http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Environment/documents/2008/06/23/ClimateChangeHearing1988.pdf

I encourage you to read Hansen’s testimony and reevaluate your assertion. Hansen was not “correct on all other points he raised”… I’ll give you one for free…

His words, falsified:
“We have considered cases ranging from business as usual, which is scenario A, to draconian emissions cuts, scenario C, which would totally eliminate net trace gas growth by year 2000. The main point to be made here is that the expected global warming is of the same magnitude as the observed warming.”

We are far below scenario A expected global warming (for hundreds of months now).

I think that your editing for brevity explanation would be a perfectly reasonable explanation taken in isolation. It could be supported by demonstrating how the other sections of the draft(s) were edited if this information were to become publicly available some time in the future.

The problem that someone like me has is that when this particular edit is taken in context with other edits in the past it gives the impression that the IPCC is skewing the available information to present a point of view that the current climate is not as good as it was and will continue to get worse, and that there is greater certainty in this global impression than is warranted.

An example of this is how the IPCC truncated the temperature proxy data when they started to diverge from the instrumental temperature record. This served to increase the certainty that the proxy trends were a fair representation of pre-instrumental temperatures.

Another example are the edits made in previous ARs where some reviewer suggestions were rejected out of hand while other reviewer suggestions incorporated into the narrative to strengthen the plot (as it were).

This is viewed after years of seeing the surface temperature trends being revised and after each revision seeing the past getting cooler and the present getting warmer. This of course was not the IPCC but part of the same community.

Would you be willing to consider that removing the referals to prehistorical megadroughts skews the story line in a way that makes future drought scenarios seem more alarming?

A deliberate attempt to obfusticate: “…central North America, a vague region which probably includes part of the contiguous US”

prolly does, eh ? but mebbe just a tiny bit.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2006GL025711.shtml

Even during times of a wetter trend, there are abarrations, which is happening right now.

The current drought in the USA, despite much hullaboo that is is AGW driven, is not comparable to droughts of the 20th century.

http://www.livinghistoryfarm.org/farminginthe50s/water_01.html

And using paleo data, there were some very serious droughts in the past that put today’s droughts in perspective:

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-05/uoa-crs051707.php

The IPCC, on a regional basis, seems to prefer to ignore science.

That is what Pielke does believe, and stated in his blog. It is also what the IPCC said.

What Pielke objects to is the belief that the evidence is already present for increased natural hazards. Field says it is, and the IPCC says it isn’t. So Pielke rightly castigates Field for making stuff up.

Pielke is not a skeptic, despite what many alarmists claim. He just doesn’t like people making up evidence to suit their own personal agendas.

It is a resort to ad hominen in preference for arguing his case. The resort to ad hominen is made worse

You need to read up what “ad hominen” means. Pielke does not engage in anything remotely resembling that. Disagreeing with a person is not, repeat not, an ad hominen attack.

He believes Field is wrong, and backs up his belief with evidence. That you see that as a personal attack is a misreading of the situation.

http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2010-10-15/

He does provide jovial comments tho and I thank him for that.

Had Pielke wanted to deal directly with issues raised by Field, he would have agreed with Field …

So you are a mind-reader too. Do you have other ESP skills as well? I would let Prof. Pielke answer for himself.

You don’t seem to understand that the reason that Trenberth tried to flip statistical science on its head was that there is no credible evidence that extreme weather has increased up to this point and no valid predictive evidence that it will automatically do so in the future. So it is not a red herring but an affirmation that even scientists who honestly study these things share a similar viewpoint. My statement about my statistical experience should tell you that I am not a beginner but that I am quite familiar with the application of statistical procedures and the interpretation of the results of such procedures. That experience includes consulting for research in most areas of university studies so it is not simply theoretical academic knowledge. Evaluating research analyses and offering constructive advice in a broad variety of disciplines was something I did on a regular basis.

Somehow your expectation that I would find this missing evidence hidden deep within Chapter 3 of a partisan summary report rather than within the original sources and their over-hyped press releases is a bit laughable.