Should the IPCC be dissolved?

[Jack Hays]

Just askin' . . .

The IPCC climate science crisis looms…

The timing of the fifth assessment report falls into this critical juncture where a lot of momentum has built up in favour of the current modelling practices which now prove so elusive. While the IPCC tries to make last minute rhetorical adjustments in order to accommodate anomalies, some of its participants, looking beyond, already indicate that this institution may have run its course.
​

Story at Die Klimazwiebeleace

 

[ocean515]

Just askin' . . .

The IPCC climate science crisis looms…

The timing of the fifth assessment report falls into this critical juncture where a lot of momentum has built up in favour of the current modelling practices which now prove so elusive. While the IPCC tries to make last minute rhetorical adjustments in order to accommodate anomalies, some of its participants, looking beyond, already indicate that this institution may have run its course.
​

Story at Die Klimazwiebeleace

In answer to your question. Yes.

It should have been obvious to all that credibility was absent when the "solution" to "Global Warming" er, "Climate Change" centered on the largest transfer of wealth in the history of mankind.

 

[WCH]

Just askin' . . .

The IPCC climate science crisis looms…

The timing of the fifth assessment report falls into this critical juncture where a lot of momentum has built up in favour of the current modelling practices which now prove so elusive. While the IPCC tries to make last minute rhetorical adjustments in order to accommodate anomalies, some of its participants, looking beyond, already indicate that this institution may have run its course.
​

Story at Die Klimazwiebeleace

Because instead of being an esteemed scientific body, they became part of the Agenda 21 crowd. A bunch of eugenicist tree huggers bent on world domination.

 

[ecofarm]

Because instead of being an esteemed scientific body, they became part of the Agenda 21 crowd. A bunch of eugenicist tree huggers bent on world domination.

Conspiracy?

 

[Cyrylek]

Just askin' . . .

The IPCC climate science crisis looms…

The timing of the fifth assessment report falls into this critical juncture where a lot of momentum has built up in favour of the current modelling practices which now prove so elusive. While the IPCC tries to make last minute rhetorical adjustments in order to accommodate anomalies, some of its participants, looking beyond, already indicate that this institution may have run its course.
​

Story at Die Klimazwiebeleace

In a word, yes. If someone would set out intentionally to compromise and subvert science by presenting it as inherently politicized, bureaucracy-infested and cheatingly speculative, and scientists as typically self-serving and unaccountable, he hardly could dream up a better vehicle than the Panel.

Quite apart from the biases and errors in assessing the climate change per se, the IPCC casts a long, chilling shadow on the public perception of scientific process in general.

The mismatch between the scientific, factual, data-collecting content of the reports and original publications and the political/journalistic hysterics and histrionics is lost on the general public. The abusers of science and its honest (if not always brave and selfless) practitioners are being lumped together, and this is a very unhealthy situation. Like we don't have enough anti-reason zealots running around already, from various "creationists" to the GMO-haters.

Putting the IPCC out of its misery would be a very welcome first step toward defusing the ongoing buildup of anti-science attitudes. We need to erect a wall of separation between State and Science - at least as solid as the one between State and Religion. For the sake of both, as credible institutions.

 

[Moot]

Just askin' . . .

The IPCC climate science crisis looms…

The timing of the fifth assessment report falls into this critical juncture where a lot of momentum has built up in favour of the current modelling practices which now prove so elusive. While the IPCC tries to make last minute rhetorical adjustments in order to accommodate anomalies, some of its participants, looking beyond, already indicate that this institution may have run its course.
​

Story at Die Klimazwiebeleace

If the IPCC has run it's course it's because governments can't wait seven years between reports to make critical policy decisions regarding GW. As it stands, scientists have overwhelmingly concluded that man made global warming is a settled issue and want to start focusing more on problem solving and mitigating the effects of GW. There is a growing consensus among scientists that the reports need to be produced more often and more region specific.

Scientists call for overhaul of UN 'blockbuster' climate reports | Environment | theguardian.com

 

[PirateMk1]

If the IPCC has run it's course it's because governments can't wait seven years between reports to make critical policy decisions regarding GW. As it stands, scientists have overwhelmingly concluded that man made global warming is a settled issue and want to start focusing more on problem solving and mitigating the effects of GW. There is a growing consensus among scientists that the reports need to be produced more often and more region specific.

Scientists call for overhaul of UN 'blockbuster' climate reports | Environment | theguardian.com

A lot of people bought into their crap and then when they actually looked realized they were sold crap. The science is far from settled on this.

 

[WCH]

Conspiracy?

Hardly.....look it up

 

[sangha]

Just askin' . . .

The IPCC climate science crisis looms…

The timing of the fifth assessment report falls into this critical juncture where a lot of momentum has built up in favour of the current modelling practices which now prove so elusive. While the IPCC tries to make last minute rhetorical adjustments in order to accommodate anomalies, some of its participants, looking beyond, already indicate that this institution may have run its course.
​

Story at Die Klimazwiebeleace

Here's a question that I bet the OP won't answer:

What does Jack Hayes think the answer is and why?

 

[Moot]

A lot of people bought into their crap and then when they actually looked realized they were sold crap. The science is far from settled on this.

The vast majority of the people around the world don't need the report to see global warming is happening in real time.

 

[Jack Hays]

If the IPCC has run it's course it's because governments can't wait seven years between reports to make critical policy decisions regarding GW. As it stands, scientists have overwhelmingly concluded that man made global warming is a settled issue and want to start focusing more on problem solving and mitigating the effects of GW. There is a growing consensus among scientists that the reports need to be produced more often and more region specific.

Scientists call for overhaul of UN 'blockbuster' climate reports | Environment | theguardian.com

Whatever you say.:lol::roll:

 

[Moot]

Whatever you say.:lol::roll:

Thats what the scientists said. They want to start making reports more often and more regional instead of one big blockbuster report every five to seven years. Sounds reasonable to me.

 

[Jack Hays]

Thats what the scientists said. They want to start making reports more often and more regional instead of one big blockbuster report every five to seven years. Sounds reasonable to me.

Some of those with integrity may want to escape the UN's embrace.eace

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Some of those with integrity may want to escape the UN's embrace.eace

Like Brichers, neocons and other know-nothing groups.

 

[Moot]

Some of those with integrity may want to escape the UN's embrace.eace

3,000 scientists and experts from all over the world applied to be part of IPCC. That was 50% more than applied for AR4. It doesn't look like they want to escape but rather to join up.....



"...In March 2010, the IPCC received approximately 3,000 author nominations from experts around the world. At the bureau session held in Geneva, 19–20 May 2010, the three working groups presented their selected authors and review editors for the AR5. Each of the selected scientists, specialists and experts was nominated in accordance with IPCC procedures, by respective national IPCC focal-points, by approved observer organizations, or by the bureau. The IPCC received 50% more nominations of experts to participate in AR5 than it did for AR4. A total of 559 authors and review editors had been selected for AR4 from 2,000 proposed nominees. On 23 June 2010 the IPCC announced the release of the final list of selected coordinating lead authors, comprising 831 experts who are drawn from fields including meteorology, physics, oceanography, statistics, engineering, ecology, social sciences and economics. In comparison to the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), participation from developing countries was increased, reflecting the on-going efforts to improve regional coverage in the AR5. About 30% of authors will come from developing countries or economies in transition. More than 60% of the experts chosen are new to the IPCC process, which will bring in new knowledge and perspectives.....

IPCC Fifth Assessment Report - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Jack Hays]

3,000 scientists and experts from all over the world applied to be part of IPCC. That was 50% more than applied for AR4. It doesn't look like they want to escape but rather to join up.....



"...In March 2010, the IPCC received approximately 3,000 author nominations from experts around the world. At the bureau session held in Geneva, 19–20 May 2010, the three working groups presented their selected authors and review editors for the AR5. Each of the selected scientists, specialists and experts was nominated in accordance with IPCC procedures, by respective national IPCC focal-points, by approved observer organizations, or by the bureau. The IPCC received 50% more nominations of experts to participate in AR5 than it did for AR4. A total of 559 authors and review editors had been selected for AR4 from 2,000 proposed nominees. On 23 June 2010 the IPCC announced the release of the final list of selected coordinating lead authors, comprising 831 experts who are drawn from fields including meteorology, physics, oceanography, statistics, engineering, ecology, social sciences and economics. In comparison to the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), participation from developing countries was increased, reflecting the on-going efforts to improve regional coverage in the AR5. About 30% of authors will come from developing countries or economies in transition. More than 60% of the experts chosen are new to the IPCC process, which will bring in new knowledge and perspectives.....

IPCC Fifth Assessment Report - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It offers career advantages. For some that's the most important thing.eace

 

[PirateMk1]

The vast majority of the people around the world don't need the report to see global warming is happening in real time.

Its called weather for a reason.

There has never been enough data to make a solid conclusion on GW.

 

[Moot]

Its called weather for a reason.

There has never been enough data to make a solid conclusion on GW.

It's called climate change for a reason.


The last ICPP report, AR4 was filled with over 900 pages of peer reviewed data and that was six years ago. The new report AR5 is rumored to be over 1500 pages of 'new' peer reviewed data. Apparently, with all the new data, the scientists are now 95% certain that man made global warming is occurring.

 

[Moot]

It offers career advantages. For some that's the most important thing.eace

Then their work better be accurate, eh? Otherwise, they'd go work for the Koch's.

 

[PirateMk1]

It's called climate change for a reason.


The last ICPP report, AR4 was filled with over 900 pages of peer reviewed data and that was six years ago. The new report AR5 is rumored to be over 1500 pages of 'new' peer reviewed data. Apparently, with all the new data, the scientists are now 95% certain that man made global warming is occurring.

Lets look at the problem scientifically. What is climate? Long term weather patterns, yes, no? On the order of decades centuries millennia ages, correct. What kind of data and how much do we need, and how precise do we need to get. As much and as precise and as broad as we can. So the real question is do we have enough data to make a conclusion NOW. I say no. To make GOOD computer models you need data and lots of it. The more you have the better the model. I don't think a centuries worth of data can be adequate to make a somewhat accurate computerized climate model. We do very accurate aerodynamic modeling on computers, enough so we only really need to make prototype aircraft that is out of the normal parameters. But the data to make those models is extensive and the experiments to get it were repeated over and over again. You cant do that with weather. You cant make weather do something over and over at will so as to be able to study it. That's what makes studying climate so very difficult.

 

[Moot]

Lets look at the problem scientifically. What is climate? Long term weather patterns, yes, no? On the order of decades centuries millennia ages, correct. What kind of data and how much do we need, and how precise do we need to get. As much and as precise and as broad as we can. So the real question is do we have enough data to make a conclusion NOW. I say no.

Oh, you say no and never mind what thousands of scientists, climatologists, researchers, engineers, etc doing the actual research and studying the climate have to say, huh? Have you seen all the data? Or are you drawing a false conclusion based on the limited data that you've personally seen?

To make GOOD computer models you need data and lots of it. The more you have the better the model. I don't think a centuries worth of data can be adequate to make a somewhat accurate computerized climate model. We do very accurate aerodynamic modeling on computers, enough so we only really need to make prototype aircraft that is out of the normal parameters. But the data to make those models is extensive and the experiments to get it were repeated over and over again. You cant do that with weather. You cant make weather do something over and over at will so as to be able to study it. That's what makes studying climate so very difficult.

I don't think they just rely on computer models. For instance, scientists actually go to the artic and pull ice cores to get samples of ice that go all the way back to prehistoric times. The ice contains all kinds of information about weather patterns spanning centuries. Other scientists study the effects of the sun while others study the earths upper atmosphere and others study the oceans and others study the effects of emissions and others study the polar caps and so on. Apparently theres tons of data coming in all the time and it "overwhelmingly" supports the notion that human activity is causing global warming.

A study was done on over 12,000 professional scientific journal papers about global warming, and it found that of the papers expressing a stance on global warming—97% endorsed both the reality of global warming and the fact that humans are causing it.

97%....that’s called a “consensus”.

Here's the study.....

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience

The Overwhelming Odds Of Climate Change | But Not Simpler, Scientific American Blog Network

 

[Jack Hays]

Then their work better be accurate, eh? Otherwise, they'd go work for the Koch's.

The IPCC's work hasn't been accurate. That's what all the kerfluffle is about.eace

 

[sangha]

The IPCC's work hasn't been accurate.

Neither has the DOD's.

Maybe we should dissolve that

 

[flogger]

Then their work better be accurate, eh? Otherwise, they'd go work for the Koch's.

Can you cite an example of this 'accurate' work that has been produced by the IPCC to date then ?