Over at Prometheus, Roger Pielke Jr makes a good point about how the actual views of IPCC reviewers often don’t make it into the papers.
This sheds some light on this story, and perhaps even this one, too. It’s not simply the views of “sceptics” and “deniers” that don’t get heard, it’s proper and decent scientists too.
It’s not simply the views of “sceptics” and “deniers” that don’t get heard, it’s proper and decent scientists too.
Can you tell us who the sceptics and deniers are, and how they can be easily distinguished from “proper and decent” scientists?
Thanks John. We don’t feel that sceptics and deniers are helpful labels at all. Hence the scare quotes. Our point is that the views expressed by so-called sceptics and deniers are also expressed by the very IPCC scientists who are supposed to be part of the scientific “consensus”. Maybe that wasn’t clear enough.