The IPCC gives me a shock

Yesterday I did something that I never expected to get any results on. My lucky number 1029 paid off.

I’ve been appointed as an expert reviewer for the IPCC AR5. I’ve viewed the invitation letter and it’s the real deal.

============================================================

—–Original Message—–
From: wg1-it@ipcc.unibe.ch
Sent: Friday, December 16, 2011 1:57 AM
To: awatts@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: wg1-it@ipcc.unibe.ch
Subject: Invitation to Provide an Expert Review of the First Order Draft WGI contribution to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report
Dear Anthony Watts,
The IPCC Working Group I (WGI) Co-Chairs are pleased to announce the
Expert Review of the First Order Draft (FOD) of the WGI contribution
to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report Climate Change 2013: The Physical
Science Basis (AR5) and invite you to serve as an Expert Reviewer. An
invitation letter is available from
https://fod.ipcc.unibe.ch/fod/PDFs/WGIAR5_ExpertReview_InvitationLetter.pdf
and may be accessed using your individual username and password:
User name: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Password: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
This username and password pair is personalized for you and may not
be shared. Your username and password will be required to access the
WGI AR5 FOD Chapters and to submit a review. The drafts, review form,
and additional supporting material are available from the WGI AR5 FOD
Expert Review website:
https://fod.ipcc.unibe.ch/fod/
Expert Reviewers are kindly reminded that all materials provided from
this website are available for the sole purpose of the Expert Review
and may not be cited, quoted, or distributed.
The WGI AR5 Expert Review of the FOD will run from 16 December 2011
to 10 February 2012. All comments must be submitted through the above
website by the close of the Expert Review on 10 February 2012.
Thank you in advance for providing a review of the WGI AR5 FOD.
Best regards,
IPCC WGI TSU
on behalf of the WGI Co-Chairs
——————————————————————
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Working Group I Technical Support Unit – IT   wg1-it@ipcc.unibe.ch
University of Bern                           ph:  +41 31 631 56 18
Zaehringerstrasse 25                         fx:  +41 31 631 56 15
3012 Bern, Switzerland                           http://www.ipcc.unibe.ch
——————————————————————

========================================================

Anyone else get accepted?

About these ads
This entry was posted in IPCC and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

226 Responses to The IPCC gives me a shock

  1. TheBigYinJames says:

    All your emails are secret now! Well done!

  2. John Marshall says:

    Great news Anthony. Give em hell. (To paraphrase Gen McCarther)

  3. tallbloke says:

    Congrats! Make sure you’re not used to endorse something bad though.

  4. jim c says:

    will this muzzle you?

    REPLY: No, I plan to have Kenji do the reviews /sarc – Anthony

  5. marinaman says:

    Now you are on the inside!

  6. Er, holy cow! Doesn’t that sort of put you in an awkward position?

  7. AdderW says:

    Sweet !
    But this also makes for a “neat” setup.
    Make sure what you review and what’s printed is the same once it get published.

  8. Lady in Red says:

    This is good. This is scary!

    Be careful. Watch your back at all times, but believe it is honest. (I recall Michael Mann’s “TED”
    talk in the last few days and The Team still seems to have the same political agenda: hide the data, the models, everything. Hmmmm….. I look at The Team’s response to Curry and Webster’s criticism of the IPCC and worry….)

    But, this is very very good. A long time coming. I wonder if McIntyre and McKitrick will also get invites. ….Lady in Red

  9. PJP says:

    It’s a trap!

    (well, hopefully not, but be careful what they use your name to endorse)

  10. George Lawson says:

    ‘Expert Reviewers are kindly reminded that all materials provided from
    this website are available for the sole purpose of the Expert Review
    and may not be cited, quoted, or distributed.’

    Does this mean you will not br permitted to comment on this site?

  11. p gosselin says:

    Give the activists from the NGOs, like Greenpeace and the WWF, my best regards!

  12. Burch says:

    What’s that old saw? Something, something, keep your enemies closer…

    Congrats!

  13. Old Goat says:

    So long as you’re not merely being considered a “token” sceptic, and your input “lost” in the noise…

  14. William McClenney says:

    Congrats Anthony! Watch your backside……….

  15. Stephen Richards says:

    It does not say that your comments will be acted upon, Anthony. This may well be a sop to placate sceptics.

  16. David Davidovics says:

    I’m not sure what to think about this. I figure its either a mistake or they will try and use you to legitimize the skewed results down the road the same way Muller did. Either case should be interesting. As I said before, keep your eye on the pea under the thimble (and have fun!)

  17. Hans Verbeek says:

    If you can’t beat them, join ‘em.

  18. Don B says:

    why do I have the sense, that no matter how strong your arguments, in the end the decisions will be made by a small core group.

  19. pittzer says:

    Represent our side with complete, unassailable objectivity. Good luck.

  20. p gosselin says:

    Honestly I think it’s all a sham. They’ll act like they’re listening to you, ignore any input you offer, and then claim that they’ve included all scientists and experts in the process.

    REPLY:
    Probably, that’s what happened to McIntyre last time around, yet it is still important to do this. – Anthony

  21. Neil Jones says:

    Any bet’s that they’ll change their minds?

  22. Adolf Goreing says:

    Actually, I´ve got an invitation too. So we are at least two skeptics onboard now. Should be interesting.

  23. Curfew says:

    Very good, but proceed with caution!

  24. Tom Ragsdale says:

    I smell a rat.

  25. randy says:

    yup. i did. thought it might be a good idea since i have expertise on snowpack data in the rocky mountains and western usa, went thru the process, got the letter. pretty simple.

  26. And there you are:
    http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?search=631+56+15

    Tue, 10 Nov 2009 3:59:07 am
    1257847147.txt-3012 Bern, Switzerland
    1257847147.txt-ph: +41 ???
    1257847147.txt:fx: +41 ???
    1257847147.txt-http://www.ipcc.unibe.ch
    1257847147.txt—————————————————

    – is also a message.
    Ilkka.

    REPLY: No it’s not, you are practicing numerology, and I’m growing weary of it. Troll bin for your ramblings now – Anthony

  27. Crispin in Waterloo says:

    Will there be a non-disclosure agreement involved?

  28. matthu says:

    Better (for them) to have you inside the tent p*ssing out than outside the tent etc. (Make sure you turn around properly when they address you.)

  29. Doubting Thomas says:

    Congratulations, Anthony. It would have looked very bad for the IPCC if they had not allowed you into the review process. I’m sure there are many NGO “scientists,” etc., who are far less qualified. I’ve been a reviewer before. It’s a lot of hard work but I’m sure you’ll do it well.

  30. T. Currie says:

    Watch your food and drinks. Congrats, make us proud.

  31. Jenn Oates says:

    Color me both surprised AND impressed. We’ll see where it goes from here, but hopefully it’s only good, nothing else. And adventure for the Chico boy, anyway, right? :)

  32. Give ‘em Hell, Anthony!
    (with all due respect to the 33rd POTUS)

    d(^_^)b
    http://libertyatstake.blogspot.com/
    “Because the Only Good Progressive is a Failed Progressive”

  33. Matt Skaggs says:

    For Burch:
    The American (Texan) version, courtesy of LBJ: “Its better to have a troublemaker inside the tent pissing out, than outside the tent pissing in.” But actually I am leaning more towards the conspiracy theorists. Anthony cannot comment or post on anything related to AR5 until the process is completed, Anthony’s input will be ignored, and when AR5 is published, it will be stamped with the imprimatur of none other than Anthony Watts. That said, if it were me, I would go ahead and participate anyway. Successful efforts to improve the behavior of powerful entities generally consist of countless lost battles on the way to winning the war.

  34. sounds like a ploy – confidentially agreements, ‘skeptic network silenced from the top down’ , a leap in IPCC credibility, whilst you are assigned to the ‘backblocks’. 20 000 emails dispersed slowly, it would be hard to criticise your bosses… just my initial thoughts/gut reaction.

  35. Hal says:

    I am sure the IPCC gang (after getting instense blowback from the Warmist bloggers) will see the error of their way, and regretably remove you, Anthony.

    It was a nice, temporary,victory.

  36. DJ says:

    Anthony, I very glad for you. Unfortunately, having read the actual exchange between the lead authors and the contributors and those who do the actual internal reviews and comments prior to the assessment report’s release…..I fear for both you time, and you upcoming frustration.

    I’ve seen how Fred Singer, and many others have been treated in the process (the official name of it I don’t recall) where their comments or criticisms are summarily dismissed….it’s gonna be painful.

    Nonetheless, I am still happy for you to be on the “inside”. Other readers will now get a much closer and more accurate view of the REAL process. And maybe, just maybe, they’ll be more honest this time around.

  37. David S says:

    Not that I mean to give you unworthy ideas, Anthony, but when a cliché-ridden consultant suggested to a crusty old English gent that he would rather have some competitors inside p***ing out than outside p***ing in, the response was….”Peter, you have neglected a third possibility – you may find that they are inside p***ing in.”

  38. Moira says:

    Lucky for them, Anthony. For you, I hope it’s better than BEST.

  39. AntiAcademia says:

    They simply cannot ignore you anymore Mr. Watts, in my humble opinion that is the main reason they did this. You have reached such a massive audience and trustworthiness that they MUST invite you or they will face a hurricane of critics. You and others like you really changed public opinion. Public opinion FORCES them to do that. You got a really difficult fight on your back, Mr Watts, I hope your courage and wisdom will help you in doing a great job

  40. Microbiologist says:

    Fantastic news! I understand the reservations aired already, but I am hoping that ClimateGates 1 & 2, the erosion of public support for AGW, BBC Bias, failing green businesses etc. has rattled the IPCC cage sufficiently for them to be worried about their paymasters turning off the tap, and hence this move.

  41. Just look at the memorable username and password you have. All x’s.

    Seriously, as people are saying… be careful and seek lots of advice on this one.

  42. Fitzcarraldo says:

    Sorry but I’m afraid AW has fallen for it again like the BEST experiment. Since they are desperate to neutralize skepticism and real science they are trying to recruit WUWT and don’t be surprised if CA and others are recruited. If you cant beat them join them and make them turn LOL Big mistake in my view as with the BEST project you are giving the scientific respect they do not deserve or have.

    REPLY: Nobody recruited me, I was not invited by IPCC to apply, I was given a tip by another skeptic on the application page – Anthony

  43. Ken Hall says:

    Bearing in mind how Dr Muller treated you with your previous work, I am sure that you will be much more careful this time around. Congratulations on your invite and remember the scientific method is the most important set of principles in the search for truth.

  44. Russell C says:

    The IPCC takes all kinds. I wrote about two AR4 reviewers who had significant involvement in the smear of skeptic scientists here, “There is a Cancer Growing on the IPCC and Al Gore” http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/06/there_is_a_cancer_growing_on_the_ipcc_and_al_gore.html , and I also mentioned in the comments for the WUWT thread about the genesis of RealClimate that Fenton Communication’s Kalee Kreider – a.k.a. Al Gore’s current spokesperson – is also found in the IPCC’s 1997 “Authors, Contributors, and Expert Reviewers of the Regional Impacts Special Report” Annex H page (scroll down to the USA section http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/regional/index.php?idp=329 )

  45. Duke C. says:

    Well-

    MY Expert Reviewer registration was just Confirmed.

    Conf.# 1077

    Awaiting the confirmation email…

  46. MattC says:

    Here, I’ll write the intro paragraph for the next report:
    Something, something, something, Complete. Something, something, something, Vexatious. Something, something, something, Dark Side.

    OK, you guys go ahead and fill in the details.

  47. “…Expert Reviewers are kindly reminded that all materials provided from this website are available for the sole purpose of the Expert Review and may not be cited, quoted, or distributed…”

    and “…The WGI AR5 Expert Review of the FOD will run from 16 December 2011 to 10 February 2012…”

    Means he can’t comment on the papers or content until AFTER 10 Feb, 2011. Didn’t say he can’t copy the papers and data he finds there. Think about the data we can’t find anywhere else, using FOIA.

    Sounds like SEVERAL skeptics have been given the key.

    On Feb 11th, however, we expect a FULL report on what you found hidden in there.

  48. Mark Bofill says:

    There are several possible explanations, and maybe I’m giving the co-chairs too much credit. Maybe the person/s who issued the approval didn’t even realize who Anthony Watts is. Still, if they did, one can argue that this is a smart move on their part. If they can say afterwards that skeptics such as Watts were involved in the expert review process, they legitimize the process and the results become that much stronger.
    That being said, I agree with you Anthony – it is important to do this. Not being willing to play ball isn’t a good way to answer the gambit either.

    Mark Bofill

  49. Mary Childs says:

    Have you discussed this with Dr. Curry in light of her recent Univ of Calif involvement?

  50. Al Marinaro says:

    They invite you, then you are somehow legally binded not to talk about anything IPCC. Sounds like a possible legalese trick to me… Beware..

  51. srvdisciple says:

    Anthony, Will be allowed to post your review and comments here or will the IPCC own your inputs?

  52. klem says:

    “I am sure the IPCC gang (after getting instense blowback from the Warmist bloggers) will see the error of their way, and regretably remove you, Anthony. ”

    I think the term is ‘politely dis-invite’ him. This is an interesting tern of events none the less.

  53. Hoser says:

    All your email are belong to us.
    If you report in any way on leaked IPCC materials, they will say you leaked it. It’s going to be a tough call whether to be a responsible voice on the work or continue with the the full strength WUWT. However, I know you will make a wise choice. Either way, you have my respect and admiration.

  54. southerncross says:

    Resistance is futile , no doubt 7 of nine will be waiting in your hotel room for you and before you know it the headline will be “Worlds best known skeptic agrees with IPCC” with an unreadable footnote in sub microscopic text (the coffee was awful) and the news cycle will roll on with the takeaway message.

    Tell them to take it and shove it.

  55. Ecotretas says:

    Yep!
    Got accepted. :-)
    Didn’t get the magic number, though. Might be because I did it about some days before you!

    I intend to participate in a positive manner. Not everything in the IPCC reports is wrong! It will get better this time, at least I expect!

    Ecotretas

  56. Steven Kopits says:

    I think you should consider very carefully the conditions under which you undertake this role, especially regarding confidentiality. I wouldn’t hesitate to suggest you consult a lawyer. This is not necessarily to suggest any nefarious motive, but to insure that neither WUWT’s independence nor your ability to report are materially compromised.

  57. Though not invited to apply, I applied and was accepted. The acceptance was nearly instantaneous, leading me to believe that the decision maker was a computer algorithm.

  58. Bernie says:

    Anthony – It makes great sense to engage. It is also the only option for the scientist. There is clearly the possibility – though perhaps slim – that you can strengthen the science without in any way limiting your ability to independently point to weaknesses (and strengths) in both the science and the IPCC process. Steve McIntyre’s role as a reviewer certainly helped increase access to the reviewer comments.
    Good luck and please let us know how we can help you in the process. I suspect that you will need folks to help with generating posts, etc.

  59. Rob Dawg says:

    It will be interesting to see if any other blogs (cough… RC … cough) participants are held to the same standards of concurrent blogging and reviewing.

  60. Lady in Red says:

    I just noticed this from Judith Curry at the bottom of her latest thread. Nota bene:

    “If the IPCC process and assessment were transparent, the emails would be completely uninteresting. In the absence of appropriate transparency (I believe I have made the case for this both in the main paper and in my reply), the emails provide critical glimpses into what actually went into their assessment.

    At this point, I am not interested in building bridges with the IPCC, but rather in holding their feet to the fire re transparency, traceability, etc. Recent efforts by the IPCC to make its deliberations immune from national FOI laws reinforces the importance of the emails.”
    …Lady in Red

  61. John Blake says:

    From Rev. Jones, HRH James Hansen, Commandante Michael Mann et al: Choose your weapons. You will hear from our Seconds at midnight.

  62. tallbloke says:
    December 16, 2011 at 6:55 am
    “Congrats! Make sure you’re not used to endorse something bad though.”

    If and when the time comes, the IPCC can promote that 1000′s of skeptic reviewers endorsed global warming.

  63. Keith Battye says:

    For what it’s worth I really think you need to do this.

    You will be objective, insightful and steadfast in your knowledge Anthony. If they use your input great. If they don’t , great, because you will be able to tell the world where you differ from whatever is published in the end and you will have the proof in your own hands.

    Yes they may just be playing the old “inclusive” game but so what? From your, and our , perspective you will be adding to what you know and that’s always positive. I would go further and say that you will definitely be adding to what they know. It really is a win-win.

    “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they threaten you, then you win.”

  64. MangoChutney says:

    Hmmmm, maybe they thought you were somebody else?

    http://www.bioch.ox.ac.uk/aspsite/index.asp?pageid=603

    “Resolving structural details of membrane peptides and proteins at high resolution in a CO2 enriched atmosphere caused by those naughty, downright lying, denier people” is a well known paper confirming the existence of the link between CO2 and peptides, which also cause acidic oceans or is that something for indigestion?

    Good luck, Anthony, give them hell, but be honest with them and true to yourself at all times

  65. Jack Thompson says:

    Congratulations – but I hope it’s not a case of poacher turned gamekeeper..

  66. pax says:

    Don’t expect too much of this. As I recall SM was reviewer on AR4 and all the junk went through anyway because they just ignored his comments.

  67. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.

  68. Andrew says:

    http://funnyhub.com/content_images/4287_2144_hell-freezes-over.jpgHell Freezing Over

    It is still very hot, this current chill is simply statistical background noise, nothing to worry about people, move along…

  69. Steve Oregon says:

    Anthony,
    Is it possible that you and Joe Romm (or a guy named David) could end up reviewing the same papers? :/

  70. It’s a trap. Remember BEST.

  71. Black Flag® says:

    Anthony,

    Yep, I got accepted.
    I’ll be looking at Chapter 9: Climate Modeling

    It might be interesting…..

  72. Bill Parsons says:

    Bernie says:
    December 16, 2011 at 8:08 am

    Steve McIntyre’s role as a reviewer certainly helped increase access to the reviewer comments.

    Perhaps he was a reviewer more than once, but I only remember him blogging about one year. That experience was, as I recall, a snub, in that his criticisms of processes, data, and conclusions were limited, and ultimately ignored. After the fact, I agree, the experience allowed him to share his substantial and expert insights with readers.

    It’s by no means clear that volunteer reviewers will be offered a look at anything of substance, at the same time that they are constrained from commenting on anything IPCC. From one perspective, it’s like you’re presenting your wrists for a pair of golden handcuffs. All this is just conjecture on my part. Of course, I wish any of the volunteers the best in their decision to participate, and look forward to hearing from you after your experience, and after the period of the gag order has elapsed.

  73. Colin in BC says:

    Congratulations?

  74. TheGoodLocust says:

    Perhaps the person reviewing you didn’t know who you were?

    I would not be surprised if this invitation was rescinded. Btw, did you check the IP address of the email?

  75. catweazle666 says:

    Congratulations Anthony.

    That’ll upset all the right people, good style.

  76. DaveF says:

    Congratulations Mr Watts. How do you run a business, run a massive blog, look after your family and then sign up for something more to do in the long winter evenings? Make sure you don’t overdo things, please.

  77. Raving says:

    Congratulations. A good choice.

  78. Freezedried says:

    Congrats Anthony, but be prepared for a background check from Donna!

  79. Bill Parsons says:

    It strikes me that the high priests will have scored a major coup if they succeed in gagging Anthony Watts during their next “Climate Bible” – writing convocation. This notwithstanding the many other excellent guest writers at WUWT.

  80. Perry says:

    Ever since the UEA had its good name compromised by the “team”, any attempt to improve its reputation is fraught with difficulty. Thus I look askance at this BBC report about University of East Anglia scientists researching storms. “Hello”, thinks I, wat be goin’ orn ‘ere?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-16213548

    ‘Ow to tark Norfolk.

  81. Gary Hess says:

    Congratulations Anthony – I will pass this great news along to the steering committee.

  82. Congratulations, you have been co-opted. This is privileged information, and MUST NOT be made public under penalty (oops…never mind). Give my regards to the Mad Hatter and Alice (because you are Now Entering Wonderland–Population 97%).

  83. crosspatch says:

    Congratulations and I wish you the best of luck. My guess is that by the time AR5 gets though its process we will be long enough into a hiatus of warming (and quite likely cooling if there is anything to an 800 year cycle) for it to be statistically “significant”.

    You are going to have a LOT of papers to read in order to keep up with the literature.

  84. albertalad says:

    Sorry to be off topic – read this from American Thinker please.
    Tallbloke, McIntyre, and Jeff Id at Airvent all received the following from the U.S. DOJ:

    U.S. Department of Justice

    Criminal Division

    1301 New York Avenue, NW, 6th floor

    Washington, DC 20005

    PHONE: 202-353-2854

    FAX: 202-514-6113

    December 9, 2011

    VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL

    Automattic Inc.

    60 29th Street #343

    San Francisco, CA 94110

    Attn: law-enforcement@wordpress.com

    Re: Request for Preservation of Records

    Dear Automattic Inc.:

    Pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 2703(f), this letter is a formal request for the preservation of all stored communications, records, and other evidence in your possession

    regarding the following domain name(s) pending further legal process: http://tallbloke.wordpress.com, http://noconsensus.wordpress.com, and http://climateaudit.org (“the Accounts”) from 00:01 GMT Monday 21 November 2011 to 23:59 GMT Wednesday 23 November 2011.

    I request that you not disclose the existence of this request to the subscriber or any other person, other than as necessary to comply with this request. If compliance with this request might result in a permanent or temporary termination of service to the Accounts, or otherwise alert any user of the Accounts as to your actions to preserve the information described below, please contact me as soon as possible and before taking action. End of request.

    Ron De Haan notes at Sullivan’s Travelers:

    That the crackdown has been directed at exactly these three Skeptic Climate Blogs is no coincidence.

    The Air Vent received the first batch of ClimateGate e-mails shortly before the opening of the Copenhagen Climate Meeting and together with Tallbloke’s Talkshop they received the second release shortly before the Durban Climate Meeting.

    Steve McIntyre from Climate Audit has been responsible for debunking the infamous hockey stick graph from Michael Mann and caused the UN IPCC lot’s of headaches with his sharp analysis.

    I wondered why the ClimateGate II e-mails are so much different from the ClimateGate I e-mails that they have triggered this crackdown and the answer is evident when we take a closer look at an e-mail with the number 5310 I found as a posting at Musings from the Chiefio. The ClimateGate I e-mails were limited to communication between scientists.

    This time the e-mails contain the names of political leaders, government departments, institutions and… a potentially explosive content.

    A Freedom of Information request produced some interesting results. to see a message thread involving government people and people from the University of East Anglia strategizing on how best to present things to the public, go here.

    The thread shows that the British government was colluding with scientists . Be sure to note the e-mail addresses.

    So, now the long knives are coming out. The leftists, the ruling class, the environmentalists pinned all of their hopes on Global Warming, and these leaked e-mails are finishing it. We are now seeing acts of desperation.

    Keep an eye on this, folks; this situation could explode!

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/12/british_police_raid_climategate_bloggers_home.html#ixzz1gic4lR5l

  85. JohnWho says:

    ClimateForAll says:
    December 16, 2011 at 8:13 am
    If and when the time comes, the IPCC can promote that 1000′s of skeptic reviewers endorsed global warming.

    Exactly. Moreover, they’ll then imply that “Global Warming” means “Anthropogenic Global Warming by CO2 emissions” and we must act now to reduce CO2 emissions.

  86. Athelstan says:

    But you weren’t a Greenpeace/WWF ‘report’ author or a political shill, so just what do you bring to the table?

    Honesty? Integrity? Rigour? – Phew – they’ll be gunning for you, don’t take anything at face value and don’t put your name to anything IPCC – this is not what it says on the label.
    They will set you up, no ifs or buts – the BEST palaver is a reminder of how these tw@ts work and how they think.

  87. JeffC says:

    Congrats sir …

    I don’t think it even matters if they ignore your input … you will get raw data to work with and make recommendations and the day the IPCC lifts the embargo you can publish everything, the data, the formulas and your recommendations …
    should be a good very public test of their objectivity …

  88. Mr Lynn says:

    The IPCC was created to further a political agenda, by giving credibility to the speculation that by burning fossil fuels, western civilization was causing the Earth to heat up catastrophically. In other words, its purpose is to validate a foregone conclusion, not to report objectively on independent research.

    I don’t see how any reputable scientist can participate in such an enterprise, which is contrary to the goals and method of science.

    /Mr Lynn

  89. Gary Pearse says:

    Despite all the reservations expressed, this is a remarkable development. I don’t see huge shifting of sentiment to come out of this but it marks at least a small turning point (can’t shake the paranoia completely) that they would go for what was hitherto unthinkable – bring their most constant (and honest-thinking, gentlemanly) critic into the mix. I say turning point for several reasons but the most happy one is that the failures of the many predictions of CAGW and the embarassing revelations on shoddy science and evil behavior of the “consensus” can no longer be completely ignored. You have worked so hard and paid heavily in cash and time- family time, neglect of business and livelihood. You have done this in the face of personal attacks, misrepresentation, even threats and other mean-spirited acts by so-called educated and civilized persons and you have endured this all with dignity, and fairness to opponents points of view. You have also done what you can for the environment – home lighting, electric car, other energy-saving changes… This pretty well is the best definition of a classy person. I hope that this is a first sign that you may one day be properly rewarded for the immeasurable good you have done for every person on this planet – I have been enriched and improved and so has everyone else.

  90. Alan the Brit says:

    Anthony, good luck, watch your back! I endorse all the comments in that regard here, your friends are right behind you & are going to be supportive all the way. This could be the usual group hug approahc everyone must be included, like the school nativity play in Love Actually, daughter tels Emma Thompson she is going to the be the third octopus in the manger!!!!!!!!!

    Having been reading this site for several years now I think it is wholly uncecessary for MangoChutney to advise you to be “honest with them” nor to be “true to yourself”! I think I speak for everyone who reads & posts here, we know that already, it is taken as read from the off!

    Burch says:
    December 16, 2011 at 7:02 am
    What’s that old saw? Something, something, keep your enemies closer…
    Congrats!

    Godfather Part 2, Michael Corleone speaking of what his father, Don Corleone taught him, “keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer!” It is often referred to in political circles & bureaucratic circles too. I remember working for a gov’ment organisation in the architectural/engineering department. An architectural student wanted to do her year out/work experience with us. The boss said much the same thing, he didn’t want her to find too many things out about how the system worked, so he arranged for her to work on “given” projects” with limited access & responsibility! Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose! The more things change, the more they stay the same!

    HAGWE everybody :-)

  91. Mike McMillan says:

    Come to the Dark Side, Luke Anthony.

  92. Mike McMillan says:

    That post went well. Note to self – use <strike> instead of <s>.

  93. John V. Wright says:

    The next thing that happens is that you get an email disinviting you. It will be landing in your email box any day now….,

  94. M.A.Vukcevic says:

    There are usually 3 reviewers, even if you object you will be outvoted 2:1, article will be published as peer reviewed, you will declare that you are outraged and resign!
    I wish you luck.

  95. stevenlibby says:

    I’ve very impressed and even slightly hopeful. To top it off, I just noticed that you are mentioned in a front page article on FoxNews too!

    http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/12/16/complicit-in-climategate-doe-under-fire/

  96. grayman says:

    Congrats Anthony, I know you will do the world proud in your reviews.
    Just a reminder, when they pass the drink your way make sure it is not Kool-aid!

  97. G. Karst says:

    Yes. I have heard they are preparing a special area for skeptics, around the back, next to the big garbage bin um “filing cabinet”. Ignore the wino and the bag lady, they are just the staff hired to perform the collating duties of your vital data. But don’t fret, your name will appear prominently on the report. GK

  98. feet2thefire says:

    @John Marshall December 16, 2011 at 6:54 am:

    Great news Anthony. Give em hell. (To paraphrase Gen McCarther [sic])

    Actually, the phrase “Give ‘em hell,” is associate with General Douglas McArthur’s last boss, President Harry S Truman, not with the guy who killed a few people at the behest of President Herbert Hoover while ousting the Bonus Army from the Washington Mall.

  99. feet2thefire says:

    BTW, Anthony, it isn’t too transparent an effort at co-opting a muckraker of the first order…LOL

    What are the odds that review comment you make will get into the final draft? Is anyone taking odds?

  100. Petrossa says:

    Timor danaos et dona ferentes

  101. PJB says:

    Did you make it “in” because you are a co-author of a not-quite-yet peer-reviewed but falsely-crowed-about-by-warmists piece of the literature?

    Most perturbing and very sketchy, IMO.

  102. Alan_F says:

    By doing such what are you NOT going to be allowed to speak of here?

  103. petermue says:

    Anthony, I hope you will not be permanently rejected, like other reviewers seen in the IPCC Reviewer Comments report, AR4.

    Only a very few excerpts for example:

    ———————————-
    Considering IPCC only provide policy-neutral report, please delete any
    connclusions with value judgment in order to avoid misleading policymakers.
    [Govt. of China (Reviewer's comment ID #: 2006-4)]

    No specific cases given for this concern on SPM?
    ———————————-
    11-128 A 4:24 4:24 Add at end “But, or course, the models cannot project
    natural climate trends or influence”
    [VINCENT GRAY (Reviewer's comment ID #: 88-1744)]

    Rejected, we disagree and no justification given.
    ———————————-
    By no stretch of the imagination can production and
    comparison of such “projections” be said to provide “increased
    confidence in climate science”.
    Indeed, the continued failure during the “last 6 years” to
    obtain a model with validation and predictive ability provides
    reason for reduced confidence in climate science.”
    [Richard Courtney (Reviewer's comment ID #: 49-39)]

    Rejected – see TS 33
    ———————————-

    and so on…

    Good luck!

  104. chuck nolan says:

    jim c says:
    December 16, 2011 at 6:56 am
    will this muzzle you?

    REPLY: No, I plan to have Kenji do the reviews /sarc – Anthony
    ——-
    I don’t see why not, I understand Kenji has the CV (real street cred) being a full dues paying member of a scientific organization. Good luck to both of you. I’d appreciate it if you could keep this email under wraps. You know —-hide my decline

  105. oldseadog says:

    Good luck, watch your back and if you DO feel that you are being (or have been) set up you must say so as loudly as you can.
    And this goes for the rest of you who have been selected as well.

    But with any luck this is the beginning of the end for CO2 AGW.

  106. Robert Hooper says:

    Not sure why you would participate. At best you will be ignored. At worst you will be used to show how open the IPCC is (while still being ignored). The IPCC can’t be fixed.

  107. RickW says:

    The fox is being invited into the hen house? I also smell a trap. This is a way for them to say “See! See! Our report was reviewed by Anthony Watts, a known climate skeptic.” It will be like the reaction we saw on the BEST report where the headlines were “Koch-funded Report Proves Global Warming.”

    Careful Anthony!

  108. Phil_C says:

    The requirement that all material may not be “cited, quoted, or distributed” refers to this draft IPCC report: “Fifth Assessment Report Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis (AR5)”

    Since you obviously have lots of comments about the Fourth IPCC Assessment Report: The Physical Science Basis, why don’t you post your comments about that report right here? I’m sure there will be lots of overlap between the two documents.

  109. Josualdo says:

    Hm. Butterflies in my stomach. Nah.

  110. Bill Illis says:

    Congrats,

    Mr. Anthony Watts – IPCC Expert Reviewer

  111. Mark F says:

    so what happens if you leak some information and analysis thereof? Is there whistleblower protection for you and others?

  112. RobRoy says:

    Wow, Mr. Watts, into the Borg. Use a condom. :) Really though, Shake them up. Ask those questions that don,t get asked.

  113. Ryan N. Maue says:

    From my cursory reading of various sections that I could be considered an expert, I found the text very concise and terse perhaps to a fault. Review articles are usually very long even on specific topics. The entire Observations: Atmosphere and Surface section is condensed into about 80 single space pages. It could easily be 800 or 8000.

  114. Mike M says:

    Don’t forget Confucius – “Sleep with dogs – wake up with fleas.”

  115. Johnnythelowery says:

    Open and Transparent—-just tell us what you tell them and why, and I don’t see the difference between publishing here and publishing in there. But it’s in the editorial power that the danger lies……saying you said something when you didn’t. Reviewed something when you hadn’t. The sort of, Mann SOP…changing things after they get reviewed and approved. You will be lending credence to these Cretans but it’s a way forward and we’ll see. ..IMHO.

  116. Ken Harvey says:

    You have to do it, Anthony. They knew that you would have to do it. They have a specific strategy in mind and will have a variety of tactical manoeuvres in prospect to meet changing situations. They will sacrifice you without a thought if they deem it in their own interests. Keep your wits about you and I wish you the very best of luck.

  117. Larry_S says:

    Mr. Watts,

    Please be very careful in accepting any such invitation as it may have an unintended, restricted effect on what you disseminate on your website and through other channels. While the IPCC may think they are above FOIA law, they have their own rules and regulations which may indiscriminately bar you from posting certain material. It may also inhibit your objectifvity, based in part on potential political pressures you might be exposed to.

    If you are aware of all these issues, then good luck and you have my support.

    -Larry

  118. Robert of Ottawa says:

    They are attempting to employ the same strategy as Best did. I’d not take part if I were you.

    Get a well know skeptic on-baord; ignore and reject any points; crowd him out of the private discussions and then hold him up as proof that everything was above board.

    You will be used and muzzled.

  119. john says:

    I suspect that Anthony knows well what he is doing here. Good for him! btw, nice article here Anthony,

    http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/12/16/complicit-in-climategate-doe-under-fire/

  120. Rob Dawg says:

    I am especially interested in the Sierra snowpack science following this years instances of year round surface snow in deep pockets south of Kings Canyon et al. These were impossible in previous models. The changes to and excuses for past errors orders greater than published error bars will be great theater.

  121. Paul Westhaver says:

    May I make a suggestion,

    In your blog you have assembled quite a broad college of experts and willing assistants who would be willing to add to your efforts. Would it be possible to publish the IPCC docs here and expose them to public expert scrutiny rather than secret biased rubber-stamping?

    I don’t acknowledge the UN authority to regulate MY life on this matter since I am Canadian and as Canadians we are not part of that treaty any more (there still are little tentacles), but it would be worthwhile to contribute to the purification of the scientific process for all those nations who are still held hostage by the abusers of science.

  122. Gary says:

    I know you will abide by the confidentiality rules, even if they are bizarre or excessively restrictive. That will mean no running commentary as the process goes forward. This does give you the opportunity to write a minority report when it’s all done, however. So despite this likely bargain with the devil, you will provide a valuable service to ultimate transparency.

  123. Paul Westhaver says:

    Here is a vista into Anthony’s future in dealing with the UN and the IPCC

    A video of a weatherman being covered in raw sewage…. seems appropriate to me.

    BTW Anthony, I suggest you re-read Macbeth. This invitation may be the conjurations of 3 diabolical witches…. which bodes unwell for you.

  124. JPeden says:

    Expert Reviewers are kindly reminded that all materials provided from
    this website are available for the sole purpose of the Expert Review
    and may not be cited, quoted, or distributed.

    Hahaha, you mean all those millions and millions of scientists who reviewed all the previous AR’s were either not privy to the brick sh** houses erected by the ipcc or else that their comments will now not be available publicly? Keep on digging, you genuine fake septic scientists!

    And…oh noes…that Muller’s good old pre and post publication peer review was merely another hoax. I’m crushed! Say it isn’t so!

  125. DaveS says:

    Don’t go native on us now…

  126. James McClellan says:

    Congratulations, Mr Watts. You’re an excellent scientist and a marvelllous person.

    However, IMO this “invitation” could be an attempt to Shut You Up by Devious Means.

    If it were me I’ld be thinking, they played on my manifest decency over BEST and now they’re trying the same trick again. And I’m only paranoid if they AREN’T out to get me.

    So PLEASE be sure that your abilities to communicate and discuss aren’t going to be circumscribed if you accept!

  127. pat says:

    congrats anthony. interesting times.

  128. Richard S Courtney says:

    petermue:

    Re: your mention of me at December 16, 2011 at 10:15 am.

    Yes, and it is important to niote that all my similar review comments were rejected withiout justification.

    I reviewed the AR4 at the invitation of NOAA. Subsequently the IPCC Chair, Rajendra Pachauri, invited me to review the Synthesis Report but I did not accept that invitation because my experience with the AR4 review induced me tio think there was no point in my doing it.

    Richard

  129. charles nelson says:

    ’tis my hobby and pass-time to torment warmists in the comments sections of UK newspapers.
    Every now and then I have referred to WUWT for some specific piece of data or information…and I inevitably get an instantaneous howl round from a small number of activists who condemn Anthony as…’a tv weather man’, ‘in the pay of big oil’, ‘peddlar of disinformation etc etc.”
    These rods that are being given me to beat the scouldrels with are just perfect…it IS Christmas after all!

  130. François GM says:

    Anthony,
    I couldn’t find your name among the list (updated as of December 12) of Authors and Review Editors. We may have to wait for the next update.
    http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ar5/ar5_authors_review_editors_updated.pdf

  131. Matt says:

    I was wondering how much longer it would take until Big Oil finally bought their way into the IPCC… :P

  132. peetee says:

    whoot! Anthony, given your vast expertise, just what area(s) will you be expecting to review and contribute to?

  133. Paul Westhaver says:

    Anthony,

    Are you personally identified as the reviewer or is your company the reviewing entity?

  134. Roh234 says:

    http://llbbl.com/data/RPG-motivational/target96.html
    Congrats! Congrats any way and hope you end the corruption in the IPCC.

  135. Al Gored says:

    Congratulations Anthony. Long way from the ‘bloggers do not matter’ meme.

    I’m confident that your review will be most insightful. But, based on their track record, I am less confident that they will actually fully consider it or incorporate it in their updated manifesto.

    “Thank you very much for your input on this Mr. Watts but the font you used in your written submission does not meet our criteria.” Or something like that.

  136. ANH says:

    They will ignore everything you write but will add your name to everything they publish.

  137. Dr Burns says:

    How does it feel to be the token sceptic ?
    Now the IPCC can claim a “balanced viewpoint” from both sides.

  138. Adam Gallon says:

    Given the publicity that our host’s application received, there’s no way on this Earth, that they’d refuse his application.
    As to whether they take any notice of his (& other “Denialists”) input, is a completely different matter.

  139. Congratulations Anthony, make the most of this opportunity to right the wrongs.

  140. jaymam says:

    Congratulations Anthony.
    Now the least you can do is to invite guest articles from Michael Mann and have him as a moderator at WUWT!

  141. François GM says:

    Given the above, I applied for a Review Editor position citing no specific climate expertise. I only mentioned a university course in modelling (biomedical class). If I get a positive response, something is amiss …

    This reminds me of Groucho Marx who once said : “I don’t care to belong to any club that will have me as a member”.

  142. Steve C says:

    I’d love to be sincerely congratulatory about this, but quite honestly Mike M says it for me above – ‘Don’t forget Confucius – “Sleep with dogs – wake up with fleas.”. Worse, these dogs are known to be rabid. Keep notes, be very careful, and beware another BEST style rewrite. Good luck!

    Steve

  143. Mycroft says:

    Don’t think you should’ve let the cat out of the bag until the clearance date!
    Those in the TEAM will get to know of this and get your details etc and any review you do could/will be dismissed by the TEAM members/cohortes…..though the data will come in handy
    just make sure you’re seeing the “real deal” stuff and not fed some B.S to make a fool out of you

    all the best

  144. David L says:

    No $&@$)@&ing way?!?!?!

  145. Gail Combs says:

    Tom Ragsdale says:
    December 16, 2011 at 7:06 am

    I smell a rat.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    I do too. Think BEST!

    No matter what Anthony says or does the New York Times and the Huff and Puff and every other pupet media outlet will broadcast to the skies that the SKEPTICS lead by Anthony Watts himself ACCEPT the IPCC and its conclusions on the next report.

    their I gottcha is:
    “‘Expert Reviewers are kindly reminded that all materials provided from
    this website are available for the sole purpose of the Expert Review
    and may not be cited, quoted, or distributed.”

  146. Hi Anthony,
    My guess is that if you were to accept this job, you would never again be allowed to comment on the IPCC global warming scam, except of course, to the 4 walls of a prison cell. There’s not much of a carbon foot-print in gaol – you would be practising what they preach !
    Over-dramatic ?

  147. James Fosser says:

    Mr Watts. I believe you have a saying in America abourt certain persons being invited into tents rather than being left outside!

  148. Ben D Hillicoss says:

    WoWzEr…Holy under cover, Batman. all I ask is you be impartial, honest, and above board.

    or in the imortal words of the “Hanging Judge” give ‘em a fair trial then hang “em from the nearest tree!!!

  149. GregO says:

    Congratulations Anthony – It’s about d##m time!

  150. JPeden says:

    The IPCC gives me a shock

    First it’s a shock, then comes the Lobotomy. But finally lucky you ends up just like Roh234! In other words, either at the OWS’s radical! learning camps for the severely speech challenged or perhaps in an equally “progressive” Chico, California, by that time also in complete protective medical isolation from the rest of Roh’s non-Californian “eleven fingered teabagger” nation. Or perhaps valiantly trying to reproduce more of Roh’s truly salvational Virginia “liberals” as below, no doubt all the prototypical byproducts of Roh’s own beloved and transformational! Obamacare!

    Roh234 says:
    December 16, 2011 at 1:09 pm

    http://llbbl.com/data/RPG-motivational/target96.html

  151. petermue says:

    Richard S Courtney says:
    December 16, 2011 at 12:35 pm

    petermue:
    Re: your mention of me at December 16, 2011 at 10:15 am.

    Yes, and it is important to niote that all my similar review comments were rejected withiout justification.

    Hello Richard.
    The examples were randomly picked. Didn’t know you read along here. :-)

    Yes, you’re right.
    Meanwhile IPCC seems to have retracted the Reviewer Comments Reports, which once were made public for download. However, I can’t find them on their website any more, but still have a copy of them.
    As they HAVE BEEN published before by the IPCC, I have no problem with uploading them on my own website, even with the “Confidental” tag on it.

    Their main target seemed to be Vincent Gray, whose comments were almost 100% rejected, despite of his IMHO very good arguments.

    For those who are interested in those IPCC Reviewer Comments, you can download the PDF here.
    http://www.umweltluege.de/pdf/AR4WG1_TS_SOR_CommentResponses_EDist.pdf

    Greetings, Peter

  152. u.k.(us) says:

    Being chosen as a reviewer does not require one to actually review anything.
    It, of course, would be impossible to review a whole chapter.
    The experience may prove invaluable, though.
    Give ‘em hell Anthony.

  153. Jay Davis says:

    Congratulations, you should have a ball. Let us know if the IPCC pays better than Big Oil.

  154. Richard S Courtney says:

    u.k.(us):

    At December 16, 2011 at 2:42 pm you say;

    ” It, of course, would be impossible to review a whole chapter.”

    Nonsense!
    I am not able to say if you could, but anybody competent and familiar with the subject can.

    Richard

  155. King of Cool says:

    Good news. Can you persist that in AR5 when there is conflicting evidence on observations, we be given BOTH sides of the story such as is done in this report on polar bears in to-days Australian:

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/bear-facts-and-polar-opposites/story-e6frg6z6-1226224338514

  156. morgo says:

    I am sitting in my lounge room in sydney with the a/c on heating ? beat them at there own game

  157. sky says:

    Any technical expert co-opted into becoming an IPCC reviewer will be given short shrift if his comments are deemed detrimental to that panel’s all-too-palpable objectives. The prospect of sceptics actually influencing the “consensus” viewpoint is nil. Their reviews will only help IPCC anticipate and finesse basic scientific criticism through polemical means. I wouldn’t participate in this charade even if they doubled our usual consulting fee.

  158. Roh234 says:

    “The IPCC gives me a shock

    First it’s a shock, then comes the Lobotomy. But finally lucky you ends up just like Roh234! In other words, either at the OWS’s radical! learning camps for the severely speech challenged or perhaps in an equally “progressive” Chico, California, by that time also in complete protective medical isolation from the rest of Roh’s non-Californian “eleven fingered teabagger” nation. Or perhaps valiantly trying to reproduce more of Roh’s truly salvational Virginia “liberals” as below, no doubt all the prototypical byproducts of Roh’s own beloved and transformational! Obamacare!

    Roh234 says:
    December 16, 2011 at 1:09 pm

    http://llbbl.com/data/RPG-motivational/target96.html

    That wan’t m rant. i was showing WUWT readers Gregs’s rant. L2Read.

  159. otsar says:

    Congratulatiuons! Give it your scientific best and let the physical evidence point where it will.
    Have legal cousel review any agreements that you may be getting into and their long term implications. Document everything and CYA. Act as if you were an expert witness reviewing expert testimony in a court proceeding. Because in a sense you are.

  160. barry moore says:

    Hate to burst your bubble anthony check in with Dr. Vincent Gray of NZ, 4 time peer reviewer of the IPCC drafts, he submitted over 18% of the comments to AR4, guess what all in the trash can but the IPCC still published his name as one of their expert peer reviewers. Like the rest of IPCC it is just a big sham to appear to be credible, none of your comments irrespective of the number of peer reviewed references which accompony those comments will ever get included in the final report, The IPCC is a very corrupt organization.

  161. John Billings says:

    Hell, if they were looking for a “sop” or an “easy pushover” then Mr Watts or McIntyre would’ve been bottom of the list. I would urge people to consider this with an open mind. Don’t let past experience with or exposure to the IPCC blind you. Have a open mind, and then we’ll see. That, dear friends, is the true nature of scepticism. Not to condemn from the outset.

    Some of the comments above are closed-minded, not open-minded.

    Personally speaking, if there is to be one “representative”, so to speak, I would push Mr Steve McIntyre forward. Mr Watts, you are are great guy for the overview, for the broad picture, but I think Mr McIntyre is the guy for the detail.

  162. Ric Werme says:

    Robert of Ottawa says:
    December 16, 2011 at 11:29 am

    > They are attempting to employ the same strategy as Best did. I’d not take part if I were you.

    I don’t think so – Dr, Muller approached Anthony to get his data and then went off and misused it, published unreviewed results.

    This is a effort to attract (ideally) a group of people with a wide range of skills and insights to improve the next IPCC report. Of course, it’s more likely that some on the IPCC want to be able to point to the list of reviewers without mentioning they were completely ignored in the process of producing the next report.

    The only thing the IPCC wants from Anthony is a piece of his reputation….

  163. John Billings says:

    @Ric Werne: The only thing the IPCC wants from Anthony is a piece of his reputation….

    Yeah? He has no “reputation” (other than as a trouble maker) in “scientific circles” and Mr Watts has no voice in Government that needs to be neutralised.

    Calm yourself, please, Let’s see what happens.

    If you condemn something from the outset without any consideration, you are as bad as that which you seek to condemn.

    What kind of attitude would you like Mr Watts to attend to this task with? That of “you are all a bunch of c****s and I am going to f*** you?” Surely not, please. In my view, it’s better to go with an open mind. And then we’ll see.

  164. Craig Moore says:

    “The IPCC gives me a shock…” like an electric cattle prod to the family jewels. As many have said, be careful as to what your are giving up.

  165. No doubt this attention from the IPCC is meaningful. It proves that your efforts in revealing the hidden declines and your extensively publishing of compelling arguments against the IPCC claims, have not gone unnoticed or unacknowledged.

    However, like many above commenters, I strongly feel that no good would come from your involvement with the IPCC, I believe you would risk compromising your well known integrity.

    I think this comment from above says what I believe:
    “December 16, 2011 at 4:00 pm
    barry moore says:
    “Hate to burst your bubble anthony check in with Dr. Vincent Gray of NZ, 4 time peer reviewer of the IPCC drafts, he submitted over 18% of the comments to AR4, guess what all in the trash can but the IPCC still published his name as one of their expert peer reviewers. Like the rest of IPCC it is just a big sham to appear to be credible, none of your comments irrespective of the number of peer reviewed references which accompony those comments will ever get included in the final report, The IPCC is a very corrupt organization.””

    Good luck whatever you choose to do!

  166. donkeygod says:

    This is good. First the IPCC tones down its rhetoric about ‘extreme’ weather. Now they’ve actually opened out to at least a few people who aren’t committed to supporting the ‘Team’. The backlash against climate orthodoxy might just gather momentum — it can’t go on forever. Lotsa hard work, no doubt, but so’s running WUTW. Congratulations, and sincere best wishes.

  167. Alan Wilkinson says:

    I agree with John Billings that an open mind with due caution and diligence is appropriate. The first thing to avoid at all costs is being muzzled but the second is being isolated. As far as possible, bring trusted and talented friends to the party with you. Also be prepared to play the game your way if necessary in a way the bureaucracy doesn’t expect. There are lots of possibilities, from a minority report to a behind-the-scenes populist expose. Above all, have fun!

  168. LearDog says:

    Sorry Anthony – I’m with the others on this topic: IPCC are using time-worn techniques to co-opt your credibility onto their cause. There is no downside for them – if you refuse they can say “we asked and he refused”; if you accept – you can’t blog about it (and perhaps reduce you capacity to blog in total) and they can say “skeptics have had input” whilst simultaneously ignoring you.

    A tough spot.

    I suppose it may make you feel better – but this has a Trenberthian “come visit NCAR’ written all over it….. There is value in being an informed critic…..so I would say – based upon prior experiences (McIntyre et al) and current IPCC behaviors (conflict of interest etc) – would politely suggest that they clean up there own house first – rather than try to get you to do it for them…..

    Just sayin….

  169. John Billings says:

    @Ken McMurtrie “However, like many above commenters, I strongly feel that no good would come from your involvement with the IPCC, I believe you would risk compromising your well known integrity.

    Why? What could possibly help us from disengagement? I personally would call this the chance of a lifetime. My strong belief is that this is a vindication of the work done so far by Mr Watts and others, and that a press release should follow accordingly. Frankly, I feel I am swimming through a major shoal of whales with no directional sense whatsoever. A press release on the topic of “Shunned derided climate sceptic invited to contribute” with discussion points from both sides would make global global global headlines across the weekend, but you are all too puritanical to be able to observe a major media opportunity when you see one.

  170. CRS, Dr.P.H. says:

    …I just saw a pig fly by my window!!

    Give ‘em hell, Anthony! Keep the process honest…if there IS environmental damage being done by fossil fuels, let’s put it on the table like honest scientists and discuss our options. However, if not, then put that out there too! This is MUCH too important to leave to the likes of the Hockey Team, “Dirty Books” Pauchuri etc.

    Merry Christmas, Chuck the DrPH

    ps. I saw on the news that the ban on incandescent light bulbs is in the new budget legislation!

  171. Me says:

    They just want to tie you up with other things to keep you occupied, like a miss direction of sorts, you know like the never mind the man behind the curtain thing! So they can carry on with their business without having to worry about you exposing them.
    You should never be a part of their plan, the old saying comes to mind, if you can’t beat them join them, well it’s changed, now it is if you can’t beat them recruit them.

  172. Paul in Sweden says:

    So now, there is one more expert reference that will be added to the pile of those that will be heralded among the 1000s of references for the already forgone conclusions of AR5.

    I have no faith in this church. I will read their published Gospel and separate the wheat from the chaff when it presented(although Jeff Id has some insight on the tablets as they are being carved).

  173. Lady in Red says:

    Consider working to make friends, Anthony. Take along a list of simple suggestions for
    improvement of the world’s CO2 situation. And, maybe, some cookies…?

    Like this:

    http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/fe5265e23e/kristen-wiig-s-global-warming-solution

    Really: whatever you do, best of luck. …Lady in Red

  174. Werner Brozek says:

    “Expert Reviewers are kindly reminded that all materials provided from
    this website are available for the sole purpose of the Expert Review
    and may not be cited, quoted, or distributed.”

    Of course you have to obey this. However would you be reviewing a chapter that has been presumably updated from AR4? If so, that would not be secret information. Would it be practical for you to publish the appropriate chapter from AR4 that is being revised? Then many of us who may have specialized expertise in certain areas of that chapter can give our thoughts. If the same paragraph then ended up in AR5, in addition to your own considerable expertise, you could give consideration to any other good ideas that your readers can collectively come up with.

  175. Mark Smith says:

    I am sure the IPCC have a special bin for you Anthony Watts. The IPCC’s opaque process guarantee they don’t need use anything you supply and they still get to list on their references.

  176. Brian H says:

    Well, it’s sure to be an unforgettable and educational experience!!

    BTW, make sure to get full binocular 3D video documentation of the encounter with 7 of 9, ‘kay? Enquiring minds, and all that …

  177. Rosco says:

    PJP says:
    December 16, 2011 at 7:01 am

    It’s a trap!

    Damn that CO2 – now it doesn’t only trap heat.

  178. JPeden says:

    Roh234 says:
    December 16, 2011 at 3:43 pm

    That wan’t m rant. i was showing WUWT readers Gregs’s rant. L2Read.

    roh234 says:
    December 15, 2011 at 10:17 pm

    Update: I sent off a complaint to the editors of Sb about this, and it appears that Laden has been asked to remove the libelous language, though the post remains as does his hateful attitude in comments.

    Wrong

    “Your Stupid State
    Sometimes I’m hard on an entire state. Like Texas. Or, recently, West Virginia.

    It’s funny when the slack jawed yokels who live in these god-forsaken shitholes get annoyed at that….”

    Learn how 2 refer to what u are talking about.

  179. Pat Heuvel says:

    Mike M:
    Don’t forget Confucius – “Sleep with dogs – wake up with fleas.”
    Works both ways!

  180. geran says:

    Finally, someone can fix this global warming thingy.

    It was WAY too hot last summer, but curiously we are still getting freezes this winter.

    Please see that the temps never go above 90 in summer and never below 45 in winter. (Except of course in the mountains where we need colder temps for snow and skiing.)

    Also, please see if they can explain why the temps fall so rapidly when the Sun goes down. Seems like all the carbon dioxide should hold the temps at least until morning…

    PS: If you need more carbon dioxide, please contact blabbing leftists like al gore.

  181. climatebeagle says:

    What happened to this:
    ——
    Øyvind Christophersen (Norway) and Eduardo Calvo (Peru), Co-Chairs of the Procedures
    Task Group, said “The decisions adopted here cover a wide range of issues, but at the
    centre of these decisions is increased rigour, transparency and clarity on how the IPCC
    manages its processes, including reviews and assesment reports and how it is assessing
    the wealth of data–the procedures adopted today will further minimize any possibility of
    errors in future reports.”
    ——
    http://www.ipcc.ch/news_and_events/docs/ipcc33/PRESS_RELEASE_Outcomes_abu_dhabi_13_may.pdf

    How does “increased … transparency … including reviews” related to the statement:

    “all materials provided from this website are available for the sole purpose of the Expert Review
    and may not be cited, quoted, or distributed”

    I would have thought an open review process would be far more transparent.

  182. @ John Billings re my earlier comment.
    These are only our opinions being voiced.
    Although my opinion “However, like many above commenters, I strongly feel that no good would come from your involvement with the IPCC, I believe you would risk compromising your well known integrity.” suggests that Anthony could say no for that reason, I also said:
    “Good luck whatever you choose to do!”
    I guess Anthony has enough nous to make his own decision, perhaps without influence from us, perhaps not. We have certainly provided him plenty of unsolicited and unfortunately contradicting advice.
    This is his call.
    Your opposing my opinion doesn’t contribute much value to the blog. IMHO.
    Bottom line – he has much support and encouragement from many people, including myself, and yourself.
    Hopefully Anthony might eventually share with us, his decision-making process regarding this issue, and of course, his assessment of its outcome.
    Only time will provide us that future outcome, and then we will have some hindsight with which to assess the validity of our own respective thought processes.

  183. David Ball says:

    There have been some notable skeptics in IPCC reports. John Christy comes to mind.

    This is something that you have to do Anthony. Nought to worry about. It is likely that Santer will come to the “correct” conclusions in the Summary for Policy makers anyhow. So you’re good.

  184. Mr Black says:

    My first thought is that this strikes me as an attempt at leak suppression. Having agreed never to publish or comment on the material, when incriminating information is exposed AW will be legally forbidden from publishing it. I don’t believe for a moment that The Team is suddenly interested in skeptic views or reviews. We all know they will be ignored regardless, so that only leave some kind of trickery as the motive here.

  185. paul says:

    i do not know how you can take this work.
    The IPCC is the enemy of science

  186. JPeden says:

    Oops, Roh, I forgot to apologize for my part in getting confused as to who was saying what in your
    December 15, 2011 at 10:17 pm post. I really couldn’t tell, which is why I should have asked you!

  187. johanna says:

    Once again, you have been invited into the AGW catastrophists’ tent. While this is a nice backhanded compliment, it is also a way to waste your time and energy and paint you as complicit.

    This time it is the Big Top – the organisation whose starting premise and raison d’etre is to develop policies to mitigate the effects of (deleterious) climate change caused by humans, thanks to CO2. Why would you lend your good name to that?

    If I was a committed animal lover, I would not be commenting on the Dog Fighting League’s proposed Code of Conduct. The fact that other animal lovers had been approached, all of a sudden, when the League was under a lot of pressure, would make me even more suspicious.

    They haven’t even implemented a conflict of interest policy yet, because it’s too hard, apparently. Do you want your name associated with these people?

    It’s a straight out co-option strategy in the face of serious opposition. Don’t fall for it.

  188. aeroguy48 says:

    As Ronald Regan said trust but verify.

  189. RoHa says:

    Get the money up front.

  190. Ben says:

    Time to change your bio and your business cards to include “Expert Reviewer of the UN IPPC.”

    Go get ‘em Anthony – Give ‘em Science!

  191. Mr says:

    Interesting. I think Anthony has done the upside/downside calculation between the upside of being able to highlight errors and be able to later show the world that the error reports were arbitrarily ignored vs. the downside of the IPCC being able to falsely claim they ‘included’ skeptical viewpoints.

    I think he’s taken the better side of the deal. Especially when one considers that, although the drafts and reviews are confidential from the public until later, they aren’t confidential from other IPCC-accepted reviewers. The IPCC has previously played a clever game of “man in the middle” by keeping all the reviewers in the dark as to what other reviewers are also saying. Only the IPCC leaders see all the reviews. Tech savvy skeptical reviewers could take it upon themselves to increase their value to the IPCC by voluntarily using private online work group software to collaborate with each other to improve their ‘work product’. Since it seems like there are quite a few expert reviewers who are open to the skeptical viewpoint, that real-time “peer coordination” could be very helpful in improving the IPCC’s output. I think the IPCC would be grateful to have reviewers working with such diligence to support the best science possible.

    Such private work group software could also serve as a repository of the discussions and concerns of the participants during the process. When no longer confidential, these posts would serve as powerful testimony to show how well the IPCC adopted (or not) well-reasoned review notes from not one reviewer but a community of reviewers. In fact, this would simply be reviewers voluntarily implementing some of the reforms the external review of IPCC procedures already recommended, while fully complying within current IPCC policies. It would also show that scientists who are pursuing the truth welcome real collaboration and transparency.

  192. DaveF says:

    Of course this may not be dangerous at all. It could be all part of the IPPC’s gradual distancing itself from the AGW theories. Good luck Mr Watts.

  193. The more I read of these comments, the more I wonder if Anthony is getting any help at all from us.
    More likely we are driving him crazy. He is certainly quiet, maybe waiting for the dust to settle.
    We are a ragged lot of “advisors”, pushing our points of view, even thrusting them.
    It’s a wonder we haven’t all been moderated. :-)
    Given that he is the expert, this is a bit rich, but human nature is like that. We are all good-hearted, “wanting to help”, (wanting to be right), souls.

    One common theme – we wish you luck, Anthony.

  194. Pete H says:

    So, does this make you one of the oft quoted thousands of scientists working for the IPCC?

  195. Richard S Courtney says:

    petermue:

    At December 16, 2011 at 2:33 pm you say;

    “Meanwhile IPCC seems to have retracted the Reviewer Comments Reports, which once were made public for download. However, I can’t find them on their website any more, but still have a copy of them.”
    And
    “For those who are interested in those IPCC Reviewer Comments, you can download the PDF here.
    http://www.umweltluege.de/pdf/AR4WG1_TS_SOR_CommentResponses_EDist.pdf

    Your file is very incomplete. It does not include most of my review comments and only parts of some of them. I can send you a file of all the review comments I provided if you email me at
    RichardSCourtneyATaol.com
    and I am sure Vincent Gray would do the same.

    I hope this helps.

    Richard

  196. Joe Horner says:

    Regardless of their reasons and regardless of whether they ignore / dismiss any inconvenient comments, seems to me that getting to see what the report will (likely) contain before it’s released has one big benefit in terms of challenging anything that needs challenging – the challenging response can be ready to release almost at the same time as the report is.

    Obviously, “challenging” before will be a no-no because of presumed non-disclosure but, as soon as the report is published, who’s to say someone didn’t sit up all night and work really really really hard to release any response that’s needed the next day?

  197. Ex-Wx Forecaster says:

    I, too, received a shock.

    I found the concept funny, with a line from an old song running through my head (“Imagine that, me working for you!”), I registered. I expected instant rejection, but received an acceptance email just a few hours later.

    So, my first question as an “expert reviewer” has to be: who vetted the reviewers?

  198. Jon says:

    Maybe to saturate/distract you with so much that the quality of your web site is affected?

  199. ian middleton says:

    The dark side of me says it’s a trap. But I hope it is not. Am I taking the skeptic thinky too far?

  200. DEEBEE says:

    Hope you have the capability to change your password, otherwise your review is in possible jeopardy.

  201. Dave Springer says:

    Just curious Anthony. What makes you believe you’re qualified to be an expert reviewer for the IPCC? What makes them believe it?

    Nothing personal but I see this as an impeachment of the whole charade. Ball, Pielke, Lindzen, Christy, Spencer… those guys should be reviewers but not you.

  202. Dave Springer says:

    Ex-Wx Forecaster says:
    December 17, 2011 at 3:28 am

    “So, my first question as an “expert reviewer” has to be: who vetted the reviewers?”

    My sediments, exactly. I’m reminded of Groucho Marx’ “I refuse to join any club who would have me for a member”. That’s why I’m not in any clubs…

  203. Smokey says:

    Dave Springer,

    Who made you the arbiter of who is, and who is not qualified? It may well be that those you named have decided this year that the position wasn’t worth applying for again, since they have been deliberately marginalized in the past.

    Anthony knows more than 95% of the UN/IPCC’s reviewers about the issues; he’s been published in the scientific literature, and most importantly, he is a voice of reason among a cacaphony of self-serving interests.

    Anthony’s appointment is the IPCC’s grudging acknowledgment that there is more than one side to this issue, and it shows weakness within the IPCC. We know that they appointed Anthony because of his high credibility among scientific skeptics. Now we will hear, first hand, what goes on behind the scenes. It will be the scientific skeptics minority report, and I expect wide readership by people interested in an inside report as a contrast to the carefully scripted, decided in advance official version.

  204. Chris says:

    Presumably there will be other reviewers of the same data and, of course if they are all warmists then the ‘consensus’ will apply. Clearly its just a sop to impartiality.

  205. Ex-Wx Forecaster says:

    “Dave Springer says:
    I’m reminded of Groucho Marx’ “I refuse to join any club who would have me for a member”. That’s why I’m not in any clubs…”

    Indeed!

    When I registered, I had the song “Signs” in mind. When I received the ‘invitation’, your Groucho quote popped into my head.

    Regardless. While I’m definitely skeptical about most every subject–as I believe all scientists have an obligation to be–I’ll not stoop to their level. I’ll call ‘em as I see ‘em. If something I’m reviewing is done well and properly, that’s what they’ll hear from me. If it isn’t, they’ll hear that, too, along with the ‘why’ and what should be done to correct it. Should they choose to ignore well-founded, constructive comments from any and all reviewers that do not adhere to The Cause, they do so to their own eventual detriment.

  206. A physicist says:

    Searching the medical literature (via PubMed) for “dissenting opinion” finds this:

    National guidelines on alcohol use during pregnancy: a dissenting opinion

    New national guidelines recommend that women who choose to drink alcohol during pregnancy “should have less than seven standard drinks” in any week and “no more than two standard drinks” on any one day, and that they should never become intoxicated. Exposure to alcohol at these recommended levels has been shown to affect brain development and certain behaviours in animals. Some longitudinal studies in human children have detected detrimental affects from exposure to low levels of alcohol. Normal public health standards for exposure to environmental toxins should be applied for the unborn baby. We do not know what level of alcohol exposure is safe and pregnant women can only be advised to abstain.

    If for “alcohol use during pregnancy” we substitute “carbon burning for energy”, then this article is a fine model of published scientific dissent and skepticism.

    The point is that IPCC reports (like all such survey reports) reflect consensus, not unanimity. That is why it is highly unlikely that the final report will reflect any one person’s opinions.

  207. Smokey says:

    Earth to a physicist: alcohol use during pregnancy has no connection whatever to fossil fuel energy. None. It is a worthless analogy.

    It has been demonstrated, per the scientific method, that alcohol impairs fetal development. But it has never been demonstrated that CO2 causes either global or regional harm, while there is ample evidence that more CO2 is beneficial. Thus that analogy fails.

    Try to use credible analogies, OK? Thanx.

  208. Gail Combs says:

    Matt says:
    December 16, 2011 at 12:45 pm

    I was wondering how much longer it would take until Big Oil finally bought their way into the IPCC… :P
    _________________________________
    That was sarcasm right??? The IPCC was Big Oil’s idea in the first place!

    …The Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was established in the School of Environmental Sciences (ENV) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in Norwich in 1972.

    Acknowledgements
    This list is not fully exhaustive, but we would like to acknowledge the support of the following funders (in alphabetical order):

    British Council, British Petroleum, Broom’s Barn Sugar Beet Research Centre, Central Electricity Generating Board, Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS), Commercial Union, Commission of European CommunitiesCEC, often referred to now as EU), Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils (CCLRC), Department of Energy, Department of the Environment (DETR, now DEFRA), Department of Health, Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), Eastern Electricity, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), Environment Agency, Forestry Commission, Greenpeace International, International Institute of Environmental Development (IIED), Irish Electricity Supply Board, KFA Germany, Leverhulme Trust, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF), National Power, National Rivers Authority, Natural Environmental Research Council (NERC), Norwich Union, Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, Overseas Development Administration (ODA), Reinsurance Underwriters and Syndicates, Royal Society, Scientific Consultants, Science and Engineering Research Council (SERC), Scottish and Northern Ireland Forum for Environmental Research, Shell, Stockholm Environment Agency, Sultanate of Oman, Tate and Lyle, UK Met. Office, UK Nirex Ltd., United Nations Environment Plan (UNEP), United States Department of Energy, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Wolfson Foundation and the World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF).

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/

    And that does not include ENRON who owned much of the North American natural gas pipeline: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/commentaries/seriously_inconvenient_truth.pdf

    …Ken Lay would later give key staff a briefing on his Washington sojourn, noting in an internal Enron memo that “the Kyoto agreement, if implemented, would ‘do more to promote Enron’s business than almost any other regulatory initiative outside of restructuring the energy and natural gas industries in Europe and the United States’.”347

    Tim Wirth was doing his bit, having been delegated the task as lead negotiator for the US in Kyoto, and when Vice President Al Gore signed off on Kyoto in December 1997, Enron thought all its Christmases had come at once.

    “This agreement will be good for Enron stock!!” exclaimed one of Enron’s men in Kyoto, who in the same memo to head office peppered the main points of the newly-agreed Kyoto Protocol with phrases like, “we won”, “another victory for us”, and “exactly what I have been lobbying for”.348

  209. A physicist says:

    Your post is precisely wrong-on-the-facts, Smokey.

    The evidence linking alcohol consumption to fetal impairment is purely observational; there is no theoretical understanding of why this link should exist.

    In contrast, the evidence linking high CO2 levels to a warm climate and high sea level is both observational and theoretical; in this respect the climate science is stronger than the medical science.

    A moral similarity is that, in both cases, irresponsibly short-sighted actions of an older generation can grievously harm a following generation.

  210. Casper says:

    Anthony,
    I think it’s a trap, but I may be wrong ;)

  211. 2dogs says:

    Anthony’s opinion will neither be sought nor held in any regard, but he will be counted as supporting the IPCC’s conclusions.

  212. JPeden says:

    A physicist says:
    December 17, 2011 at 10:43 am

    Your post is precisely wrong-on-the-facts, Smokey.

    The evidence linking alcohol consumption to fetal impairment is purely observational; there is no theoretical understanding of why this link should exist.

    Fetal Alcohol Syndrome has been reproduced in animals; pigs, iirc. There are also no doubt a host of “observational” epidemiological studies on humans as proof, to boot.

    And just off the top on my head, in the human adult at least, even one significant alcohol ingestion causes direct damage to the liver as manifested nearly immediately as very large hepatic enzyme releases as a result of hepatic cell wall damage or dysfunction. And with chronic use, as the disordered, scarred liver architecture known as chirrosis in 15% of chronic alcoholics, leading to jaundice and “collateral” esophageal varices/veins as itself a very severe cause of life threatening “upper g.i. bleeding”; as well as the “caput mudusa”s” collateral varices/veins radiating out from the “belly button” also a result of chirrotic obstruction to blood flow return via the large inferior vena cava vein returning blood from all points below the liver; and sometimes in the ‘W.C. Fields’ alcoholic “rhinophyma”, a bulbous nose.

    Alcoholic liver cell damage also results in a net decrease in the production of the vital prothrombin clotting factor itself – the liver makes all “clotting factors” except for one; and a decreased serum albumin, also manufactured only in the liver and also eventually a vital constituent, for example possibly manifesting as “pulmonary edema” which compromises CO2 and O2 exchange, and as the “ascites”, intra-abdominal fluid, which also shows up in those protien starved children in Africa who have swollen bellies from this “ascites” as a manifestion of Kwasiorkor, protein starvation.

    Alcohol’s direct liver damage to its functional cells also decreases its critical glucose glycogen storage function, glucose being one of the brain’s obligatory energy sources and without which the brain’s neurons start suffering below glucose = 40mg.%, and even then dying very quickly much as they would with O2 less than pO2 = 27; alcohol damage also manifests as muscle damage and atrophy involving also directly observed mitochondral swelling and dysfunction and elevated CPK released from the cells and iincluding that of myocardial muscle which can eventually lead to heart failure requiring a heart transplant.

    Then there is also alcohol’s direct depression of neurologic function per se, including later permanent atrophy of the cerebellum and cerebral hemispheres, chronic neuritis, pancreatitis, and a host of other problems.

    Therefore, A physicist, you are again talking solely from the basis of your own manifestly confabulatory fantasy world. At which point it’s my obligation, A physicist, to mention to you that you might possibly be suffering from something strongly resembling Korsakoff’s psychosis: “a psychosis which is usually based on chronic alcoholism, and which is accompanied by disturbance of orientation, susceptibility to external stimulation and suggestion, falsification of memory, and hallucinations. The signs of polyneuritis [wristdrop, etc.] are usually present.” [Dorland's Medical Dictionary, 24 Edition]

    Of course many other “organic” and inorganic causes could be the problem, including simply being a “normal” Progressive.

    But at any rate, your further statement that,

    In contrast, the evidence linking high CO2 levels to a warm climate and high sea level is both observational and theoretical; in this respect the climate science is stronger than the medical science.,

    should certainly be evaluated within its more complete context.

  213. Eric (skeptic) says:

    A physicist, I don’t suppose that a 1983 article would be sufficient for a physicist: “The molecular mechanism of fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS). I. Ethanol-induced growth suppression” since they admit in the abstract that “The molecular mechanism(s) of this retardation, however, is obscure; and it remains to be determined whether the growth suppression is the result of the action of ethanol or its metabolites on embryonic, maternal or placental tissue.”

    I must therefore defer to your expertise when it comes to “there is no theoretical understanding…”

  214. kim2ooo says:

    A physicist says:
    December 17, 2011 at 10:43 am

    In contrast, the evidence linking high CO2 levels to a warm climate and high sea level is both observational and theoretical; in this respect the climate science is stronger than the medical science.” ]

    I invite you to produce the observational evidence.
    CAGW is an unproven hypothesis [ unproven by empirical observational evidence - unproven theory ].

    A physicist says:
    December 17, 2011 at 10:43 am

    A moral similarity is that, in both cases, irresponsibly short-sighted actions of an older generation can grievously harm a following generation. ‘ ]

    Nonsense!

    You truly crack me up with your “morality” postings.
    For AGW to be an “moral” or “ethical” responsibility you have to:

    1: Provide evidence that CO2 is amoral.
    2: Provide a “cure” – “solution” that IS “moral” and or “ethical” .

    Master Pascal’s Wager …. works fairly well for religious debates.

    “Science can exist within religion – but religion can not exist within science” – kim2ooo

  215. A physicist says:

    JPeden and Skeptic, there was no intent in my post to deny the fetal effects of alcohol consumption; rather I was merely remarking that our theoretical understanding of the molecular mechanism(s) for these effects is substantially weaker than the evidence linking CO2 to climate warming and ocean rise.

    After all, ethanol is a normal metabolic product … a priori it’s far from clear that imbibing it would be harmful to fetal development, moreover the molecular mechanisms by which this (undoubted) harm occurs are very incompletely understood.

    To the extent that one confident of fetal harm from maternal drinking, shouldn’t one be far more confident in a CO2-climate link?

    And aren’t the moral issues parallel too? In the sense that short-sighted actions of an older generation can grievously harm a following generation?

    REPLY: None of this has anything to do with this thread, can’t your attention span stay on topic? – Anthony

  216. Smokey says:

    a physicist says:

    “…I was merely remarking that our theoretical understanding of the molecular mechanism(s) for these effects is substantially weaker than the evidence linking CO2 to climate warming and ocean rise.”

    You were merely spouting nonsense. If you can provide testable, falsifiable evidence, per the scientific method, showing that CO2 controls ‘climate warming and ocean rise’, you will be the first to be able to do so.

    Your baseless, wild-eyed conjectures are becoming increasingly lunatic. There is no scientific evidence that carbon dioxide controls sea levels, or that it is a primary cause of ‘climate warming’. None.

    Just because you have a religious belief that CO2 is the culprit doesn’t mean your beliefs have anything to do with science. It’s just your evidence-free belief system speaking, which the planet itself is falsifying by not warming as CO2 rises. I prefer to listen to what the planet is saying, rather than a raving cognitive dissonance-afflicted True Believer.

  217. philincalifornia says:

    “In the sense that short-sighted actions of an older generation can grievously harm a following generation?”

    You got that right a crap physicist.

    Yep, the “me me me, look at me I’m saving the planet” arts major dickwads thinking they’re scientists and doing experiments on human society are already grievously harming following generations.

    Not my kids though, so f*** you.

  218. AndiC says:

    Hi Anthony

    Back on topic, I noticed all the pigs being fed at the end of the runway !!!

    Now I understand why

    Well done – as you say you have to do these things even if you are wary of the final outcome

    Andy

  219. David says:

    Anthony I hope you read this. There is a lot of confusion with regard to the IPCC and confedentiality and FOI. I suggest you detail some questions to them in this regard (perhaps showing some of the Jones e-mails depicting historic confusion from “scientist” who have worked within the IPCC far longer then you.) so that you know exactly what will be confedential, and for how long. I also suggest you ask them to clarify in writing what can or cannot, or will not, be released if FOI requests are sent in.

    I followed your post of the IPCC and FOI and I think I narrowed it down to some key questions which may help you properly articulate your questions to the IPCC before you proceed. Apparently there is a list (a confidentiality guidance) which you can ask for. See my post here at Tallbloke’s blog…http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/12/16/ipcc-declares-itself-immune-to-foi-requests/#comment-11161

  220. A physicist says:
    A Physicist says: To the extent that one [is] confident of fetal harm from maternal drinking, shouldn’t one be far more confident in a CO2-climate link?

    And aren’t the moral issues parallel too? In the sense that short-sighted actions of an older generation can grievously harm a following generation?

    Philincalifornia says: You got that right a crap physicist. Yep, the “me me me, look at me I’m saving the planet” arts major dickwads thinking they’re scientists and doing experiments on human society are already grievously harming following generations.

    Not my kids though, so f*** you.

    Philincalifornia, your post illuminates another striking parallel: scientific studies showing harmful effects of smoking, drinking, and carbon-burning all arouse strong opposition from corporate-political coalitions that profit from smoking, drinking, and carbon-burning, and these same studies arouse also high levels of anger-and-abuse in individual citizens who enjoy these practices.

    Computer scientists have uncovered strong evidence that the former are harnessing the latter in organized on-line campaigns.

  221. Jon says:

    The KGB will corrupt with money sooner or later?
    Ohhhh I was actually thinking about WWF.

  222. Smokey says:

    A physicist, who apparently is a paid commenter, says:

    “…scientific studies showing harmful effects of smoking, drinking, and carbon-burning all arouse strong opposition from corporate-political coalitions that profit from smoking, drinking, and carbon-burning, and these same studies arouse also high levels of anger-and-abuse in individual citizens who enjoy these practices.”

    Translation: individual citizens are free to engage in any lawful activity, no matter how much it irks anti-individual liberty do-gooders, and free citizens are not happy with finger-wagging do-gooders trying to run their lives by telling them that they should not do what the do-gooders tell them not to do.

  223. Paul Matthews says:

    Me too. Congrats are not appropriate – it seems that acceptance is automatic.
    It remains to be seen whether they will take any notice of our comments.

  224. Gary Swift says:

    This doesn’t surprise me actually. You are a published author and one of the foremost expert in the world in regard to station siting and metadata incongruity problems in the land temp datasets. I have no idea if your credentials extend beyond that, but your experience in at least that one area should be taken advantage of in the WG1 report.

    But… I imagine there’s someone having a chuckle about this, and wishing they could have seen the look on your face. :)

  225. The IPCC management continues to hold up my application for the position of Expert Reviewer of the Working Group I report for AR5 on the grounds that I have not complied with its process. The text of my most recent response to them follows for its possible interest to bloggers in this thread.

    Dear Sir or Madam:

    I have already completed the step of filling out your application form to the best of my ability. In completing this step, I cited a single body of expertise. From prior correspondence, I gather that you would prefer it if I were to cite a different body of expertise with respect to each of the chapters I have offered to review. I am unable to comply with your preference, as you have provided me with no basis for doing so other than a chapter outline and this outline exposes none of the types of falsehoods that were evident in the Working Group I report for AR4. Were I to serve in the capacity of expert reviewer, my intent would be to expose similar falsehoods in the report for AR5. Naturally, without reading the report, I cannot determine where they are.

    Perhaps the management of the IPCC would prefer it if falsehoods in the text of AR5 were to remain in place. If so, your nonsensical application process provides an effective mechanism for ensuring that this happens.

    Cordially,

    Terry Oldberg

  226. ttswatson says:

    Yes! I have been accepted too. It will give me the opportunity to sell my authority that will show that our climate is natural and that Carbon Dioxide (CO2) has little influence on changing climate. It is used as a fire detergent (Dry Ice) and is a very heavy gas, in fact its atomic weight is 44, so how can it ever get into the atmosphere other than by its natural birth by the Sun’s Cosmic Rays hitting Neutrons, that then hit carbon, turning it into carbon 14 and then collects two Oxygen to make up the molecule, Carbon Dioxide.

    Nature has been doing this since birth and now I can show how truth can be turned about, for this whole escapade has been built on a lie to generate cash flow from the rich and famous and maybe,it may unfold its wings to the world…

Comments are closed.