IPCC: Corruption in the Consensus on Climate?

[CapelDodger]

mhaze,
It is no secret that I am sympathetic to many of the issues you have pointed out about GW material in general.

I suspect the reason this thread was transferred to the Conspiracies forum is that mhaze et al don't address GW material in general, they tend to focus on very specific points, which is a CT trait. (Like the Truther guy who thinks his killer argument is "proving" a video to be faked while ignoring all the eye-witnesses to the event.)

Some like Schneibster wants to marginalize your post on the ground that you are a "climate woo" or CTer.

Schneibster is a force of nature, waddaya gonna do? I doubt he'll continue to contribute now that the thread's not in the Science forum.

I have been very reserved in defending you because you do seem to present some of these characteristics albeit not always directly.

I take the "forgive him, for he knows not what he does" line. Diamond, on the other hand, I do not forgive, nor ever will.

 

[Gravy]

According to the IPCC there are “2,500+ scientific expert reviewers”. See the public relations flyer.

Their list shows 170. They claim consensus. Why are you changing the issue? Because you can't show 2500 reviewers, obviously.

That's the list of Lead Authors and Review Editors for Working Group 1. Include Working Groups 2 and 3, which the IPCC does in their "2500+" tally, then count all the authors, reviewers, and review editors, and let us know what number you come up with.

Fair enough?

 

[my_wan]

I suspect the reason this thread was transferred to the Conspiracies forum is that mhaze et al don't address GW material in general, they tend to focus on very specific points, which is a CT trait. (Like the Truther guy who thinks his killer argument is "proving" a video to be faked while ignoring all the eye-witnesses to the event.)

Yes I have specific issues concerning the way GW science is handled these complaints stand on there own. I'm careful not to direct these concerns in a manner that implies some truth about GW in general though I do admit I keep a higher degree of skepticism over it. I do have issues with mhazes' lack of distinctions.

Schneibster is a force of nature, waddaya gonna do? I doubt he'll continue to contribute now that the thread's not in the Science forum.

Should I be afraid? LOL....

I take the "forgive him, for he knows not what he does" line. Diamond, on the other hand, I do not forgive, nor ever will.

Yes I got distinct implications from mhazes' post but realized I couldn't actually back it up from any definitive statements by him. He seems to have a particular idea of opposing points of view where one size fits all. I'm sure the chance for me to take issue with that will come but I wanted a definitive opinion to work with first. I haven't payed the post by Diamond much attention.

The whole question of AGW really boils down to rate of increase and not the increase. GW is not even a question. I tend to stay clear of the CT threads myself.

 

[gumboot]

Why is this in conspiracy theories?

-Gumboot

 

[my_wan]

Why is this in conspiracy theories?

-Gumboot

Was wondering about that myself.

 

[Schneibster]

Why is this in conspiracy theories?

-Gumboot

Because, obviously, it's a conspiracy theory. What, you guys only do the World Trade Center or something? What about the NWO, or the ginormous J00 cunspirisy, or teh librul media?

 

[Schneibster]

Schneibster is a force of nature, waddaya gonna do? I doubt he'll continue to contribute now that the thread's not in the Science forum.

LOL, well, "force of nature?" What the heck do I say to that?

I sure did call this one, though. As far as responding, we'll see if anyone writes anything worth responding to, that requires a response. So far, not, other than this and a question on why it wound up here.

 

[mhaze]

Well perhaps my misgivings about your perspective was unfounded and arrived at more by proxy than actual claims as I suspected. My blood does boil when idiots think they can help the scientific process along by squashing dissent. I don't see any CTs in this just people and organization trying to deal with a chaotic situation, sometimes in idiotic ways on all sides.

My short story perspective on your question would be this: if the planet wound up with so many people and so many nice machines and useful industry producing emissions, etc., that we can only live in say 2% of the possible world climate scenarios (those being limited to the most "ideal" by way of agricultural production, sea levels, etc) that might be occasioned on us, that would be problematic. That is a very general statement and it is not predicated on the current gw scare.

People have attempted to count the scientists referenced in the IPCC documents, and I have read one account of some 600, another of 1200-1300. So apparently, it is unknown where or how the 2500 number can be substantiated, if at all.

As for conspiracy, well, the IPCC review documents are now online. So if one wanted to find conspiracy, that would be better asserted when all source documents were not available. Then theories could abound. If on the contrary all the source documents are available, well, they just are what they are, like it or not.

Conceivably, one could look at the source documents, find locations where a reviewer requested "very likely" to be changed to "not likely". So forth and so on. Does that add up to a conspiracy? Some might build on it to form such an opinion. I would think on the contrary that there would be many difficult decisions of that sort during the collating process.

It would certainly be a slap in the face of the scientist whose request for corrected meaning was denied. I provided one example of that, Briffa.

 

[mhaze]

Yes I have specific issues concerning the way GW science is handled these complaints stand on there own. I'm careful not to direct these concerns in a manner that implies some truth about GW in general though I do admit I keep a higher degree of skepticism over it. I do have issues with mhazes' lack of distinctions.

What do you mena by lack of distinctions?

 

[uk_dave]

How dare you sully our pristine little ct forum with your sordid discussions about global warming!!

I see no mention of thermate or reptoids, no denouncement of Israel or proclamations of love for rosie o'donnell.

In other words, as they say down our way,..."You're not from around 'ere are you?"

 

[Gravy]

As for conspiracy, well, the IPCC review documents are now online. So if one wanted to find conspiracy, that would be better asserted when all source documents were not available. Then theories could abound. If on the contrary all the source documents are available, well, they just are what they are, like it or not.

You just said absolutely nothing. Please do so with fewer – and preferably no – words.

Conceivably, one could look at the source documents, find locations where a reviewer requested "very likely" to be changed to "not likely". So forth and so on. Does that add up to a conspiracy? Some might build on it to form such an opinion. I would think on the contrary that there would be many difficult decisions of that sort during the collating process.

Watch out! It's Qualification Man, Pointless Speculation Boy, and Somebodyshouldlookintadat Girl, the weakest debaters in the world! No one can withstand their onslaught of vapidity!

 

[gumboot]

Because, obviously, it's a conspiracy theory. What, you guys only do the World Trade Center or something? What about the NWO, or the ginormous J00 cunspirisy, or teh librul media?

How does accusing a scientific panel of being corrupt and politically motivated amount to a "conspiracy theory"?

This thread should be in politics.

-Gumboot

 

[Brainache]

How does accusing a scientific panel of being corrupt and politically motivated amount to a "conspiracy theory"?

This thread should be in politics.

-Gumboot

Isn't the OP accusing the IPCC of conspiring to deceive the world over the true nature of GW?

Should we ask cui bono? Is it the international bankers? The US Gov.? The manufacturers of solar panels?

You can't have a proper CT without some shady characters making money out of it. Is it the IPCC who stand to profit from the aproaching GW catastrophe?

 

[Harpoon]

(Gulp!) You're right! If it's a conspiracy, that means someone is conspiring.

And this string was suddenly and mysteriously switched to the CT forum.

Is there something going on here? How well do we really know the JREF and its "donors"?

 

[Harpoon]

mhaze -- I missed the post that had the information about the FOI being filed.

Can you repost it or answer some questions? I thought (and I might be mistaked) that FOI filings were done through the U.S. courts.

Isn't the IPCC a UN committee? Does a US court have any jurisdiction? Or was the FOI filed on a US agency that had received a copy? Or is there an international FOI that was involved?

I'd like to find out more about it?

 

[stilicho]

LOL, well, "force of nature?" What the heck do I say to that?

I sure did call this one, though. As far as responding, we'll see if anyone writes anything worth responding to, that requires a response. So far, not, other than this and a question on why it wound up here.

You constantly approach global warming like this, Schneibster. You demand "peer-reviewed papers" disabusing global warming or the theories presented by the IPCC.

What you fail to understand is that the IPCC studies are meant to be a starting point in developing comprehensive and "peer-reviewed" conclusions. The science is in its infancy.

The problem with Warmers is that they treat the IPCC reports as ends unto themselves--which they are not.

I have numerous times asked you and others when conclusions may be wrong even though the science is correct. I presented eugenics, on the first hand, and (more closely related to climate control) the science that concluded, wrongly, that seeding clouds with silver iodide could prevent hurricanes. And that's just twice that the scientific method was entirely adequate, but the scientific conclusion and the practical technology was entirely misguided.

Hell--paleontologists have accepted now that Tyrranosaurus Rex is more closely related to birds than to the Allosaurus. The science of paleontology was not scotched as a response. The scientific conclusions, however, were remarkably adjusted.

Anyone who thinks the IPCC reports are the final word on climate change is truly deluded and has more in common with Dylan Avery than with Mark Roberts.

 

[my_wan]

What do you mena by lack of distinctions?

I mean that in spite of reading many of your post I was left with the impression that you didn't believe AGW. Yet your direct answers indicated otherwise. I'm not sure why you would debate so long without clarifying that. It still leaves me unsure of why this issue is so important to you.

I hope I've made my issues clear. It boils my blood to see dishonesty in peer review. I want the actual evidence good bad or indifferent, especially on something as important as AGW.

 

[my_wan]

Isn't the OP accusing the IPCC of conspiring to deceive the world over the true nature of GW?

No. Only blundering their attempts at supporting GW science.

 

[Schneibster]

You constantly approach global warming like this, Schneibster. You demand "peer-reviewed papers" disabusing global warming or the theories presented by the IPCC.

I bet I can guess which side of the Conspiracy Theories forum stilicho posts on. 8D

 

[skeptifem]

I really dont understand the amount of hostility in this thread. The OP hasnt made any personal comments about any of you, and from what i can see the op has been politely asking questions despite a lot of you saying rude things to him. wtf??? Hes not even being offensive in a general sense (saying stuff about jews, or saying gw isnt happening, etc). I really dont see why anyone would be so rude to another poster for politely asking questions, its discouraging to see that sort of behavior at JREF.