This idea has a lot of merit.

“Dr. James Hansen receives the Heinz Award in the Environment for his exemplary leadership in the critical and often-contentious debate over the threat of global climate change.”

Why not just get your opinion of Dr. Hansen straight from the horses mouth so to speak….. http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/
That site is his own words and his own agenda. I personally do not see any… ANY!!!! form of objectivity coming from him only his agenda. Is this the kind of scientist you want researching your future?

http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/about-us/

-I can’t, there’s someone wrong on the internet.

-Is your pome about models trying to mimic clouds being like a cow flying over the moon?

-Yes, but it’s no good if you have to explain it.
======================================

I suspect he’s also hit the nail on the head with his first scenario, that ‘all models must have common errors that prevent them from capturing these different physical mechanisms, which have yet to be identified’. Isn’t that practically admitting what every skeptic knows, that clouds and convection are inadequately parameterized at present?

I think I’ve never heard so loud
The quiet message in a cloud.

Still louder, now, but still and all,
Still ’tis shadows on the wall.
=========================================

Read the following, where Santor (from Lawrence Livermore,
http://esi-topics.com/nhp/2007/january-07-BenjaminDSanter.html)
uses “consensus” and agreements between AGW-funded/biased theories and AGW-funded/biased computer models (more theory with even more approximations!) to throw out the measaurements of the real world.

“We found rather puzzling amplification results for the UAH lower tropospheric temperatures (TLT). For “fast” (month-to-month and year-to-year) fluctuations in tropical temperatures, UAH TLT anomalies were 1.3 to 1.4 times larger than surface temperature anomalies, consistent with models, theory, and other observational datasets. But for “slow” (decade-to-decade) temperature changes, the UAH TLT trends were noticeably smaller than surface trends.

In contrast, amplification results from nearly two dozen computer models were consistent with theory across all timescales considered, despite large differences in model structure, physics, and climate forcings.

We also saw tropospheric amplification of surface temperature changes in a second observational TLT dataset developed by the Remote Sensing Systems group (RSS) in California. Although RSS and UAH scientists relied on the same raw MSU data, they made different decisions on how to adjust that data for the effects of drifts in satellite orbits and for instrument calibration problems.

One possible explanation for our results is that the UAH data are reliable, and that different physical mechanisms control the response of the tropical atmosphere to “fast” and “slow” surface temperature fluctuations. If so, all models must have common errors that prevent them from capturing these different physical mechanisms, which have yet to be identified.

A second explanation is that significant inhomogeneities remain in the UAH tropospheric temperature records, leading to residual cooling biases in the UAH long-term trend estimates. In our view, this second explanation is simpler and more plausible, given the consistency of amplification results across models and timescales, our theoretical understanding of how the tropical atmosphere should respond to sustained surface heating, and the currently large uncertainties in observed tropospheric temperature trends.”

What Santor is deliberately saying is that “Atmospheric theory and computer climate derived from that theory agree with each other, but don’t agree with the measured data, so we must throw out the measured data because it makes our theory wrong.” (And, by the way, this disagreement means my funding and reputation are threatened.)

Should “science” be an answer in political debates?
Absolutely!

But should politics be an answer in scientific debates? It is now: The IPCC IS a powerful political machine, and one that no scruples, morals, nor ethics as ot seeks to move trillions of dollars to corrupt dictators, and to the politicians that empower the bureaucrats.

Dee
Why not set up a separate fund for donations to enable people that can contribute to the conference but can’t afford to attend. I would be willing to donate provided we could find someone to audit the cash and so on.

This message could be spread through all the interested sites to get the widest response.

Regards

Paul

In point of fact, to earn the status of IPCC Expert Reviewer all one has to do is submit a review comment and agree to abide by the Terms and Conditions of the IPCC. The comment does not have to be accepted. You or I could become an IPCC Expert Reviewer.

And the Viscount was not the only, nor even the first person to spot the error, others did so with rather less fuss. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/02/the-ipcc-fourth-assessment-summary-for-policy-makers/#comment-24730

cheers

Monckton is already so endowed merely by being an official IPCC reviewer. That he alone spotted the “typo” (nothing much–just a massive spurious increase in sea level) is the reason he actually has earned his piece of the prize.