‘””” {The misinformation is in suggesting this is a list of experts ignored by the Stern Report or critical of the IPCC. In fact, the real experts are part of the scientific consensus}.””

In fact, another factual error in your linguistics expression David explained under the heading ; “Phonocentrism- Logocentrism”

There is no such thing a scientific consensus and discovery;
It is ether true and can be improved thus - or it is a lie that is only propped up by fraudulent pseudo scientific consensus – then we have an alternant motive David.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/print?id=2938762

http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20070306-122226-6282r.htm

Now here is some real truth David about your motivation, and fits in well with your profile.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/technology/technology.html?in_article_id=440869&in_page_id=1965&in_page_id=1965&expand=true#StartComments

Richard, sorry for misunderstandings. 350 word limit’s a pain. Your comments, in order:

1. Judgment. My comparisons were re the models. The latter are mathematical descriptions of orderly aspects of climate change. In that limited field, I consider them sounder, more conservative and more transparent than judgments alone. My assessment of the usefulness of models is, of course, a judgment because ultimately we are only left with human judgment.

Human judgment is free to draw upon information which is too disorderly, etc to get into the models. This is what Flannery is doing. Although not a climatologist he is in good company: Jim Hansen and Carl Wunsch have also recently stated they think sea rises are underrepresented in the IPCC report (see the latter’s comments in his response to his misrepresentation in the “Swindle” film: http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papersonline/responseto_channel4.htm.)

2. I agree completely with the Einstein/Huxley quotes. Point me to the experiment/facts which disprove AGW theory and I will take your side. Planetary scale experiments are hard to find. As I said before nature’s experiments offer us the moon to gauge the strength of the greenhouse effect and Venus to suggest the possibility the GHE can runaway. It is a truism that we can never prove scientific theories. I cannot prove to you that the sun will rise tomorrow. The above (however well expressed) quotes do no more than state this.

3. Sorry about the “accusing” bit. You didn’t say it directly, it was my inference. I inferred that by raising climateaudit and HoL as sources of expert views that you thought I was drawing on too narrow a range of experts. I was well aware of them although I don’t have a detailed knowledge because I don’t rate them highly. A quick look at the HoL report shows they took testimony from “several scientists”. They had a tutorial on CC from climate scientists of their own choosing. Unfortunately their sampling technique for testifying scientists was unscientific! They want broader input into the IPCC but they themselves didn’t widely canvass the scientific community to determine their own inputs. Up to word limit .

Continued.

4.Richard I disagree with: “The ‘skeptics’ are wrong because they are on the outer, they are on the outer because they are wrong.” Take Lindzen, he was involved in earlier IPCC deliberations. As far as I am aware he has now opted out. He is on the outer because he chose it. Point out to me active climatologists who have been excluded. No doubt others in the broader scientific community would like to opt in to the IPCC. I have a degree in physics and soundly based opinions on the theory. Do you think I should be able to opt in?

I also take issue with “politicization of climate science”. I admit that in the broader community arguments have got political. AGW has been painted as left/right, politically correct, etc. I disagree that this has occurred within the climatological community. In any scientific community their will be “political” jostling in the sense that status, etc are involved in getting your POV on an issue to prevail. If someone like Lindzen has a POV then it is up to him to persuade others to it. If he has the smarts, persuasiveness and, above all, the scientific ideas, he should by now have a band of followers drawn from younger, flexible, keen, climatologists. As far as I’m aware he hasn’t achieved this sign of influence. I am not saying he is not held in regard but his views on this issue are no more than his personal judgment which must be weighed against the judgments of many others.

Broadly speaking I agree with Dewi’s assertion that science is a numbers game in the sense that a theory gains credibility the more scientists are attracted to it. It is then up to the adherents to a theory to get the majority of the community to agree also. David, although polemically, also makes a valid point. The appropriate way for Stern to assess expert opinion is to go directly to the writings of the HoL experts rather than the amateur, filtered version thereof which is the HoL report.

Apology gracefully accepted, SoS. I have enjoyed the discussion, but don't have time to respond at length today.

Briefly, you say: "The appropriate way for Stern to assess expert opinion is to go directly to the writings of the HoL experts rather than the amateur, filtered version thereof which is the HoL report." Apparently, your guideline doesn't apply to the IPCC, Stern's first reference being to the TAR. According to you, this is inappropriate, and he should go directly to the writings. Indeed, many of the IPCC scientists, were concerned that the uncertainty in their research was "filtered" out, solidified or twisted out of shape through the IPCC process and some of them opted out on principle, putting faith in independent science. The IPCC is a "consensus manufacturer".

David,

You say: "By including climate sceptics like Bjorn Lomborg later in the list, Castles avoids telling a fib outright."

SoS correctly pointed out that I had simply cut & pasted the complete list of witnesses. That you can read motivation into it is actually indicative of a serious thought disorder.

Below is an extract of some atmospheric studies- I give you fair warning that if we apply the Radical Greens/Global warming worshipers principle, then we are certainly within the bounds of every human purchasing a chainsaw and getting to work on these Environmental polluters immediately
Sorry – that means Trees- Who-da thunk it.
Science without consensus brings you some hard hitting truth.Or more like expose the proposition of Enviro-"mental"-ists fraud and Intellectual disorder.

Alkenes such as 2-methyl-1,3-butadiene (isoprene) and the monoterpenes are emitted by various types of plants. Isoprene is the predominant VOC emitted by forest species such as poplar, oak, willow, sycamore and eucalyptus making up as much as 80 %. Several studies in recent years have shown isoprene to be a key VOC in tropospheric chemistry on both regional and global scales. Emissions appear to be higher than that of any other non-methane hydrocarbon. Terpenes are a classification of biogenic compounds; monoterpenes are a subgroup of terpenes some of which have structures which be thought as being loosely based on that of two isoprene molecules.

Monoterpenes can be either acyclic (e.g. myrcene), or contain one ring (d-limonene) or two ring structures (alpha and beta-pinene, 3-carene). The emissions from deciduous (hardwood/broadleaf) trees such as oak, poplar, aspens and willows comprise mainly of isoprene, whereas coniferous (softwood) woodland such as pine trees, cedars, redwood and firs emit predominantly monoterpene. There are several species which emit both isoprene and monoterpenes such as spruce and eucalyptus. Eucalyptus and pine are the trees which we studied in Portugal during the AEROBIC '96 Campaign.

Isoprene is almost exclusively emitted during daylight hours, hence reaction with hydroxyl radicals will be the major degradation path for isoprene in the troposphere. It has been estimated that the lifetime of isoprene in the troposphere is only a few hours, this is due to the relatively fast reaction between isoprene and the hydroxyl radical.