I have a better idea. Occupy Faux News or the Dailymail.
And what does Richard Lindzen charge to speak? Roy Spencer? Patrick Michaels? Fred Singer? Tim Ball? Fake Lord Muttonhead?
The rapid melting of the Siberian and Canadian-Alaskan permafrost means millions, if not billions of new methane tons will be released into the atmosphere, initiating an uncontrolled feedback mechanism.
I am all for it but it would be hard to find many occupiers. The thing is, those people that occupied Wall Street were.... well lets just say they had to scrape the bottom of the barrel and the gutter to get them there and they left one heck of a mess in their wake. Anyone that would "occupy" the UN probably has better things to do like their job.
Personally I would like to send the IPCC to some other country, maybe North Korea or maybe Greenland would be appropriate. They shouldn't be occupying anywhere near Wall Street but it is a bit of Karma that New Yorkers have to endure much of the crap that the UN spews.
Here is your big chance to "out" those scientists who dont do and science any more and just hog the media spotlight - the rock stars of the climate world who had "the gall to invade a private organization" (whatever that means.
Just give us 10 names of these dodgy scientists
You can also throw in 10 names of the 99% - the ones who are doing good honest work.
As you raised this issue , surely you quickly provide the names
EDIT - Gavin Schmidt is a dodgy scientist not doing good honest work? That appalling & I am appalled.
Which of these paper he authored were not honest or contained fraud - I guess you read them all to make your claim:
Publications by Gavin A. Schmidt
Submitted
Schmidt, G.A., J.D. Annan, P.J. Bartlein, B.I. Cook, E. Guilyardi, J.C. Hargreaves, S.P. Harrison, M. Kageyama, A.N. LeGrande, B. Konecky, S. Lovejoy, M.E. Mann, V. Masson-Delmotte, C. Risi, D. Thompson, A. Timmermann, L.-B. Tremblay, and P. Yiou, 2013: Using paleo-climate comparisons to constrain future projections in CMIP5. Clim. Past, submitted, doi:10.5194/cpd-9-775-2013.
2013
Lewis, S.C., A.N. LeGrande, M. Kelley, and G.A. Schmidt, 2013: Modeling insights into deuterium excess as an indicator of water vapor source conditions. J. Geophys. Res., 118, 243-262, doi:10.1029/2012JD017804.
Monteleoni, C., G.A. Schmidt, F. Alexander, A. Niculescu-Mizil, K. Steinhaeuser, M. Tippett, A. Banerjee, M.B. Blumenthal, A.R. Ganguly, J.E. Smerdon, and M. Tedesco, 2013: Climate informatics. In Computational Intelligent Data Analysis for Sustainable Development. T. Yu, N. Chawla, and S. Simoff, Eds., Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery Series. Chapman and Hall/CRC, 81-126.
Romanou, A., W.W. Gregg, J. Romanski, M. Kelley, R. Bleck, R. Healy, L. Nazarenko, G. Russell, G.A. Schmidt, S. Sun, and N. Tausnev, 2013: Natural air-sea flux of CO2 in simulations of the NASA-GISS climate model: Sensitivity to the physical ocean model formulation. Ocean Model., 66, 26-44, doi:10.1016/j.ocemod.2013.01.008.
(the other 30 or so are listed here : http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/authors/gschmi...
Is it always your habit to try to discredit every messenger you can think of when you do not like the message and the message itself is correct?
Let us try this, Ottawa Mike. You do not like the message contained in the AGWT. List every scientific reason you can think of that would show any fallacies with the AGWT. No, simply because you do not like it and disapprove of its implications for us is NOT a scientific reason for why the AGWT is flawed in any scientific way.
You say that you are an Engineer, or at least have degrees in the Engineering field. You must then be fully aware that you can not engineer any project that operates outside of the Laws of Physics, Chemistry and Thermodynamics and not expect the design to fail. Why do you want climate scientist to do this then? To appease your sense of self value?
Oh, in answer to your question, NO. It is not time to occupy IPCC. When will you begin to show some intellectual integrity in your choice of questions?
I'll second Jungle Jim's request that you call out these 1% that you're talking about. I happen to know some of the lead authors from past IPCC reports, and they seem like REALLY hard working people who do good science with lots of publications, teach, advise graduate students, and ADDITIONALLY volunteer their time to work with the IPCC because they think it's important. This forces them to spend time away from their families poring through papers and attempting to compose important documents by committee, surely one of the most stultifying tasks anyone can take on. For doing all this, what do they get, other than continual bashing from a bunch of uninformed yahoos?
And the implication of your statement that the "99%" are doing "...good, honest work that is not politicized or overly alarming..." is that the "1%" must be doing politicized, alarming work. Just how have you tested this hypothesis? I'm pretty sure you've bashed Dana for his recent paper, but at least he appeared to do SOME research--you are making a claim that as far as I can tell is backed by nothing--or will your research on this subject be appearing soon in a journal?
By the way, I have two climate papers out this year, and neither one has anything to do with climate change. I am also not associated with the IPCC in any way. Does that put me in the 1% or the 99%?
EDIT: I can't believe you're including Judith Curry among your "99%". It seems to me that she has spent the last 7 years drawing attention to herself and her work and being overtly political about it. First by bashing those that disagreed with she and her husband's paper about the increase in hurricane strength due to climate change, and now by her blog where she often bashes scientists writing in support of AGW.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB11388516...
In fact, now that I look at your list, maybe we can identify the political ones because they're the ones that write blogs. You can probably help me with this, the only blog I read regularly is by Jeff Masters, founder of Weather Underground, he's not on either of your lists, so we'll ignore him.
Let's call Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann, Peter Gleick and Kevin Trenberth part of the 1% by that criterion. I don't really know if the others have blogs or not, but certainly some are in the public eye like Heidi Cullen and Susan Solomon, so I'll grant you those and rather than search for the others I'm not familiar with, let's just say they're in your 1% also.
But what about your 99%? Well, I don't know if James Annan has a blog, but making public bets about climate change seems nothing if not political, so I'm afraid he's going in the 1% also. Of course Judith Curry certainly needs to be thrown in there for her blog and other statements. Oh, and Cliff Mass and Roger Pielke Sr.? Two more guys with well-known blogs about meteorology, climate science, politics and whatever else suits their fancy. Chris Landsea is a good guy so I'll leave him out of it. That leaves a couple of guys I haven't heard of, Richard Tol and Ed Hawkins. After googling them I see that both Tol and Hawkins have active blogs and twitter accounts so we're going to throw them into the 1% also.
What have we learned here? I think there are some scientists that relish the limelight more than others, and there is nothing wrong with that unless it starts interfering with their science. Certainly scientists on both of Mike's lists have impressive scientific records. Whether they fall into Mike's 1% or 99% probably has nothing at all to do with whether they "like being in the media spotlight" (as Mike puts it), but whether he agrees with what they say or not. The vast majority of scientists (both in the IPCC and not) are happy to do their science while remaining out of public sight.
getting rid of the messenger does not change the message. The Romans tried it with Jesus too.
Sorry i have no idea
If you have the numbers try it
In following the same meme as the Occupy Wall St., I'd like to equate the IPCC to Wall St. and the IPCC scientists as the 1%. These are the ones like "The Team" or the ones that like to hear themselves called "Nobel Laureate" or who like being in the media spotlight or who probably don't even do science any more but rather hit the speaking circuit.
They fly to conferences and meetings around the world and probably have a bigger carbon footprint than a village of working Joes and Janes. Sometimes I really sympathize with the 99% of climate scientists who do good, honest work that is not politicized or overly alarming (and I do understand if they have to mention something about climate change to keep funding and interest up). However, unfortunately for them, they are not the rock stars in the climate world. That's reserved for those who have the gall to invade a private organization or write a book whining about how they are maligned.
Or is 1% perhaps too high a number?
Just defund; simpler, easier, more effective. Then take back the land under Eminent Domain, and let them find somewhere else to double park.
