IPCC Admits Its Past Reports Were Junk

[Tonington]

Not the point - They appear to have made some serious errors- That is my point- Do they appear to you to have been reasonable well organized with the checks and balances expected.

I explained earlier, that some of the working groups reports were better than others. Working Group 1 is great. There is ample evidence in the literature. The other working groups, working on impacts, mitigation and adaptation, simply don't have the body of evidence to draw from. That's how the so-called grey literature ended up in the reports. It was certainly a mistake by the lead author's involved. I have never claimed otherwise, and again it's why I'm glad to see the IPCC updating their quality assurance structure.

 

[Goober]

I explained earlier, that some of the working groups reports were better than others. Working Group 1 is great. There is ample evidence in the literature. The other working groups, working on impacts, mitigation and adaptation, simply don't have the body of evidence to draw from. That's how the so-called grey literature ended up in the reports. It was certainly a mistake by the lead author's involved. I have never claimed otherwise, and again it's why I'm glad to see the IPCC updating their quality assurance structure.

As am I - Errors lead to disinformation- And they should be able to withstand legitimate criticism.

 

[Cabbagesandking]

Why would he start doing anything different than blanket unbacked up statements now?

1. What many scientists have said the same for years? In the history of the IPCC there has been one resignation by a prominent scientist and he is a strong supporter. He resigned because the IPCC preferred another view of the potential for storm s over his.

2. What are these "serious errors" that it "appears" the IPCC has made?

3. Skier! As I said to Gerry, why would I refute the report? The "American Thinker" piece, if that is what you are referring to, was a distortion of sections of the Report. The Report is fine. It made some useful recommendations to continue in the improvement of the IPCC.

Heck! The next report may even be so improved in its communication strategies that you and the others will finally come to believe the truth.

 

[taxslave]

1. What many scientists have said the same for years? In the history of the IPCC there has been one resignation by a prominent scientist and he is a strong supporter. He resigned because the IPCC preferred another view of the potential for storm s over his.

2. What are these "serious errors" that it "appears" the IPCC has made?

3. Skier! As I said to Gerry, why would I refute the report? The "American Thinker" piece, if that is what you are referring to, was a distortion of sections of the Report. The Report is fine. It made some useful recommendations to continue in the improvement of the IPCC.

Heck! The next report may even be so improved in its communication strategies that you and the others will finally come to believe the truth.

Oh we already believe the truth. We just deny the BS and the general plan by the socialists for a redistribution of the world's wealth at great cost to out standard of living.

 

[Tonington]

Heck! The next report may even be so improved in its communication strategies that you and the others will finally come to believe the truth.

Extremely unlikely. That's IPCC-speak for saying 5/100 or less.

 

[Locutus]

 

[Praxius]

In plain English: the IPCC reports are not peer-reviewed.

Or in even more plain English:

"It's all Bullsh*t!"

Again.... I told y'all so.... years ago & repeatedly.

 

[skookumchuck]

And still we trudge the dark, our lanterns swaying in vain to find an honest man.

 

[Tonington]

This article, written by the man whose think tank compared those who accept the science to people like Charles Manson, Osama Bin Laden, and the Unabomber.

A professional troll.

 

[captain morgan]

Why would he start doing anything different than blanket unbacked up statements now?

That's what happens when your back is up against the wall... No other option but to maintain the bold front

Oh we already believe the truth. We just deny the BS and the general plan by the socialists for a redistribution of the world's wealth at great cost to out standard of living.

... Which takes us back to the base premise that the IPCC has suggested nothing in terms of actual global emissions; but rather a moritorium on select nations despite the internal domestic policies targeted at domestic actions.

Just another example of the politicization of the UN and it's abject lack of effectiveness

 

[Niflmir]

That's what happens when your back is up against the wall... No other option but to maintain the bold front



... Which takes us back to the base premise that the IPCC has suggested nothing in terms of actual global emissions; but rather a moritorium on select nations despite the internal domestic policies targeted at domestic actions.

Just another example of the politicization of the UN and it's abject lack of effectiveness

The politicization of a political body? Oh, noes! What is the world coming to?

Next thing you know they will be letting people vote on who runs a democracy!

The purpose of the IPCC isn't to suggest targets, that is the purpose of the protocols defined under the UNFCCC. The Kyoto protocol implements those targets. The IPCC just assesses science.

 

[damngrumpy]

The report is not accurate, then, well remember the folks in, I think it was Scotland
that burned a bunch of stuff the would be detrimental to the cause, once again hiding
the so called facts.
The problem is we don't know what is causing the earth to warm, anymore than we
know what caused it to cool in the past. There are too many variables in constant
motion to determine what is our fault and what is Mother Nature doing her thing.
I think we are do some damage but how much and how much of the damage is long
lasting or non-reversible? Sometimes damage occurs but it is naturally corrected
over time, other things like oil spills or Nuclear damage takes a lot more to fix if it is
ever fixed.
The problem is with the environmental movement, the real agenda is to raise funds in
order to have new facts to produce to make claims and therefore raise more money
for the cause. People are now beginning to ignore these groups altogether. Besides
the world ends on December 22ND doesn't it?

 

[Cabbagesandking]

That's what happens when your back is up against the wall... No other option but to maintain the bold front



... Which takes us back to the base premise that the IPCC has suggested nothing in terms of actual global emissions; but rather a moritorium on select nations despite the internal domestic policies targeted at domestic actions.

Just another example of the politicization of the UN and it's abject lack of effectiveness

Have you ever read anything about the targets agreed to by the members of the IPCC. Every first tier nation has a target. Every other has conditions to meet before targets will be set. They would probably have been set for many of the countries this year if Canada had not sabotaged the meetings.

The report is not accurate, then, well remember the folks in, I think it was Scotland
that burned a bunch of stuff the would be detrimental to the cause, once again hiding
the so called facts.
The problem is we don't know what is causing the earth to warm, anymore than we
know what caused it to cool in the past. There are too many variables in constant
motion to determine what is our fault and what is Mother Nature doing her thing.
I think we are do some damage but how much and how much of the damage is long
lasting or non-reversible? Sometimes damage occurs but it is naturally corrected
over time, other things like oil spills or Nuclear damage takes a lot more to fix if it is
ever fixed.
The problem is with the environmental movement, the real agenda is to raise funds in
order to have new facts to produce to make claims and therefore raise more money
for the cause. People are now beginning to ignore these groups altogether. Besides
the world ends on December 22ND doesn't it?

We know both the causes of the cooling and the warming. CO 2 every time is the only natural or man added component.

 

[taxslave]

Have you ever read anything about the targets agreed to by the members of the IPCC. Every first tier nation has a target. Every other has conditions to meet before targets will be set. They would probably have been set for many of the countries this year if Canada had not sabotaged the meetings.

Canada did not sabotage the gathering. Our government saved us from an expensive and useless wealth redistribution scheme.

 

[Goober]

This article, written by the man whose think tank compared those who accept the science to people like Charles Manson, Osama Bin Laden, and the Unabomber.

A professional troll.

Interesting comparison- Would you have a link for that- Not a problem if you do not- I take your word for it.

 

[Cabbagesandking]

How many here live in a perpetual fog? There's Cap.n and Taxslave and ?

Peer review a Report! How would you propose that be done?

Every paper that goes into the Report is peer reviewed. The Report merely collates and organises the information for the politicians of every country in the world. All of whom btw, except for Harper and a couple of cronies, accept the Report and the science.

Have you the slightest idea of what peer review is? It has been explained more than once.

 

[Goober]

How many here live in a perpetual fog? There's Cap.n and Taxslave and ?

Peer review a Report! How would you propose that be done?

Every paper that goes into the Report is peer reviewed. The Report merely collates and organises the information for the politicians of every country in the world. All of whom btw, except for Harper and a couple of cronies, accept the Report and the science.

Have you the slightest idea of what peer review is? It has been explained more than once.

Really- Was the report on the accelerated snow melt in the Himalayas Peer Reviewed?
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/presentations/himalaya-statement-20january2010.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/19/science/earth/19climate.html

http://www.nature.com/climate/2010/1003/full/climate.2010.19.html

 

[Cabbagesandking]

Really- Was the report on the accelerated snow melt in the Himalayas Peer Reviewed?

There was nothing about that in the science portion of the report. Just one little paragraph in a 2800 page book in the impacts section that got some inconsequential part wrong.

Again, it was part of a Report and Reports cannot be peer reviewed. How on Earth can they?

 

[Tonington]

Interesting comparison- Would you have a link for that- Not a problem if you do not- I take your word for it.

David Ropeik: The Heartland Billboard Embarrassment and the Dangers of Ideological Ignorance

 

[CDNBear]

This article, written by the man whose think tank compared those who accept the science to people like Charles Manson, Osama Bin Laden, and the Unabomber.

A professional troll.

Like the bulk of the pro GW folk.

How on Earth can they?

By peers reviewing them.

This has been explained before.