IPCC Under the Microscope

[AEGeneral]

The International Climate Science Coalition has provided 50 articles for reference about the IPCC and their "credibility."

Shouldn't you also be suspicious of an organization that seeks to imply (or fails to correct false perceptions) that
- it is impartial when it is clearly not,
- that its authors and reviewers have no vested interest when most do,
- that its climate models are accurate when they are not,
- that all reviewers support the IPCC's fundamental claims when very few explicitly do so
- that its authors have a wide range of opinions and experience when many work together or have co-authored papers together
- that all its authors support the critical claim when many merely reported on observations and far more others had to work from the assumption that the claim was correct?

The IPCC under the Microscope

[mcclane]

with the IPCC, I think the media should be slammed for selectively picking the data from the IPCC reports for public consumption.

It is a well known fact that the media has embellished the higher end of the temp increases on 'global warming', but they never mention the minimum increase. with this, it definitely spurs the public fears.

I'm currently reading Glenn Beck's An Inconvenient Book, and he makes a good point regarding global warming, it is a very complex issue, and until we know more about it we should only take reports (such as the IPCC) with a grain of salt, as the IPCC models are far from accurate.

[sunsettommy]

The real problem with the IPCC is that they started with a priori position.

They are already convinced that AGW is real and happening.So now lets go get the science behind it and then mitigate the believed coming catasrophe.

They post a report that are loaded with cherrypicked papers.It is nothing more than a META ANALYSIS report.Many that are not validated.

Then we have the ultimate example of what is wrong with the IPCC.

They made the "hockey stick" paper the featured front page propaganda news in the IPCC 2001 report.It was never reproduced by anyone because no one tried.It was an UNVERIFIED paper.That never should have been given the prominence it was given.

It was FRAUD!

[mcclane]

Originally Posted by sunsettommy

The real problem with the IPCC is that they started with a priori position.

They are already convinced that AGW is real and happening.So now lets go get the science behind it and then mitigate the believed coming catasrophe.

They post a report that are loaded with cherrypicked papers.It is nothing more than a META ANALYSIS report.Many that are not validated.

Then we have the ultimate example of what is wrong with the IPCC.

They made the "hockey stick" paper the featured front page propaganda news in the IPCC 2001 report.It was never reproduced by anyone because no one tried.It was an UNVERIFIED paper.That never should have been given the prominence it was given.

It was FRAUD!

I agree, the IPCC is a fraud !

However, the hockey stick is the biggest lie the greenies ever concocted, or specifically, the biggest omission of data the greenies have done.

If you don't mind, I'd like to add, I'm currently reading "Politically Incorrect Guide to Environmentalism and Global Warming", and the author points out that the hockey stick was put under the microscope. 2 Canadians (their names escape me but their initials put together are M&M) did disspell the hockey stick graph, however, the greenies shut them down immiediately. In other words, they put a gag order on M&M.

The hockey stick graph isn't the only thing the greenies won't allow to be reproduced in a scientific manner, other experiments (ie. their 'treasured' computer models) they refuse to let anyone look at their methods. If they are so sure of themselves, then why won't they open up their research so someone else can validate the results ? Only thing that tells me is their research is seriously flaws and their results are dubious at best.