Scientists working with the orthodox alarmist view of climate science often receive questions from citizen scientists who ask them to explain aspects of climate science, especially how dangerous anthropogenic global warming (DAGW) works.
They are frequently advised to read the latest gigantic report from the IPCC, the Fifth Assessment Report, or AR5. Do you know what is being expected of these inquirers? It is disgraceful.
For I have surveyed the size of the AR5. It contains over 5,000 pages and more than 3,500,000 words (omitting indexes, annexes, author lists, etc.). Throwing it at an inquirer is odious—akin to hurling a bus; if it happens to you, it quickly becomes obvious that the scientist must hate you.
At a low-average reading speed of 250 words per minute it would take six weeks of reading at eight hours a day, five days a week, to finish the report. Stopping to check or understand the 9200 references (and honestly, who would take them on trust—this is climate science we’re talking about!) would take longer—conservatively (at 5 pages per paper, 300 words per page), they constitute at least another 14,000,000 words, so that’s a further 24 weeks just to read them. You can take coffee breaks, but you shouldn’t stop for lunch and don’t think for too long.
Scientists who do this are unhelpful and unkind, their outward courtesy skin-deep, wrapped around a contempt they cannot conceal. The bloggers who do the same thing largely lack even a veneer of courtesy to soften their scorn or blunt their ridicule.
On the other hand, scientists who write articles that explain carefully how climate processes work in terms that are easily understood reveal an honourable care for fellow citizens that transcends political differences or policy disagreement.
It makes me angry but all I can offer is yet another post on a humble grumbling blog—and not even name names.