The IPCC Review: When Science-Deniers End Up with Egg on their Face, Part 9,452

[Cypress]

Professors Bravo, Dixie, Tom: you and your merry band of Climate Gaters have provided the Rupert Murdoch interpretation spin on the IPCC report:

From recent jpp.com posts:

Tom Prendergast/Rupert Murdoch: “IPCC Savaged!!!”

Bravo: “Climate Hoax!! IPCC found badly wanting!!”

Those are interesting choices of words: “savaged”, “badly wanting”, “climate hoax!”

Based on the crack reporting of your Rupert Murdoch Tabloids, you clearly suggest the IAC report debunked, annihilated, undermined, or otherwise “slammed” the IPCC, no? That the science is either in serious doubt, or as Bravo says a complete “hoax”.

Now, I think we should actually ask the Chairman of the very IAC Committee you are relying on to make your Rupert Murdoch-esque claims, what his opinion is….

September 2nd Interview with Dr. Shapiro, Chairman of the IAC Panel which Reviewed the IPCC

-Question: “If your panel concluded generally that the IPCC’s procedure is reasonable, even if it could use improvement, doesn’t that implicitly suggest that the science is sound?”

-IAC Chairman Shapiro: “Yes, I think that’s fair. It suggests that it was convincing enough — this organization is not a fraud, this organization wasn’t perpetuating some sort of criminal act on us all (Note: refer to Bravo’s claims of “climate fraud!!”, as above) — in fact, it’s extraordinary the number of scientists who participated….”

-Question: “Has the press done a good job of reporting accurately on your report?”

-IAC Chairman Shapiro: “Overall I’d say yes, it is a pretty fair treatment, especially if you overlook the headlines and read the actual articles. There are some publications that are pursuing their own objectives and distorting the message. We made some comments to the effect that [the IPCC] ought to be more careful in using non-peer-reviewed literature, and one headline came out in Europe saying we said: “the data is terrible.” Of course, we said nothing of the kind. But I think overall what I’ve seen so far has been reasonable.”

http://www.climatecentral.org/break...mate_science_assessment_process_despite_flaws

There you have it, hombres.

The crack reporting of the Rupert Murdoch press, as reproduced by the JPP.com anti-science contingent, got it flat-out wrong. . All sane and reasonable people can agree that the editorial choices of words by Rupert Murdoch, Bravo, and TomPrendergast, like “savaged” and “climate hoax” are complete misrepresentations – actually fabrications – that are unsupported by the IAC report and it’s Chairman

Unsurprisingly, Dr. Shapiro is agreeing with exactly what I said routinely, from the outset: the IPCC science is sound, and they are simply recommending administrative policies and procedures, to make the IPCC even better.

Will wonders never cease? My take on the IAC report was essentially completely correct. And the Rupert Murdoch/JPP.com anti-science contingent totally bungled it. Again.

Didn’t I tell you denialist dudes days ago, that you should put the cork back in the champagne bottle before this blew up in your faces, like climate gate did? Hey man, I’m just looking out for y’all’s best interests. I was trying to save you from complete embarrassment again.

Now, if you want confirmation that the IPCC scientific synthesis is sound, don’t just take Dr. Shapiro’s or my word for it.

The IPCC scientific synthesis has been reviewed multiple times this year by other prestigious scientific bodies. And in every single case, those organizations found the IPCC scientific synthesis to, overall, be sound and authoritative.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Review of IPCC and “Climate Gate” Emails, July 29, 2010

”EPA’s review shows that climate science is credible, compelling, and growing stronger”.

Claim: (Anti-climate science) Petitioners say that errors in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report call the entire body of work into question.

EPA Response: Of the alleged errors, EPA confirmed only two in a 3,000 page report. The first pertains to the rate of Himalayan glacier melt and second to the percentage of the Netherlands below sea level. IPCC issued correction statements for both of these errors. The errors have no bearing on Administrator Jackson’s decision. None of the errors undermines the basic facts that the climate is changing in ways that threaten our health and welfare.

http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpres...56eb0d86757cb7568525776f0063d82f!OpenDocument

***************************************************************************

Dutch Government’s assessment of IPCC:

“Overall the summary conclusions are considered well founded and none were found to contain any significant errors.”

“Our findings do not contradict the main conclusions of the IPCC on impacts, adaptation and vulnerability related to climate change. There is ample observational evidence of natural systems being influenced by climate change on regional levels. The negative impacts under unmitigated climate change in the future pose substantial risks to most parts of the world, with risks increasing at higher global average temperatures.”

“Realistically speaking, a thousand-page assessment by hundreds of authors involving thousands of reviewers conducted within a limited timeframe could hardly be expected to be free of errors. Therefore, it is to be expected that some inaccuracies, insufficiently justified statements or other irregularities, escape even the most thorough drafting and review procedures.”

http://www.pbl.nl/en/publications/2...cted-regional-impacts-in-the-2007-report.html

http://www.pbl.nl/images/500216002_tcm61-48119.pdf

In Summary

(1) The Chairman of the IAC panel to review the IPCC, agrees that the science is “sound”.

(2) The Chair of the IAC panel to review the IPCC concurs with exactly what I’ve said from the outset: the recommendations are for administrative and procedural measure to make the IPCC even better.

(3) Not only does the Chairman of the IAC panel concur that the science is “sound”, but multiple independent reviews of the IPCC assessment from prestigious scientific organizations this year concluded that the IPCC assessments, overall, are well founded and sound.

(4) The Rupert Murdoch tabloid reporting on the IAC panel completely – and probably intentionally – mischaracterized the IAC report.

It is also worth noting that denialists – when they were prematurely popping champagne corks - cited the InterAcademy Council (IAC) as a reputable and unimpeachable source of scientific information.

I agree. The IAC is an institution made up of the world’s National Science Academies.

Not only did the Chairman of the IAC ipcc review panel say that the science of climate change is sound, but the IAC and the world’s National Science Academies have routinely issued collective statements saying that human-caused climate change is a major concern, and that human GHG emissions must be reduced.

Good to see the denialists finally and belatedly recognize IAC as an unimpeachable and reputable source of climate science information.

Future Predictions:

After yet another “Climate Gate”-style bungle, and after yet more egg ended up on the face of our merry band of science denialists, there are three possible outcomes in the near future:

1) Climate-denialists back track and now claim that the IAC is in league with, and is providing cover for, a global cabal of lying climate scientists.
2) Climate-denialists will continue to pathetically cling to their Rupert Murdoch tabloid headlines that this IAC report “savaged” the IPCC, in spite of the clear and unequivocal statements of the IAC debunking those Rupert Murdoch tabloid claims.
3) Climate-denialists will engage in sober introspection, admit they were wrong on the IAC report, and on Climate Gate.


My analysis?

The statistical odds of the first two predictions happening is close to 100%

The odds for the third prediction to come true is about zero percent.

Well, that concludes another hilarious melt down in climate science denial. I tried to warn you about premature champagne cork popping; consider it a public service my part…..I hate to see you dudes constantly owned, or manipulated or mislead by your Rupert Murdoch tabloids. In spite of the, frankly hilarious, comedy value of it all. Hasta, senoritas!

 

[tinfoil]

we don't even read your posts, warmer. We've heard all yolur arguments and have shown your authority to be far less than the scientific champion you and your fellow warmers dream it to be.

You can't change that they used NGO propaganga and passed it off as peer reviewed.

You can't change the fact that they sent emails to conspire to alter the records.

So post away with your endless IPCC citations. they have no credibility except in government circles, FOR NOW!.

We're going to vote the warmers out

 

[zappasguitar]

we don't even read your posts, warmer. We've heard all yolur arguments and have shown your authority to be far less than the scientific champion you and your fellow warmers dream it to be.

You can't change that they used NGO propaganga and passed it off as peer reviewed.

You can't change the fact that they sent emails to conspire to alter the records.

So post away with your endless IPCC citations. they have no credibility except in government circles, FOR NOW!.

We're going to vote the warmers out

Too cowardly to even READ the opposing view's comments, eh?

Why am I not surprised??

 

[Cypress]

we don't even read your posts, warmer. We've heard all yolur arguments and have shown your authority to be far less than the scientific champion you and your fellow warmers dream it to be.

You’d be dead wrong, mate. A lot of stressed-out flat earthers read my informed commentary on climate science. Shit man, Dixie is dedicating climate threads to me based on shit I wrote, and I’ve got various and sundry other Climate Gate Clowns dancing like monkeys desperately trying to find peer-reviewed science to substantiate their flat-earth denialist speculations and musings. I’ve so completely owned you dudes that you’re now afraid to even post your ridiculous rightwing denial-o-sphere "science" blogs written by mining company stock analysts or by mentally disturbed “mushroom researchers".

You can't change that they used NGO propaganga and passed it off as peer reviewed.

You can't change the fact that they sent emails to conspire to alter the records.

So post away with your endless IPCC citations. they have no credibility except in government circles, FOR NOW!.

We're going to vote the warmers out

I also see you’ve also been reduced to a quivering pile of jello, and have had to revert to your old standby: a fantastical, global conspiracy theory of lying climate scientists.

Bottom line bro: the IAC Chairman – the chairman of the report you dudes were popping champagne corks over – himself concurs that the IPCC scientific assessment is, overall, solid.

That's embarrassing man. It seems like only yesterday that the denial-o-sphere was partying like it was 1999 (h/t-Prince), over this report.

And multiple other independent reviews conducted this year by the Dutch Government, the US Environmental Protection Agency, and the US National Research Council have explicitly endorsed or validated the IPCC 2007 assessment’s finding.

The tiny paltry handful of legitimate, peer reviewed studies you’ve posted , I’ve completely destroyed. Because if you had bothered to read your own papers, you would have seen they implicitly admitted that significant climate change is underway, and they never contended that there wasn’t a significant human-caused signal in it. They just whined about the alleged superiority of some statistical methods they learned about from some economics text books.

Some other dude on the board tried to pop the champagne cork about some denialist paper written in 2009. But that paper has been demolished by a peer-reviewed rebuttal in the very same Journal by a team of preeminent and prestigious climate scientists. And, as is customary, the denialist authors were invited to defend their research with a peer reviewed response.

Their response was laughed out of peer review. I’ve never heard of that happening in a leading journal. Not saying its never happened, but the fact that their attempted rebuttal was laughed out of peer review and won’t be published in JGR is a clear and unambiguous sign that the denialist paper is now considered a laughing stock of incompetent science.

No offense Tinfoil dude...but this climate crap is too easy for me, man. One of the most scientifically-trained and literate posters who’s ever been on this board once told me once that I was wasting time with flat earth denialists. But, it’s a guilty pleasure for me, so sue me! I'm not even formally trained in climate science, and if a hack like me can take apart your denial-o-shere horseshit simply by looking at reputable and internationally-recognized scientific organization’s websites, what do you think a real climate scientist would do to you flat earthers?

My guess is that while I simply reduce y’all to quivering, angry balls of jello, a real climate scientist would probably make ya'll cry like a little girls.

Oh well, you have my permission to keep reading your "science" blogs written by rightwing stock analysts, by mentally-disturbed "mushroom researchers", and you may continue to rely on the crack-reporting of some Rupert Murdoch-owned tabloid newspapers. I think my work is totally done, when your are reduced to sobbing about some conspiracy theories. Cheers!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Too cowardly to even READ the opposing view's comments, eh?

Why am I not surprised??

There is no "opposing view" ...only idiots who are ignorant of the facts, or too hard-headed to admit they were wrong. There USED to be an 'opposing view' ...back when there was a tenable theory to support the view of AGW.

It's really pathetic that Prissy has resorted to scouring statements in order to find a sentence which sounds like someone credible admitted the IPCC wasn't horrible and intentionally fraudulent. I guess that 'fact' is now supposed to mean the AGW theories are valid and legitimate again? These fraudulent manipulators of data and statistics, who have literally destroyed much of the original data and actively attempted to suppress data for nearly a decade, aren't such bad guys, they are really nice people who had the best of intentions! So we can all just overlook the past, and pick up where we left off!

No, really... we have Prissy's word on it!