By E. Calvin Beisner, Ph.D., Paul K. Driessen, Esq., Ross McKitrick, Ph.D., and Roy W. Spencer, Ph.D. I’ve never heard of 1 & 2, but given 3 & 4 its not hard to guess what its going to be like. And indeed, it doesn’t disappoint.
Its yet another septic document which would be far better off saying less. Specifically, it wastes its time on the is-GW-anthro attribution question, and the is-there-a-consensus question, when it should be spending its time on the more interesting will-the-effects-be-bad.
So, it starts by quibbling whether the TAR says that current warming is anthro. Since the TAR sez most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and Anthropogenic greenhouse gases are likely to have made a significant and substantial contribution to the warming observed over the second half of the 20th century, possibly larger than the total observed warming, all they succeed in doing in this section is proving that they are happy to twist the truth to their own ends.
Then they move on to demolishing a strawman, that “GW will be catastrophic”, which doesn’t appear to be what anyone is saying, as they quickly admit – the report they are responding to actually says “significant”. James “Skeptic-in-the-true-sense” Annan gets called in to quote that climate sensitivitiy is less than 4.5 oC. They proceed to forget that its an equilibrium value not a an actual one, and forget NH polar and land amplification. But anyway. The remainder of the section is better, since it addresses the but-will-it-be-bad question, which is more interesting since its more open (at least as far as I know). Although they spoil themselves again, on the hurricanes bit, by trying to do too much, when just concentrating on the societal-impacts-are-greater is probably best.
Then the tedious is-there-a-consensus. Well, yes there is, clearly; and the report itself is proof of that. They begin by pointing out that, Kuhn-like, even if there’s a consensus against you doesn’t mean you’re wrong. Quite true, but admits the main point. Then they rely heavily on Peiser‘s rejected work to dispute Oreskes… sigh. Dull.
Well, thats probbaly enough. Read the rest of the report for yourself if you really must :-)