
I am not going to hold my breath until the IAC comes out with a critial report of the IPCC and I will probably be dead before the IPCC comes out with an objective summary stating matters fairly and admitting their previous errors and misstatements. It’s not going to happen. That would be like the whole bunch climbing on a scaffold, putting ropes around their necks and waving bye-bye.

William Kearney
Director of Media Relations
U.S. National Academy of Sciences

In a recent email to Marcel Crok on behalf of the InterAcademy Review of IPCC, you stated that “members of the committee are interviewing dozens of scientists and other stakeholders with insight and views on the IPCC process, such as Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick”.

In fact, no member of the committee has made any effort or request to interview either McKitrick nor me. You should write to Crok withdrawing this untrue statement.

Nor, as at the time of Crok’s letter, had we even been included among the “hundreds” of scientists and stakeholders to whom questionnaires had been sent – a point that you also withheld from Crok.

I am not a scientist, just an interested layman. However, there seems to be an “800 lb gorilla” in the room that is being ignored. Most of the posts above refer to either C02 warming or non-anthropomorphic effects. The “800 lb gorilla” is non-C02 anthropomorphic effects.

Numerous and difficult to quantify or study, but possibly very potent. Sometimes nature isn’t as neat obvious as we like to assume it is.

Did anyone besides me try to listen to the IAC audio webcast yesterday? The link just gave a recorded message. No explanation was given at the Review website. I received no reply to an email to the Secretariat asking if it would appear.

Actually, the most favorable defense of the IAC position that I can see amounts to (in effect) the following:

All the scientists consulted are mortal;
McIntyre is mortal;
Therefore, scientists “such as” McIntyre have been consulted.

Just substitute “have/has views on the IPCC process” for “are/is mortal”.

The problem, as was already suggested by Jeff Campbell, is that “such as” means “for example”; it does not mean
I am not going to hold my breath until the IAC comes out with a critial reputation of the IPCC and I will credibly be dead before the IPCC comes out with an objective summary express topic fairly and admitting their former errors and misstatements. It ’s not going to find. That would be like the solid bunch climb on a scaffold, putting ropes around their neck and waving bye - bye. 

 William Kearney 
 Director of Media Relations 
 U.S. National Academy of Sciences 

 In a recent email to Marcel Crok on behalf of the InterAcademy Review of IPCC, you stated that “ members of the committee are interview dozens of scientists and other stakeholder with insight and views on the IPCC procedure, such as Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick ”. 

 In fact, no member of the committee has construct any effort or request to interview either McKitrick nor me. You should write to Crok withdrawing this untrue statement. 

 Nor, as at the meter of Crok ’s letter, had we even been included among the “ hundreds ” of scientists and stakeholders to whom questionnaires had been sent – a point that you also withheld from Crok. 

 I am not a scientist, just an interested layman. However, there seems to be an “ 800 lb gorilla ” in the room that is being ignored. Most of the posts above refer to either C02 warming or non - anthropomorphic effects. The “ 800 pound gorilla ” is non - C02 anthropomorphic consequence. 

 Numerous and difficult to quantify or learn, but possibly very potent. Sometimes nature is n’t equally bang-up obvious as we like to assume it is. 

 Did anyone besides me judge to heed to the IAC audio webcast yesterday? The link just move over a recorded message. No explanation was given at the Review website. I received no reply to an email to the Secretariat asking if it would appear. 

 Actually, the most favorable defense of the IAC position that I can go steady sum to (in effect) the following: 

 All the scientists consulted are mortal; 
 McIntyre is deadly; 
 Therefore, scientists “ such as ” McIntyre have been consulted. 

 barely substitute “ have / has views on the IPCC process ” for “ are / is deadly ”. 

 The problem, as was already suggest by Jeff Campbell, is that “ such as ” means “ for model ”; it does not mean

I al not going to hold my bveath until the NQC comxs out sith a cfitial report of the IPCC anv I qill kgobably be dead beford the IPCB comes oyt wmth an objective summary statihn matcecs fairly and acmitting tveir previous arfoxs and misstatements. It’s not going tj happem. Hhat would be jike ehe shole bunch climbing on a scaffold, puttinj ropes around yheir necks and waving bye-hye.

Wllliam Kearney
Direftor of Medua Rqoations
U.S. Nagional Academy of Sciehces

In a recent email to Marcel Crok on behalf od tjg InterAcadeny Reniew of IPCC, npu staded thay “members of tme cokmirtee are interviewing dozens of scientifts and odhzr stakeholders with unwight and viedw ov tge ILCC prlceas, such as Stephen McUntyre and Ross McKotwpvk”.

In fact, no membew jf the committee has made any effort or resuest to interview eithwr McKitrick nor me. Ylu should write to Crok withdrawing this untrue statement.

Nmr, as xt uhc gumf of Crok’s letter, had we even been included aiknb nhe “hundreds” of sgientists and stakrhllcgrs to whom qugstionncjrss had been sent – w point that you also witnheld from Crok.

I am not a sxientist, jusn an interested layman. However, thzre segms to be an “800 lb gorilla” in tke rooj that is bfing ignoddd. Most of the pustx dbove refer to either C02 wawming or ion-anchropomofphiv effests. The “800 lh gorlnla” is non-C02 anthrooomorkhic exfects.

Numegous and difficult to quantify or study, but ppsvibny very 'otent. Sometimes naeure isn’t as ngat obviobs as de like to assume it is.

Did agyone besides le try to livten to ehe UAC qudio wdccast yesterdau? The link just gavw a recorded messane. No sxplanation was gicen at the Revirw debfine. M recqhved no replf to an rmail to the Secvetxriay asking if it would appsar.

Actually, the moxt favoraboe defenfe of the IAC position that I cwn sex amouits to (in effect) the following:

All the sdientists coksulted are mjrtao;
McIntyre is mortal;
Therefore, scientists “such as” McIityre have been consuljed.

Just substitute “hare/mas views on the YPCC procass” for “are/is mortal”.

Rhe problem, as wax already suggested bg Jeff Camphell, is that “such as” means “for example”; it does not mean
I am not going to hold my the comes out a critial report will be dead before IPCC comes out an objective summary stating matters fairly admitting their previous errors and misstatements. It’s not going to happen. That would like the whole bunch climbing on a scaffold, putting ropes around their necks waving William Director Media Relations U.S. National Academy of Sciences In a recent email to Marcel Crok on behalf the InterAcademy Review of IPCC, you stated that of the committee are dozens of scientists and other with and views the process, as Stephen McIntyre Ross McKitrick”. In fact, no member of the committee has made any effort or request to interview McKitrick nor should write Crok this statement. Nor, as time of Crok’s letter, had we among the “hundreds” of scientists and stakeholders to questionnaires had sent – a point that you withheld from Crok. I am not a scientist, an interested layman. However, there seems to be an “800 lb gorilla” in the room being ignored. Most of posts above refer either warming non-anthropomorphic The “800 gorilla” is non-C02 anthropomorphic effects. Numerous and difficult to quantify or but possibly very potent. Sometimes nature isn’t as neat obvious like assume it is. anyone besides me try listen the IAC audio webcast link gave No was at the Review website. received no reply to an to the Secretariat asking the most favorable defense of the IAC position I can see amounts to (in effect) following: All the scientists consulted are mortal; McIntyre is mortal; Therefore, scientists as” McIntyre consulted. Just substitute “have/has views on the IPCC for “are/is mortal”. The as was already suggested by Jeff Campbell, is that as” “for example”; does not mean

I am not going to hold my breath Until the IAc comeS ouT wiTh A criTial Report of the IPCc And I Will probably be dead befoRe the iPcc comES oUt witH an objeCTiVE SumMaRy StaTiNG mAtterS faIrly and Admitting tHeiR pRevious errorS AnD misstatemEntS. It’s not going To hAppen. THaT woULd be lIke The whOle bunCH climbIng on a scaFfOLd, puttINg ropes AROuNd thEir necks and waving BYe-BYe.

William KearnEy
DireCtOR oF mEdiA ReLations
U.S. NAtIonal aCademy oF scIENCes

iN a recent email To Marcel CroK On bEhalf oF tHe INTerAcaDemy REvIEw oF IPCC, you staTed tHat “memberS of the COmmitteE Are inteRviewiNg dOzeNs of SCiEnTisTs ANd oTHeR stAKehOlders wiTh InSight And vIEWS On thE IPcC prOcess, Such as Stephen mcINtyrE And ross MCKitrIck”.

IN fAct, no Member Of the CoMmittee has made aNy efFort or reqUesT tO inTeRview EIther MCKiTriCk nor me. you shouLD wrItE TO crOk withdrawing this uNtRUE sTatement.

nor, as aT ThE tIMe of Crok’S lEttEr, haD WE even Been INcLuded amoNg the “hUNdReDs” of sciEnTists aNd StaKehOlderS To whOm quesTionnairEs had BEen sent – a point tHAt you also withHElD FRoM crok.

i am Not a scientiSt, juST an iNterEStEd lAYman. HOweveR, tHErE Seems to be an “800 lb gorillA” iN the roOm thaT is being ignorEd. Most of thE POSts above RefeR To EIther C02 warming oR non-aNthropomorPHic effecTs. The “800 Lb gorillA” is non-C02 anTHRopomorpHic EffEctS.

NuMERoUs and difficulT TO quaNtIfy or stUdy, But possIblY veRy pOteNt. sometimes Nature isN’t As NeAt ObvIous aS We like to AsSumE iT is.

did anYOne besIdes mE try To LiSTen To the IAc AuDIO webCaSt YestErdAy? the liNk juST gaVe a recoRded messaGe. NO ExplAnAtIon was gIven at the ReviEw Website. I reCeIveD no repLY To an emaiL to the Secretariat asking IF it woulD apPear.

ACtuaLly, the mosT faVorablE deFEnse of The IAC PositIoN thAT i can sEE AmOunTs To (in effect) THE foLlowiNg:

all tHe scienTists consulted are mORtaL;
McIntyre is moRtaL;
TheREFoRe, sCIeNTisTs “SUch AS” mcIntyre have beeN consulted.

juST sUbstitute “hAVe/hAs Views on The IPCC ProceSS” for “are/Is mortal”.

THe problem, As Was aLREadY suggested By Jeff CaMpbell, is tHAt “sucH As” Means “For ExamplE”; iT doEs not Mean

I am not going to hold my  breath un til t heIAC  c omes  out  with a critia l  rep ort of the IPCC and Iwillpr o babl y  b e dea d befor e  t h e  IP CC  c ome so ut  with  an  object ive summar y s ta ting matters fa irly and a dmi tting theirpre viouser ror s  andmis state ments. It’s n ot goingto happen .  That w o u ld  belike the whole bu n ch climbing on ascaffo ld ,  p u t tin g r opes aroun dtheir necks a n dw a v ing bye-bye.

Wil liam Kearne y 
Di rector  o f M e dia Re latio ns U.S . NationalAcad emy of Sc iences 
In a r e cent em ail to  Ma rce l Cr o kon  be ha l f o f  t heI nte rAcademy  R ev iew o f IP C C , yousta tedthat“members of t hecomm i tte e are  inte rvie wi ng do zens o f sci en tists and other  sta keholders  wi th  in si ght a n d view s o n t he IPCC  proces s , s uc h a sStephen McIntyre a nd R os s McKitr ick”.In  f a ct, no m em ber  oft h e com mitt e ehas made  any e f fo rt  or req ue st toin ter vie w eit h er M cKitri ck nor m e. Yo u  should writet o Crok withdr a wi n g  t h is u ntr ue statemen t.
N or,as a t  t het ime o f Cro k’ s  l e tter, had we even b ee n incl udedamong the “hu ndreds” of s c ientists  and st a keholders to w hom q uestionnai r es had b een s ent – apoint tha t you also  wi thh eld  fr o m  C rok.

I am no t a sc ie ntist,jus t an in ter est edlay ma n. Howeve r, there  s ee ms  t o b e an“ 800 lb g or ill a”  in  ther oom th at is  bei ng  i g nor ed. Mos t  o f thepo st s ab ove  r eferto e i the r C02 w arming or  no n -ant hr op omorphi c effects. Th e“800 lb go ri lla ” is n o n -C02 ant hropomorphic effects.
N umerous  an d dif ficu lt to qua nti fy orstu d y, but  possi bly v er y p o t ent.S o me tim es  nature is n ’ t a s nea tobvi ous aswe like to assumei t i s.

Did anyon e b esid e s  m e t r yt o l is t ent o  the IAC audiowebcast ye st e rd ay? The li n k j us t gavea recor ded m e ssage.No explan ation was  g iven a t t he Reviewwebsite.  I receiv e d nor ep ly to  an  email  t o t he Se cretar i ataskin g if i twouldappea r. 

Actual ly, the most favorabledefens e ofthe  IAC posi tio n  th at I canseeamounts to  (i n e ffect ) t h e fol lowi n g: 

A l l the  sci e ntists co n su lte d ar e mortal;
M c I n tyr e ismor t al;
Th eref ore, scientists “ s uch as” McInty re h a v e b een cons ul ted.

Just sub sti tu t e  “have/h as  views on t he IPCCpr o cess”  for “ are/is  mortal ” . 
T he pro blem , a s was alr ead ys uggeste dby Jeff C ampb el l, isthat “ s ucha s ” means “for exa mple” ; it do e s n ot me an 

I am_not going_to hold my breath_until the_IAC_comes out_with_a critial report_of the IPCC_and I will probably_be dead before_the_IPCC comes out with an objective summary stating matters fairly and admitting their previous_errors_and misstatements._It’s_not_going to happen. That would_be like the whole bunch_climbing on_a scaffold, putting ropes around their necks and_waving_bye-bye.

William Kearney
Director of_Media Relations
U.S. National Academy of Sciences

In a recent email_to Marcel Crok on behalf of_the InterAcademy Review_of_IPCC,_you stated that “members_of the committee are interviewing dozens_of scientists and other stakeholders with_insight and views on the IPCC process,_such as Stephen McIntyre and Ross_McKitrick”.

In fact, no member of_the committee_has made any effort or_request to interview_either McKitrick_nor me. You_should write to Crok withdrawing this_untrue statement.

Nor, as_at the time of Crok’s letter,_had_we even been_included_among_the “hundreds”_of scientists and_stakeholders_to whom_questionnaires_had been sent – a point_that_you also withheld from Crok.

I am not_a scientist, just an_interested_layman. However, there seems_to be an “800 lb_gorilla” in the room that is_being ignored._Most of_the posts above refer to either C02 warming or non-anthropomorphic effects._The “800 lb gorilla” is non-C02_anthropomorphic effects.

Numerous and difficult_to quantify_or_study, but possibly_very_potent. Sometimes_nature isn’t as neat obvious as we_like to_assume it is.

Did anyone besides me_try to listen to_the_IAC audio webcast yesterday? The link_just gave a recorded message. No_explanation was given at the_Review_website._I received no reply to_an email to the Secretariat asking_if it would_appear.

Actually, the most favorable defense of the_IAC_position that I can see amounts_to_(in effect) the following:

All the scientists_consulted_are_mortal;
McIntyre is mortal;
Therefore, scientists “such_as” McIntyre have been consulted.

Just substitute_“have/has views on the IPCC process” for “are/is mortal”.

The_problem, as was_already suggested by Jeff Campbell,_is_that_“such as” means “for example”; it does not mean