Two more interesting articles for laymen, both written by IPCC 
scientists. The first one describes the process leading to the 
publication of the reports by scientists without political bias, with 
emphasis that the data used are based as much on observations than on 
modelling. The second one is a critical survey of the weaknesses of the 
system with a certain amount of contradiction of the first.

 From my own experience of having worked as a government nominee on a 
scientific UNEP panel, co-chair and lead author of such reports, I would 
say that both articles are partly right and partly wrong, but the first 
one is more factual.

Firstly, I would discount almost totally the notion that nominating 
governments apply pressure to participants. I have never encountered 
that. OTOH, there is often pressure from NGO participants (who tend to 
extremism) and industrial participants (vested interests, but these are 
debated and have their teeth drawn). There seems to be one blatant error 
in the second article: "The political process begins with the selection 
of the Lead Authors because they are nominated by their own governments. 
Thus at the outset, the political apparatus of the member nations has a 
role in pre-selecting the main participants." This is not my experience; 
as an ex-lead author, I was chosen by the panel itself in plenary and 
not by the government.

Politics DO come into the process, but after the reports are written. 
When ministerial (or heads of state) meetings discuss these reports with 
possible decisions to be made (cf. Rio, Jo'burg etc.), then these are 
political; the scientists can only advise the governments, not make any 
commitments. In the reports of these meetings, the language may well 
differ from that of the scientists.

Incidentally, I was surprised, humbled and honoured about 10 days ago to 
receive a massive lump of lead-free crystal, a UNEP Innovators Award. I 
think only 5 of these have ever been awarded.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7082088.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7081331.stm

Brian

MA/NY DDave wrote:
> Hi guys, Brian, Joe, 
> 
> Haven't been here in awhile on IPC due to a move and activities before and 
> surrounding the move. I won't recover for quite some time.
> 
> Just yesterday on a Republican web blog I came across the following article 
> that is posted across the blog space that supports the AnnC RushL, O'Reilly 
> banter called news.
> 
> <Weather Channel Founder: Global Warming Scam
> This article is written by John Coleman, founder of The Weather Channel.
> 
> It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended 
> by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with 
> environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to 
> create an allusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same 
> environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden 
> the ?research? to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming 
> claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to 
> keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.
> 
> Environmental extremists, notable politicians among them, then teamed up 
> with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this 
> wild ?scientific? scenario of the civilization threatening environmental 
> consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda. 
> Now their ridiculous manipulated science has been accepted as fact and 
> become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, 
> the Governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed 
> but very gullible environmentally conscientious citizens. Only one reporter at 
> ABC has been allowed to counter the Global Warming frenzy with one 15 
> minute documentary segment.
> 
> I do not oppose environmentalism. I do not oppose the political positions of 
> either party. However, Global Warming, i.e. Climate Change, is not about 
> environmentalism or politics. It is not a religion. It is not something 
> you ?believe in.? It is science; the science of meteorology. This is my field of 
> life-long expertise. And I am telling you Global Warming is a non-event, a 
> manufactured crisis and a total scam. I say this knowing you probably won?t 
> believe a me, a mere TV weatherman, challenging a Nobel Prize, Academy 
> Award and Emmy Award winning former Vice President of United States. So be 
> it.
> 
> I have read dozens of scientific papers. I have talked with numerous 
> scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct. There 
> is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not 
> catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril. I am incensed by the incredible media 
> glamour, the politically correct silliness and rude dismissal of counter 
> arguments by the high priest of Global Warming.
> 
> In time, a decade or two, the outrageous scam will be obvious. As the 
> temperature rises, polar ice cap melting, coastal flooding and super storm 
> pattern all fail to occur as predicted everyone will come to realize we have 
> been duped. The sky is not falling. And, natural cycles and drifts in climate are 
> as much if not more responsible for any climate changes underway. I strongly 
> believe that the next twenty years are equally as likely to see a cooling trend 
> as they are to see a warming trend.  See John?s full blog story here.>
> 
> So I went a looking and it seems that the correct information is still in the 
> right authoritative places, even though blog and Bush blog land is still saying 
> with renewed rigor that they can do anything they wish to the globe and they 
> are cool or is that hot.
> 
> http://www.weather.com/encyclopedia/global/index.html
> 
> http://climate.weather.com/blog/9_14035.html#readcomments
> 
> http://www.ametsoc.org/POLICY/2007climatechange.html
> 
> Yours in Engineering, MA/NY DDave
>