All,
This is as good of thread as any other on GW to ask this question.
Today I heard on a talk radio show that with in the next few days 300 scientist would be presenting a letter in dissension of GW.
Does any know anything about this?

paul h: If history is any indicator, I'd suggest you study carefully the qualifications of those "300 scientists". Last one like that I saw included a bunch of DVM's (Doctor of Veterinary Medicine) and DDL's (Doctor of Divinity).

"the IPCC is only one authority, and its credibility is questioned. We need a second opinion. Do you not agree?"

It seems too obvious to need pointing out, but have none of you considered that IF IT WERE POSSIBLE to assemble a CREDIBLE panel of unimpeacheable climate scientists to contradict the IPCC's findings, THEN the current Bush administration in the US would have done it LONG AGO. No further discussion required.

Now you are just being naive.

The largest group of IPCC scientists are from the US.
The most influential of them (Lead Authors like Soloman and Trenbreth or NASA's Hansen) have been there from BEFORE Bush was elected and will be there when Bush is gone.

Being President, or even in the majority party doesn't provide a mechanism (even given the desire) to reach down into the the SCIENTIFIC agencies and ALTER the staffing at the SCIENCE LEVEL. Sure, you might be able to change the few APPOINTED agency heads, but the GAO and other Federal laws prevent ARBITRARY removal of staff for POLITICAL REASONS.

Now onto the IPCC, the problem with it is it IS at the top layers a POLITICAL BODY.

The influential Summary for Policymakers is written by POLITICIANS. Witness the HAGGLING over the wording in the last report of LIKELY vs VERY LIKELY for the impact of humans on GW. This one debate caused the whole report to be delivered late. In this case the term "VERY LIKELY" won, but CLEARLY there is NO SCIENTIFIC justification for these critical POLITICAL terms.

The WG Scientific papers are the work of dozens of scientists but the ultimate report is authored by relatively FEW lead Authors which are chosen by the IPCC, and in this regard they have shown that they ONLY nominate those whose views align with the overall AGW theory. Worse, over time, those scientists who disagree with the lead Authors and have had their views edited out have left the IPCC process. (Witness Trenbreth vs Landsea culminating in Landsea's resignation, though Landsea was CLEARLY the more senior scientist in the area under dispute)

Finally we get to the REAL POLITICAL aspect of the IPCC, the 100 year projections run by a small group of influential modelers that are being fed a series of SCENARIOS which include totally UNRELISTIC ASSUMPTIONS., Then the output of ALL the models are presented and the HOT Hadley models always taking top stage as the UPPER BOUNDRY of potential warming.

Of course from THAT POINT ON, all the SCARY HYPE you see is based on the HOTTEST MODEL of a TOTALLY UNREALISTIC SCENARIO.

But you say its NOT POLITICAL????

Arthur