IPCC Admits Its Past Reports Were Junk
On June 27, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a statement saying it had “complete[d] the process of implementation of a set of recommendations issued in August 2010 by the InterAcademy Council (IAC), the group created by the world’s science academies to provide advice to international bodies.”
Hidden behind this seemingly routine update on bureaucratic processes is an astonishing and entirely unreported story. […]
The IAC reported that IPCC lead authors fail to give “due consideration … to properly documented alternative views” (p. 20), fail to “provide detailed written responses to the most significant review issues identified by the Review Editors” (p. 21), and are not “consider[ing] review comments carefully and document[ing] their responses” (p. 22). In plain English: the IPCC reports are not peer-reviewed.
The IAC found that “the IPCC has no formal process or criteria for selecting authors” and “the selection criteria seemed arbitrary to many respondents” (p. 18). Government officials appoint scientists from their countries and “do not always nominate the best scientists from among those who volunteer, either because they do not know who these scientists are or because political considerations are given more weight than scientific qualifications” (p. 18). In other words: authors are selected from a “club” of scientists and nonscientists who agree with the alarmist perspective favored by politicians.
h/t Robert, and others
ET, I agree with all of your posts above. Indeed, reason is the only tool we have to understand the universe around us. Lamentably we have been moving away from this ever since the Enlightenment. Our current philosophical delusion is Post Modernism in which there is no concept of right and wrong, merely points of view.
As for fiddle, he fails to accept this important concept.
“Therefore, we must never move into a belief that resists a critical analysis.”
Years of wasted billons, political hegemony, fear profiteering just to find out something that you could have heard at any kitchen table or coffe shop in the nation – that it was all BS.
Common sense or expert opinion, which is likely to be closer to reality? Which should government heed?
As for fiddle, he fails to accept this important concept.
I accept it, I just recognize it’s limitations.
Absent recognition of God, there are only points of view. One person’s opinion is as good as another.
That’s why science can get so distorted. Even the hard sciences.
“Therefore, we must never move into a belief that resists a critical analysis.”
So, why are you resisting my critical analysis?
So,where do we go from here?
Most here knew the IPCC was a scam for years. Unless we can put our disgust into action,nothing will change for years.
The media ,for the most part,will not help. SunNews may report on this,but their audience is limited,and the same people who support this hoax want to shut them down.
The world economy is swirling the bowl,once that goes,we will have chaos. Best get used to rice and beans,and hope that there isn’t a vacuum filled by those who do not appreciate modern life.
Reason has come up a lot in this thread… for good reason ;>)
“The Suicide of Reason” by Lee Harris is an excellent read, it’s very thought provoking and I encourage all to pick it up this summer.
fiddle, because you’re not showing any critical analysis.
“there are only points of view. One person’s opinion is as good as another.”
This is not critical analysis. It’s Post Modernism, and it’s an intellectual disease of the worst sort.
Even worse, you appear to believe that because some specific examples of what is claimed to be science is corrupt, all of it is corrupt. This again is Post Modern cant.
Newton’s Law of Gravitation, Gallileo’s Law of Motion, Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, the Three Laws of Thermodynamics and many many more are NOT mere opinion or points of view. They reflect the very best understanding of the physical universe at this time. We say “at this time”, because as ET noted above human knowledge is always imperfect and incomplete.
Until you can accept that there are some absolute realities in this universe independent of religion you are just as mistaken philosophically as the Greens and their Gaia worship.
Wallyj, a very good question indeed, and I have no definitive answers. All I am certain of is that there’s nothing more resistant to burial after its died is a UN process. I suspect what will happen is that annual climate conflabs, the COP conferences, will go on year after year. At the same time, the government delegations will get lower and lower ranked. Heads of state are now staying away, in five or six years, Ministers of the Environment will be avoiding it.
Principally it will only end when the United States, the worlds biggest funder of AGW research, cuts drastically its budget for this through NASA and EPA. But for the moment there’s still far too much money driving this circus of fools.
Fanatics are in all philosophies. No doubt a ‘critical analysis’ of the fanatics of reason is in order.
fiddle, because you’re not showing any critical analysis.
I guess I’m just not fanatical enough…suppose you, at least, have that much in common with the Islamists.
The wisest man in history once wrote:
“As dead flies give perfume a bad smell,
so a little folly outweighs wisdom and honor.
The heart of the wise inclines to the right,
but the heart of the fool to the left.
Even as he walks along the road,
the fool lacks sense
and shows everyone how stupid he is.”
In other words man’s reason is fallible and highly suspect. Fools who deny God (A fool says in his heart, ‘there is no God’) have a form of reasoning that is severely handicapped. Those who believe there is a God have a slightly better history of reasoning but like all of humanity they are limited by their capacity, their experience and their core beliefs.
Then of course there are those who simply set out to deceive. The IPCC falls into this category and heaven help those thusly deceived for no one is looking out for them.
Once again, everyone here blindly and obediently jumps on the bandwagon without bothering to first read the source document. Seriously, folks, do you really think you’re in a position to critique scientific work when you can’t even manage even the most basic fact-checking to separate the reality from the spin?
To wit:
1. The American Thinker and Kate would lead you to believe that one of the report’s findings is that, “IPCC lead authors fail to give “due consideration … to properly documented alternative views” (p. 20)”
In fact, here is what the report actually says: “Recommendation: Lead Authors should explicitly document that a range of scientific viewpoints has been considered, and Coordinating Lead Authors and Review Editors should satisfy themselves that due consideration was given to properly documented alternative views.” (p. 18)
2. Another of the report’s findings, as filtered through the AT and SDA’s ideological blinders: “IPCC lead authors fail to “provide detailed written responses to the most significant review issues identified by the Review Editors” (p. 21)”
Actual wording from the report: “The IPCC should adopt a more targeted and effective process for responding to reviewer comments. In such a process, Review Editors would prepare a written summary of the most significant issues raised by reviewers shortly after review comments have been received. Authors would be required to provide detailed written responses to the most significant review issues identified by the Review Editors, abbreviated responses to all noneditorial comments, and no written responses to editorial comments.”
3. “IPCC lead authors are not “consider[ing] review comments carefully and document[ing] their responses” (p. 22). In plain English: the IPCC reports are not peer-reviewed.”
Actual wording: “A near-universal observation—made in presentations, interviews, and responses to the questionnaire—was the need to strengthen the authority of the Review Editors to ensure that authors consider the review comments carefully and document their responses.” (p. 20)
Davenport,
1. They didn’t give any consideration to alternate documented views.
2. As the IPCC’s own reviewers’ records showed, they failed to provide any response to many of the most serious critiques of their work.
3. The IPCC did include non-peer reviewed work.
Joe, who says he’s the wisest man in history? You? I have better things to do with my time than refute mystics quoting doggerel verse.
Fiddle, that all you got? Crude insults? You lose. And you still haven’t dealt with my point that you’re simply spouting post-modernist cant.
Agreed, cgh.
Davenport – the recommendations were made because the IPCC was failing to carry out these actions. A report doesn’t recommend action if it’s already being done.
Joe – your ‘fools who deny god’ is an unproven assertion and sounds very much like the assertions of the Islamists – and the Inquisition and heresy trials.
Same with fiddle; his assertion [absent recognition of god, there are only points of view] is itself simply a point of view and closed to critical analysis. You either believe it or you don’t; there’s no evidence or logic.
Same with fiddle; his assertion [absent recognition of god, there are only points of view] is itself simply a point of view and closed to critical analysis.
If there weren’t only points of view, everyone would be in agreement. Duh…
fiddle, you make me ashamed.
ET’s kindness and intelligence always shine through.
Well I understand why ET has never read the Bible. She can’t understand it. even in plain English! Just to be clear here dearie, A fool says in his heart ‘there is no God’ is not the same as ‘all fools’. The idea in the original statement is that the atheist position is foolishness because it limits one’s possible plausible explanations of why things happen. Its kind of like saying the earth is flat. The sun goes around the earth. That something came from nothing. All three of which are defensible if you use only simple reason and logic. None of which are true. Ergo reason and logic are not sufficient guides to explain reality. But rather reason and logic must be based in Truth. However you consistently reject Truth so you are back in the hog wallow of nonsense of trying to use fallible reason and logic as guides. Another analogy used by Truth is you are trying to build a mansion on sand without any foundation.