That's strange. According to Tom Harris in yesterday's blog, the UK press is 100% behind the IPCC. Perhaps cracks are starting to appear in the wall?

Even so, it was interesting to note that despite seeing the IPCC as critically flawed - the author still felt it necessary to throw in the obligatory UK press requirement of supporting a carbon tax and trashing President Bush. I doubt the article would have been printed by the FT without those comments.

Consider the source...

The FINANCIAL TIMES found an ECONOMIST that is
not happy with the IPCC.

Like Duh, why might greedy people that think about money more than anything else be concerned with the climate?

Of couse the answer is that they are afraid that they may lose some of their money.

OK, now those of us who are not greedy and can appreciate the ugly truth, it is clear that the earth is warming. The IPCC has observed that it has warmed about 1.5F and will likely warm another few degrees F over the next century.

The sea level has also risen and actic sea ice is in steep decline while there has been and will continue to be increased annual precepitation in Canada, Northern Europe and the Northeast US.

Carbon Dioxide from cars and industry stays in the atmosphere for hundreds of years. Global warming is going to remain a problem no matter how much complaining greedy economist do.

Sorry, but that is the way it is!

Isn't it strange that this criticism's coming from an economist? It's like those religious attacks on evolution. Media neutrality should not mean giving equal coverage to all sides of a debate. It's difficult these days to find a legitimate climatologist who would disagree with global warming. The quibbles about past predictions would be laughable if it weren't for the hold they have among those in power in the U.S. right now. The predictions about everything from rising temperatures to extreme weather phenomena, from disappearing lakes to threatened extinctions of polar animals are coming true every day.

I'm all for open access and free debates, but when it comes to arguing scientific ideas, I don't really care for people who are not experts in the field.

You want reasons why the deniers live and thrive?
Lets see:
--Earlier studies on emissions standards were miscalculated by the IPCC.
--Reluctance to disclose data and methods.
--Lots of errors and a failure to correct those errors.
--The panel has numerous scientific contributors, but they are drawn from a narrow professional circle.
How about those four very good reasons for starters?
Bad science, no science, bad math and bad cronyism are just some of the reasons why the deniers continue.

I'm denier.
The science isn't "settled"
The debate hasn't started.
It's a religious cult not a proven theory.
The data base is woefully inadequate to make any scientific conclusions.
Challenge to a theory is necessary and not blasphemy.
Methane production by rain forests was never calcuated in the models and is still being ignored because it doesn't fit inside orthodox belief.
I deny that Al Gore is fit to run a burger king franchise let alone a global crusade.
But ignore me, I'm a denier.

"Media neutrality should not mean giving equal coverage to all sides of a debate."

So, the media shouldn't be objective? That's an interesting concept. I think we had this discussion in another thread. Does that mean the media should ignore people who don't agree with your outlook?

"The predictions about everything from rising temperatures to extreme weather phenomena, from disappearing lakes to threatened extinctions of polar animals are coming true every day."

And I'm sure the list will grow. In fact, I believe someone already mentioned that it contributed to the bridge collapse in Minniepolis. I wouldn't worry too much about the polar bears though...they tend to be pretty hearty, although, I must admit that some of those shots of polar bears swimmming can be pretty convincing.

"I'm all for open access and free debates, but when it comes to arguing scientific ideas, I don't really care for people who are not experts in the field."

I thought you said earlier that media neutrality should not mean giving equal coverage to all sides of the debate? How do you have a free and open discussion when you limit access to both sides of an issue? What about "experts" in the field who don't agree with your postition? Do they get to present there side for serious consideration or do they get labeled as pawns of the the oil companies or "deniers?"

My final question is that if this particular thread had been about an economist who was questioning the financial motivation of "deniers" (or polluters...Al Gore's latest buzz word in his arsenal) would you still not really care for people who are not experts in the field?

I'm probably going to raise some hackles with this post, but they are legitimate questions that deserve answers.

It is about time the ethics is challenged by the IPCC. It will be just a matter of time before they are totally exposed for the sham that they are. Hats off to David Henderson. Refreshing to say the least.

There is almost nothing scientific about the IPCC. It is a political organization populated by bureaucrats. Most of the so-called "experts" are not schooled in climate science which only partially explains why they failed to see the flaws in Mann's now discredited "Hockey Stick" notion. Apparently, there are no "expert" mathematicians either.

If we are to keep this debate purely scientific then we must throw out all the data compiled and disseminated by Al Gore and the IPCC. There is no room in "science" for bias and these groups have a political agenda, not a scientific one. Actually, Gore's agenda is amassing wealth through false prophecy and alarmism and he is succeeding amazingly well at this.

Science demands precision and scientific validation of hypotheses before acceptance as fact. The AGW theory does not meet this test and therefore remains in the category of a "theory." Most so-called "evidence" supporting AGW is pure conjecture. To accept AGW as "settled science" is utter nonsense and those who have done so demonstrate that they lack the discipline, knowledge and understanding that the scientific method demands. That is why AGW true believers are compared to religious zealots, and rightly so.

Explaining the complex mechanisms that effect earth's climate in our solar system is a science in its infancy. Earth's atmosphere does not behave like a "greenhouse." It is described this way because the average person will understand the concept. The fact that it is a false concept doesn't matter to those promoting it so long as enough people "believe." That's politics or religion, but not science.

So, it's useful to discredit IPCC's incorrect work as Clive Crook did. Now, it's time to ignore the IPCC and get back to science.

What really bothers me is the fact that the AGW crowd has adopted political, not sceintific techniques for "settling" this.

Even now, anytime anyone disagrees it's due to (supposedly) some "conspiracy" funded by big money oil companies...Why can't someone just disagree without being painted with a brush and called a name? (however benign??) Even Al Gore recently said something along the lines of it being the fault of this big boogey man out there that's funding the voices of dissent. Paleeeze....

Questions on this board have been very logical from a scientific standpoint. I'm not funded by big money (heck I'm not funded by any money ;-) )
and I don't buy the "A" in AGW, but I WOULD if people would stop telling me to believe it's happening just because a bunch of guys in the UN have made slanted models using bad statistics and poor assumptions and instead start showing me solid papers and experiments that prove that their assumptions are valid and that the models are then solid. I've read their garbage and I don't think it's clean science. There are plenty of others that think it's not clean as well and they have nothing to do with big money.

Andrew: I keep hearing about this illusive sea level rise. I am trying to find some source of actual evidence to support the claim. I have seen the pictures of the sea level marker on the rocks in the Muldives from the 19th century showing little or no increase. So far all I can find are claims. where do you get the proof that has convinced you so completely.
And if you can point me to the evidence, maybe we couuld submit it to Junksciencce.com and claim the $100,000 they are offering.

All of this is well-known to those of us who have taken the time to look into the IPCC in particular and climate "science" in general.

The IPCC IS a 'seriously flawed enterprise'. The list of flaws is entirely accurate. I cannot see how a serious scientist can take the IPCC seriously.

Andrew - DUH. The earth has warmed. Few dispute that. Now it is cooling. You need to prove that ACO2 is causing it. You can't.

DUH. Sea level rise has NOT increased, as even the IPCC admits. Arctic sea ice has declined due to the Arctic Oscillation and no one has linked it to ACO2.

"Carbon Dioxide from cars and industry stays in the atmosphere for hundreds of years" - Really? This is news!

Sorry - but that's the way it is.

"It's difficult these days to find a legitimate climatologist who would disagree with global warming."

In fact, it's impossible when you define legitimate as accepting AGW - but there are plenty of scientists who are skeptical of the AGW theory.

"The predictions about everything from rising temperatures to extreme weather phenomena, from disappearing lakes to threatened extinctions of polar animals are coming true every day."

They are? Please give us some predictions - I'm waiting for the AGW crowd to give us specific predictions so that their hypothesis may be tested. AGW proponents have skipped this step in the scientific method.

For Andrew and others of similar ilk who by their postings do not seem to understand or do not have a background/knowledge of science.

I thought the following quotes fairly represented views shared by the scientists from a collection of many books I have on science/mathematics/computer science. The authors included Einstein, Neils Bohr, Richard Feynman, Werner Heisenberg (The Uncertainty Principle), Stephen Hawking, and many more.

Karl Popper, �The Logic of Scientific Discovery�, wrote the following: �Science is not a system of certain, or well-established, statements; nor is it a system which steadily advances towards a state of finality�.Although it can attain neither truth nor probability, the striving for knowledge and the search for truth are still the strongest motives of scientific discovery.� �Those among us who are unwilling to expose their ideas to the hazard of refutation do not take part in the scientific game.� �The old scientific ideal of absolutely certain, demonstrable knowledge has proved to be an idol. The demand for scientific objectivity makes it inevitable that every scientific statement must remain tentative for ever. It may indeed be corroborated, but every corroboration is relative to other statements which, again, are tentative. The wrong view of science betrays itself in the craving to be right; for it is not his possession of knowledge, of irrefutable truth, that makes the man of science, but his persistent and recklessly critical quest for truth. Science never pursues the illusory aim of making its answers final, or even probable. Its advance is, rather, towards an infinite yet attainable aim; that of ever discovering new, deeper, and more general problems, and of subjecting our ever tentative answers to ever renewed and ever more rigorous tests.�

This is why the word �denier� does not fit nor is valid when discussing global warming. The demand for scientific objectivity makes it inevitable that every scientific statement including AGW must remain tentative for ever. This is why there is no such concept as a consensus of scientists saying AGW is final, i.e., no more discussion, the debate is over. That is not science. Scientists have been wrong in the past (Einstein and quantum mechanics), and they will be wrong in the future. That is why all hypotheses, theories, and statements must be constantly tested and analyzed and debated.

Also, I guess by Andrew�s definition, I must be a �greedy� computer scientist and I should not question the IPCC either. I admit I do like money and I do like the benefits of having money, such as food, paying for shelter, transportation, clothes, and taxes, paying lots of taxes, but I don�t personally consider myself greedy. But I should have the privilege and right of questioning the IPCC no matter how much money I make and whether or not I am a computer scientist or an economist. I learned long ago, don�t believe everything you read or are told, question and analyze intelligently, and always consider the source.

A question perhaps for Brett; Edward Lorenz (research meteorologist), Chaos theory, and the weather/climate being a nonlinear system. Basically in the 80�s and early 90�s, I had read that since the weather is a nonlinear system, it is not susceptible to long-range prediction because it is too sensitive to almost imperceptible changes in the initial conditions, which changes lead to slightly bigger deviations, eventually a nonrepetitive unpredictability. (�Butterfly Effect�). So even with the most powerful computers today, based on chaos theory, a small change could have a huge unpredictable effect many years out. So if man starts tinkering with the weather, who knows what the weather and resultant climate would have been without his tinkering, and quite possibly what the climate will be many years hence. How would this enter into current computer modeling?

Reply: it is true that if your initialized data is off then it would certainly have an impact on the accuracy a long range forecast. We see this occasionally with our weather forecast models. Luckily there is a checking system that looks for oddball readings (bad sounding data) and smooths it out, but sometimes some of the bad data gets through. Brett

Tsee Lee

"but when it comes to arguing scientific ideas, I don't really care for people who are not experts in the field".

So, what your saying is anyone that is not an expert in scientific ideas, should not have an opinion on the topics in this site.

What is your area of expertise that say's Economists or all of us uneducated yokels should not be included in the debate?

When a particular "scientific idea" affects every aspect of humanity, (farming, community planning, economics, wildlife, government, military, trade, transportation, forestry, construction, fishing, poverty, land use, etc,etc,etc,) then it has opened itself to discussion from all those affected.

Andrew,
Would you please stop giving bogus data.. There is no data givin that shows a sea level rise. There has not been a 1.5 deg temp increase. Most viable data shows less then .5 and even that is highly inflated. Some data shows no rise at all. There is no evidence or data that shows a increase in precipitation in any of those locations, unless you call one year as a trend in europe. The IPCC has so many flaws that they can no longer be counted.

I read the article and enjoyed it; excellent writing. It's important to get the whole picture, though, and I attach a few items (1-4 below) to flesh it and its unintended bias out. With regard to "obligatory statements" to get it published, that's nonsense (see notes below).

This is a bit long and but I hope you will read to the end.

1. The list of points above are a summary by Clive Crook of what Henderson said; 2 and 3. In the six-article pro and con series in the primary source, I was only able to open "abstracts" of the Henderson article (con: 2) and Dietz et al. (pro: 3). You might be a little surprised about what Henderson usually opines (4).

1. Clive Crook says:
opening paragraphs:
"Almost from the beginning, critics have attacked the Bush administration for the way it has dealt with science. In many areas - and emblematically in the case of climate change - well-qualified accusers have complained that the White House and its political appointees across the federal government have interfered with the work of scientists, misrepresented their findings and censored their public statements. Many of these cases are shocking - or at least they were, until people became inured to them. The administration's record on managing the government's own scientific efforts, and on respect for science more broadly, is awful.
"So when the White House disagrees with most other governments in the world and expresses doubts about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, that view is contemptuously dismissed as one more instance. To be sure, the administration has destroyed its own credibility on scientific integrity and has nobody to blame but itself."
2nd to last paragraph:
"The IPCC may be right: climate change may indeed be mankind's biggest and most urgent challenge. It would be wrong to demand certainty before doing more. The scientific consensus, though not quite as strong as usually claimed, is surely strong enough to warrant a carbon tax or equivalent."
2. Abstract of Henderson article; he's clearly for a carbon tax:
"Governments and Climate Change Issues: The case for rethinking
"Governments, and in particular the governments of the OECD member countries, are mishandling climate change issues. Both the basis and the content of official policies are open to serious question. Too much reliance is placed on the established process of review and inquiry which is conducted through the agency of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This process, which is wrongly taken to be objective and authoritative, has been made the point of departure for over-presumptive conclusions which are biased towards alarm, in the mistaken belief that 'the science' is 'settled'. Rather than pursuing as a matter of urgency ambitious and costly targets for drastic further curbing of CO2 emissions, governments should take prompt steps to ensure that they and their citizens are more fully and more objectively informed and advised. This implies both improving the IPCC process and going beyond it. As to the content of policy, it is not the case that the choice now lies between two extremes, of no action and the immediate adoption of much stronger measures to curb emissions. The orientation of policies should be made more evolutionary and less presumptive, with actual policy measures focusing more on carbon taxes rather than the present and prospective array of costly and intrusive regulatory initiatives."
3. "Right for the Right Reasons
"A final rejoinder on the Stern Review
"Simon Dietz, Dennis Anderson, Nicholas Stern, Chris Taylor & Dimitri Zenghelis
Four authors of the Stern Review ... and Dennis Anderson who provided advice and background papers for the Review, make a final rejoinder on the debate about the Review that has occupied recent issues of this journal. They respond to comments [which] ... continue to argue against a growing body of scientific evidence and a growing consensus on that same evidence. The source of their critique is, first, a distinctly partisan, and increasingly untenable, position on the broad range of available scientific evidence and, second, a mistrust of the international consensus-building exercise centred on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Henderson is also largely preoccupied with the latter, procedural issues. Tol and Yohe focus on economic arguments. Their critique is rather narrower in focus and concerns the way in which abatement costs were calculated in the supporting work carried out by Dennis Anderson. It rests on basic confusions and misconceptions, many of which were explained in previous contributions. However, readers of World Economics might be more interested in a broader reflection: how would the Stern team, following the debate of the last eight months, assess the approach, policies and arguments set out in the Review? Their view is that their analyses and policy proposals, and the arguments in support, are sound and have stood up well to scrutiny. In other words, they were right and for the right reasons. Central to many critiques of the Review is a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of formal, highly aggregated economic modelling. Nevertheless, the Stern team have argued strongly and in their view convincingly that, even within the confines of formal economic modelling, the concerns raised by a small group of commentators do not overturn their basic conclusion that the cost of action is much less than the cost of inaction. The critics here fall short by failing to simultaneously afford the necessary importance to issues of risk and ethics."
4. Henderson's website publication list; he's a bit of a leftie:
http://www.davidrhenderson.com/articles/index.html

Andrew said:
"Like Duh, why might greedy people that think about money more than anything else be concerned with the climate?

Of couse the answer is that they are afraid that they may lose some of their money."

So I guess the thousands of "scientists" and hucksters that research and try to prove global warming is not myth are not afraid that their money lines would dry up if and when GW is proven wrong? Follow the money. Like I have said before, this debate has long left reason behind for emotion, money, and power.

As a UK resident and reader of the local press I've got a few comments;

Patrick Henry-the UK press is generally compliant with the IPCC's "authority" though certainly not 100%, the FT has been generally much more objective and published dissenting opinions.This is not surprising given the economic perspective of the FT since AGW has massive economic consequences for the planet which need to be addressed.Regarding carbon tax;here in the EU we already have one it's called the "climate change levy" paid by business only ,at 5%, of energy use before adding value added tax on top. This does nothing to add to Europe's competivity in global markets.Consider yourself lucky you that you're not paying a "climate change levee" for New Orleans.Finally the article does not trash President Bush, it actually says the USA administration is right to mistrust the IPCC but its previous track record on science has not helped its authority on this point.

Andrew; economists are no more or less greedy than any one else, the study of economy is an aspect of how society works that's all (stock brokers excepted)

Conclusion :

In highlighting weaknesses in the IPCC this article hopefully will(in a well respected journal) lead to some politicians to make the case for change in the IPCC, or at least start asking questions about their veracity.

It is absurd that this organisation could lead the human race down a blind alley of misallocation of resources without being under intense scrutiny for its methodology and purpose.

jon:

"Like I have said before, this debate has long left reason behind for emotion, money, and power".

jon, it's not the debate that left reason behind.

It's the way the AGW idea, the implimentation of it, the money and power possibilities in the planning stages, and talk of population controls, long before it's implimentation, is what gives reason for scrutiny and debate.