The scandal deepens – IPCC AR4 riddled with non peer reviewed WWF papers

Oh, my wellbeing is just fine and dandy, thanks 😉
Call me a troll all you like, Richard, but the article says the IPCC broke its rules when it didn’t. Someone didn’t do their homework and is making misguided accusations.
Sorry if you don’t like that. It’s how it is. Personally, if they allow only peer reviewed and published science into AR5 I’ll be fine with that.

will only succeed in finding people either afflicted with [snip] myopia
“It’s not my fault”, I blame Freud!

‘Commonsense’ said’
“Sea level rise: WORST CASE SCENARIO: 50-60 cm for 2100. Now likely SLR will be between 1 and 2 meters!”
Would you like to link to the ludicrous study that explains this figure. Then read Chapter 5 of TAR4. Then change your name.
Tonyb

the finest Nobel-prize-winning liturchur of the 21st century, and the perfect car wax, foot rub, dentu-creme, and hair stimulant for any tree-hugging greenie watermelon to take to their personal hug-box…
Yes, mike, and that’s exactly why I reject the 4AR: it doesn’t guarantee “male enhancement”.

“Misanthropic Scott (12:46:09) :
And still the planet warms … despite weaker solar output … despite the opinions of retired meteorologists that have no expertise in climatology … despite ExxonMobil funded denial”
We don’t need ExxonMobil’s money, sockpuppet. The honor is enough. Liar.

IPCC = International Pack of Climate Crooks

As far as I can see the main problem is not that there are some crap lurking in the IPCC reports. The problem is that ther is an IPCC at all – the rest is inherent.
I do recognize that there might be some use of science as background material to the work of international bodies. But the first problem is that the reports are assigned some kind of official status: “this is the official stand of todays science”, which in it self is doubious. I do compare with governments, which are in need of economic forecasts, where as theirs are only one in a chourus consisting of universities, various official bodies, bodies of special interests, banks and others. There is a debate, and no science is settled, even though some data and some model needs to be used in e.g. the budget for the next fiscal year.
The second problem is that the IPCC tries to get the best of science, and that it has to be administered, and edited. That necessitates a small and powerful group of people, which is hard to have a check on. Furthermore, since it is an UN body, there will always be pressure from different counries to have their interests specially regarded, and after all it all has to be adopted by the governments.
The third problem is that the IPCC has as it’s mission not to do research on wether or not there is an AGW, but to assume there is one, and to calculate its costs and effects. This creates a huge infrastructure and considerable amount of work by scientists who are not studying the climate, but rather agriculture, economics, demography and so on. They all need to rely on predictions by the weather people. This leads up to
the fourth problem, which is how it is recieved by the public and by politicians. Partly this is a function of what is produced and presented. There is some description of current, as well as past, climate, which has shown to be doubious in many aspects. There is also the predictions, which have proven hard to crack, and there is the consequences part, which is to most people overwhelming. Part of this problem is the rethoric used: in the AR:s there are a couple of predictions varying in the range from “hard times ahead” to “catastrophy around the corner”. There is no room for any assumption that the theories are all wrong (or that “understanding is incomplete”)! There is no “IF”. Between the AR:s they portion out minor reports telling that it is all worse than they previously concieved.
IMHO you will always find some data series going in a “dangerous direction” if you have enough points of measurments, and if you can control the reference data (i.e. time range, range of locations etc.). The underlying problem is that there is little or no room for news of thy type “nothing has happend”. As far as I know only the recent cold snap in Europe and North America made its way to the headlines of the main media, and it will be more soon to be forgotten, and lost from minds of the public, than what kind of change was promised in the las election campaigns.
My conclusion is that the best interest of science is to close the IPCC. I can’t see any good and meaningful purpose fullfilled with a such body. What I can see is rather that it creates more problems than it solves.

“The ‘scandal’ deepens … ”
Nonsense, this was a tragedy to begin with, the whole thing a farce from the get go, attempts to fool none but fools.
(Right Ben Santer of LLNL? Don’t you agree with my assessment of what IPCC is? Just how long did you think this house of cards would hold up?}
Obviously people like Ben Santer aren’t going to admit this was a total farce, they’ll cling to it and continue to rail against the critics.
It isn’t going away until there are too few people left to sustain it – and that circle grows smaller by the day.
I can howl about it until I’m out of breath – but it is going to take the people who once supported it to really bring it down.
Too bad, Santer, you and your pals at CRU in East Anglia thought you could perpetuate this farce forever.
I have no sympathy for anyone responsible for this disaster

D. Patterson (15:34:24) :”…the numerical values misrepresented and used by the IPCC in AR4 as “observations” to validate their model predictions constitute an historical fiction of dubious scientific validity when used to validate AGW.”
——————————————————–
Actually, I was referring to the Copenhagen Diagnosis which shows that model projections in AR4, and observations up until late 2009, concur.

Read with attention this one, about REAL Sea Level Rise vs. IPCC predictions:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise-predictions.htm

commonsense (16:46:41) :
From: GRACE – Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment:
The Earth’s gravity signal changes day-to-day, even minute by minute. The image above shows how the average variability in Earth’s gravity field in August 2002 compared to the yearly average of 2001. The red and pink areas show where the variation measured in August 2002 is the most different from the variation measured for the year 2001, while the blue and purple areas show where the variation measured in August 2002 is just about the same as the variation measured for the year 2001. The variability has to be accounted for using models in order to produce a mean gravity field that is useful for hydrologic applications. (Image credit: Paul Thompson / UT-CSR)”
http://www.csr.utexas.edu/grace/publications/fact_sheet/3.html
The image shows LESS water mass from 2001 to 2002 and uplift caused by the Indian subcontinent in the Asia and the Pacific plate uplifting in Western North America, and an INCREASE in mass in Antarctica; and perhaps a low pressure cell in the South East Pacific Ocean uplifting the water there (or a mantle flow, or some other noise).
Did you check for yourself or are you just repeating something your masters have told you. You may have been misinformed. And note also that GRACE can NOT measure to the precision that you attribute to it (equivalent roughly to 1 mm/yr of sea-level-rise). Such a measurement would be lost in the noise of air pressure, tectonics and geomorphology in general.
Either way you are wrong, again.