New errors in IPCC climate change report

[jamesrage]

I am sure the religious zealots and devout believers of the man made global warming fairy tale religion will disregard this story.

New errors in IPCC climate change report - Telegraph

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) report is supposed to be the world’s most authoritative scientific account of the scale of global warming.

But this paper has discovered a series of new flaws in it including:

* The publication of inaccurate data on the potential of wave power to produce electricity around the world, which was wrongly attributed to the website of a commercial wave-energy company.

* Claims based on information in press releases and newsletters.

* New examples of statements based on student dissertations, two of which were unpublished.

* More claims which were based on reports produced by environmental pressure groups.

They are the latest in a series of damaging revelations about the IPCC’s most recent report, published in 2007.

Last month, the panel was forced to issue a humiliating retraction after it emerged statements about the melting of Himalayan glaciers were inaccurate.

Last weekend, this paper revealed that the panel had based claims about disappearing mountain ice on anecdotal evidence in a student’s dissertation and an article in a mountaineering magazine.

And on Friday, it emerged that the IPCC’s panel had wrongly reported that more than half of the Netherlands was below sea level because it had failed to check information supplied by a Dutch government agency.

Researchers insist the errors are minor and do not impact on the overall conclusions about climate change.

However, senior scientists are now expressing concern at the way the IPCC compiles its reports and have hit out at the panel’s use of so-called “grey literature” — evidence from sources that have not been subjected to scientific *scrutiny.

 

[ptif219]

Time to dump Kyoto and cap and trade NOW

 

[Deuce]

Time to dump Kyoto and cap and trade NOW

You guys are grasping at straws.

 

[ptif219]

You guys are grasping at straws.

Looking at the facts or should I say the lack of facts coming out from the IPCC's history.

 

[Renae]

You guys are grasping at straws.

Which facts listed above are "straws"?

 

[rebelbuc]

If man-caused global warming, climate change, Earth fever, or whatever you want to call it is real, imminent, and destructive to mankind, then why does the IPCC and so many government-paid "scientists" have to collude, lie, exaggerate, hide the truth, and use invalid sources and data in a lame attempt to prove their point? The only ones buying the IPCC line are scheming politicians, complicit media, and scientists who are sucking up huge government grants... oh and also little indoctrinated children.

And, if the IPCC is right in their assertions, why has recent history proven the IPCC wrong in every climate model prediction that it stands behind?

 

[Deuce]

If man-caused global warming, climate change, Earth fever, or whatever you want to call it is real, imminent, and destructive to mankind, then why does the IPCC and so many government-paid "scientists" have to collude, lie, exaggerate, hide the truth, and use invalid sources and data in a lame attempt to prove their point? The only ones buying the IPCC line are scheming politicians, complicit media, and scientists who are sucking up huge government grants... oh and also little indoctrinated children.

And, if the IPCC is right in their assertions, why has recent history proven the IPCC wrong in every climate model prediction that it stands behind?

Because climate modeling is so vastly complicated that people will make errors. Nobody is ever going to have a 100% accurate model. What we've discovered is that the Titanic is sinking at a rate that is different than what we previously believed. You're arguing that the Titanic is actually floating just fine.

This is how science works. You hypothesize, test, and adjust your hypothesis based on your findings. You do that a few thousand times and you gradually make your way closer to an accurate model of how things are working.

The margin of error is steadily shrinking, and the arrow still points towards a serious issue we're partially responsible for.

 

[Renae]

Because climate modeling is so vastly complicated that people will make errors. Nobody is ever going to have a 100% accurate model.

DUH. We cannot get a forecast right more then 3-5 days out, and that's iffy sometimes as well. Depends on the model being used, and the type of system.

What we've discovered is that the Titanic is sinking at a rate that is different than what we previously believed. You're arguing that the Titanic is actually floating just fine.

The Earth has a very complicated atmosphere, and it changes, each year is different, each decade, each century. Why do you believe that sudden;y that's going to change because we do anything so insignificant as change a light bulb, or drive a hybrid?

This is how science works. You hypothesize, test, and adjust your hypothesis based on your findings. You do that a few thousand times and you gradually make your way closer to an accurate model of how things are working.

Science also requires a very healthy dose of skepticism, open and honest evaluations of the data, and most importantly, HONEST data. IF science was a matter that could be settled by committee, then Einstein was an idiot.

The margin of error is steadily shrinking, and the arrow still points towards a serious issue we're partially responsible for.

No, the political dogma is that we are "responsible" and we can "do something about it". The earth doesn't need Government regulation, it's governed by a far high power.

 

[ptif219]

Because climate modeling is so vastly complicated that people will make errors. Nobody is ever going to have a 100% accurate model. What we've discovered is that the Titanic is sinking at a rate that is different than what we previously believed. You're arguing that the Titanic is actually floating just fine.

This is how science works. You hypothesize, test, and adjust your hypothesis based on your findings. You do that a few thousand times and you gradually make your way closer to an accurate model of how things are working.

The margin of error is steadily shrinking, and the arrow still points towards a serious issue we're partially responsible for.

Translation:it is all BS from the IPCC and climate scientist

 

[Deuce]

Thousands of scientists. Decades of work. All of them are wrong.

Because you know better.

 

[ptif219]

Thousands of scientists. Decades of work. All of them are wrong.

Because you know better.

No we have seen instance after instance for the last few months where they are not credible and they have no integrity.

Their lies and cheating is being revealed week after week yet you want to ignore it.

 

[Renae]

Thousands of scientists. Decades of work. All of them are wrong.

Because you know better.

Many years ago, this guy named Copernicus, said some crazy **** about the Earth revolving around the sun... yeah, thousands of years of consensus thrown out the window because of him.

How about that stuff, called light, took how long for man to figure out it even moved?

 

[Gill]

Thousands of scientists. Decades of work. All of them are wrong.

Because you know better.

Not true. Far less than a hundred climate scientists actually write the IPCC reports.

The remaining hundred or so peer review the report and for the most part are totally ignored when they raise objections about some portion of it.

There's not remotely close to "thousands" of climate scientists in the world.

 

[justabubba]

another one of these threads which make bold assertions that the science is all wrong

but then when prompted, the poster is unable to offer cites and specifics about what was wrong with the science

when pressed for such information, that poster will simply open up a new thread on the same old, unsubstantiated claims that the science is flawed

 

[Gill]

another one of these threads which make bold assertions that the science is all wrong

but then when prompted, the poster is unable to offer cites and specifics about what was wrong with the science

when pressed for such information, that poster will simply open up a new thread on the same old, unsubstantiated claims that the science is flawed

Just as you are unable or unwilling to give examples of what you are talking about??

 

[Ockham]

another one of these threads which make bold assertions that the science is all wrong

but then when prompted, the poster is unable to offer cites and specifics about what was wrong with the science

when pressed for such information, that poster will simply open up a new thread on the same old, unsubstantiated claims that the science is flawed

You exaggerate in order to score points - be factual instead. There are anomalies in the data which must be reconciled. These anomalies give credence to the growing view that man made global warming may also have been exaggerated and open a view that it may not be man made at all. Detractors are not all in the camp of global warming denial - but many are; some are in the camp that global warming may be occurring but argue it's not man made.

Rebuttal of the anomalies would be a good start on your part, since these anomalies are not the same old unsubstantiated claims, nor are the facts that scientists in the past year have made a concerted effort to cover up data facts which do not align with their global warming view. A view I might add, which demands billions of world wide dollars and moves country's to enact environmental policy which aligns with the environmental ideologies of many of these same scientists. Simple denial and dismissal won't work any more. Sorry.

 

[Erod]

Thousands of scientists. Decades of work. All of them are wrong.

Because you know better.

What about the SCIENTISTS who say they are wrong, but get completely ignored and shunned by the msm?

 

[Alvin T. Grey]

If man-caused global warming, climate change, Earth fever, or whatever you want to call it is real, imminent, and destructive to mankind, then why does the IPCC and so many government-paid "scientists" have to collude, lie, exaggerate, hide the truth, and use invalid sources and data in a lame attempt to prove their point? The only ones buying the IPCC line are scheming politicians, complicit media, and scientists who are sucking up huge government grants... oh and also little indoctrinated children.

I'm going to ask for a "Why" again.....

 

[ptif219]

Since all this negative stories of corruption and fraud came out I have not heard a word from Gore.

Where is he and why is the press not asking him how this can be?

 

[American]

Thousands of scientists. Decades of work. All of them are wrong.

Because you know better.

Trillions of scientists (even from other galaxies), centuries of work (combined man-hours), and it's all wrong. :mrgreen:

 

[Deuce]

No we have seen instance after instance for the last few months where they are not credible and they have no integrity.

Their lies and cheating is being revealed week after week yet you want to ignore it.

Researcher on Climate Is Cleared in Inquiry - NYTimes.com

Oh hey the allegations are false. I am so shocked.

 

[justabubba]

You exaggerate in order to score points - be factual instead. There are anomalies in the data which must be reconciled. These anomalies give credence to the growing view that man made global warming may also have been exaggerated and open a view that it may not be man made at all. Detractors are not all in the camp of global warming denial - but many are; some are in the camp that global warming may be occurring but argue it's not man made.

Rebuttal of the anomalies would be a good start on your part, since these anomalies are not the same old unsubstantiated claims, nor are the facts that scientists in the past year have made a concerted effort to cover up data facts which do not align with their global warming view. A view I might add, which demands billions of world wide dollars and moves country's to enact environmental policy which aligns with the environmental ideologies of many of these same scientists. Simple denial and dismissal won't work any more. Sorry.

look at post #21, submitted by deuce
carefully read the cite
then post your acknowledgment that you were wrong
to quote you:

Simple denial and dismissal won't work any more. Sorry

that portion, you got right. heed your own words

 

[ptif219]

Researcher on Climate Is Cleared in Inquiry - NYTimes.com

Oh hey the allegations are false. I am so shocked.

That will not help his credibility the E-Mails still show the fraud and corruption.

More scientist are looking at data and saying GW is natural.


World may not be warming, say scientists - Times Online

The doubts of Christy and a number of other researchers focus on the thousands of weather stations around the world, which have been used to collect temperature data over the past 150 years.

These stations, they believe, have been seriously compromised by factors such as urbanisation, changes in land use and, in many cases, being moved from site to site.

Christy has published research papers looking at these effects in three different regions: east Africa, and the American states of California and Alabama.

“The story is the same for each one,” he said. “The popular data sets show a lot of warming but the apparent temperature rise was actually caused by local factors affecting the weather stations, such as land development.”

The IPCC faces similar criticisms from Ross McKitrick, professor of economics at the University of Guelph, Canada, who was invited by the panel to review its last report.

The experience turned him into a strong critic and he has since published a research paper questioning its methods.

“We concluded, with overwhelming statistical significance, that the IPCC’s climate data are contaminated with surface effects from industrialisation and data quality problems. These add up to a large warming bias,” he said.

Such warnings are supported by a study of US weather stations co-written by Anthony Watts, an American meteorologist and climate change sceptic.

His study, which has not been peer reviewed, is illustrated with photographs of weather stations in locations where their readings are distorted by heat-generating equipment.

Some are next to air- conditioning units or are on waste treatment plants. One of the most infamous shows a weather station next to a waste incinerator.

Watts has also found examples overseas, such as the weather station at Rome airport, which catches the hot exhaust fumes emitted by taxiing jets.

In Britain, a weather station at Manchester airport was built when the surrounding land was mainly fields but is now surrounded by heat-generating buildings.

Terry Mills, professor of applied statistics and econometrics at Loughborough University, looked at the same data as the IPCC. He found that the warming trend it reported over the past 30 years or so was just as likely to be due to random fluctuations as to the impacts of greenhouse gases. Mills’s findings are to be published in Climatic Change, an environmental journal.

“The earth has gone through warming spells like these at least twice before in the last 1,000 years,” he said.


Climategate U-turn: Astonishment as scientist at centre of global warming email row admits data not well organised | Mail Online


Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’.

The data is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ used by climate change advocates to support the theory.

Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.

And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.

 

[Deuce]

Yes, intervention of humans via land development is affecting the temperature readouts.

Clearly this means mankind is not contributing to global temperatures.

 

[ptif219]

Yes, intervention of humans via land development is affecting the temperature readouts.

Clearly this means mankind is not contributing to global temperatures.

I showed 2 articles with scientist claiming it. Show facts don't matter to you.