IPCC savaged for overstating climate change dangers

C

cancel2 2022

Canceled
It is interesting that whenever anybody posts anything sceptical about climate change, it is immediately attacked by the usual suspects if the author is not a climatologist even if they are working in a related field. The head of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri whilst being incredibly political, mercenary and arrogant does not have any qualifications in climatology or indeed any related discipline being instead a railway engineer by training. That fact does not seemed to have stopped him so far, this latest report will probably do the trick though.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/wor...limate-change-experts-overstated-dangers.html
 
Last edited:
"IPCC savaged for overstating climate change dangers!"
Click to expand...


"Savaged" is an interesting choice of words.

Instead of reading what Rupert Murdoch British tabloids have to say about it, why not read the actual InterAcademy report itself?

InterAcademy Report on the IPCC

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

The commitment of many thousands of the world’s leading scientists and other experts to the assessment process and to the communication of the nature of our understanding of the changing climate, its impacts, and possible adaptation and mitigation strategies is a considerable achievement in its own right.

Similarly, the sustained commitment of governments to the process and their buy-in to the results is a mark of a successful assessment. Through its unique partnership between scientists and governments, the IPCC has heightened public awareness of climate change, raised the level of scientific debate, and nfluenced the science agendas of many nations. However, despite these successes, some fundamental changes to the process and the management structure are essential, as discussed in this report and summarized below.

http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/report.html
Click to expand...


"Savaged" isn't a word that comes to my mind when I read their conclusions. IPCC has been successful and done an admirable job, is what I get out of it. Science is self-correcting however, - science is always a work-in-progress - and changes and refinements are always neccessary, especially in light of the pending 2013 IPCC assessment. Most of the suggested changes seem eminently reasonable and sensible, including increased transparency, modernization, and improving the review process. Does this really qualify as IPCC being "savaged", let alone cast any serious doubt at all that humans are changing the climate?. Sadly, for flat earthers, no.


I wonder if the flat earth deniers ever engage in self-correction, or ever acknowledge any errors, the way actual scientists do? Let's put it to the test: Where you wrong about believing the Climate Gate lies?
 
Last edited:
tom prendergast said:
It is interesting that whenever anybody posts anything sceptical about climate change, it is immediately attacked by the usual suspects if the author is not a climatologist even if they are working in a related field. The head of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri whilst being incredibly political, mercenary and arrogant does not have any qualifications in climatology or indeed any related discipline being instead a railway engineer by training. That fact does not seemed to have stopped him so far. This latest report will probably do the trick though.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/wor...limate-change-experts-overstated-dangers.html
Click to expand...
As long as you agree with the warmists theory your actual qualifications don't matter.
 
Ha!

Surprisingly, this is how science works. I get comments and suggestions all the time from experts and peer reviewers on how to improve the process. It's a standard part of science, and only the Rupert Murdoch tabloids of the world editorialize it as "savaging".


There's no amount of foot-stomping, keyboard pounding, or tabloid editorializing with words like "savaging" that is going to change the fact that the best science on the planet has concluded with high certainty that humans are largely responsible for changing the climate. We can continue to improve the scientific method, as we should. But with regard to the pending climate changes over the next century, we either adapt and mitigate, or we choose to let future generations deal with the consequences of our choices.
 
Cypress said:
"Savaged" is an interesting choice of words.

Instead of reading what Rupert Murdoch British tabloids have to say about it, why not read the actual InterAcademy report itself?




"Savaged" isn't a word that comes to my mind when I read their conclusions. IPCC has been successful and done an admirable job, is what I get out of it. Science is self-correcting however, - science is always a work-in-progress - and changes and refinements are always neccessary, especially in light of the pending 2013 IPCC assessment. Most of the suggested changes seem eminently reasonable and sensible, including increased transparency, modernization, and improving the review process. Does this really qualify as IPCC being "savaged", let alone cast any serious doubt at all that humans are changing the climate?. Sadly, for flat earthers, no.


I wonder if the flat earth deniers ever engage in self-correction, or ever acknowledge any errors, the way actual scientists do? Let's put it to the test: Where you wrong about believing the Climate Gate lies?
Click to expand...

God, you really do annoy me at times, I will say it again the Daily Mail is not owned by Rupert Murdoch. Anyway, I will quote what the BBC has to say about it. By the way, savaged was my word, it just goes to show how much of the article you actually read!!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11131897
 
Last edited:
Cypress said:
"Savaged" is an interesting choice of words.

Instead of reading what Rupert Murdoch British tabloids have to say about it, why not read the actual InterAcademy report itself?




"Savaged" isn't a word that comes to my mind when I read their conclusions. IPCC has been successful and done an admirable job, is what I get out of it. Science is self-correcting however, - science is always a work-in-progress - and changes and refinements are always neccessary, especially in light of the pending 2013 IPCC assessment. Most of the suggested changes seem eminently reasonable and sensible, including increased transparency, modernization, and improving the review process. Does this really qualify as IPCC being "savaged", let alone cast any serious doubt at all that humans are changing the climate?. Sadly, for flat earthers, no.


I wonder if the flat earth deniers ever engage in self-correction, or ever acknowledge any errors, the way actual scientists do? Let's put it to the test: Where you wrong about believing the Climate Gate lies?
Click to expand...

Apparently the NY Times is also owned by Rupert Murdoch.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/31/world/31nations.html?_r=1&hp

UNITED NATIONS — The United Nations needs to revise the way it manages its assessments of climate change, with the scientists involved more open to alternative views, more transparent about possible conflicts of interest and more careful to avoid making policy prescriptions, an independent review panel said Monday.
Click to expand...

The review panel also recommended that the senior officials involved in producing the periodic assessments serve in their voluntary positions for only one report — a statement interpreted to suggest that the current chairman of the climate panel, Rajendra K. Pachauri, step down.
Click to expand...

It also suggested that the panel revise the way it rates doubts about some of the science, that the process of choosing the scientists who write the report be more open and that the panel require that any possible conflicts of interest be revealed.
Click to expand...
 
Cypress said:
Ha!

Surprisingly, this is how science works. I get comments and suggestions all the time from experts and peer reviewers on how to improve the process. It's a standard part of science, and only the Rupert Murdoch tabloids of the world editorialize it as "savaging".


There's no amount of foot-stomping, keyboard pounding, or tabloid editorializing with words like "savaging" that is going to change the fact that the best science on the planet has concluded with high certainty that humans are largely responsible for changing the climate. We can continue to improve the scientific method, as we should. But with regard to the pending climate changes over the next century, we either adapt and mitigate, or we choose to let future generations deal with the consequences of our choices.
Click to expand...

I remember you saying rather grandly that you wanted to see even one peer reviewed paper by a climate change sceptic, sorry I can't do that so will 800 do instead?

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
 
Superfreak said:
*que Cypress's lame ass attempt to either pretend the above is owned by Rupert Murdoch or to attack the URL title*
Click to expand...

Another "Murdoch" publication, from which I quote the following.

Harold Shapiro, a Princeton University professor and chairman of the committee that reviewed the IPCC's work, told reporters one of its reports "contains many statements that were assigned high confidence but for which there is little evidence."
The IPCC's response to errors when they were subsequently revealed was "slow and inadequate." The errors "did dent the credibility of the process."
Asked about the Himalayan glaciers error, Mr. Shapiro said, "In our judgment, it came from just not paying close enough attention to what [peer] reviewers said about that example."
He added there was concern about the UN climate panel's lack of a conflict-of-interest policy, as is standard in most government departments and international bodies.
The report called for development of a "rigorous conflict of interest policy" and made detailed suggestions on what should be disclosed. Mr. Pachauri has acted as an advisor to green energy companies.
Mr. Pachauri said the IPCC "will be strengthened by the [scientists'] review and others of its kind this year."
But Mr. Shapiro made clear the scientists' review did not assess the validity of the science behind the IPCC's reports, leaving open the possibility the panel could face a new wave of attacks from critics.
 
Harold Shapiro, a Princeton University professor and chairman of the committee that reviewed the IPCC's work, told reporters one of its reports "contains many statements that were assigned high confidence but for which there is little evidence."


and that about covers it for all the fear mongering bullshit about the end of civilization as we know it from man-made climate change....HOOOOORAAAW !
\:tongout:
 
tom prendergast said:
I remember you saying rather grandly that you wanted to see even one peer reviewed paper by a climate change sceptic, sorry I can't do that so will 800 do instead?

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
Click to expand...

Last week, I posted a brand new statistical analysis of the methods Mann used in MBH98 and other popular center pieces for the AGW scare campaign.

They showed that you could not make accurate predictions with the proxies they used.

You know what cypress said?

LOOK, your own study says it can't make predictions!!

LOL

the guy is a fucking idiot

You're trying to show him why the method is wrong and just doesn't know what you're showing him.

It would be funny if there weren't real consequences
 
Well, don't blame me when you end up with egg on your faces...again.

Y'all flat earthers cracked open the champagne bottles when Climate Gate happened, only to have it blow up in your face. Ya'll spent the entire 1990s saying the earth wasn't even warming, that it was all a liberal hoax.

Is this some sort of game to you, where you're constantly proven wrong, only to come back angrier and more emotional?

Tom, your IAC report looked at process and procedures. And provided recommendations for institutionalizing changes in transparency, administration, and reporting uncertainties. Nothing in it undermined or debunked the fundamentals of human-caused climate change. Don't take my word for it: read the highly reputable Scientific American article, below. Pop the cork on your champagne bottle if you must, but I'll come back here in 6 or 12 months and ask you how this all ended up. And as with Climate Gate, its not going to be flattering with respect to your arm chair science analyses.

Scientific American
Aug 31, 2010

The IAC report is at least the sixth review of IPCC processes, procedures and outcomes in the past year. None, including the IAC, have found cause to question the underlying conclusions based on the best available science on climate change from the most recent assessment. "Manmade drivers are responsible for most of the climate change that we have experienced in the past 50 years," explained climatologist Thomas Stocker of Bern University, co-chair of the working group on the physical science of climate change for the next IPCC assessment, at the press conference following the IAC's report release. "This result has never been challenged."

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=international-science-panel-recommends-ipcc-reforms

But, overall, the "IPCC's assessment process has been a success and served society well," IAC Chariman Shapiro noted. "The assessments have put IPCC on the world stage, raised public awareness of climate change, and driven policymakers to consider options for responding to climate change." That's a conclusion backed by entities ranging from the Dutch and U.S. environmental agencies (pdf) to independent academic researchers, who have all completed reviews of the IPCC's scientific claims in the past year.

And, in the end, the IPCC's errors, in this case, were errors of degree rather than fundamentals, though the IPCC retains the goal of "eliminating every questionable statement or error that it's humanly possible to prevent," said biologist Chris Field of the Carnegie Institution at Stanford University.
Click to expand...


As for your "list" of 800 papers, you've been duped...yet again.

First of all, what the hell is "PopularTechnology.net?"

PopularTechnology.net

Editor

* Andrew (Computer Analyst)

Contributing Editors

* Doug (Computer Engineer)
* Karl (Computer Scientist)
* Mike (Electrical Engineer)
Click to expand...


Doesn't look like a science website to me.

Second, all your papers are fire-walled behind a paid subscriptions. I can't read them. And neither can you. You just found this link off some denier website, took it at face value, without even reading the papers.

I read some of the abstracts in the legitimate journals from the more recent publications, and there was nothing that debunked the current fundamental understanding of human contributions to climate change, nor offered tested alternative theories. And I noticed some of your "papers" were from what appeared to be industry trade journals. Like some journal from the steel manufacturing industry, and the electrical industry. Citing trade journals from the Steel manufacturing industry? That's preposterous. And there was crap from the 1980s in there.

You were the dude than linked me up to an obscure blog, written by a mentally disturbed self-described, unemployed "mushroom" researcher as a legitimate source supporting your science denialism.

Can you stop wasting my time with B.S. ? Get those papers from behind their subscription firewall, and show me where in the paper they have debunked climate science. Better yet, give me a legitimate, reputable science organization that agrees with you that human-caused climate change is a liberal fraud.

Later man.
 
Last edited:
Cypress said:
Well, don't blame me when you end up with egg on your faces...again.

Y'all flat earthers cracked open the champagne bottles when Climate Gate happened, only to have it blow up in your face. Ya'll spent the entire 1990s saying the earth wasn't even warming, that it was all a liberal hoax.

Is this some sort of game to you, where you're constantly proven wrong, only to come back angrier and more emotional?

Tom, your IAC report looked at process and procedures. And provided recommendations for institutionalizing changes in transparency, administration, and reporting uncertainties. Nothing in it undermined or debunked the fundamentals of human-caused climate change. Don't take my word for it: read the highly reputable Scientific American article, below. Pop the cork on your champagne bottle if you must, but I'll come back here in 6 or 12 months and ask you how this all ended up. And as with Climate Gate, its not going to be flattering with respect to your arm chair science analyses.




As for your "list" of 800 papers, you've been duped...yet again.

First of all, what the hell is "PopularTechnology.net?"




Doesn't look like a science website to me.

Second, all your papers are fire-walled behind a paid subscriptions. I can't read them. And neither can you. You just found this link off some denier website, took it at face value, without even reading the papers.

I read some of the abstracts in the legitimate journals from the more recent publications, and there was nothing that debunked the current fundamental understanding of human contributions to climate change, nor offered tested alternative theories. And I noticed some of your "papers" were from what appeared to be industry trade journals. Like some journal from the steel manufacturing industry, and the electrical industry. Citing trade journals from the Steel manufacturing industry? That's preposterous. And there was crap from the 1980s in there.

You were the dude than linked me up to an obscure blog, written by a mentally disturbed self-described, unemployed "mushroom" researcher as a legitimate source supporting your science denialism.

Can you stop wasting my time with B.S. ? Get those papers from behind their subscription firewall, and show me where in the paper they have debunked climate science. Better yet, give me a legitimate, reputable science organization that agrees with you that human-caused climate change is a liberal fraud.

Later man.
Click to expand...

So some of them are available by subscription only, big bloody deal. You obviously just checked the first few and concluded that they were all like that, probably that's an insight into how you approach everything. I'll try to help you, here is a link to some free PDFs from among the 800 links.

http://www.int-res.com/abstracts/cr/v22/n2/

I also found this one by having a look around, something you seem incapable of doing for yourself.

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/2117/...rming-and-cooling-can-be-attributed-to-humans

One more for you to ignore!

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/...akes-a-hockey-sticky-wicket-of-mann-et-al-99/

Finally some eminent scientists who are AGW sceptics.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2010/07/eminent-physicists-skeptical-of-agw.html
 
Last edited:
Cypress said:
Ha!

Surprisingly, this is how science works. I get comments and suggestions all the time from experts and peer reviewers on how to improve the process. It's a standard part of science, and only the Rupert Murdoch tabloids of the world editorialize it as "savaging".


There's no amount of foot-stomping, keyboard pounding, or tabloid editorializing with words like "savaging" that is going to change the fact that the best science on the planet has concluded with high certainty that humans are largely responsible for changing the climate. We can continue to improve the scientific method, as we should. But with regard to the pending climate changes over the next century, we either adapt and mitigate, or we choose to let future generations deal with the consequences of our choices.
Click to expand...

Prissy, you've obviously been listening to too much Al Gore... who incidentally, is also not a climatologist and has no science degree. He is a politician, a mover of mass propaganda.
 
tom prendergast said:
So some of them are available by subscription only, big bloody deal. You obviously just checked the first few and concluded that they were all like that, probably that's an insight into how you approach everything. I'll try to help you, here is a link to some free PDFs from among the 800 links.

http://www.int-res.com/abstracts/cr/v22/n2/

I also found this one by having a look around, something you seem incapable of doing for yourself.

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/2117/...rming-and-cooling-can-be-attributed-to-humans

One more for you to ignore!

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/...akes-a-hockey-sticky-wicket-of-mann-et-al-99/

Finally some eminent scientists who are AGW sceptics.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2010/07/eminent-physicists-skeptical-of-agw.html
Click to expand...

I told you he would attack the URL...
 
tom prendergast said:
So some of them are available by subscription only, big bloody deal. You obviously just checked the first few and concluded that they were all like that, probably that's an insight into how you approach everything. I'll try to help you, here is a link to some free PDFs from among the 800 links.

http://www.int-res.com/abstracts/cr/v22/n2/

I also found this one by having a look around, something you seem incapable of doing for yourself.

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/2117/...rming-and-cooling-can-be-attributed-to-humans

One more for you to ignore!

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/...akes-a-hockey-sticky-wicket-of-mann-et-al-99/

Finally some eminent scientists who are AGW sceptics.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2010/07/eminent-physicists-skeptical-of-agw.html
Click to expand...


your first link is to some papers from 2002, which are wildly outdated.

your second link is to a well know climate denier website, run by a dude who was completely duped by climate gate.

After that, I just stopped wasting time.

Your "technology.net" link or whatever the f it is, is run by some computer geeks who aren't scientists, and have no credibility to assess climate science. They just posted a bunch of links to paid-subscription fire walled URLs. And they evidently expanded the definition of "climate skeptic" beyond what is normally seen on the interwebs. A climate skeptic, as seen on JPP.com and by definition, is someone who either claims the warming is natural, that the scientists are lying, or that nobody has any idea what's going on. You aren't allowed to backtrack from that, since that is exactly what science deniers have been claiming for two decades on the interwebs.

The fact that some web blog dues found some papers - most of which are ancient, or from non-peer reivewed industry trade journals (aka, the Steel Manufacturers Journal) - which delve into uncertainties, and unresolved issues about climate - is not a debunking of the state of modern climate science, and does not support the preposterous claims of lying climate scientists, and "natural warming" - which is what you dudes routinely have claimed..

The only way to legitimately and credibly assess the scientific consensus on climate is through rigorous academic research of the literature and scientific community, and then have it validated through scientific peer review. Just grabbing something off an obscure blog run by some computer geeks is not credible.

For example, this is a peer reviewed article on the scientific consensus, published by in the highly prestigious Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences, published just this year....

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=678999&postcount=1

....that's an overwhelming, virtually universal consensus among actual climate researchers.


BRAVO: Harold Shapiro, a Princeton University professor and chairman of the committee that reviewed the IPCC's work, told reporters one of its reports "contains many statements that were assigned high confidence but for which there is little evidence."


and that about covers it for all the fear mongering bullshit about the end of civilization as we know it from man-made climate change....HOOOOORAAAW !
Click to expand...

Ummmm.....He's talking about IPCC working group II. Working Group II does not assess the science of climate change, dummy. .

IAC Report:

"Characterizing and communicating uncertainties. IPCC’s guidance for addressing uncertainties
in the Fourth Assessment Report urge authors to consider the amount of evidence and level of
agreement about all conclusions and to apply subjective probabilities of confidence to
conclusions when there was “high agreement, much evidence.” However, such guidance was not
always followed, as exemplified by the many statements in the Working Group II Summary for
Policy Makers that are assigned high confidence, but are based on little evidence."
Click to expand...

Working Group I assesses the science of climate change, and attributions. The other working groups assess impacts and mitigation. I think the IAC recommendations are sensible, and will make the working group II and III assessments better in the 2013 report - impacts and mitigation are still evolving areas of research, that aren't as well grounded and understood as attribution and the science of climate chage.

Bottom line: If you don't even know anything about the IPCC, or what the working groups do, please don't bother posting on an IPCC thread and making yourself look foolish.

The findings of Working Group I - the science of climate change and attribution are not challenged by this IAC report....don't take my word for it. This is reported by the highly reputable and prestigious Scientific American journal.

Scientific American
Aug 31, 2010

The IAC report is at least the sixth review of IPCC processes, procedures and outcomes in the past year. None, including the IAC, have found cause to question the underlying conclusions based on the best available science on climate change from the most recent assessment. "Manmade drivers are responsible for most of the climate change that we have experienced in the past 50 years," explained climatologist Thomas Stocker of Bern University, co-chair of the working group on the physical science of climate change for the next IPCC assessment, at the press conference following the IAC's report release. "This result has never been challenged."

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...s-ipcc-reforms

But, overall, the "IPCC's assessment process has been a success and served society well," IAC Chariman Shapiro noted. "The assessments have put IPCC on the world stage, raised public awareness of climate change, and driven policymakers to consider options for responding to climate change." That's a conclusion backed by entities ranging from the Dutch and U.S. environmental agencies (pdf) to independent academic researchers, who have all completed reviews of the IPCC's scientific claims in the past year.

And, in the end, the IPCC's errors, in this case, were errors of degree rather than fundamentals, though the IPCC retains the goal of "eliminating every questionable statement or error that it's humanly possible to prevent," said biologist Chris Field of the Carnegie Institution at Stanford University.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
tom prendergast said:
It is interesting that whenever anybody posts anything sceptical about climate change, it is immediately attacked by the usual suspects if the author is not a climatologist even if they are working in a related field. The head of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri whilst being incredibly political, mercenary and arrogant does not have any qualifications in climatology or indeed any related discipline being instead a railway engineer by training. That fact does not seemed to have stopped him so far, this latest report will probably do the trick though.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/wor...limate-change-experts-overstated-dangers.html
Click to expand...
That's a rather self contradictory post. Extremely important policy decisions are being made on this topic and they need to be made on the basis of fact and not on the basis of some hack who has a vested interest.

Are we to make policy decisions on clmiate based on the research from the best qualified scientist in that field or based upon the musings of a railroad engineer?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top