The IPCC gives me a shock

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

will this muzzle you?
REPLY: No, I plan to have Kenji do the reviews /sarc – Anthony

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

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

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

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!)

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.

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

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

I smell a rat.

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

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.)

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

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”

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

“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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

http://funnyhub.com/content_images/4287_2144_hell-freezes-over.jpg
It is still very hot, this current chill is simply statistical background noise, nothing to worry about people, move along…

It’s a trap. Remember BEST.

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.

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

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.

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%).

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

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.

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

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 🙂

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!

Timor danaos et dona ferentes

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

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

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.

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.

Congrats,
Mr. Anthony Watts – IPCC Expert Reviewer

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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!

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!

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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 ?

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!!!

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

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.

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

“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.

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.

“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.

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.

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….

…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!

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).

“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.

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 …

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.

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.

@ 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.

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.

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!

As Ronald Regan said trust but verify.

Time to change your bio and your business cards to include “Expert Reviewer of the UN IPPC.”
Go get ’em Anthony – Give ’em Science!

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.

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

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?

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…

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.

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.

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… 😛
_________________________________
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

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

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.

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

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.

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. 🙂