Following on from Tim Lamberts post on Lindzens latest nonsense I found this from Henderson (as-in C+H). Its from the same conference.
Its stuffed full of misrepresentation and errors, so much so that you don’t get any points for spotting them. The main point seems to be: IPCC should have more economists on board. Of course it shouldn’t: its mostly about climate science and so it should be. If they feel like, the economists could develope their own future CO2 scenarios, and why don’t they ? (answer: SRES already spans the range and developing yet more is pointless). A secondary point is: the IPCC shouldn’t aim for consensus. This seems like a breathtakingly audacious attempt to get them to produce a report that says nothing and comes to no conclusions. Why they should wish to take this advice is unclear; happily there is of course no chance of it occurring.
Why is Henderson wasting his breath on this stuff? Perhaps for the last bit: trying to get up momentum for an unofficial counter-IPCC report. If they would do it properly it would be fun: the skeptics having to actually try to agree on a position amongst themselves (is the warming all caused by solar variation, or is there really no warming, or…; [[List of scientists opposing global warming consensus]] may be worth a browse, also its talk page…). Perhaps useful would be an informed critique of the report, even if it were only nit-picking; but I doubt they will rise to even that.