Just came across this fascinating paper http://www.probeinternational.org/UPennCross.pdf.

Takes a forensic look at the IPCC claims and finds them overstated.

"This paper departs from such faith in the climate establishment by comparing the picture of climate science presented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other global warming scientist advocates with the peer-edited scientific literature on climate change. A review of the peer-edited literature reveals a systematic tendency of the climate establishment to engage in a variety of stylized rhetorical techniques that seem to oversell what is actually known about climate change while concealing fundamental uncertainties and open questions regarding many of the key processes involved in climate change. Fundamental open questions include not only the size but the direction of feedback effects that are responsible for the bulk of the temperature increase predicted to result from atmospheric greenhouse gas increases: while climate models all presume that such feedback effects are on balance strongly positive, more and more peer-edited scientific papers seem to suggest that feedback effects may be small or even negative. The cross-examination conducted in this paper reveals many additional areas where the peer-edited literature seems to conflict with the picture painted by establishment climate science..."

Comes to a position closer to the opposition than the government:

"A more balanced and nuanced view of the existing state of climate science supports much more gradual and easily reversible policies regarding greenhouse gas emission reduction, and also urges a redirection in public funding of climate science away from the continued subsidization of refinements of computer models and toward increased spending on the development of standardized observational datasets against which existing climate models can be tested."

The arguments are not new, but put together with exhaustive documentation. Also puts the lie to the claim that there is nothing to challenge the IPCC in the peer reviewed literature.

>> * I (Jason Scott Johnston) am grateful to Cary Coglianese for extensive conversations and comments on an early draft, and to the participants in the September, 2008 Penn Law Faculty Retreat for very helpful discussion about this project. Especially helpful comments from David Henderson, Julia Mahoney, Ross McKitrick, Richard Lindzen, and Roger Pielke, Sr. have allowed me to correct errors in earlier drafts, but it is important to stress that no one except myself has any responsibility for the views expressed herein. <<

Yes, I think their comments were were especially helpful, at least from a certain point of view - pity.

Graham a fascinating read so far. It may take a while to get through the whole thing. If the summary point's are legitimate it might explain why so little real action came out of Copenhagen, pollies hedging their bets.

R0bert

Thanks Graham, a very useful addition to the discussion.

I expect we will soon be overrun by the usual doomsayers vs. deniers tic-tac.

But thanks anyway.

Graham says:

//The cross-examination conducted in this paper reveals many additional areas where the peer-edited literature seems to conflict with the picture painted by establishment climate science..."//

Err... no kidding.

RIO EARTH SUMMIT. (from mr Maurice Strong) 1992

"The assembled leaders signed the Convention on Climate Change and the Convention on Biological Diversity, endorsed the Rio Declaration and the Forest Principles, and adopted Agenda 21, a 300 page plan for achieving sustainable development in the 21st century."

AGENDA 21 ? has anyone taken the trouble to LOOK this up yet ?

Has anyone besides myself looked closely at the character Maurice Strong who kicked all this stuff off with the Stokholm conference in the 70s?
Has anyone looked at the Directors list for the Chicago Climate Exchange ? (and found Strongs name there)

Given that it all hinges on dodgy science... one might be tempted to suspect that the whole deal was more about 'social re-construction' anyway ! (see agenda 21)

Did anyone pay attention to the Vancouver Declaration/Action plan from the UN ? (elimination of private property)

C'mon people.. get up to speed for crying out loud.

LOOK....at what is really going on here.

http://www.earthcouncilalliance.org/en/index.php

STRONG.. Inside Trader...Oil for Food scandal.. Conflict of interest...

Look at the people this bloke is networked to.. (link)

Strong sold his shares when Gov't funding was squeezed and made $15,000,000. When the public heard about the funding squeeze...on the monday..share price plummeted. Strong had already sold his shares.
(He was a director)

Yes, I've downloaded it.

>>AGENDA 21 ? has anyone taken the trouble to LOOK this up yet ?<<

Which part are you having difficulties with, Boaz?