The Hockey Stick Illusion
Bishop Hill (aka A.W. Montford) made a great find in the AR4 Chapter 9 comments. Here’s a link to his post and an excerpt:
Bishop Hill: Hansen’s colleague eviscerates AR4 Chapter 9
“While perusing some of the review comments to the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, I came across the contributions of Andrew Lacis, a colleague of James Hansen’s at GISS. Lacis’s is not a name I’ve come across before but some of what he has to say about Chapter 9 of the IPCC’s report is simply breathtaking.”
“…read through his comment on the executive summary of the chapter:
‘There is no scientific merit to be found in the Executive Summary. The presentation sounds like something put together by Greenpeace activists and their legal department. The points being made are made arbitrarily with legal sounding caveats without having established any foundation or basis in fact. The Executive Summary seems to be a political statement that is only designed to annoy greenhouse skeptics. Wasn’t the IPCC Assessment Report intended to be a scientific document that would merit solid backing from the climate science community – instead of forcing many climate scientists into having to agree with greenhouse skeptic criticisms that this is indeed a report with a clear and obvious political agenda. Attribution can not happen until understanding has been clearly demonstrated. Once the facts of climate change have been established and understood, attribution will become self-evident to all. The Executive Summary as it stands is beyond redemption and should simply be deleted.’”
And the chapter author’s response:
“Rejected. [Executive Summary] summarizes Ch 9, which is based on the peer reviewed literature.”
