How to improve the IPCC

From Nature news

“When the error was found it was handled in a totally and utterly atrocious manner.”

A former head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says that the organization should adopt a code of conduct and develop a mechanism to fix errors more quickly.

On 15 June, Robert Watson, who chaired the IPCC from 1997 until 2002, testified before an independent review committee tasked with improving the credibility of the United Nations’ group.

The 12-person panel of scientists and economists, chaired by Harold Shapiro, a former president of Princeton University in New Jersey, was asked by the UN to review the IPCC, which has faced numerous criticisms in recent months (see: IPCC flooded by criticism). In particular, the organization has admitted to making an error in its last comprehensive report, released in 2007, which said that the Himalayan glaciers could melt completely by 2035.

“To me the fundamental problem was that when the error was found it was handled in a totally and utterly atrocious manner,” Watson told the committee, gathered at McGill University in Montreal, Canada, by teleconference. “The IPCC needs to find a mechanism so that if something needs to be corrected there is a rapid way to get a correction made. That is something that needs to be looked at very carefully,” said Watson.

Read the rest of the story here

Advertisements

67 thoughts on “How to improve the IPCC

  1. The IPCC hustles to print grey literature. They are a magnet for rants and writings than contain the meme.
    Again, the science is in.

  2. Stop taking papers written by environmental activists who don’t know the science and apply twisted logic to everything, for starters.

  3. They need to rigidly and faithfully adhere to the “constraints” of the scientific method. IF they do that, then they have nothing to fear.
    That means a total and complete end to replacing empirical evidence with models, hiding data, manipulating data, incestuous peer-groups, threatening publishers, threatening editors, having a hypothesis that cannot be dis-proven as any empirical evidence is suggestive of proof, regardless of the evidence and cause of the evidence…
    IF they strictly use the scientific method to prove that CO2 is the sole driver of catastrophic warming, then they will be believed. They have failed to do so thus far.

  4. This is missing the whole point. We should be asking whether we need an IPCC at all. In my opinion the answer is NO!!!
    Science has never before been managed by a political organisation. It has never needed to be managed by politician. It has always found its own truths through integrity, honesty and firey debate. I say disband the IPCC and leave science to deal with the climategates of this world.

  5. “The IPCC needs to find a mechanism so that if something needs to be corrected there is a rapid way to get a correction made.
    They need to find a quicker way to hide the decline? So, what kind of situational/utilitarian ethics do we think they’ll adopt? Seriously, the only way to improve the IPCC is to eliminate it. It’s purpose is politically founded. It’s a lobbying organization, not a scientific one.

  6. after so many serious errors have emerged publicly in recent months with many of these very easily verifiable, Robert Watson still hasn’t got the message yet.
    As he still sticks with the tale of THE (single) error, he himself is one of those, who continue to derail a proper error handling.

  7. Good point, Nettles. The IPCC revamp is long overdue, but I’m pessimistic about their accomplishing anything more than giving their political Jezebel a new coat of makeup. Failure to toss Rajendra Pachauri under the bus immediately will undermine their credibility, too. Only a 100%, top-down shakeup will have a chance of fixing what’s wrong. And the result will still be more political than scientific. The IPCC is also powerless to fix the world-wide scientific-governmental complex that Eisenhower warned of. They should address it, but they can’t solve it.

  8. Just end it. Put this terminally ill puppy out of its misery. It is a total waste of money that could be spent on something useful, and we have no need for its propaganda.
    Of course, the tourism business in Bali, Cancun, etc., would take a hit but they’ll get over it.

  9. The first thing they have to do is to scrap the idea that no matter what is going on with climate, man is responsible for it. Perhaps if they developed some objectivity – and some humility – they may not come off as such insufferable (expletive deleted).

  10. The objective paragraph must be totally changed. The objective cannot be “Find proof for man made global warming” or similar.
    Even a 6’th grader can see that this is unscientific. Could’nt the IPCC?
    Yes they could, and that was the whole problem.
    The objective was….to cherry pick proof for man made global warming.
    Confirmation bias, indeed.
    I think the only remedy is to shut down that organisation.

  11. I can add some points to the IPCC new charter:
    I. Resolved, the IPCC now admits that CO2 is a plant fertilizer and we need to hope for a much higher concentration in the atmosphere.
    II. Resolved, that all of human activity (and whales and cows) combined would not add appreciably to the CO2 concentration, anyway.
    III. Resolved, that all of the previous reported IPCC data has been manipulated by Big Academia and Big Government.
    IV. Resolved, each of the miscreant authors of the falsified and exaggerated reports will be replaced in all IPCC rôles, with recommendations that any tenure these charlatans may hold at an accredited university shall be revoked.
    V. The IPCC will not accept a nomination for Chairman of the IPCC who resembles in any way a GEICO cavemen.
    With these and other suitable amendments I think we should strongly support the “New” IPCC.

  12. Some things cannot be improved, only made more complex. The IPCC is one of those. It should be entirely disbanded. And there should be no copycat spin-offs, such as the one being proposed for biodiversity.
    This planet needs fewer Chiefs and more Indians. The regular folks are sick unto death of being told what to do, eat, drive, how to have sex, what to wear, what to say, when to brush their teeth and with what, what temp. to keep their house, what light bulb to use, ad nauseam.
    To all those who think it is their God-Given Right to dictate every detail of everyone life, I have a suggestion for you: BUTT OUT!

  13. “John Christy, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, has previously been critical of the IPCC, calling the product and process “prone to politicization and bias.”
    Whoever he is, this Christy guy seems to have hit the nail on the head. One of the main problems of the IPCC is the involvement of governments which all too often leads to a watering down of many reports. For example, we know now that the last assessment report underestimated sea level rise, Arctic melt and temperature rise. Furthermore, it’s not only likely (>90%) but a proven fact that man-made CO2 has lead to an increase in global temperatures. The ongoing discussion is mostly about the possible impacts on our environment and our way of life, and how to reduce emissions.

  14. Has the IPCC adequately address the errors in Mann, Bradley, Hughes 1998/99 yet? How how ’bout the hurricane forecasting 2006-2009?

  15. He suggests “a climate wiki”. Following my own experience with wikipedia, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that wikis only amplify the ingrained biased of the “professionals”.
    The problem with climate “science” is that there is so little concrete information and “peer review” has been actively used by wikipedia activists to create “fact” from fiction so allowing these activists to control which information is “allowed” into the wikipedia because they effectively control the peer review/aka wikipedia publishing system.
    Basically a wiki can only work where there is an equal playing field from all people with expertise either within or outside the field. Unfortunately, in climate science the playing field is so clearly skewed that in this field a “wiki” simply means a propaganda tool.

  16. By the way, I’m a bit surprised that a journal like Nature would quote someone like von Storch and present him as a climate scientist.

  17. I thought they handled the Himalayan glaciers melting difficulty according to plan.
    2350 becomes 2035, small error.
    Someone points it out: accuse them of voodoo science.
    Collect millions in grants for a study of the dramatic melting that will occur in the next 25 years.
    If you’re on the receiving end of the millions in grants, there’s no problem.

  18. How to improve the IPCC?
    You’ve got to be kidding! Its very premise is flawed in that it takes as a given that mankind is warming the climate. And to keep the funding tap wide open, it has to show that any warming is bad and will get even worse in the future.
    Even so, there is another flaw that’s never spoken of in public. It’s a bureaucratic organization tied in to other bureaucratic organizations and, as such, operates under the principle of how to do less with more.

  19. Right how to improve the IPCC.
    Delete, delete, delete, delete. What IPCC? o_O
    Just put Dr Lindzen in charge. He worked on AR3 so he has IPCCian experience, and he’s probably the only true scientist behaving like a proper scientist, that’s doing climate stuff, anyway. Or just put him in charge of GISS to flush out the turds that keep clogging the system.

  20. Here s the IPCC mission statement:
    Courtesy of Steve Schneider:
    “We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”

  21. I’m with 1DandyTroll on this one: Don’t press Ctrl-Alt-Delete, just press Delete.

  22. “When the error was found it was handled in a totally and utterly atrocious manner.” That may be true or not, but it is not the major issue, in my opinion. If the IPCC AR4 report had claimed, as a result of a transcription error, that some swamp near Kalamazoo was likely to disappear by 2035 and it should have been 2350, then one might care to see how that error was corrected. In that case too, one would grant the IPCC their defense that in a report of 3000+ pages there are going to be a few errors. But the Himalayan glaciers are on a different scale of importance. The rivers that carry their melt-water are critical to the water supply in the Indian subcontinent. That the IPCC echoed this claim of possible disappearance of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 indicates that they lose their critical facilities when a claim is made that supports their preferred narrative. In this case, the error itself is the major issue, not how it was corrected.

  23. In particular, the organization has admitted to making an error in its last comprehensive report, released in 2007, which said that the Himalayan glaciers could melt completely by 2035.

    In fact, the IPCC made no such admission of error. Its statement at
    http://ipcc-wg2.gov/publications/AR4/himalaya-statement-20january2010.pdf merely indicates that “the second paragraph in section 10.6-2” of WGII was “poorly substantiated”, ie not up to IPCC’s commitment only to use primary sources.
    The statement fully stands by the summary’s conclusion that there are widespread mass losses of the glaciers and ice caps that supply freshwater, in particular in the Himalayan region. Any reasonable person reading only this statement would not know that the paragraph in question was actually wrong, let alone how it was wrong.

  24. stephen richards says:
    June 17, 2010 at 1:15 pm
    Science has never before been managed by a political organisation.

    Yes it has. By the Catholic church from around 300AD to around 1640AD.
    Guard freedom of thought well. We haven’t had it long, and we could easily lose it again.

  25. Roald says:
    June 17, 2010 at 1:59 pm
    “For example, we know now that the last assessment report underestimated sea level rise, Arctic melt and temperature rise. Furthermore, it’s not only likely (>90%) but a proven fact that man-made CO2 has lead to an increase in global temperatures.”
    Oh really?

  26. Roald…. “Furthermore, it’s not only likely (>90%) but a proven fact that man-made CO2 has lead to an increase in global temperatures.”
    Would you care to back up those statements with some proof?
    From everything that I’ve been able to read, the statement “man-made CO2 has led to an increase in global temperatures” is anything but a proven fact.
    Please point out the actual scientific observations that show a direct causal link between additional CO2 in the atmosphere and higher global temperatures.

  27. spin it again Sam……..
    “”, in part because it was the source of the glacier error. But many believe some of it to be valuable. “People automatically think that grey literature is [only] from activists and non-governmental organizations’ reports. In fact, it includes reports from national academies of sciences, and reports from the International Energy Agency,”””
    But in the example case, it wasn’t. So why spin it?

  28. ” In fact, it includes reports from national academies of sciences, and reports from the International Energy Agency,” says Chris Field, an ecologist…”
    Wrong examples Chris. Those examples support the contention that Grey Literature is a bunch of activists!!

  29. Roald says:
    June 17, 2010 at 1:59 pm
    One of the main problems of the IPCC is the involvement of governments which all too often leads to a watering down of many reports.
    True, that is a problem for climate bedwetters. For climate realists, though, not so much. Even watered-down Alarmist nonsense is still Alarmist nonsense.

  30. The only way to improve upon the cancer of the IPCC is to either kill it or force it into remission.

  31. Hey guys: Forget Roald. He’s a troll, here to incite you to play his stupid little mindless trivial besmirching game. My advice is to respond to the article or to other relevant comments. This one is a loser with no thought to add to anything.

  32. Institutions evolve as their membership changes. Sometimes this can drive an institution in unhealthy directions. To see how an institution is likely to evolve you must consider the kinds of people who want to join.
    The Catholic Church has struggled with this effect. Requiring priests to be celibate has had the unfortunate side effect of making the priesthood attractive to people who are afraid of their own sexuality, often for very good reason. The consequences of this we all know – lots of deviant priests.
    Now look at the IPCC and ask yourself what kinds of people are going to want to join and what kinds of people are going to want out in the current environment. Exactly! Right now the moderate and the rational are getting out quick as they can, while the fanatical and political are queuing up to join. The natural consequence is that the IPCC is likely to become even more extreme and political and less scientific.
    Expect no retractions from the IPCC regardless of what direction the science takes. I predict the next report will assert even more stridently that it is “worse than we thought” and call for even stronger political intervention. However the list of resignations from the IPCC would make very interesting reading.

  33. @JimF
    ‘Hey guys: Forget Roald. He’s a troll, here to incite you to play his stupid little mindless trivial besmirching game.’
    It’s very kind to point the fact that he’s a troll and that he doesn’t mind coming off as person who don’t want government interference in UN business, because I’m sure nobody else really noticed.
    And he’s no troll, more a zealot like. :p

  34. Awww c’mon, this is such a no-brainer. You don’t need some high powered committee to figure out how to improve the IPCC. A simple one step procedure would fix the IPCC in an instant. Ready with your note pads?
    STEP 1-) Appoint Viscount Christopher Monckton as chairman.
    FIXED

  35. The IPCC needs a bullet between the eyes to put it out of its misery. KILL IT and save the rest of us lots and lots of tax dollars that could go to better use.

  36. Roald says:
    June 17, 2010 at 1:59 pm
    The ongoing discussion is mostly about the possible impacts on our environment and our way of life, and how to reduce emissions.

    Why would you reduce emissions if the possible impacts discussion is still on-going?
    Can you bring yourself to admit to some benefits of a warmer planet?
    For some reason I picture you as wearing Ronald McDonald shoes and make up

  37. Might have worked under a “sunset clause” system of tenure limitation where those leading scientists and administrators were elected by their peers in science, rather than selected by political masters to do the devils bidding. Would be nice to see a peak scientific body dedicated to using scientific proof rather than vague scare mongering.
    Easier I think to throw the whole lot out and start again and free from influence by the political machinations of UN agenda.

  38. My issue with the IPCC is their tendency to initally ignore any errors that have been identified until they receive a wide level of publicity. My understanding is they were made aware of the error relating to himalayan glaciers long before they finally publicly conceded the error.
    The same is true with their comments on hurricanes. They were told long before it became public knowlege that AGW is not likely to lead to an increase in the frequency of hurricanes.
    Their approach to any one who disputes any finding in their report is shoot the messenger and do nothing unless it becomes widely publicised. This is disgraceful behaviour from a body that purports to rely on the “concensus of science”.
    They will never be trustworthy whilst they adopt this approach.

  39. CodeTech says:
    June 17, 2010 at 12:42 pm
    So, since CO2 doesn’t drive temperature, how are they going to correct that error?
    They can’t – see below for R. de Hann’s answer!
    R. de Haan says:
    June 17, 2010 at 1:31 pm
    How to improve the IPCC: Shut it down, it’s a useless obsolete organization.
    Politics and Science, can’t work.

  40. Who’ll miss the IPCC?
    Apart from the bottom-feeders,
    Self-serving funding Seekers,
    Parasitic Tax-hungry leeches.
    You told us we would fry.
    Turns out you told a lie.
    IPCC, it’s time for you to, RIP!
    Goodbye.

  41. @Enduser et al.
    I haven’t got the time or dedication to look up every paper that proves the link between man-made CO2 and Global Warming, but the fact that the US National Academy of Sciences (and many other leading scientific organisations) is convinced of AGW should be enough for starters. It also explains why the warming can’t be due to natural causes:
    http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12782&page=29
    This arcticle shows that the IPCC rather errs on the side of caution and how various governments interfere with the reports:
    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=conservative-climate
    As to the Nature article and the troubles of the IPCC, perhaps I haven’t made myself clear enough. My idea is to keep politics out of the advisory council and let peer reviewed science (i.e. Working Group 1) speak for itself. The media have reported copiously on the couple of howlers found in WG2, but nobody could find fault with the hard science assembled by the first group.
    By the way, it seems that Dr.Spencer has lost some of his data. I’m missing the graph for the record temperatures and the 20-year average on channel 5:
    http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps

  42. Roald, highschool science class physics proves that CO2 is a “greenhouse gas” and that the amount we have released into the atmosphere will have some “warming effect”. OK nobody (even the sceptical scientists) would really dispute that.
    What is in serious dispute is the extent of that warming and whether or not feedbacks are amplifying, or cancelling out such warming and whether the climate is anywhere near as sensitive to increases in CO2 as the IPCC assessment reports claim.
    The MODELS show a high sensitivity. (they are programmed to do so.)
    The Empirical evidence shows a very low degree of sensitivity.
    To claim that the science is settled is a plain lie. There is massive disagreement about clouds for a start, let alone all the solar experts who were pretty unanimous back in 2006 about projecting that we would be highly into a massive cycle 24 by now. “4 has started but the solar activity is almost dead. Now all these solar scientists are pretty unanimously saying , “we haven’t a clue why this is like this!”
    We do not know how clouds react to warming/cooling. We do not know how the sun works, we do not know how the oceans work, we do not know how sensitive the atmosphere is to increasing CO2. There is an enormous amount of “stuff” that is simply not known about how the climate actually works or why it does what it does. We CANNOT (I repeat) CANNOT predict the future direction of climate. END OF STORY!
    Do not even begin to get me started on how atrocious and inaccurate global temperature measurements have been and how we cannot have any confidence whatsoever in the historical temperature record, for I would be writing all day!!! Suffice to say that the IPCC and many eminent scientists claim that the earth has warmed by about 0.6 Celsius degrees over the last century or so…
    The way in which that is measured is abysmal and utterly flawed. The cruel fact is, we do not know for certain what the global average temperature should be, let alone if it is going up or down. The direction of temperature depends entirely on what date one starts measuring anyway.
    The IPCC is a political machine with the sole objective of PROVING that MAN IS WARMING THE PLANET! They are NOT tasked with establishing how the climate actually works. They are not tasked with deducing what the climate is doing or is likely to do next. They are paid an enormous sum of money to convince the world of a pre-defined, non falsifiable hypothesis.
    After over 30 years of CO2 alarmism and billions and billions of dollars of research, they have failed to PROVE their claim that man is solely responsible for warming the planet to dangerous levels through our emissions of CO2.
    They have managed to bastardise science, threaten and demonise publishers, create a tiny “in-group” of incestuous scientists who rubber stamp each other’s work, ignore, omit, manipulate data to fit the hypothesis, and worse, but they have not scientifically proven that mankind’s small addition of CO2 somehow stops the logarithmic nature of the absorption of radiative heat by the CO2 molecules and turns it into a linear absorption thus increasing the “greenhouse” warming of the planet from a tiny increase in a trace-gas.

  43. @ Ken Hall
    “To claim that the science is settled is a plain lie.”
    I have never claimed that, and nor have most of the climate experts. All I said was that the link between CO2 and temperature was rock solid and you seem to agree to some extent.
    “OK nobody (even the sceptical scientists) would really dispute that. ”
    You just have to read some the comments on this site.
    The IPCC was created to compile a catalouge of all the relevant papers on this topic and advise political leaders. By the way, temperature records are just one piece of the entire picture and solar cycles, which are included in the climate models, are only a small driver of climate anyway. True, science will never be settled. We may not know everything and we never will, but for some time now we know enough to act on. In 100 years we can say with certainty which of the models was right but it might be to late.

  44. “The 12-person panel of scientists and economists,”
    “Economists?”

    We should never be more vigilant than at the moment a new dogma is being installed. The claque endorsing what is now dignified as “the mainstream theory” of global warming stretches all the way from radical greens through Al Gore to George W. Bush, who signed on at the end of May. The left has been swept along, entranced by the allure of weather as revolutionary agent, naïvely conceiving of global warming as a crisis that will force radical social changes on capitalism.
    -ALEXANDER COCKBURN, TheNation, June 7, 2007

    In the early 1970s the UN spearheaded the progressive notion of a new
    world economic order, one that would try to level the playing field between the First World and the Third. The neoliberal onslaughts gathering strength from the mid-1970s on destroyed that project. Eventually the UN, desperate to reassert some semblance of moral leadership, regrouped behind the supposed crisis of climate change as concocted by the AGW lobby, behind which lurk huge corporate interests such as the nuclear power companies. Radicals from the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, putting forward proposals for upping the Third World’s income from its primary commodities, were displaced by climate shills in the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – the IPCC. The end consequence, as represented by Copenhagen’s money-grubbing power
    plays over “carbon mitigation” funding, has been a hideous travesty of that earlier vision of a global redistribution of resources.
    -ALEXANDER COCKBURN, CounterPunch, Dec ’09
    http://www.counterpunch.com/cockburn12182009.html

  45. Roald says:
    June 18, 2010 at 3:34 am
    @ Ken Hall
    “To claim that the science is settled is a plain lie.”
    I have never claimed that, and nor have most of the climate experts. All I said was that the link between CO2 and temperature was rock solid and you seem to agree to some extent.
    “OK nobody (even the sceptical scientists) would really dispute that. ”
    You just have to read some the comments on this site.
    ____________________________________________________________________
    Yes there is a link and here are the one no one disputes:
    1) The temperature of water rises, its ability to hold CO2 diminishes and it outgases.
    2) In the Vostok ice cores, the temperature rises and about 800-1000 years later the CO2 rises. (Warmist site explanation)
    3) The effect of CO2 on temperature is href=”http://knowledgedrift.wordpress.com/2010/05/11/co2-is-logarithmic-explained/”>LOGARITHMIC In other words you get the most change at low levels of CO2 and the least change at higher levels until you reach a point where the change in CO2 has do measurable effect. Therefore there is no “tipping point” only a “saturation point”
    4) And last WATER is a much stronger, much more abundant and much more variable “greenhouse gas”
    “This plot shows the percent difference in water vapor between a warm El Nino and a cold La Nina, as a function of latitude (x-axis) and altitude (y-axis). This shows large increases in water vapor over the equator and in the upper troposphere. Image credit: Texas A&M” Variablity in Water Vapor
    If water was used as the “boogy man” everyone would know it was a con job so CO2 was picked as the “boogy man” instead. Remember when you burn you release CO2 and H2O as products of combustion. Water is a much better choice as the climate driver but no one could figure out how to vilify water without looking like a fool. That is why water is left out of the list of IPCC “greenhouse gases”
    TEMPERATURE
    Here is an analysis by a NASA scientist using IPCC own data of the actual error in the global temperature data.
    Take a good look at the Vostok ice core temperature data for the Holocene(last 10,000 yrs) It is showing a gradual cooling over time as we descend into the next Ice Age.
    Finally, here is a short list of the IPCC errors
    Most honest environmentalist can see that the proposed laws are money making schemes that do nothing except transfer wealth from the poor to the rich, just as designed.

  46. OOPS the link got croggled for #3.
    3) The effect of CO2 on temperature is LOGARITHMIC In other words you get the most change at low levels of CO2 and the least change at higher levels until you reach a point where the change in CO2 has do measurable effect. Therefore there is no “tipping point” only a “saturation point”

  47. What the IPCC needs, or what someone can do as a 3rd party, is to set up a wiki, very much like wikipedia that contains the text of the IPCC reports with citations. Then on the discussion pages, each point or claim can be discussed. As verifications happen, there can be a “credibility” rating applied to each claim or section. As skeptics dispute things the IPCC authors (and those who wrote the cited source papers) can comment on those disputes, what their papers actually say, etc.
    It would be the goal of the IPCC to get a high rating 90%+, and it would be the goal of skeptics to lower the rating. Who determines the rating is somewhat unclear. But we could start with a coarse system: acceptable, plausible, unknown/not evaluated, unacceptable.
    If climate scientists want credibility, they will have to earn it. Let the science stand in the open.

  48. Roald says:
    June 18, 2010 at 12:30 am
    I haven’t got the time or dedication to look up every paper that proves the link between man-made CO2 and Global Warming, but the fact that the US National Academy of Sciences (and many other leading scientific organisations) is convinced of AGW should be enough for starters. It also explains why the warming can’t be due to natural causes
    Of course you don’t. They never do. If you find any, do let us know. And you can skip your appeals to authority, which are illogical. They won’t work here. Good luck!

  49. Roald says: June 18, 2010 at 3:34 am
    I have never claimed that, and nor have most of the climate experts. All I said was that the link between CO2 and temperature was rock solid and you seem to agree to some extent.

    Yes, we agree to that. However, data shows the link to be temperature increase comes first.
    The IPCC was created to compile a catalouge of all the relevant papers on this topic and advise political leaders.
    A task at which they have failed miserably. Witness the intentional omission of 700 + papers and counting.
    http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
    We may not know everything and we never will
    Now there’s some logic. So do we or don’t we?
    …….but for some time now we know enough to act on.
    If by action you mean inaction, then I agree.
    In 100 years we can say with certainty which of the models was right but it might be to late.
    I concur. It will be too late if we commit economic hara-kari based on a correlation taken to be causation.

  50. @Roald
    ‘All I said was that the link between CO2 and temperature was rock solid’
    So is the link between nitrogen in atmosphere and temperatures too, but nobody is crazy enough to say nitrogen is a driving factor, even though, and lets face it, there’s a tad bit more of nitrogen.
    What I don’t get is why nobody scream about the horrors of oxygen, and let’s face that too, a little too much oxygen and we all burn. :p

  51. hmm what could we do to clean up the IPCC.
    Oust Pachauri and put in someone with a real science degree who didn’t use to play with trains and was “given” a science degree.
    Get rid of scientists who have obviously lied, cheated, and circumvented honest science for greed and arrogance.
    Force them to abide by the rules and have people that aren’t part of the inner circle do the reviewing.
    Well
    Well
    Well that would mean getting rid of the IPCC all together then.
    And your point is?

  52. Jason says:
    June 18, 2010 at 7:40 am
    What the IPCC needs, or what someone can do as a 3rd party, is to set up a wiki, very much like wikipedia that contains the text of the IPCC reports with citations. Then on the discussion pages, each point or claim can be discussed. As verifications happen, there can be a “credibility” rating applied to each claim or section. As skeptics dispute things the IPCC authors (and those who wrote the cited source papers) can comment on those disputes, what their papers actually say, etc.

    I second the motion. “Let it all hang out.”

  53. The “SECRET” to getting the IPCC on track is to classify everything produced for and by this organization as TIPPY TIPPY TOP SECRET. Anyone caught disclosing IPCC documents or working papers to the public should be executed in Utah –especially anyone claiming to be a of the AGW sect of the Order of Chicken Little. Members of the UN itself, who leak IPCC documents or working papers to the public, should be fined $1billion for each occurance. The only way to get everything back on track is to put it all behind closed doors.
    PS: The fiction writer from India should also be fired!

Comments are closed.