Richard,
Thanks for the links to NIPCC. Read most of the text. Some of the charts and graphs are challenging to the untrained mind. The thing that stands out most of all is the fact the IPCC has used unproven or disputed assumptions as a basis for their reports. In addition, not including research after March 2006 for the 2007 report seems ingenuous, particularly if the research conflicted with previous research which supported their position. Another interesting issue I read about, was the peer review process the IPCC uses is suspect, in that at times, reviewers were affiliated with a lead author whose research was used in the SPM. This seems dubious at best and dishonest at worst. Shouldn’t peer review include scientists who are unaffiliated who would provide an unbiased review.
I had read a transcript of the NPR interview and it gave me the impression that the NASA scientist thought the data from ARGO was incorrect because it conflicted with his preconceived notion that the oceans should be warming.
Initially when first exposed to AGW information, I was of the opinion that we have a problem. However, the more research and reading I do, it becomes clear to me that AGW is hoopla.
