Not at all, there is no insinuation, but as you appear to have taken an 
anti-IPCC position, I was just checking that you had, in fact, done so 
with knowledge.

That one scientist out of over 1500 left for his own reasons is not 
astonishing. If many had left, then there may be just cause for doubt as 
to its impartiality,

And the IPCC is managed by the United Nations Environment Programme, 
just as the Montreal Protocol and its technical, scientific and economic 
panels are. Funding of the participants' time and expenses is done:
a) by UNEP, in the case of some participants from developing countries
b) by employers, in the case of participants from industry
c) by universities/research institutes, in the case of academic 
participants (some may have government funding in the case of 
government-run universities)
d) by NGOs, in the case of their sending participants
e) in a few cases, by private individuals, generally as consultants
UNEP funds the cost of the meetings, unless offered by host countries.

There is no funding from industry or other vested interests (in either 
sense), other than the expenses of employee/participants.

"If the IPCC is gospel, why is there so many that have differing views?
Is everybody that has a different view lying?"

Are you saying that people are not entitled to different views? There is 
no question of the IPCC being gospel: it is a consensus view of a large 
number (and a massive majority) of the world's atmospheric scientists. 
No one has claimed that the publications are the result of unanimity. 
Even the Gospels are subject to opinion. St Matthew ch 26, v 26 has 
three different interpretations (transubstantiation, consubstantiation 
and symbolism); there is no such thing as gospel truth, only 
interpretations.

And I would never use the word "lying" in this context. There may be 
interpretations of data, just as there is of the Bible. Does a Catholic 
priest accuse a Prebyterian minister of lying because the latter 
believes the communion bread to be a symbol of the body of Christ, while 
the former believes it takes on the physical form of the body of Christ? 
Things ain't black and white in science: a theory starts out (in this 
case by Arrhenius) as just that. As scientific evidence comes in to 
confirm it, it becomes a hypothesis, but it is rarely proven with 100% 
certainty. The evidence is weighed up, pro and con, until it is refined 
to reach a consensus. There are still elements of doubt in Maxwell's 
theory of electromagnetic radiation and Einstein's general theory of 
relativity, but that does not mean that scientists cannot use the 
equations. We don't really have a theory of gravity, but I bet you can 
hit your head on the ground if you trip over a brick. So, no one (that I 
know of) is lying, any more than those that say the earth is flat are 
lying: mistaken, maybe, but deliberately lying, no!

I worked for 15 years with/for UNEP on ozone depletion at a high level, 
often dealing with Ministers. (I have 3 awards/citations from UNEP and a 
US EPA Stratospheric Ozone Protection Award on the wall above my head.) 
I know personally many of the co-authors/peer reviewers of the IPCC WGs, 
as there is a big overlap between the two phenomena. I have no doubt as 
to their sincerity and I know how the system works, having been 
co-author of similar reports and WG co-chair. I'm not saying there is no 
room for errors or omissions. I am, nonetheless, confident that the IPCC 
report is as good as can be got, with our current knowledge, even 
reading between the lines, with the rather special use of language 
(which may not be evident to those unversed in "unolese"), and bearing 
in mind that, though I am not an atmospheric scientist, I have a more 
than working knowledge of the subject through 15 years' experience.

My separate intervention about climate change fatigue was inspired by 
reading two articles in the National Geographic, which rather upset me, 
as they were both far too categorical and alarmist; they promoted theory 
as fact, even where the scientists have been very cautious in their 
pronouncements. The public is being misled by the media as well as by 
politicians like Gore. If this is why you have doubts, I can understand 
it. But they are equally misled by the media and the politicians (like 
Klaus), who say the opposite.

Let me finish by a quotation from one of the leading atmospheric scientists:
This is summarised by a quotation from Robert Watson, Co-chair of the 
Scientific Assessment Panel of the Protocol and former Chairman of the 
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, one of the world's most 
renowned atmospheric scientists:
'Although scientific evidence that human activities were causing 
stratospheric ozone depletion was quite robust in the late 1980s, there 
were a number of sceptics who said, "wait for perfect knowledge; there 
is uncertainty in the ozone models." Unfortunately, the sceptics were 
absolutely right. The models were inaccurate. They underestimated the 
impact of human activities on stratospheric ozone. This means that with 
the Montreal Protocol and its adjustments and amendments, society will 
have to live with stratospheric ozone depletion not only over 
Antarctica, but over all of the globe, except for tropics and 
subtropics, for at least another 50 years. Some of the same sceptics are 
now saying that not enough is known about climate change.'

Brian

Steve Gregory wrote:
> Brian,
> 
> In asking me that question, it seems to me that you're insinuating that
> if I read it, that should be it, I should have no more questions. The
> IPCC report is the be all, and end all to anything that has to do with
> global warming. I'm not ready to say that yet...
> 
> If the IPCC is gospel, why is there so many that have differing views?
> Is everybody that has a different view lying?
> 
> Here's a quote from the UK House of Lords Science and Economic Analysis
> and Report on IPCC for the G-8 Summit, July 2005:
> 
> "We have some concerns about the objectivity of the IPCC process, with
> some of its emissions scenarios and summary documentation apparently
> influenced by political considerations. There are significant doubts
> about some aspects of the IPCC's emissions scenario exercise, in
> particular, the high emissions scenarios. The Government should press
> the IPCC to change their approach. There are some positive aspects to
> global warming and these appear to have been played down in the IPCC
> reports; the Government should press the IPCC to reflect in a more
> balanced way the costs and benefits of climate change. The Government
> should press the IPCC for better estimates of the monetary costs of
> global warming damage and for explicit monetary comparisons between the
> costs of measures to control warming and their benefits. Since warming
> will continue, regardless of action now, due to the lengthy time lags."
> 
> Are they lying? Or funded by Exxonmobile?
> 
> What about Dr. Christopher Landsea's withdrawal of participation from
> the IPCC? Is he lying? Below are some sections from his resignation
> letter:
> 
> "After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from
> participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
> Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to
> view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having
> become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the
> IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns."
> 
> "My view is that when people identify themselves as being associated
> with the IPCC and then make pronouncements far outside current
> scientific understandings that this will harm the credibility of climate
> change science and will in the longer term diminish our role in public
> policy."
> 
> "It is certainly true that "individual scientists can do what they wish
> in their own rights", as one of the folks in the IPCC leadership
> suggested. Differing conclusions and robust debates are certainly
> crucial to progress in climate science. However, this case is not an
> honest scientific discussion conducted at a meeting of climate
> researchers."
> 
> "I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process
> that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being
> scientifically unsound. As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in Dr.
> Trenberth's actions and have retained him as a Lead Author for the AR4,
> I have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR4."
> 
> Then I read things like this:
> 
> Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology at
> the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and one of the world's leading
> atmospheric scientists, told a standing-room only audience at a briefing
> sponsored by the Cooler Heads Coalition in the U.S. Senate Environment
> Committee Room, that the IPCC process is driven by politics rather than
> science.
> 
> What are some of the problems with the IPCC process, according to
> Lindzen? It uses summaries to misrepresent what scientists say. It uses
> language that means different things to scientists and laymen. It
> exploits public ignorance over quantitative matters. It exploits what
> scientists can agree on, while ignoring disagreements, to support the
> global warming agenda. And it exaggerates scientific accuracy and
> certainty and the authority of undistinguished scientists.
> 
> The "most egregious" problem with the IPCC's forthcoming report, said
> Lindzen, "is that it is presented as a consensus that involves hundreds,
> perhaps thousands, of scientists . . . and none of them was asked if
> they agreed with anything in the report except for the one or two pages
> they worked on."
> 
> The IPCC claims its report is peer-reviewed, which simply isn't true,
> Lindzen said. Under true peer-review, he explained, a panel of reviewers
> must accept a study before it can be published in a scientific journal.
> If the reviewers have objections, the author must answer them or change
> the article to take reviewers' objections into account.
> 
> Under the IPCC review process, by contrast, the authors are at liberty
> to ignore criticisms. After having his review comments ignored by the
> IPCC in 1990 and 1995, Lindzen asked to have his name removed from the
> list of reviewers. The group refused.
> 
> The IPCC has resorted to using scenario-building in its policymakers'
> summary to paint a frightening picture not supported by the science,
> Lindzen charged. Ignoring the science allows the IPCC to build a
> scenario, for example, that assumes man will burn 300 years' worth of
> coal in 100 years. They plug that into the most sensitive climate model
> available and arrive at a truly frightening global warming scenario.
> 
> There's little doubt, Lindzen said, that the IPCC process has become
> politicized to the point of uselessness. He advised U.S. policymakers
> simply to ignore it.
> 
> So Brian, why shouldn't I have questions?
> 
> Steve
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian Ellis [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2007 3:35 AM
> To: Environmental Issues; Steve Gregory
> Subject: Re: [EN] Freedom, not climate, is at risk
> 
> Steve
> 
> Have you read the IPCC reports?
> 
> Brian
> 
> Steve Gregory wrote:
>> Hi Joe,
>>
>> I hear what you're saying, but did you read what Mr. Idso states in
>> one of the position papers under the "About Us" tab on the page? He
>> addresses the funding they got from ExxonMobil rather eloquently I
>> think...
>>
>> Another place on their web page that is interesting is under the
>> "Education" tab, and then look at "Experiments" to see that carbon
>> dioxide is not the terrible, evil, gas that everyone is condemning
>> nowadays.
>>
>> I'm not yet ready to dismiss the information that is on the CO2Science
>> web page just because they got a little bit of funding from
> ExxonMobile.
>> Steve
>>
>>
>> What Motivates the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global
>> Change?
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> --
>> --------
>> "Where do you get your funding?" This is a common inquiry we
>> frequently receive. Our typical response is that we never discuss our
> funding. Why?
>> Because we believe that ideas about the way the world of nature
>> operates should stand or fall on their own merits, irrespective of the
>> source of support for the person or organization that produces them.
>> Unfortunately, we know that this view is contrary to what often occurs
>> in today's world, where the souls of many are bought and sold daily -
>> some for a proverbial king's ransom and others for but a pauper's
>> penny
>> - to promulgate ideas to which they have not the slightest personal
>> allegiance. I want to state once and for all, therefore, that we at
>> the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change do not
>> participate in such commerce, while acknowledging there are likely
>> many scientists on the opposite side of the climate change debate that
>> are equally true to themselves in this regard.
>>
>> But why should you believe me? Lying and fabrication are equally
>> rampant throughout today's world, making almost anyone's declaration,
>> however adamantly and eloquently delivered, more suspect than
>> believable; and maybe that's what I'm doing here - lying to you.
>>
>> Clearly, one should not believe what we at CO2 Science or anyone else
>> says about carbon dioxide and global change without carefully
>> examining the reasoning behind, and the evidence for, our and their
>> declarations, which makes questions about funding rather moot. It is
>> self-evident, for example, that one need not know from whence a
>> person's or organization's funding comes in order to evaluate the
>> reasonableness of what they say, if - and this is a very important
>> qualification - one carefully studies the writings of people on both
> sides of the issue.
>> Nevertheless, questions about funding persist, and they are clearly of
>> great interest to many people, as evidenced by the spate of publicity
>> aroused by the 4 Sep 2006 letter of Bob Ward (Senior Manager for
>> Policy Communication of the UK's Royal Society) to Nick Thomas (Esso
>> UK Limited's Director of Corporate Affairs), as well his criticism of
>> us in his BBC Today Programe interview of 21 Sep 2006 with Sarah
>> Montague, where he pointedly described our Center as being one of the
>> organizations funded by ExxonMobil that "misrepresent the science of
>> climate change."
>>
>> That we tell a far different story from the one espoused by the
>> Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is true; and that may be why
>> ExxonMobil made some donations to us a few times in the past; they
>> probably liked what we typically had to say about the issue. But what
>> we had to say then, and what we have to say now, came not, and comes
>> not, from them or any other organization or person. Rather, it was and
>> is derived from our individual scrutinizing of the pertinent
>> scientific literature and our analyses of what we find there, which we
>> have been doing and subsequently writing about on our website on a
>> weekly basis without a single break since 15 Jul 2000, and
>> twice-monthly before that since 15 Sep 1998 ... and no one could pay
>> my sons and me enough money to do that.
>>
>> So what do we generally find in this never-ending endeavor? We find
>> enough good material to produce weekly reviews of five different
>> peer-reviewed scientific journal articles that do not follow the
>> multiple doom-and-gloom storylines of the IPCC. In addition, we often
>> review articles that do follow the IPCC's lead; and in these cases we
>> take issue with them for what we feel are valid defensible reasons.
>> Why do we do this? We do it because we feel that many people on the
>> other side of the debate - but by no means all or even the majority of
>> them - are the ones that "misrepresent the science of climate change."
>>
>> Just as beauty resides in the eye of the beholder, however, so too
>> does the misrepresentation of climate change science live there; and
>> with people on both sides of the debate often saying the same negative
>> things about those on the other side, it behooves the rational person
>> seeking to know the truth to carefully evaluate the things each side
>> says about more substantial matters. Are they based on real-world
>> data? Do the analyses employed seem appropriate? Do the researchers
>> rely more on data and logic to make their points, or do they rely more
>> on appeals to authority and claims of consensus? Funding also enters
>> the picture; but one must determine if it is given to influence how
>> scientists interpret their findings or to encourage them to maintain
>> their intellectual integrity and report only what they believe to be
> the truth.
>> In this regard, as I mentioned earlier, there are many scientists on
>> both sides of the climate change debate who receive funds from people
>> that admire their work and who continue to maintain their intellectual
>> and moral integrity. Likewise, there are probably some on both sides
>> of the controversy who do otherwise. So how does one differentiate
>> between them?
>>
>> Clearly, each researcher's case is unique. In my case, I feel that a
>> significant indication of what motivates me to do what I do can be
>> gleaned from my publication record, which demonstrates that I studied
>> and wrote about many of the topics we currently address on our website
>> a full quarter-century ago in a host of different peer-reviewed
>> scientific journals - as well as in a couple of books (Idso, 1982,
>> 1989) that I self-published and for which I personally paid the
>> publication costs - all of which happened well before I, or probably
>> anyone else, had ever even contemplated doing what we now do and
>> actually receiving funds to sustain the effort. What is more, many of
>> these things occurred well before there was any significant
>> controversy over the climate change issue, which largely began with
>> the publication of one of my early contributions to the topic (Idso,
>> 1980). Hence, it should be readily evident that my views about the
>> potential impacts of the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 concentration
>> from that time until now have never been influenced in even the
>> slightest degree by anything other than what has appeared in the
>> scientific literature. And my sons are in their father's image.
>>
>> So, it is indeed true that we have our point of view, just as the
>> other side of the debate has its point of view; and those views are
>> radically different from of each other. Please study carefully,
>> therefore, the materials that each side produces and decide for
>> yourself which seems to be the more correct, based upon real-world
>> data and logical reasoning; but be very careful about appeals to
>> authority, claims of consensus, and contentions of funding leading to
>> misrepresentation of climate-change science. Although there likely is
>> some of the latter occurring on both sides of the debate, the mere
>> existence of funding, whether from private or public sources, does
>> not, in and of itself, prove malfeasance on the part of the funds'
> recipients.
>> Sherwood B. Idso, President
>> Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: EnviroNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Joe Fjelstad
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2007 1:51 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [EN] Freedom, not climate, is at risk
>>
>> Thanks Steve,
>>
>> Like you I don't know where the truth is but I like to try and learn
>> where the sources are coming from as arguments on both sides have
>> plausible elements to them.
>>
>> When I did a search of they authors (noting that they had the same
>> unusual last name) I found that they were father and son and in fact 
>> it appears that the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global
>> Change is top loaded with family members. Chairman, President, Vice
>> President and Operations manager are all related.
>>
>> It also appears that they may have a financial stake in game.
>>
>> _http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id
>> =3
>> 645&me
>> thod=full_
>> (http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id
>> =3
>> 645&method=full)
>>
>> It does not make their comments or position untrue but it casts them
>> in a slightly different light. Too bad they could not have found a
>> less nepotistic appearing organization to rebut Hansen.
>>
>> Thanks again,
>> Joe
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ************************************** See what's free at
>> http://www.aol.com.
>>
>