So, SoS, you don't see Flannery's exaggeration as scaremongering?

You say "we must also carefully assess relative degrees of expertise and experience". Prior to the release of the Stern Review, the House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs published its 2nd Report on The Economics of Climate Change. The following witnesses gave evidence: Professor Dennis Anderson, Imperial College, Dr Terry Barker, Cambridge University, Mr Christopher Beauman, former adviser, Cabinet Office, BP, Dr Leonard Brookes, Fellow of the Energy Institute, Sir Ian Byatt, Dr Ian Castles, Australian National University, Canberra, CSERGE (the Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), Professor Paul Ekins, Policy Studies Institute, George C Marshall Institute, Washington DC, Dr Indur M Goklany, Professor Michael Grubb, Imperial College, Dr Dieter Helm, New College, Oxford, Dr Cameron Hepburn, St High’s College, University of Oxford, Professor David Henderson, Westminster Business School, Mr David Holland, MIEE, Dr Chris Hope, University of Cambridge, Sir John Houghton International Council for Capital Formation (ICCF), International Policy Network, Sir David King, Chief Scientific Adviser to the UK Government, Professor Richard Lindzen, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Professor Bjorn Lomborg, University of Aarhus, Professor Angus Maddison, Dr David Maddison, University College London, Professor Ross McKitrick, University of Guelph, Canada, Professor Robert Mendelsohn, Yale University, Professor Nils-Axel Morner, Stockholm University, Professor Julian Morris, University of Buckingham, Professor Nebojsa Nakicenovic, IIASA and Vienna University, Dr R Pachauri, Chairman, IPCC, Dr Peter Read.

The list includes eminent and respected experts from around the world, from a broad political spectrum, and with an array of views on climate change, 'skeptical' and 'non-skeptical'. The report expressed serious concerns about the operations of your reputable firm, the IPCC.

The Stern Review, released shortly after, on the same subject, had something like 1,100 references, but not one to this report. Looks like a lot of expertise and experience to ignore.

Okay, Richard. The way you dramatise this, I almost missed how little your last comment really said! Let me just repeat it, with the obfuscation and drama removed:

1. The Select Committee published a report containing a couple of dozen testimonies. It also contained some criticism of the IPCC.
2. The Stern Review was published, and it referenced some 1,100 papers, but not the Select Committee report.

You haven't told us how many of your dozens of people actually expressed concerns about the IPCC. Not being referenced by the Stern Review does not convince me that they were somehow "silenced" either.

But assuming the worst - that all your experts had serious concerns, and that the Stern Report deliberately snubbed them - that's still only a few dozen experts out of the thousands you have stated were referenced by the Stern Review! Is this really "a lot of expertise and experience to ignore"? No, it's one paper in a thousand - an insignificantly tiny minority.

What makes all this really tedious is that you haven't told us what these serious concerns about the IPCC actually were. I've read that the IPCC's 2007 report was "produced by around 600 authors from 40 countries, and reviewed by over 620 experts and governments." It sounds decentralised and inclusive - and again these numbers dwarf your list of protests.

Richard, can we exchange all these vague and misleading implications for some substantive arguments?

You know what disturbs me most about this whole process?

Science (the process) is supposed to consider every objection, examine ever counter-argument. This means that science (the collected mass of opinion) is a bit of a huge, slow-moving beast. It's marching along, giving due consideration and being generally thoughtful, and all these interest groups (including IDers and (A)GW-skeptics) are buzzing around making so much noise, and repeating the same already-falsified arguments so often, that nobody outside the field can be quite sure what the consensus of the moderates really is.

The louder science protests against this assault, the more partisan and closed and less like science it looks. Every authority has to choose between guilty silence, and being painted as just another casualty of the "conspiracy". The networks of trust corrode away.

We can't all become scientists in every field, so all I can do is hope we all learn enough propaganda-resistance to get by.

Dewi, What obsfucation? What drama? How vague? How misleading? Substantive arguments, please.

"that's still only a few dozen experts out of the thousands you have stated were referenced by the Stern Review!" This is INCORRECT. There were about 1,100 references - not experts!

Is this really "a lot of expertise and experience to ignore"? YES - it's not one paper in a thousand, it was a Select Committe report drawing on some of the world's leading experts - such as Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology at MIT - on the very subject of the Stern Review (repeat Review).

You can read the report yourself at:

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:qMoYm8OO8WoJ:www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/12/12i.pdf+house+lords+select+climate&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=au

The comment was in response to SoS on 'degrees of expertise and experience'. That you have missed the point, and also seem to think science is a numbers game (a collected mass of opinions), is no reason to make baseless accusations. That we can't all be scientists in every field does not mean you should assume that the stuff you don't understand is propaganda.

Richard,
I thought we were discussing the science and who we should believe regarding the science. You seem to be sliding off topic. You cut and paste a list of names of individuals who gave evidence before an economics committee. You give no evidence that you have done your own homework on who they are but you expect me to give a considered response! The economics committee may well be able to elicit expertise about the cost/benefit analysis of installing a smoke alarm but I cannot see how its expertise extends to knowing how to build one and whether the theory it is based on is sound.

A committee of the House of Lords clearly has no direct knowledge of climate change. No more than a committee of our Senate. Therefore if they are to make a valid judgment on the subject they would need to have selected a broad spectrum of scientific witnesses. From those names I recognise on your list it would seem that they have, by no means, chosen a representative sample of climate scientists. In fact they are a stand out example of what you accuse me of doing, ie whoever selected the witnesses (I think it is suspected Nigel Lawson did) has favoured one side. When I look at the list I can immediately see the names of 8 individuals who are either sceptics or fiercely suspicious of the IPCC, ie Sir Ian Byatt, Dr Ian Castles (no relative I hope as you have not declared a conflict of interest), Professor Paul Ekins, Dr Indur M Goklany, Professor David Henderson, Professor Richard Lindzen, Professor Bjorn Lomborg, Professor Ross McKitrick. That’s just off the top of the bat, more than a third of the 27 who I am aware are highly partisan on the topic. Climate scientists seem pretty thin on the ground, but the most respectable skeptic, Lindzen, is there. If they are to get a representative sample of those with opposing views to him they would have had 50-100 more eminent scientists to choose from but they were not invited.

SoS

You said
"I thought we were discussing the science and who we should believe regarding the science."

Obviously Global Warming has religious significance for you. Science is not about 'believing' its about evidence, interpretation and sceptical review. 'Believing' has no place in science... that is the sort of thinking that leads to scientific nonsense like Creationism and Intelligent Design.
If this thread is about deciding who to believe then it is simply a waste of time. Actually your arguments sound very similar in approach to those of my Creationist friends.
As a matter of simple logic if the GCMs get so much as one number even slightly wrong then that is sufficient evidence to PROVE that the model is wrong. The only question that remains is just how far wrong are they. That is a good scientific question. I think that is what this thread is really about.