- More than two-thirds of all authors of chapter 9 of the IPCC’s 2007 climate-science assessment...have co-authored papers with each other and, (we can surmise,) ...very possibly at times acted as peer-reviewers for each other’s work. Of the 44 contributing authors, more than half have co-authored papers with the lead authors or coordinating lead authors of chapter 9.
- Significantly the majority of scientists who are skeptical of a human influence on climate significant enough to be damaging to the planet were unrepresented in the authorship of chapter 9.
- Many of the IPCC authors were climate modelers - or associated with laboratories committed to modeling. None admitting modeling (is) a chaotic object whose initial state and evolutionary processes are not known to a sufficient precision and has a validation skill not significantly different from zero.
- In short, it cannot be done and has long been proven impossible.
- The modelers say that the “consensus” among their models is significant: but it is an artifact of ex-post-facto tuning to replicate historical temperatures, of repeated intercomparison studies, and of the authors’ shared belief in the unrealistically high estimate of climate sensitivity upon which all of the models assume.
A socio-web drawing showing the interconnections of the authors and their peer-reviewed work would be most interesting.
Here is the Paper by John McLean - Prejudiced Authors, Prejudiced Findings pp 8, 9, 10 have the interconnections. the web is on pp10.
Importantly, McLean shows how the IPCC authors in a failure of adherence to the scientific method have fallen for the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc. The authors say that correlation implies causation. A most dangerous conclusion.
No models have shown the stasis in global mean surface temperature since 1998 or the reduction in global mean surface temperature since 2001.