Tuesday, 24 September 2013

Quote of the Day: On the IPCC's new report

Publication of the IPCC AR4 in 2007 was received with international acclaim....Six and a half years later and a week before the release of the IPCC 5thAssessment Report (AR5), substantial criticisms are being made of leaked versions of the Report as well as of the IPCC process itself... What happened?

The IPCC was seriously tarnished by the unauthorized release of emails from the University of East Anglia in November 2009, known as Climategate. These emails revealed the ‘sausage making’ involved in the IPCC’s consensus building process, including denial of data access to individuals who wanted to audit their data processing and scientific results, interference in the peer review process to minimize the influence of skeptical criticisms, and manipulation of the media. Climategate was quickly followed by the identification of an egregious error involving the melting of Himalayan glaciers. These revelations were made much worse by the actual response of the IPCC to these issues. Then came the concerns about the behavior of the IPCC’s Director, Rachendra Pachauri, and investigations of the infiltration of green advocacy groups into the IPCC. All of this was occurring against a background of explicit advocacy and activism by IPCC leaders related to CO2 mitigation policies.

The IPCC does not seem to understand the cumulative impact of these events on the loss of trust in climate scientists and the IPCC process itself... Based upon early drafts of the AR5, the IPCC seemed prepared to dismiss the pause in warming as irrelevant ‘noise’ associated with natural variability. Under pressure, the IPCC now acknowledges the pause and admits that climate models failed to predict it... If the IPCC attributes to the pause to natural internal variability, then this begs the question as to what extent the warming between 1975 and 2000 can also be explained by natural internal variability. Not to mention raising questions about the confidence that we should place in the IPCC’s projections of future climate change.

- Scientist Judith Curry, "The IPCC's Inconvenient Truth"

 

11 comments:

  1. the drunken watchman24 Sep 2013, 21:46:00

    Judge Holden

    can you comment on this post please?

    ReplyDelete
  2. the drunken watchman24 Sep 2013, 21:49:00

    Judge Holden

    p.s. I am happy to comment.. if you want

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Not to mention raising questions about the confidence that we should place in the IPCC’s projections of future climate change."

    Why would anyone have confidence in a openly political organization to make an objective predication about future events that affect its own interests?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Yawn. I can't see how propaganda from the Republican Party's favourite climatologist changes the laws of physics. Can you explain that to me please?

    ReplyDelete
  5. the drunken watchman25 Sep 2013, 22:39:00

    Judge Holden

    Can you please clarify, is your yawn directed at me, or at Ugly Truth ?

    Furthermore, your yawning suggests you might be better off directing your attention to something you are more suited to commenting on?

    Regards

    ReplyDelete
  6. the drunken watchman25 Sep 2013, 22:53:00

    Judge Holden

    I am not sure what you are saying.

    Meantime, mainstream media are saying that there has been a plateau'ing of "global warming"; nothing outside natural variability for the last 15 or so years, and very little over the last century, and no accleration in tandem with accelerating CO2

    I am just not sure what you are trying to say?

    Are you saying that mainstream media has it wrong?

    If so, as I asked you before, with nothing forthcoming except insults, can you direct me to some evidence that CAGW is happening. Please?

    Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "I am not sure what you are saying."

    Read it again.

    Can you answer my question, please?

    Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  8. the drunken watchman26 Sep 2013, 17:11:00

    Judge Holden

    I dont know what it is you want me to explain.

    Obviously the laws of physics cannot be arbitrarily changed, so I cannot explain to you how they could be.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Judge Holden is a true believer. He has blind faith in this mythology. Drunken Watchman and Ugly Truth, he won't explain anything to you because he can't explain anything. His is a faith- simple as that. In the end, all he can actually tell you is that he believes in his faith and that his feelings, his gut instinct, his emotions, lead him to feel that his faith is OK somehow.

    Amit

    ReplyDelete
  10. Actually I'm just an annoying cunt who is desperate for attention.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Glad I've got your attention tvr, my unfortunate chum. Get some anger management counselling though eh? You must be hard work for your aging mother when you get shitty.

    ReplyDelete

1. Commenters are welcome and invited.
2. All comments are moderated. Off-topic grandstanding, spam, and gibberish will be ignored. Tu quoque will be moderated.
3. Read the post before you comment. Challenge facts, but don't simply ignore them.
4. Use a name. If it's important enough to say, it's important enough to put a name to.
5. Above all: Act with honour. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.