Comments on: Credible source, credible argument, credible doubt

By: Richard Treadgold

Richard Treadgold — Sun, 15 Jan 2012 08:26:02 +0000

I see in the previous post his mate Bryan Walker discusses climate migration as earnestly as if the book he reviews has significance. But arranging one’s itinerary at journey’s end is useless without first reaching the destination, and without dramatic global warming there’ll surely be no dramatic migration.

I see similar merit in discussions of pin-dancing angels.

By: Richard C (NZ)

Richard C (NZ) — Sat, 14 Jan 2012 23:28:08 +0000

Sounds more banker than scientist too.

By: Andy

Andy — Sat, 14 Jan 2012 23:06:45 +0000

Here’s a couple of links to the Lords debate:

Andrew Orlowski in the Register
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/01/13/lords_green_debate/

Bishop Hill (with video link to the debate)
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/1/12/house-of-lords-on-the-green-agenda.html

By: Richard Treadgold

Richard Treadgold — Sat, 14 Jan 2012 22:35:37 +0000

In fairness, Gareth, Watson’s quoted comments could be taken either way. But, in speaking for a body dedicated to an assay of the scientific literature, he sounds more advocate than scientist, don’t you think? Which is a dereliction of the founding principles of the IPCC. Which is of serious concern to the more thoughtful among us.

By: Prat Watch #3: through the looking glass

Prat Watch #3: through the looking glass — Sat, 14 Jan 2012 21:47:35 +0000

[...] laughs: over at his Climate Conversation Club, Richard “no warming in NZ” Treadgold fulminates about about the contents1 of a stolen email: Appalling. It’s a free world, so even the [...]

By: Richard Treadgold

Richard Treadgold — Sat, 14 Jan 2012 02:32:48 +0000

Appalling. It’s a free world, so even the “leaders” in climatology are entitled to express the opinion they like. But I draw attention to those who willingly follow these atrocious examples. Such people sabotage science, ransack reason and in the end destroy democracy. Though they imagine they do these things entirely for our own good, they must feel the heat of public opprobrium before they destroy us.

By: Richard Treadgold

Richard Treadgold — Sat, 14 Jan 2012 02:15:56 +0000

Where is today’s cathedral door to which we might nail a dozen of these inconvenient truths?

By: Richard C (NZ)

Richard C (NZ) — Sat, 14 Jan 2012 02:09:37 +0000

Email 4074, January 2001: Bob Watson of the World Bank talks about how he’s going to write the IPCC Summary for Policymakers

Email 4074

Subject: Synthesis Report (SYR): Summary for Policymakers
…
The key to success for the Synthesis Report and the SPM will be punchy take home messages, and thoughtful tables and figures.

Would you please send me comments by Friday, February 2. I think that the key to success will be a few well-crafted tables and figures. As soon as I receive your comments, I will write a 5-7 page SPM.

http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2012/01/email-4074-january-2001-bob-watson-of.html

By: Australis

Australis — Sat, 14 Jan 2012 01:36:58 +0000

I like the description “Summary by Policymakers”.

As it is widely accepted that nobody reads the WG reports, this document comprises the IPCC’s influential output. And it is drafted by a gaggle of career-centered activists from the world’s Environment Ministries.

If draft statements in WGs don’t agree with the policymakers, the views of the scientists have to be changed to align with those of the policy wonks. Reviewed scientific work is kept secret for several months while being edited and spun to match the SPM.

How can the press and politicians continue to accept the IPCC as the monopoly supplier of “the science” of climate?