IPCC Admits Its Past Reports Were Junk

[captain morgan]

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!

Great! Then you don't mind if we as a nation, through our UN representative call bullsh*t on the IPCC at the next UN event in NYC. I don't think that it would take much to get a bunch of other member nations on board and the votes can be done in UN chambers rather than at the highly skewed and expensive forums in Copenhagen or Kyoto.

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.

Yet, the IPCC saw fit to employ incomplete and highly flawed data/studies to 'guide' their suggestions.... Sorry to have burst your ideological bubble on that

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

Apparently the IPCC can't answer that question either.

 

[Niflmir]

Great! Then you don't mind if we as a nation, through our UN representative call bullsh*t on the IPCC at the next UN event in NYC. I don't think that it would take much to get a bunch of other member nations on board and the votes can be done in UN chambers rather than at the highly skewed and expensive forums in Copenhagen or Kyoto.



Yet, the IPCC saw fit to employ incomplete and highly flawed data/studies to 'guide' their suggestions.... Sorry to have burst your ideological bubble on that

What ideological bubble? All you know is that I view the UN as a political organization and that I realize that the purpose of the IPCC is not to recommend targets as you asserted but to assess science. There are legitimate complaints that can be, and were, made about the IPCC but nobody has expressed them in this thread except for the people standing up for the IPCC. Nothing a human being does is ever perfect, you cannot overlook the good the IPCC does just because it also has some ills.

What beliefs are you even attributing to me? Your glee at bursting my "bubble" reminds me of the excitement of a bird attacking its own reflection.

 

[Goober]

What ideological bubble? All you know is that I view the UN as a political organization and that I realize that the purpose of the IPCC is not to recommend targets as you asserted but to assess science. There are legitimate complaints that can be, and were, made about the IPCC but nobody has expressed them in this thread except for the people standing up for the IPCC. Nothing a human being does is ever perfect, you cannot overlook the good the IPCC does just because it also has some ills.

What beliefs are you even attributing to me? Your glee at bursting my "bubble" reminds me of the excitement of a bird attacking its own reflection.

Poor leadership- poor peer reviews- dysfunctional processes did lead to mistakes- If they did not realize that they would be held accountable for these errors, then heads should have rolled.

 

[Niflmir]

Poor leadership- poor peer reviews- dysfunctional processes did lead to mistakes- If they did not realize that they would be held accountable for these errors, then heads should have rolled.

See, the report just doesn't bear this out.

Poor leadership

Since its founding in 1988, the IPCC has been structured in a unique way that combines its intergovernmental form with its scientific objectives. Representatives of participating governments (the Panel), in consultation with members of the Bureau, determine the scope of the assessment and review and accept the reports, and thousands of scientists from all over the world devote their professional expertise to carry out the assessment. This combination of responsibilities has both yielded a landmark sequence of global assessments related to climate change and sustained the interest and support of governments on a critical set of policy-relevant climate issues.

The main recommendations for changes to management being to elect an executive director which is supposed to be below the chair on level with co-chairs, to formalize qualifications (everyone already has PhDs), and to formalize the term limitation of one year (which is what most chairs and co-chairs do anyways).

poor peer reviews

IPCC’s review process is elaborate, involving two formal reviews and one or more informal reviews of preliminary text. The early drafts and first complete draft are reviewed by scientific experts. These early drafts often undergo extensive revisions to reduce their length to meet page limitations established by the Bureau. After considering the review comments, the Lead Authors prepare the second draft, which is reviewed by the same experts and by government representatives. Two or more Review Editors for each chapter oversee the review process, ensuring that review comments and controversial issues are handled appropriately.

This is already more review than most journal articles will receive.

dysfunctional processes

The Committee concludes that the IPCC assessment process has been successful overall and has served society well.

There are legitimate complaints, as I said, but to paint the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as being dysfunctional is not accurate.

 

[Praxius]

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.

If you can't refute his claims or the report's claims of the IPCC's wrong doings, or even refute the IPCC admitting they were caught exaggerating and fudging the "Facts".... and all you can do is use name calling on the guy who exposed all of this.... who's the real professional troll?

I used to like using the term "Global Warmongers" but I think I may start calling people like you "Global Warming Denier Deniers"

As all you do when the real facts are thrown in your face is deny deny deny..... just like every other person like yourself locked in fear and ignorance from the last few years of fearmongering over Global Warming....

Before, the Global Warming Denier Deniers kept claiming the rest of us were just plugging our ears and going "La la la la la la..." ..... now it seems the shoe is on the other foot.

Hypocrites if you ask me.

 

[Goober]

See, the report just doesn't bear this out.





The main recommendations for changes to management being to elect an executive director which is supposed to be below the chair on level with co-chairs, to formalize qualifications (everyone already has PhDs), and to formalize the term limitation of one year (which is what most chairs and co-chairs do anyways).





This is already more review than most journal articles will receive.





There are legitimate complaints, as I said, but to paint the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as being dysfunctional is not accurate.

The Himalayas snow melt report was found to be - well shall we say bogus - and that was sworn to by the IPCC as shall we say the Gods honest truth. Now how did that happen- How could the worlds lead agency on CC or GW come down to such a level- Incompetence is just 1 thing I can lay at their feet. To defend level of dysfunction and incompetence I find difficult to understand.

 

[Praxius]

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

^ So explain how Man had anything to do with the increased temperatures & CO2 thousands of years ago before we became industrialized?

Explain to me how the temps & CO2 were actually at much higher levels in the past than what we're experiencing now?

Notice the pattern & how we're currently on the up-swing?

Epic Fail

Oh wait, I suppose the global warming during the medieval era was due to all those witch burnings they started to have.

 

[Cabbagesandking]

Great! Then you don't mind if we as a nation, through our UN representative call bullsh*t on the IPCC at the next UN event in NYC. I don't think that it would take much to get a bunch of other member nations on board and the votes can be done in UN chambers rather than at the highly skewed and expensive forums in Copenhagen or Kyoto.



Yet, the IPCC saw fit to employ incomplete and highly flawed data/studies to 'guide' their suggestions.... Sorry to have burst your ideological bubble on that




Apparently the IPCC can't answer that question either.

The IPCC did no such thing.

Poor leadership- poor peer reviews- dysfunctional processes did lead to mistakes- If they did not realize that they would be held accountable for these errors, then heads should have rolled.

What mistakes. What poor peer reviews?

Those are simply assertions without evidence and a product of extreme prejudice.

 

[Goober]

The IPCC did no such thing.

So all reports by the IPCC were Gospel

 

[CDNBear]

The IPCC did no such thing.

Ummm...

Those are simply assertions without evidence and a product of extreme prejudice.

LOL.

So all reports by the IPCC were Gospel

Wait for it.

I'm sure you'll get a simple assertion, without evidence and a product of extreme prejudice, lol.

 

[Cabbagesandking]

If you can't refute his claims or the report's claims of the IPCC's wrong doings, or even refute the IPCC admitting they were caught exaggerating and fudging the "Facts".... and all you can do is use name calling on the guy who exposed all of this.... who's the real professional troll?

I used to like using the term "Global Warmongers" but I think I may start calling people like you "Global Warming Denier Deniers"

As all you do when the real facts are thrown in your face is deny deny deny..... just like every other person like yourself locked in fear and ignorance from the last few years of fearmongering over Global Warming....

Before, the Global Warming Denier Deniers kept claiming the rest of us were just plugging our ears and going "La la la la la la..." ..... now it seems the shoe is on the other foot.

Hypocrites if you ask me.

That has to be one of the silliest posts I have yet seen. Anywhere.

I gave the correct wording of the Report. Others have argued against the futile attempts to avoid he truth. You try to obscure that truth with a barrage of pejoratives against science and scientists.

 

[CDNBear]

Others have argued against the futile attempts to avoid he truth.

I agree, many of us have argued against your futile attempts to avoid the truth...

 

[Cabbagesandking]

So all reports by the IPCC were Gospel

Science is not gospel. Denial of science is gospel in that it appeals to faith to dispute reality.

In this matter, the Reports of the IPCC are as close to gospel as man can come in that they are entirely based on the best science and are supported by every researching climate scientist in the world apart from a few who cannot even get their papers reviewed any more ket alone pass peer review.And on observation since everything predicted is now coming to pass and can be seen by all who are not blinded by their personal or religious gospel.

 

[CDNBear]

In this matter, the Reports of the IPCC are as close to gospel as man can come in that they are entirely based on the best science and are supported by every researching climate scientist in the world apart from a few who cannot even get their papers reviewed any more ket alone pass peer review.

That's not science.

That's excommunication.

 

[Goober]

Science is not gospel. Denial of science is gospel in that it appeals to faith to dispute reality.

In this matter, the Reports of the IPCC are as close to gospel as man can come in that they are entirely based on the best science and are supported by every researching climate scientist in the world apart from a few who cannot even get their papers reviewed any more ket alone pass peer review.And on observation since everything predicted is now coming to pass and can be seen by all who are not blinded by their personal or religious gospel.

So all reports by the IPCC according to your opinion are as close to Gospel as possible. Is that correct. I ask as I am a DDH- ( Dumb Down Homer) grade 9 PEI- GED New Brunswick- and I can be kinda slow on the uptake.