Trust in science and the role of proper procedure

The UK Parliament has launched an inquiry into the latest assessment report published by the IPCC. Submissions were invited and have been published on its website. Submissions were asked to comment on a number of questions, such as

• How robust are the conclusions in the AR5 Physical Science Basis report? Have the IPCC adequately addresses [sic] criticisms of previous reports? How much scope is there to question of the report’s conclusions?
• To what extent does AR5 reflect the range of views among climate scientists?
• Can any of the areas of the science now be considered settled as a result of AR5’s publication, if so which? What areas need further effort to reduce the levels of uncertainty?

Has the puzzle of the 'hiatus' been solved?

An article in the Guardian today reports about a meeting between members of the Royal Society and the Global Warming Policy Foundation which took place in November. There is no official record of the meeting; apparently there was an agreement to keep it secret. Lord Lawson had written a short article for the Spectator. What was said by whom is now becoming a topic of public interest, not only in the blogsphere but in the mainstream media.  The Guardian reports about the background to this:

Analyse von Orkantief Xaver durch das Seewetteramt

Das Seewetteramt Hamburg des Deutschen Wetterdienstes  hat eine Analyse des Orkantiefs Xaver ausgearbeitet

Orkantief XAVER über Nordeuropa vom 5. bis 7. Dezember 2013Dr. Thomas Deutschländer, Karsten Friedrich, Dr. Susanne Haeseler, Christiana Lefebvre; Stand: 09. Dezember 2013

Auch das BSH hat den Sturm untersucht im Hinblick auf Wasserstände:

Nordsee
Ostsee

Whom do you call Alarmist, whom a Skeptic?

… that I was asked a few weeks ago at a public discussion with a lay audience. This question was of course lingering around for a while, and I tried to avoid answering it, because I was concerned it would lead to a discussion about people. I think now that we can discuss this issue without referring to specific people, but to concepts. When preparing a talk, given to a group of journalists, I found an answer, which is mostly consistent with an analysis by Quentin Quencher on this weblog.