If this keeps up, no one's going to trust any scientists

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

The global-warming establishment took a body blow this week, as the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change received a stunning rebuke from a top-notch independent investigation.

For two decades, the IPCC has spearheaded efforts to convince the world's governments that man-made carbon emissions pose a threat to the global temperature equilibrium -- and to civilization itself. IPCC reports, collated from the work of hundreds of climate scientists and bureaucrats, are widely cited as evidence for the urgent need for drastic action to "save the planet."

But the prestigious InterAcademy Council, an independent association of "the best scientists and engineers worldwide" (as the group's own Web site puts it) formed in 2000 to give "high-quality advice to international bodies," has finished a thorough review of IPCC practices -- and found them badly wanting.

For example, the IPCC's much-vaunted Fourth Assessment Report claimed in 2007 that Himalayan glaciers were rapidly melting, and would possibly be gone by the year 2035. The claim was actually false -- yet the IPCC cited it as proof of man-made global warming.

Then there's the IPCC's earlier prediction in 2007 -- which it claimed to have "high confidence" in -- that global warming could lead to a 50 percent reduction in the rain-fed agricultural capacity of Africa.

Such a dramatic decrease in food production in an already poor continent would be a terrifying prospect, and undoubtedly lead to the starvation of millions. But the InterAcademy Council investigation found that this IPCC claim was also based on weak evidence.

Overall, the IAC slammed the IPCC for reporting "high confidence in some statements for which there is little evidence. Furthermore, by making vague statements that were difficult to refute, authors were able to attach 'high confidence' to the statements." The critics note "many such statements that are not supported sufficiently in the literature, not put into perspective or not expressed clearly.

Some IPCC practices can only be called shoddy. As The Wall Street Journal reported, "Some scientists invited by the IPCC to review the 2007 report before it was published questioned the Himalayan claim. But those challenges 'were not adequately considered,' the InterAcademy Council's investigation said, and the projection was included in the final report."

Yet the Himalayan claim wasn't based on peer-reviewed scientific data, or on any data -- but on spec ulation in a phone interview by a single scientist.

Was science even a real concern for the IPCC? In January, the Sunday Times of London reported that, based in large part on the fraudulent glacier story, "[iPCC Chairman] Rajendra Pachauri's Energy and Resources Institute, based in New Delhi, was awarded up to 310,000 pounds by the Carnegie Corp. . . . and the lion's share of a 2.5 million pound EU grant funded by European taxpayers."

Thus, the Times concluded, "EU taxpayers are funding research into a scientific claim about glaciers that any ice researcher should immediately recognize as bogus."

All this comes on top of last year's revelation of the "Climategate" e-mails, which revealed equally shoddy practices (and efforts to suppress criticism) by scientists at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia -- perhaps the single most important source of data that supposedly proved the most alarming claims of global warming.

Al Gore and many other warming alarmists have insisted that "the debate is over" -- that the science was "settled." That claim is now in shreds -- though the grants are still flowing, and advocates still hope Congress will pass some version of the economically ruinous "cap and trade" anti-warming bill.

What does the best evidence now tell us? That man-made global warming is a mere hypothesis that has been inflated by both exaggeration and downright malfeasance, fueled by the awarding of fat grants and salaries to any scientist who'll produce the "right" results.

The warming "scientific" community, the Climategate emails reveal, is a tight clique of like-minded scientists and bureaucrats who give each other jobs, publish each other's papers -- and conspire to shut out any point of view that threatens to derail their gravy train.

Such behavior is perhaps to be expected from politicians and government functionaries. From scientists, it's a travesty.

In the end, grievous harm will have been done not just to individual scientists' reputations, but to the once-sterling reputation of science itself. For that, we will all suffer.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/meltdown_of_the_climate_consensus_G0kWdclUvwhVr6DYH6A4uJ#ixzz0yTXeIZpG

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Leave it to Rupert Murdoch's media empire to twist the truth, or just make it up.

Read the actual report here.

From the Conclusion section of the report (.pdf):

IPCC'S PROCESSES AND PROCEDURES

The Committee concludes that the IPCC assessment process has been successful overall and has

served society well. The commitment of many thousands of the world's leading scientists and

other experts to the assessment process and to the communication of the nature of our

understanding of the changing climate, its impacts, and possible adaptation and mitigation

strategies is a considerable achievement in its own right. Similarly, the sustained commitment of

governments to the process and their buy-in to the results is a mark of a successful assessment.

Through its unique partnership between scientists and governments, the IPCC has heightened

public awareness of climate change, raised the level of scientific debate, and influenced the

science agendas of many nations. However, despite these successes, some fundamental changes

to the process and the management structure are essential, as discussed in this report and

summarized below.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Leave it to Rupert Murdoch's media empire to twist the truth, or just make it up.

Read the actual report here.

From the Conclusion section of the report (.pdf):

So bald face lies and total distortions to make their point is OK for the IPCC but damning for the NYPost?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Leave it to Rupert Murdoch's media empire to twist the truth, or just make it up.

Read the actual report here.

From the Conclusion section of the report (.pdf):

So, of course you didn't include the nine pages of recommendations that follow the preamble, including:

The IPCC should develop and adopt a rigorous conflict of interest policy that applies to all

individuals directly involved in the preparation of IPCC reports,...

The IPCC should encourage Review Editors to fully exercise their authority to ensure that

reviewers’ comments are adequately considered by the authors and that genuine

controversies are adequately reflected in the report.

Quantitative probabilities (as in the likelihood scale) should be used to describe the

probability of well-defined outcomes only when there is sufficient evidence.

The IPCC should develop and adopt formal qualifications and formally articulate the roles

and responsibilities for all Bureau members, including the IPCC Chair, to ensure that they

have both the highest scholarly qualifications and proven leadership skills.

http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/report/Chapter%205%20-%20Conclusions.pdf

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

All GW threads should be moved to the 'religious' forum.

[Gary and Alla 3,696]

The global-warming establishment took a body blow this week, as the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change received a stunning rebuke from a top-notch independent investigation.

For two decades, the IPCC has spearheaded efforts to convince the world's governments that man-made carbon emissions pose a threat to the global temperature equilibrium -- and to civilization itself. IPCC reports, collated from the work of hundreds of climate scientists and bureaucrats, are widely cited as evidence for the urgent need for drastic action to "save the planet."

But the prestigious InterAcademy Council, an independent association of "the best scientists and engineers worldwide" (as the group's own Web site puts it) formed in 2000 to give "high-quality advice to international bodies," has finished a thorough review of IPCC practices -- and found them badly wanting.

For example, the IPCC's much-vaunted Fourth Assessment Report claimed in 2007 that Himalayan glaciers were rapidly melting, and would possibly be gone by the year 2035. The claim was actually false -- yet the IPCC cited it as proof of man-made global warming.

Then there's the IPCC's earlier prediction in 2007 -- which it claimed to have "high confidence" in -- that global warming could lead to a 50 percent reduction in the rain-fed agricultural capacity of Africa.

Such a dramatic decrease in food production in an already poor continent would be a terrifying prospect, and undoubtedly lead to the starvation of millions. But the InterAcademy Council investigation found that this IPCC claim was also based on weak evidence.

Overall, the IAC slammed the IPCC for reporting "high confidence in some statements for which there is little evidence. Furthermore, by making vague statements that were difficult to refute, authors were able to attach 'high confidence' to the statements." The critics note "many such statements that are not supported sufficiently in the literature, not put into perspective or not expressed clearly.

Some IPCC practices can only be called shoddy. As The Wall Street Journal reported, "Some scientists invited by the IPCC to review the 2007 report before it was published questioned the Himalayan claim. But those challenges 'were not adequately considered,' the InterAcademy Council's investigation said, and the projection was included in the final report."

Yet the Himalayan claim wasn't based on peer-reviewed scientific data, or on any data -- but on spec ulation in a phone interview by a single scientist.

Was science even a real concern for the IPCC? In January, the Sunday Times of London reported that, based in large part on the fraudulent glacier story, "[iPCC Chairman] Rajendra Pachauri's Energy and Resources Institute, based in New Delhi, was awarded up to 310,000 pounds by the Carnegie Corp. . . . and the lion's share of a 2.5 million pound EU grant funded by European taxpayers."

Thus, the Times concluded, "EU taxpayers are funding research into a scientific claim about glaciers that any ice researcher should immediately recognize as bogus."

All this comes on top of last year's revelation of the "Climategate" e-mails, which revealed equally shoddy practices (and efforts to suppress criticism) by scientists at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia -- perhaps the single most important source of data that supposedly proved the most alarming claims of global warming.

Al Gore and many other warming alarmists have insisted that "the debate is over" -- that the science was "settled." That claim is now in shreds -- though the grants are still flowing, and advocates still hope Congress will pass some version of the economically ruinous "cap and trade" anti-warming bill.

What does the best evidence now tell us? That man-made global warming is a mere hypothesis that has been inflated by both exaggeration and downright malfeasance, fueled by the awarding of fat grants and salaries to any scientist who'll produce the "right" results.

The warming "scientific" community, the Climategate emails reveal, is a tight clique of like-minded scientists and bureaucrats who give each other jobs, publish each other's papers -- and conspire to shut out any point of view that threatens to derail their gravy train.

Such behavior is perhaps to be expected from politicians and government functionaries. From scientists, it's a travesty.

In the end, grievous harm will have been done not just to individual scientists' reputations, but to the once-sterling reputation of science itself. For that, we will all suffer.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/meltdown_of_the_climate_consensus_G0kWdclUvwhVr6DYH6A4uJ#ixzz0yTXeIZpG

Now ...one would THINK that people worried about Global warming would be HAPPY to hear this wonderful news. But they are NOT. The best thing we learn from this is that the Global Warming crowd does not care about global warming, they care about control and a way to make something worthless (carbon credits) into something with "value" to redistribute wealth and money to people that do not earn it or produce anything.

Edited September 3, 2010 by Gary and Alla

[DEDixon 39]

Now ...one would THINK that people worried about Global warming would be HAPPY to hear this wonderful news. But they are NOT. The best thing we learn from this is that the Global Warming crowd does not care about global warming, they care about control and a way to make something worthless (carbon credits) into something with "value" to redistribute wealth and money to people that do not earn it or produce anything.

although i think going as green as we can is a good thing, i also think you are right on here.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

So bald face lies and total distortions to make their point is OK for the IPCC but damning for the NYPost?

Reading comprehension?

All GW threads should be moved to the 'religious' forum.

If you're talking about the science denialists' threads, I would agree, since they aren't based on science.

[Atencio 43]

This is all a plot by the Visitors to discredit all scientists.

[luckytxn 2,265]

There has been actually way more scientists that thought and even said that global warming was bunk science and am glad to see that they were right but knew they were.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

If you're talking about the science denialists' threads, I would agree, since they aren't based on science.

Druidism qualifies as a religion, therefore, tree huggers belong in the subforum.

Edited September 4, 2010 by ##########

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

In before the move! :dance: :dance:

Edited September 4, 2010 by ##########

[luckytxn 2,265]

The OT regular forum is going to get lonely.

Edited September 4, 2010 by luckytxn

[JohnSmith2007 353]

So bald face lies and total distortions to make their point is OK for the IPCC but damning for the NYPost?

Reading comprehension?

Ah, your finally telling us your problem then? If you can't see that the IPCC has told outright lies and total distortions then that is your problem.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Ah, your finally telling us your problem then? If you can't see that the IPCC has told outright lies and total distortions then that is your problem.

Go read the actual report that was referred to in the OP from this independent agency. Then get back with me when you find where they said the IPCC "told outright lies and total distortions." In the meantime, continue ignoring the conclusion of this independent agency which found the IPCC report to be successful and important with regard to climate change. Reading is fundamental.