>The scientific consensus though is quite clear. Though there is a
>small and vocal (and well paid) minority of scientists who completely
>discount the theory, the vast majority of scientists who have in depth
>knowledge of the field agree that humans are having a discernible influence
>on climate.
If the consensus is contested, then its not a consensus.
>I do not have any experience with the IPCC. Many of my co-workers do though.
>I don't recall any claims of poor science which is your claim above. Of
>course these are scientists dealing with politicians. Who knows what really
>happened.
Best if I quote the following report from the Wall Street Journal, JULY 25, 1997:
"How did the IPCC come up with 2,500 scientists? If one were to add up all contributors and reviewers listed in the three IPCC reports published in 1996, one would count about 2,100. The great majority of these are not conversant with the intricacies of atmospheric physics, although some may know a lot about forestry, fisheries or agriculture. Most are social scientists--or just policy experts and government functionaries. Every country in the world seems to be represented--from Albania to Zimbabwe--though many are not exactly at the forefront of research. The list even includes known skeptics of global warming--much to their personal and professional chagrin.
"The IPCC report has some 80 authors for its 11 chapters, but only a handful actually wrote the Policymakers' Summary; most of the several hundred listed `contributors' are simply specialists who allowed their work to be cited, without necessarily endorsing the other chapters or the summary."
>Can you offer some reference or idea of how you came to these conclusions. I
>just don't see it.
Can you re-phrase the question?
-- James Heartfield