Another setback for Teh Global Warming™ - Page 7

Looks like the models have problems...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1211101623.htm

The First Climate Model

[CENTER]


[/CENTER]

AR4 GCM data

17 centers ran as many as 8 scenarios each to develop the results shown in Chapter 10 of the IPCC WG1 AR4 Report. This year marks the 40th anniversary of the first GCM, I'm guessing that's ~3 times your mental age.

Actually we ought to take it as what it is, a UN sponsered panel charged with producing a document that somehow fuses very diverse political and science agendas and policy objectives into a compromise that the majority of science oversight leaders and nations who sent representatives can sign onto.

It is not science, it is not a peer review of the literature (which would be more balanced), it is a UN created committee charged with UN assumption that human caused warming is real AND that something should be done about it, if at all possible.

Many people participate in the process, including many skeptics. But what comes out is, by necessity, those opinions that the majority can agree on...not minority views.

In short, this is a political work about a scientific question.

Where?

Tropical tropospheric trends

Tropical vertical temperature trends: A real discrepancy?

Hey, look who's back, MaxPariah the n00b strikes back™, after a long absence, whence I thoroughly crushed 'em!

Please remind us all again how much you love and worship Al Gore.

As long as you continue to ignore the science contained within the IPCC WG1 AR4, why ask why?

Well, even someone of my manifest learning needs a break to slum every now and then, so here I am.

I see my last missionary visit has at least gotten you to read...but alas, the material is merely the pagan earth worshiper's bible, IPCC's 4AR. I would not hold it to close - it will not light on fire but it is not particularly reliable when it comes to a robust understanding of, or response to, alleged climate change.

To assist:

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/sp...eerreview.html
http://www.fnu.zmaw.de/fileadmin/fnu...tol/RM7422.pdf

Interesting. I'd never heard of the SPPI.

I'm just glad that Dr. Professor Richard Tol doesn't look like an economist:



What an awesome picture. I swear to God that if I had any hair, I would totally want my faculty picture to look like that.

Totally agree on the picture. I've read some of his stuff sometime ago and he struck me as a "I'm a iconoclast and barely aware of it", even though a committed environmentalist and sustainable future type.

He has been to a few universities, leaving tenured track spots at Carnegie Mellon and a German University for new experiences. His latest sojourn has put him in Ireland, where the (dutch born) economist is highly honored as "Ireland's great economist" in public newspaper praise.

But anyone who poses for a picture with hair like that obviously seems pretty cool - somebody you'd like to share a beer with.

PS - You would'nt guess he is among the top 5 (or fewer) enivronmental economists (Nordhaus being number 1 in that specialty).

Seriously. He looks like he's just some stoner dude. But a stoner dude with a friggin' wikipedia page and who also shares the Nobel peace prize for his work on the IPCC.

ROTFLMAO!

Science and Public Policy Institute

[CENTER]
[/CENTER]

Science and Public Policy Institute

Energy and Environment

[CENTER]
[/CENTER]

And then?

Well according to this list Tol ranks #349 as of February 2008.

William Nordhaus isn't even on that list!


Hey, I had a copy of Samuelson's Economics, in junior college back in 1973! Pretty basic stuff as I recall.

Oh for Christ's sake. When I say believe, do you think I mean "just sort of intuit, sans any particular research?" Belief as in reached conclusions from looking at the data.


Oh dear God. IT'S AN ANALOGY.


Of course not. I was reacting to your assertion that all the big advances in science come from minority, contrarian positions. To the extant that's even true, it tends to be true of the big paradigm shifts in fundamental disciplines. Climate modeling is an unlikely candidate for this model.

And, as I said, "contrarians" in the climate change arena aren't doing anything to suggest even interesting new avenues of exploration, much less paradigm busting break-throughs. Or is it your contention that all scientific knowledge be held in contempt, because someone might come along with a new idea?


Errors are irrelevant if they don't materially effect the general model. Voices of dissent have to make sense and supply some coherent critiques. They don't get a seat at the table just because they are "dissenters" and we're supposed to have some kind of automatic respect for iconoclasts.

It just occurred to me that the position that the global warming skeptics are like persecuted scientists of old is pretty bizarre, since the contrarians are essentially saying "Nu uh!" as opposed to the persecuted scientists, who were proposing radical and new ways of thinking about the world.

Now there you go again. I give you a chance to tear yourself away from your "precious" ICPP report, and the global warming shmegal spits and snarls logical fallacies to the arguments presented.

ERROR 1: Red Herring - Ad Hom. You attacked E and E as a journal. Unfortunately for you they did not did not author the article, Dr. Richard Tol did. You failed to address the validity of his observations and his argument and chose to attack the his professional credibility because of where his paper appeared.

Although ad homs and personal attacks are some of the most basic logical fallacies, it should be noted that Dr. Tol is speaking from experience. He was a lead author in prior IPCC annual reports, and has established himself as a leading environmental economist. Midnight has taken the time to look up his C.V., rather than offering intellectual yahooism at the first suggestion of dissenting views...here is about 5 percent of his publications (the rest can be read at the following link):

http://www.fnu.zmaw.de/Publications....tml?&L=3#c1912


ERROR 2# The computer ranking you proffered was someone's iexperimental idea (Tol's?) of the most published and cited of ALL economists. It was NOT a listing of a ranking within a specialized field, environmental economics. Within that field Nordhaus is often considered the most distinguished (he created the DIME prediction model used by all the others) followed by a handful of others...among them is Tol. And what you intentionally left out (which is dishonest) is that the ranking puts him within the top 5% of all published economists (world-wide).

But you'd know that if you knew the field and/or prefered to honor the truth, or perhaps did a bit of checking out without mining for a reason to dismiss his point.

ERROR 3# Another Red Herring Ad Hom against an organization. By virtue of its forum, SPPI you argue against the author's paper. This kind of fallacy is frequently used in politics "You can't say A=A, because it was published by a group who has a point of view".

Indeed, if we were to take your argument from rebuke seriously, by what standard would WE be even reading your opinion...published at "Appleinsider-Outsider"? LOL...perhaps we are on to something.

So if there were scientists who were not convinced of the steady-state theory (which was prior to the big bang), or philosgen BUT did not have another model other than prior experience, then they were "bizarre"?

Sound familiar?

Please see Georges Lemaître for the truth, something you know nothing about.

See also History of the Big Bang theory

Your strength isn't science, that's for sure!

See also Steady state theory;

[CENTER]
[/CENTER]
and Fred Hoyle

BTW, what's "philosgen" anyway? Google gives it only seven hits and suggests "philogen" which gives 11,700 hits, or maybe you were referring to Phylogenetics which gives 986,000 English pages for Phylogenetics via Google. Boy, you definitely don't know what your talking about when it comes to science! And that's a FACT!

Care to display your science n00bness some more?

The truth speaks volumes about these groups.

E&E isn't a respectable journal by any respected climate scientist, heck by ANY SCIENTIST, and that's the truth. The editor admits a POLITICAL BIAS! Nothing more needs to be stated with respect to that "rag." In fact, if you want me to, I'll dig up your pouting from the last time I shot down E&E, you remember, before you ran away last springtime?

Sh!t, I've shot them down 4 or 5 times now, and I will continue to do so regardless of YOUR opinion as to what constitutes a logical fallacy!

I could care less about economists, particularly someone as unremarkable as Tol, since he's not a scientist to begin with, he doesn't speak for climate scientists! D'oh!

Oh, and since we do have PO archives maybe I'll go back and dig up all of MaxPariah's greatest hits, with respect to Al Gore, I'm sure you'd like your own definitions thrown back up in your own face? Yes, I'm sure you would!

Oh, and what's you fixation, I would even call it Idolatry, with economists anyway? I'll take an educated guess in assuming you have a degree in economics? Have I hit a sore spot by dissin' your field as it's only considered a "social" science, meaning it's all softcore and not hardcore like the physical sciences?

And what's ICPP? I think someone is rattled, and it isn't yours truly!

Even though there's evidence, there's not enough irrefutable evidence to support human influence on global climate change. Right.

Meanwhile... you go to church every Sunday.

Got it.

Let's just keep polluting the environment. God will clean it up if it is His plan to do so.

No, you'll get mocked for the above two sentences.

That is not what I said. I said it is bizarre to try to draw an analogy between scientists who proposed radical new ideas and people who are global warming skeptics, since the skeptics aren't actually proposing anything other than "nu uh!"

Ahhhh, well in that case you are correct. Skeptics of error are invisible to popular history, as can be many of the error makers. For example, the ozone chemistry that generated the ozone hole was taken as a virtual certainty, recent experimental findings are now suggesting a major blunder about the chemistry and the contribution of fluorocarbons.

Do we recall the skeptics?

Or the skeptics who disagreed with the environmentalist scientists regarding the Alaska Pipeline destroying migration and ecology along its swath?

We all know Paul Ehrlich and his doomsday predictions, do we know of the skeptics which are now largely vindicated?

Thank you for the sweet missive, I stand clarified. What I intended to note was not the formal steady state theory of Fred Hoyle, but the prior 19th century presumption of a static universe. Even with the advent of relativity in the early 20th century, Einstein felt compelled to introduce the cosmological constant.

However, I am surprised that a man who taunts others about their knowledge of the history of science would have NO clue as to what I might be referring to. My misspelling of Philosgen is not Phylogen, Pylogenetics, or Philogen.

I was referring to Phlogiston, a popular theory in the very early history of Chemistry. Usually noted in intro high school chemistry books it is:

"Phylogiston - The theory holds that all inflammable materials contain phlogiston, a substance without colour, odour, taste, or mass that is liberated in burning. Once burned, the "dephlogisticated" substance was held to be in its "true" form, the calx."

Glad to be of assitance...

Max

My goodness, another hysterical rant attacking a journal. How novel of you. Of course, if it were our thread topic it would be redundant, it was already settled by the essentials provided by me - it is among the thousands of boutique journals that is peer reviewed and citable in academic literature. What more needs be said that is not obsessively irrelevant? Hmm?

Of course, the topic is not the journal (no matter how much it vexes you) so once more you are trying to derail the discussion about the IPCC with Red Herrings. The question is, just how 'robust' is the IPCC process and how 'scientific' is its product?

I understand 'you could care less about economists' - remind me to alert the press. In the meantime, note that the IPCC cares about environmental economists, which is why their province is WG3 which deals with the climate change's economic impacts and policy options, and provides feedbacks to climate change model scenarios. What many IPCC groupies often miss is that were several working groups, of which WG1 was one. Beyond the question of global warming causing climate change, the report deals with the environment-ecology, technical options/solutions, forecasts of emissions, and economic impacts and strategies.

So FS may not give a hoot about any other issue than warming and climate, but the IPCC does. But then again, per FS - "What's the fixation with economists"...hmmm, why don't you write the IPCC and ask?

I mean seriously, let's take a looooooooong walk down history to see what humans concocted, in the absence of enabling technologies.

There's something called the (modern) scientific method based on empirical and observational data, that either supports or contradicts proposed or existing theories.

Based on this link,

Timeline of the history of scientific method

it would appear that the mid-1960's would constitute the start of the current "modern" scientific method.

Oh, and thanks for correcting your own spelling error. D'oh!

BTW, I took chemistry in college, and that word was never discussed. That's because it was a chemistry course and not a history of chemistry course. D'oh!

Please see correlation does not imply causation with respect to your logical fallacy that all historical scientific theories are eventually proved wrong, or whatever it is you appear to be stating.

Why right here of course!

So you engage in a straw man fallacy, in assuming that I'm unaware of WG2 and WG3, while WG1, is in fact, the base of the IPCC pyramid, without WG1 there would be no WG2 or WG3, there would in fact be no IPCC for that matter, without WG1 providing the scientific framework for the other working groups.

I have shown the bias inherent in E&E, that is a fact. Is it convinient for you to ignore that fact? Of course, because it undermines the very basis for establishing the credibility of said "journal."

[CENTER]
[/CENTER]

Oh, how convienient, that last half of that last sentence should read "as the web has increasingly become a disinformation resource" with respect to the AGW contrarian point of view.

Now on to the E&E article by Tol. It reads like "cry me a river" or it brings to mind, on my part, mock sympathy via several people playing "air violins."

Tol's E&E "op-ed" hit piece is appropriately titled (from said BIASED journal), "Biased Policy Advice from the IPCC." Funny thing is, any individual would have to consider the process biased, from their singular point of view, since no one individual would be 100% behind the decision making process, unless of course that one individual made all the decisions themselves in the absence of all other participants. D'oh! It's termed a non sequitur, yet another logical fallacy on your part.

Hmm, that brings up the fact that Tol is the sole author of said "article" so apparently he did make all the decisions as to the content of said "article." So Tol get's to be his own monopoly with respect to said "article" something he seems all too myopic about when defining the so called IPCC "monopoly." That is truly the definition of irony.

The Tol article is 9 pages in total, including a cover sheet. so that leaves 8 pages for the body of Tol's "rant-screed-manifesto" broken down as follows, ~1.5 pages for one table and one figure, ~ 3 pages of text, and ~3.5 pages of references. Hmm, interesting that there are more pages of references that there are pages of text.

There are a total of 50 references, let me repeat that, there are a total of 50 references!

Now of those 50 references, not a single one references the IPCC AR4 reports, now that's a clear indication of the inherent biases of both Tol and E&E, to not cite the IPCC reports, that Tol is criticizing, specifically the WG3 report.

And the citations are written out in the text body, so that if I were to substitute a numbered referencing system, I seriously doubt the text body would exceed two and a half pages.

The text itself reads more like one person's opinion (which, in fact it is), and focuses entirely on WG3 in a very subjective single person's point of view. D'oh! WG3 != WG2 != WG1, D'oh-D'oh.

In other words, you are attempting to lump in the entire IPCC process based on the association fallacy, based on one person's subjective opinion on WG3. In fact, Tol appears to imply (by omission) that WG1 (the science) was less biased than WG3, so I don't see where this article undermines WG1 in any substitutive way, unless one tries to invoke the association fallacy, as you are all too apparently trying to do.

[CENTER]
[/CENTER]

In fact, if you were to go to the IPCC website and look at the lists of reviewers and contributing authors, Tol is listed in WG2 as a contributing author and reviewer, and is listed as a reviewer only in WG3, and is nowhere to be seen in WG1, and is listed in the IPCC Synthesis Report under the List of Reviewers and Review Editors.

So it appears that Tol did not play any roll in WG1, had a role in WG2, and acted only as a reviewer in WG3. So it appears that Tol was mostly an "outsider" in the AR4 process. This kind of smacks of envy, or jealousy, or spite, or animus, or enmity, or some other subjective emotional character flaw associated with Tol himself.

The remainder of the text essentially goes on to espouse the sentiments that Tol claims he wants to avoid in the last sentence I outlined above. D'oh!

And as usual, in the subjective contrarian lexicon, the "article" offers only subjective opinionated destructive criticism, and offers up nary a shred of constructive criticism, which is to be expected, since after all, this is E&E we are talking about.

And then?

I made no assumption about your knowledge or ignorance of the other working groups. Rather I noted that you don't give a hoot about economists in the IPCC process, and that the IPCC does.

More amusing however, is your selective adoration of your bible. All three WG's are critical to the IPCC mission and the final fusion product, the AR4 synthesis report (no need to reassure us you were aware of that too). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fo...nthesis_Report


So, as you can see, WG3 is involved in every process but 'observed changes and its effects', including the causes of the change, climate change, and the impact under different scenarios (which require economic models and feed back to SRES).


Another red herring attack on a journal? Didn't I warn you that one more comment would be flirting with the obsessive? Let's move it along to the subject at hand, shall we?


Thanks for the entertainment review. Let's move it along to the subject at hand, shall we?


If so, then you must think that every individual who participated in the process thinks the document is biased? That's quite an assumption about individuals - a pretty absurd one.

The reality is that some people think the IPCC did a pretty fair job, and some think it's seriously flawed...this includes both participants and non participants.

Now, let's move it along, what of Tol's criticism's, which you've avoided discussing for several posts? Hmmm?


Permit me to rephrase it for you for clarity: 'Tol wrote an article criticizing the IPCC "monopoly", and because he wrote his article without a co-author HE is a monopolist, so look at the IRONY!'

Funny, even when re-phrased it still sounds like a stupid comment. Sorry, FC I did my best.


And we STILL wait for you to address his criticisms...(crickets chirping).


And we STILL wait for you to address his criticisms...(crickets chirping).


And we STILL wait for you to address his criticisms...(crickets chirping).


(crickets chirping...crickets chirping....yawn, is it dawn yet?)


The IPCC process spans all WG's and their synthesis (AR4). The IPCC process is being questioned, ergo, the experience of any participant in any working group can provide evidence of a flawed process. YOU seem to want to pretend the IPCC is composed of only those members and questions addressed by one of three working groups.

And, by the way, Yes folks...

We STILL wait for you to address his criticisms...(dawn breaking).


Well, no more time to listen to an aimless rant. So far we've heard you carp about his excessive number of references, his not having had a co-author, the WG's he participated on, and the structure of his paper. We've heard you allege his motivations, characterize his style, and suggest his character flaws.

One thing we have not heard is you do is address his criticisms.

Why are we not surprised?

P.S. FS, don't bother to reply. It is clear that you are incapable of addressing the issues raised by either the SPPI study or Dr. Tol. I have no interest in reading another of your baited screeds on everything BUT the issues. And clown shows must end.

So I'll report what critics have said, with comments. Should you bring yourself to the point you maturely address them I will be happy to reply.

Sorry if the truth damages beyond repair Tol's commentary. So the game apparently is to site one reference (e. g. Tol's) in some stupid game of your doing, gravitating around what your definition of criticism is?

Sorry, but homey don't play dat. No one could pick up that article and make any sense of it, you included, simple because it has an obscene number of references, and because it is highly opinionated and subjective in nature. Anyone reading it would get the gist of Tol's frustrations as an "outsider" to the IPCC AR4 processes. That much is obvious.

In fact, and this is quite funny, I missed the FIVE references Tol did have in his reference list (four for WG3 and one for WG1).

What's so funny about that, you ask? Well, you didn't even notice my error!

It's an article you referenced, yet you don't even bother to do any fact checking!

And your dismissive tone is obvious and evasive regarding Tol's paper.

Let me ask you, have you read all 50 references Tol cited, and lets say each of those has 20 references, have you read them also. 50 * 20 = 1,000 references!

It appears that you've lost this argument simply because of your dismissive attitude, on the substitutive points that I raised.

As to Tol's criticisms, given the poor quality of the E&E urinal, and the apparent lack of a true peer-review process, he's entitled to his subjective OPINIONS!

BTW, I already have copies of all the IPCC AR4 documents, and I do mean all.

Oh, and quid pro quo to you to, as your just going to list AGW contrarian disinformation!

As I've already stated, it is obvious that you have no scientific expertise, and are only capable of repeating other AGW contrarian talking points.

Go figure. \

Perhaps you think it impresses to call a journal "urinal"; or to lace dialog with Homer Simpson D'ohs, or to carry on about too many references, or to taunt over having mssed your rrelevant counting errors - rest assured, it does not.

What would impress if you disputed any of his professional opinions of, or actual experiences in, the IPCC process; equally impressive would be a robust understanding and defense of IPCC procedures, as yet un demonstrated.

Is such a sophisticated approach beyond your ability? Seriously?

In the meantime, as I said, I will shortly post my own reading of his comments. Perhaps that will set an example for the H.Simpson groupies.

But first to answer you questions. Yes! Definitely! Because you are not to be taken seriously, nor have I ever taken you seriously, you do not convey a sharp intellect, and you tend to box yourself into inextricable positions, from which you cannot escape. And these are all of your doing.

Just exactly how many disgruntled people who have been involved in the current or previous IPCC processies, are there exactly, not counting known AGW contrarians?

Tol was largely left out of the AR4 processes this time, so I'm not the least bit surprised that this is the sort of missive that he would try to publish, and thanks to the poor journalistic and peer review processes at E&E, he essentially has an open invitation to publish and distort things to the AGW contrarians own ends.

So, in summary if I had to choose between the IPCC and E&E (and the rest of the AGW contrarian screed), it's isn't even close, E&E, et. el. isn't worth the used toilet paper it's written on.

And a final point, NO I refuse to allow you to dictate the form of this debate, you have a major deficiency in the tone of your replies, and I am above taking your bait as it were.

As to your take on things, ROTFLMAO, it's like you haven't even read Tol's screed-rant-manifesto, WTF!

We definitely don't need more of your n00bness. \

As to what ever you do post, go ahead, but make it about 20 pages long, with another 20 pages of references, like you usually do. I am quite frankly tires of your obtuse language, perhaps others will continue the debate forward, but for the moment I'm exiting stage left, let's see if you can create an echo chamber of your own making.

See you, don't want to be you.

Among the critics, Tol makes some important points - especially as someone who has been a prior lead author and as a distinguished environmental economist.

First Tol notes a pervasive practice and conflict of interest, a problem noted by others (e.g. McIntyre). This document that is supposed to provide a critical but objective evaluation should not be putting the authors of models as lead authors in the evaluation of those models. In particular he notes that the creators of the SRES scenarios evaluates their own work in Chapter 3 and, by golly, they find them just dandy!

Tol points out that critical papers of the models are not incorporated in the evaluation and are either left out, or when caught by refs, merely listed in the references.

Second, procedures are freely violated (something noted by other critics). An unpublished conference paper unknown to google was an a major underpinning to the SRES chapter - a paper that was severely criticized.

Tol also chastise's the the IPCC for not living up to its academic duty as well as its policy purposes; failing to provide makers with solutions and potential problems. He accurately notes there is no discussion of the failure of Kyoto or current policy successes/failures.

Third, he criticizes (rightly) the failure of the IPCC to use economists and their expertise appropriately. This is not a new problem, even as a major participant in prior reports he has expressed the same view on behalf of their input. Cost-Benefit is, obviously, missing from the jargon of the dogmatists who wish to eliminate warming at any price (naturally, he puts it far more politely).

He also points out that some of the math in his area is wrong, economic relationships backward, and some of it "is at odds with everything we know about emission reduction cost curves". Most importantly:


Similarly, the SPPI paper also calls into question the inflated claims about universal support of IPCC's balance, which is often accompanied by the supporter's lavish claims of hundreds and thousands of reviewers confirming its reality.


Unfortunately, this experience is not unique. Dr. Landsea, the world's foremost expert on Atlantic Hurricanes was forced to resign because of heavy handed direction by a non-expert (Trenblath) who did not like his conclusions.

McIntyre, a reviewer, also noted the conflict of interests (as with Mann and the Hockey stick in the third AR) and failure to incorporate contradictory studies.

The IPCC is not a review of the literature, it is a stalking horse for a forgone conclusion.

LOL...


Do you really think you impress by smearing Tol, without a pinhead of knowledge about why he has or has not participated in this round?

You have NO idea if he was asked, if he declined, or if he was never invited - NONE. Yet you expect a mature person to entertain your ignorance of the matter, as well as nod approvingly on your subsequent character assassination, including your own conjecture on his motives?

What's with the clown act?

Oh here it is...


Need I comment?

I do find it surprising, not so much because science and technology was defied in the early 20th century and has been a marker of 'modernity' and the sophisticated mind BUT because those who tout it are often the same individuals that haul around all sorts of post modern mythologies.

It's quite alright to be positivist when science allegedly proves global warming and looming environmental disasters but it unacceptable when it is used to promote free trade, market systems, note genetic differences in mental abilities between groups, crime rates among illegals, gender differences, etc. THAT is insensitive or evil.

Woe to the researcher that shows recycling to be useless, bio fuels as destructive, or tax cuts to be effective.

... the world's number one AGW contrarian jumped right out in front of me and started beating me up repeatedly (and I do truly mean that figuratively speaking).

No, it wasn't MaxPariah!

It was, drum roll please ...

Vincent R. Gray also known as #88 by the IPCC AR4 WG1 (the science) peer review process, also known more simply by the IPCC as VINCENT GRAY (Climate Consultant).

[CENTER]
[/CENTER]

So, as usual we have an ancient grumpy old man, typical mean/median age of AGW contrarians has got to be 70+ years old, who isn't a climate scientist, saying things that all AGW contrarians say, in other words, they lie royally!

Now what's so unusual about #88, you say?

Well you'd have to go to IPCC WG1 (The Physical Science Basis of Climate Change) and go to the IPCC AR4 WG1 Review Comments and Responses Available near the bottom of that page.

In that section you will find all the peer reviewed comments submitted and dealt with by the IPCC.

So what's so unusual about Vince, you say?

Well Vince, by my count, submitted over three thousand comments (3,063 to be exact (triple checked)) to the review process, not bad for an AGW octogenarian contrarian.

In fact, this would normally be considered a statistical outlier;

[CENTER]
[/CENTER]

Anyway, next up will be the Top 10 IPCC AGW Contrarian Commenters as gleaned from the aforementioned link, of course we already know the #1 IPCC Contrarian Commenter also known as Vince, or more simply #88 but I prefer to call him "The OutLIER."

Your (irritating font) point being???????

Well I rechecked my math, #88 only had 3,054 comments in the IPCC AR4 WG1 process. Sorry for my error.