“Academics fight back on climate issues“. Hoping it sticks in his reader’s throats, Anthony Watts copies and pastes a statement from mainstream academics calling for “credible science, rather than invented hyperbole”.
Guess what? His readers are enraged at the thought… Cue the flooding of in-boxes and harassment of administrative assistants.
Wott's Up With That? 
I find it offensive when you say that 2500 reveiwers were involved, when in fact the vast majority were not climate scientists at all. They were mostly political appointees.
So..the readers digest condensed version: You’ve found mistakes, but look how hard we worked.
[There were about 400 “contributing authors”. For areas not directly about the physical climate it is perfectly appropriate for other fields to be involved. True, the “reviewer” threshold could be considered low. I believe for example that non-climate scientist Steven McIntyre qualified. – Ben]
ian: “I find it offensive when you say that 2500 reveiwers were involved, when in fact the vast majority were not climate scientists at all. They were mostly political appointees.”
Tell that to Monckton and Richard Courtney who love to bang on about the science, and tell climate scientists that they’re wrong about climate science. It still leaves IPCC AR4 as probably the most peer reviewed publication in scientific history, unless you can come up with another?
It is always fascinating to read deniers report that “unqualified” individuals are involved in the IPCC process. I’d like the deniers to put together a list of the names of those individuals, what their qualifications are and are not, and then show the world what specific work they did that they are not qualified for. Then ask them if they apply the same standard to Monckton, et. al.
The last thing Watts and co want is credible science. Look at how they’ve been treating credible science for the past couple of years. They much prefer Watts-style invented hyperbole :D
Ben can you explain what a Climate Scientist is , can you study to become one ?
I thought the science was relatively new
[Ah, the cunning semantics tactic! Better than nothing I suppose. – Ben]
You still haven’t explained what a Climate Scientist is, and exactly how few or mamy are were involved in the IPCC reports.
From my understanding it’s not the thousands that is claimed just merely a handful.
I was surprised to hear that the East Anglia unit was run by just 3 scientists , is this correct?
[“Climate Scientist” covers a range of scientific disciplines. Your comments look like a laborious effort on your part to maneuver me toward a statement that you can wave as some sort of irrelevant proof. – Ben]