- Bishop Hill blog - A rising tide of controversy

The story seems to be that the land is rising, increasing the carrying capacity of the oceans. This would effectively reduce the amount of sea level rise expected, and we couldn't have that - hence the "adjustment". The effect of the adjustment appears to be small when put against the projected rises, but is certainly material against the actual changes recorded (although these are, per Morner, wrong).

- Bishop Hill blog - The Economist on the IPCC

If the authors were not assessing the material critically and nobody picked this up in the review process, and nobody was in a position to get the author team to change anything then it is a pretty damning indictment of the IPCC process. I should add a word of caution here though - as one correspondent has pointed out to me, the authors are chosen by national governments and anyone can be a reviewer. The IPCC process is clearly bust, but who is to blame?

More remarkably, the Greenpeace chap in question seems to want us to think that he would have loved the rest of the authors to ignore his paper but was forced to toe the line by the sheer number of people in opposition

The Climate Sceptics (TCS) Blog: Is Maurice - Strong on Man-made Global Warming

As Tim Ball told 2GB's Alan Jones:

    "He very deliberately did it.  He set up the United Nations Environment Program and then he worked through that with the World Meteorological Organisation and the IPCC was set up by them.  That meant that every government weather agency around the world was involved in the IPCC.  They appoint the scientists that they want to be on it and they also of course provide the funding and that has meant that the funding has only got to one side of the debate and Strong knew this.  But this is why he organized it that way through the WMO..."

So, was the whole AGW movement started as a plot for great wealth? Follow the money trail - Strong, Gore, Goldman Sachs....
STRONG-man or Crook?