WOW!

[MrDem]

WOW!

[MrDem]

WOW!

[Gene Eric]

>> Wasn’t the IPCC Assessment Report intended to be a scientific document...

The first order problem.

[Brett66]

I love watching this slow train wreck, the next fool that needs to be hoisted on his petard is Hansen.

[Enchante]

"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.

[Marty62]

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.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

See this thread in regard to Dr. Hansen:

Hansen barracking for lawless destruction and the end of civilization (NASA director James Hansen)

[HiTech RedNeck]

‘Barracking’ ?

[neverdem]

Thanks Ernest

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Go to thread linked at post #15 and then see post #13....supplied by iowamark

[HiTech RedNeck]

Is this coined from Barack Obama?

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

From :

Verb -- to barrack (third-person singular simple present barracks, present participle barracking, simple past and past participle barracked)

(Australian, New Zealand) to cheer on a team etc

• (British) to jeer