The IPCC gives me a shock

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. 🙂