Hurray! Deniers cheer NASA GISS Scientist.

~
Dr. Andrew A. Lacis of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies sets the record (and the deniers) straight:

First, let me state clearly that I view the IPCC AR4 Report as a very successful and useful scientific summary of our current understanding of global climate and global climate change.... My contribution to this document was that of reviewer.

Notorious AGW Denier Tony Watts & his fellow UpHisB*tters intentionally or stupidly -- your call -- mistook what Dr. Lacis had actually wrote in his IPCC review comments, and then had the deceitful hearts to actually post:

Hansen colleague rejected IPCC AR4 ES as having “no scientific merit”, but what does IPCC do?

Chapter 9 is possibly the most important one in the whole IPCC report – it’s the one where they decide that global warming is manmade. This is the one where the headlines are made. Remember, this guy is mainstream, not a sceptic, and you may need to remind yourself of that fact several times as you read through his comment on the executive summary of the chapter.

So Dr. Andrew Lacis politely pointed out their blatant misinterpretation & misuse, if not their malicious dishonesty.

I have no doubt that my comments would again be misinterpreted, misused and otherwise taken out of context. Clearly, most of the present brouhaha on this topic has been artificially generated with no real scientific rationale for doing so.

And their amusing nonsense, if not their utter ignorance of basic climate science.

There is a great deal of irony in this basically nonsensical stuff, some of which I find rather amusing. The global warming denier blogs, where this issue first came up, seem to think that I was being critical of the I.P.C.C. report in the same way as seen from their perspective, and, as a result, I have received e-mails from the denier crowd hailing my remarks and commending me for “speaking up” on this important topic.

If only WattsUpHisButters could read.

Little do they realize that the basic thrust of my criticism of the I.P.C.C. draft was really to register a clear complaint that I.P.C.C. was being too wishy-washy and was not presenting its case for anthropogenic impact being the principal driver of global warming as clearly and forcefully as they could, and should.

The irony & deceit of it all. But we do have to agree with deniers who cheer Dr. Andrew Lacis & that it's too bad he wasn't asked to write the Executive Summary of the IPCC Report.

Had I been asked to write this chapter (which I wasn’t), I would describe “understanding and attributing of climate change” as simply a problem in physics, which it actually is. I would have started the Executive Summary with: Human-induced warming of the climate system is established fact.

NASA Scientist Adds to Views on Climate Panel
~