The IPCC has issued a statement about all of the criticism being heaped upon them by bloggers and journalists regarding poor sourcing of references.
Me thinks they are clueless about how to handle public relations.
Here’s the release:
Recent media interest has drawn attention to two so-called errors in the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of the IPCC, the first dealing with losses from disasters and the second on the subject of Amazon forests. The leadership of the IPCC has looked into both these instances and concluded that the challenges are without foundations. In neither case, did we find any basis for making changes in the wording of the report. We are convinced that there has been no error on those issues on the part of the IPCC. We released a statement about the disaster issue. As far as the second subject dealing with the Amazon is concerned, again, the IPCC has valid reasons for publishing the text as it stands in the report.
In response to these baseless charges, we have decided to provide details on the manner in which the IPCC has implemented its principles and procedures. These are the foundations that provide assurance on the validity and accuracy of statements made in the AR4.
Statement on IPCC principles and procedures – 2 February 2010
h/t to Richard North of the EU Referendum
In other IPCC news, it’s all a plot.
Maurice J
“in my opinion never will have any empirical evidence to support their swindle.”
What empirical evidence would you like?
Empirical measurements of the Earth’s heat content show the planet is still accumulating heat and global warming is still happening. (Murphy 2009)
In the last 35 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. Sun and climate have been going in opposite directions. (Usoskin 2005)
Since the mid 1970s, global temperatures have been warming at around 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade. (Meehle 2009)
Sea levels are measured by a variety of methods that show close agreement – sediment cores, tidal gauges, satellite measurements. What they find is sea level rise has been steadily accelerating over the past century. (Church 2008)
SteveE (00:55:36) :
So two sentences in a 1000 page document weren’t from peer reviewed journals (Although the “up to 40% of the Brazilian forest is extremely sensitive…” comment originally is from Nepstad 1994 and Nepstad 2004 which are peer reviewed). I take it that the rest of the document you don’t have problems with though as it’s from peer reviewed research and publications?
We have proof that they were willing to include things solely to promote activism, such as the glaciers info. What proof do we have that the rest of the document doesn’t suffer from the taint?
Re: SteveE (Feb 4 00:55),
You just don’t get it do you? For years alarmists have been shouting down skeptics with “peer review peer review, nothing counts except peer review”
So now we know. Added to the fact that WG1 cabal of Mann Jones et al hijacked the peer review process leaves the rest of the IPCC documents open to doubt.
Your ignorance is palpable
kadaka (04:17:14) :
We have proof that they were willing to include things solely to promote activism, such as the glaciers info. What proof do we have that the rest of the document doesn’t suffer from the taint?
You don’t actually have proof that they included things solely to promote activism, you have proof that they made a mistake by not check the origin of that one comment.
Why don’t you try and find the proof that the rest of the document is incorrect? So far you found that the the glacier comment was mistake. Surely if it’s all wrong as you seem to suggest, it’d be easy to disprove the whole thing as false.
It’s easy to make a mistake as Mr Watts found out with the surfacestations.org project. The results indicate that yes, there is a bias associated with poor exposure sites; poor sites show a cooler maximum temperature compared to good sites. (Menne 2010)
Easy mistake to make, but a very worth while project to do which will hopefully shine further light on the US temperature record.
The notion that the “UK Greenpeace director calls for removal of UN IPCC Chair” in order to restore ‘faith’ in the climate science is an acute oxymoron under the circumstances. To call for the head of THE HEAD of the IPCC is to call into question the very climate science itself, given the commanding heights it has occupied as adjudicator and disseminator of this new ‘truth’. What we are really watching is the death throes of the IPCC and all who sailed with it. Pachauri can resign in disgrace or be sacked but the political shockwaves emanating from either course will be fatal to AGW and all the players and actors who have sailed with the IPCC must know it deep down. They must now play out this inevitable Shakespearean tragedy illuminating their fatal conceit and human folly. The lesson is a timeless one for us all whereby an unelected and self-appointed claque gain ultimate power and begin the inevitable path to superior self-belief and human invincibility. They cannot posibbly conceive of their own hubris, shortcomings and eccentricities now, but must run about in ever decreasing circles until they disappear up their own fundamental orifices.
Simply put these were self-appointed leftists, gathering together to do the usual. Remake their utopian world in their mind’s eye or more succinctly their own image and history screams at us down the ages just how that will all end. We are watching that and their agonising death throes right now. It’s rivetting stuff really.
Lets get this straight. The IPCC WG2 and WG3 documents rely wholly and solely on the conclusions of WG1. Therefore the numerous errors and suppositions in WG1 leave WG2 and WG3 totally useless.
Furthermore, the whole AGW scam relies on the premise that the warming of the 20th C was UNPRECEDENTED. In view of the fact that it is now patently obvious that this is not so, even fools should at least raise an eyebrow as to the veracity of the IPCC reports.
Furthermore, the IPCC was setup by the UNFCCC. Article 2 of the UNFCCC specifies the ultimate objective of the Convention and states:
‘The ultimate objective of this Convention and any related
legal instruments that the Conference of the Parties may adopt
is to achieve, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the
Convention, stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations
in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous
anthropogenic interference with the climate system.
In other words, this was a done deal way back in 1992 as a result of the Rio summit. Everything subsequent to that has been biased, a one team football match if you will. (as proof, there are no dissenting papers in the reports AT ALL, not one, nadda).
Furthermore, the various doubts cast on the surface temperature records, which supposedly show high levels of warming especially since the 80’s should raise the other eyebrow above ones hairline.
So yes SteveE (00:55:36) : I not only have a problem with the other 1000 pages of AR4, I have a problem with the TAR and the SAR.
Baa Humbug (05:06:02) :
“Re: SteveE (Feb 4 00:55),
You just don’t get it do you? For years alarmists have been shouting down skeptics with “peer review peer review, nothing counts except peer review”…
Your ignorance is palpable”
I agree that you shouldn’t believe everything that you read and that alarmists will over state certain points to get their point across.
However that argument swings both ways. Saying that an entire document is false and the concept of man made global warming is a lie becasue of a couple of sentences were wrong is just as alarmist in my opinion.
Wouldn’t you agree?
As an aside here, I should add that it’s rivetting stuff personally because of the larger ramifications for the whole UN edifice. Essentially the UN has been a democratic gaggle of gangsters and tyrants among a minority of liberal democracies historically. A ludicrous situation. The cracks have been obvious for a long time and the current schemozzle of the IPCC will only place its shortcomings under the microscope even further. I have felt for a long time the liberal democracies should ditch the gaggle of gangsters and form a new United Liberal Democratic Nations with very limited aims and goals and a very lean administration. Non-qualifying nations who aspire to ultimate full membership and voting rights status can sign on as associate members and have their say but are not entitled to vote until they meet the minimum qualification criteria for full membership. The gangsters and tyros can please themselves what gang they join.
Anthony,
Thank you for this post. It is interesting how this IPCC document discusses the “scientific literature” as if they only considered peer-reviewed papers. Back in 2003, the IPCC lauched a scheme to allow them to include citations to “gray literature” in what is known as Annex 2. See http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles-appendix-a.pdf
This scheme allowed them to include alarmist claims and predictions in AR4 which never would have passed peer-review. Still, in 2008, Pachauri was still making the claim the assessment reports were based solely on peer-reviewed literature. The truth will out… and has.
Rick Bradford (17:56:20),
Those are the 5 stages of grief most associated with fatal diseases, which is clearly the case with the IPCC.
I mentioned these stages a couple of months ago after ClimateGate first appeared and predicted we could watch them unfold over the next several months.
It follows that it’s a good bet that 2019’s temperature will be 0.2 C higher than 2009’s. (Or even 0.1 or 0.2 degrees higher, given the pause in the Noughties that needs to be made up for.)
There’s a well-known event-prediction site on the Internet where you can wager on that 0.2 degree warming (under Markets –> Climate & Weather): https://www.intrade.com . If the current odds aren’t to your liking, you can make a bid or offer at the odds you like; it will be activated when your target level is reached.
You can also bet on whether 2019 will be warmer at all than 2009. (The payoff will be lower, naturally.)
And you can bet on whether 2010 will be THE warmest year on record. (Hansen, Schmidt, and the Met Office think it’s “more than likely,” but the skeptics have set the odds at only a 1 in 3 chance.) The same bet is available for 2011.
Or you can bet on whether each of the years 2010 through 2014 will be among the five warmest years. Bets on several or all of those years would seem like a winning proposition from a warmist perspective, and yet the odds are attractive, because the skeptics are betting the warmists are wrong. The odds offered on 2010 being among the five warmest years are only about 67% when they ought to be much higher, if it is “more likely than not” to be THE warmest year on record.
GISStemp’s data is used to settle these bets, at http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
Oops — in my first paragraph I should have included the two last words below (“than that”):
“It follows that it’s a good bet that 2019’s temperature will be 0.2 C higher than 2009’s. (Or even 0.1 or 0.2 degrees higher than that …”
the IPCC has valid reasons for publishing the text as it stands in the report.
“”Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level.”
Excerpt, UN Agenda 21
“The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”
– Club of Rome,
The First Global Revolution (1992)
http://green-agenda.com/greatshift.html
Has anybody start a bet pool as to when Pachauri steps down? ……I believe it will happen before February ends. May date is February 19th…..John.
What if we do not want to accept the kind of revolution they are trying to impose on us?, what are we going to do in order to retaliate such a menace against our common way of living?, who are THEY to change our customs?, have they asked us our opinion, will they?, it seems they won’t:
“democracy has failed and new forms of governance are required” and “a common enemy must be found, one either real or invented, to unite humanity.”
Steve E: Where are you hiding the empirical evidence? All I see is surnames.
Arthur Glass (07:40:08)
An observationally based energy balance for the Earth since 1950
D. M. Murphy et al 2009
Understanding global sea levels: past, present and future., John A. Church 2008
Look them up and have a read if you’re interested. The Murphy one is quite interesting as it shows how you should also consider the heat content of the oceans and not just the atmosphere when looking for evidence for global warming.
Church’s paper is quite good as it looks at a number of different proxies for sea level that point to a significant rise over the the 20th century
compared to the last few centuries and millennia.
Enjoy!
SteveE (04:12:50) :
Empirical measurements of the Earth’s heat content show the planet is still accumulating heat and global warming is still happening
Specially in United Nations’ building in NY , there, all the accumulated rage from the ex-red-comissars, it is about to blow up, the heat will consume them from the inside out.
A free humanity without the dictatorship of that self indulging bureaucracy, which has become a kind of world’s bastard courtesanship, and which has imposed and it is imposing hundreds of binding agreements upon humankind , will emerge to build a real free new world.
follow the money,
Global warming in Portuguese:
http://www.google.com.br/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Apt-BR%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=pt-BR&source=hp&q=aquecimento+global&meta=&btnG=Pesquisa+Google
dave (16:07:44) :
There were not “so called errors,” there were errors. Unfounded, crazy assertions put into a supposed scientific report. Yikes!
————
Not errors, but lies…outright lies…a deliberate con attempt.
“democracy has failed and new forms of governance are required” and “a common enemy must be found, one either real or invented, to unite humanity.”
Bingo!
And lets make a boat load of money while were at it, fleece the public and impose our new feudal system.
Does anybody knows the LIST OF EXPERTS of the IPCC and their credentials?
Are all of them “scientists” like Al Gore or Rajendra Pachauri?
Roger Knights (07:12:47) :
Nice idea!
Not sure I can be bothered to bet on the 2019 one though as 9 nine years is a bit long to wait to see a return.
2010 is a tempting bet though, however as 2009 was the second hottest on record (tied with 2007) it’d be a a hard one to beat!