Climate change lies are exposed

Discussion in 'Environment' started by PoliticalChic, Aug 31, 2010.

  1. PoliticalChic
    Online

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    55,968
    Thanks Received:
    15,726
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +25,102
    "THE world’s leading climate change body has been accused of losing credibility after a damning report into its research practices.


    A high-level inquiry into the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found there was “little evidence” for its claims about global warming.

    It also said the panel had emphasised the negative impacts of climate change and made “substantive findings” based.

    The review by the InterAcademy Council (IAC) was launched after the IPCC’s hugely embarrassing 2007 benchmark climate change report, which contained exaggerated and false claims that Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035.

    The panel was forced to admit its key claim in support of global warming was lifted from a 1999 magazine article. The report was based on an interview with a little-known Indian scientist who has since said his views were “speculation” and not backed by research.

    Independent climate scientist Peter Taylor said last night: “The IPCC’s credibility has been deeply dented and something has to be done...."
    Express.co.uk - Home of the Daily and Sunday Express | UK News :: Climate change lies are exposed

    And, in a related story, Chris and Old Rocks have entered rehab....
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. G.T.
    Offline

    G.T. Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2009
    Messages:
    47,630
    Thanks Received:
    7,584
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    out
    Ratings:
    +27,623
    first search of your source, in the first preview paragraph, says this:

    The Daily Express is a right-wing, British tabloid newspaper

    Food for thought.
     
  3. Si modo
    Offline

    Si modo Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2009
    Messages:
    41,538
    Thanks Received:
    6,382
    Trophy Points:
    1,810
    Location:
    St. Eligius
    Ratings:
    +8,703
    Still, back in 2007, the IPCC was caught with their pants around their ankles. It still hasn't really made it to the mainstream media other than a casual mention.
     
  4. G.T.
    Offline

    G.T. Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2009
    Messages:
    47,630
    Thanks Received:
    7,584
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    out
    Ratings:
    +27,623
    IAP statement on ocean acidification, 2009. Signed by 70 members. The academies state that ocean water acidity has risen due to increased carbon dioxide caused by human activities, and that it probably will rise further with severe effects on marine life, if the emission of CO2 does not decrease considerably. They demanded that this should be included among the problems addressed by the United Nations Climate Change Conference 2009 in Copenhagen.




    oh, and the actual press release of the iac re: the ipcc.

    The process used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to produce its periodic assessment reports has been successful overall, but IPCC needs to fundamentally reform its management structure and strengthen its procedures to handle ever larger and increasingly complex climate assessments as well as the more intense public scrutiny coming from a world grappling with how best to respond to climate change, says a new report from the InterAcademy Council (IAC), an Amsterdam-based organization of the world’s science academies.

    "Operating under the public microscope the way IPCC does requires strong leadership, the continued and enthusiastic participation of distinguished scientists, an ability to adapt, and a commitment to openness if the value of these assessments to society is to be maintained," said Harold T. Shapiro, president emeritus and professor of economics and public affairs at Princeton University in the United States and chair of the committee that wrote the report. Roseanne Diab, executive officer of the Academy of Science of South Africa and professor emeritus of environmental sciences and honorary senior research associate at the University of KwaZulu-Natal in Durban, served as vice chair of the committee, which included experts from several countries and a variety of disciplines.

    The IPCC was established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme to inform policy decisions through periodic assessments of what is known about the physical scientific aspects of climate change, its global and regional impacts, and options for adaptation and mitigation. Representatives of 194 participating governments make up the Panel, which sets the scope of the assessments, elects the Bureau that oversees them, and approves the Summaries for Policymakers that accompany the massive assessment reports themselves, which are prepared by thousands of scientists who volunteer for three Working Groups.

    These assessment reports have gained IPCC much respect including a share of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. However, amid an increasingly intense public debate about the science of climate change and costs of curbing it, IPCC has come under closer scrutiny, and controversies have erupted over its perceived impartiality toward climate policy and the accuracy of its reports. This prompted U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and IPCC chair Rajendra K. Pachauri to issue a letter on March 10 this year requesting that the IAC review IPCC and recommend ways to strengthen the processes and procedures by which future assessments are prepared.

    The IAC report makes several recommendations to fortify IPCC’s management structure, including establishing an executive committee to act on the Panel’s behalf and ensure that an ongoing decision-making capability is maintained. To enhance its credibility and independence, the executive committee should include individuals from outside the IPCC or even outside the climate science community. IPCC also should appoint an executive director — with the status of a senior scientist equal to that of the Working Group co-chairs — to lead the Secretariat, handle day-to-day operations, and speak on behalf of the organization. The current position of the IPCC secretary does not carry a level of autonomy or responsibility equivalent to that of executive directors at other organizations, the IAC committee found.

    The part-time nature and fixed term of the IPCC chair’s position has many advantages, the committee said, but the current limit of two six-year terms is too long. The IPCC chair and the proposed executive director, as well as the Working Group co-chairs, should be limited to the term of one assessment in order to maintain a variety of perspectives and fresh approach to each assessment. Formal qualifications for the chair and all other Bureau members need to be developed, as should a rigorous conflict-of-interest policy to be applied to senior IPCC leadership and all authors, review editors, and staff responsible for report content, the committee added.

    Given that the IAC report was prompted in part by the revelation of errors in the last assessment, the committee examined IPCC’s review process as well. It concluded that the process is thorough, but stronger enforcement of existing IPCC review procedures could minimize the number of errors. To that end, IPCC should encourage review editors to fully exercise their authority to ensure that all review comments are adequately considered. Review editors should also ensure that genuine controversies are reflected in the report and be satisfied that due consideration was given to properly documented alternative views. Lead authors should explicitly document that the full range of thoughtful scientific views has been considered.

    The use of so-called gray literature from unpublished or non-peer-reviewed sources has been controversial, although often such sources of information and data are relevant and appropriate for inclusion in the assessment reports. Problems occur because authors do not follow IPCC’s guidelines for evaluating such sources and because the guidelines themselves are too vague, the committee said. It recommended that these guidelines be made more specific — including adding guidelines on what types of literature are unacceptable — and strictly enforced to ensure that unpublished and non-peer-reviewed literature is appropriately flagged.

    The committee also called for more consistency in how the Working Groups characterize uncertainty. In the last assessment, each Working Group used a different variation of IPCC’s uncertainty guidelines, and the committee found that the guidance is not always followed. The Working Group II report, for example, contains some statements that were assigned high confidence but for which there is little evidence. In future assessments, all Working Groups should qualify their understanding of a topic by describing the amount of evidence available and the degree of agreement among experts; this is known as the level of understanding scale. And all Working Groups should use a probability scale to quantify the likelihood of a particular event occurring, but only when there is sufficient evidence to do so.

    IPCC’s slow and inadequate response to revelations of errors in the last assessment, as well as complaints that its leaders have gone beyond IPCC’s mandate to be “policy relevant, not policy prescriptive” in their public comments, have made communications a critical issue. The IAC report recommends that IPCC complete and implement a communications strategy now in development. The strategy should emphasize transparency and include a plan for rapid but thoughtful response to crises. The relevance of the assessments to stakeholders also needs to be considered, which may require more derivative products that are carefully crafted to ensure consistency with the underlying assessments. Guidelines are also needed on who can speak on behalf of IPCC and how to do so while remaining within the bounds of IPCC reports and mandates.

    The IAC committee credited IPCC with having proved its adaptability, and urged it to be even more creative in maintaining flexibility in the character and structure of assessments, including possibly releasing the Working Group I report, which examines the physical scientific aspects of climate change, a few years ahead so the other Working Groups can take advantage of the results.

    The committee emphasized that in the end the quality of the assessment process and results depends on the quality of the leadership at all levels: “It is only by engaging the energy and expertise of a large cadre of distinguished scholars as well as the thoughtful participation of government representatives that high standards are maintained and that truly authoritative assessments continue to be produced.” It also stressed that because intense scrutiny from policymakers and the public is likely to continue, IPCC needs to be as transparent as possible in detailing its processes, particularly its criteria for selecting participants and the type of scientific and technical information to be assessed.

    The committee’s report was informed by public meetings where presentations were made by IPCC and U.N. officials as well as experts with different perspectives of IPCC processes and procedures. The committee also gathered input from experts and groups via interviews and a widely circulated questionnaire that was posted on the web so the public could comment.

    The IAC report is expected to be considered at the 32nd Plenary Session of the IPCC in Busan, South Korea, Oct. 11-14. The report was sponsored by the United Nations Environment Programme. A committee roster follows. The report is available online at InterAcademy Council | Review of the IPCC | An Evaluation of the Procedures and Processes of the InterGovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

    Founded in 2000, the IAC was created to mobilize top scientists and engineers around the world to provide evidence-based advice to international bodies such as the United Nations and World Bank — including preparing expert, peer-reviewed studies upon request. It is co-chaired by Robbert Dijkgraaf, president of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, and Lu Yongxiang, president of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. The IAC Secretariat is hosted by the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences in Amsterdam.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  5. froggy
    Offline

    froggy Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2009
    Messages:
    8,309
    Thanks Received:
    1,113
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Ratings:
    +1,632
    Anyone who can read the bible and understand would tell you its not global warming this was predicted thousands of years ago.
     
  6. Wry Catcher
    Offline

    Wry Catcher Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    31,821
    Thanks Received:
    4,252
    Trophy Points:
    1,160
    Location:
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Ratings:
    +8,195
    What motivates PC and others like her to post? Is it motivated by some sort of economic interest, a need for attention or something worse, more pathological?
    Pointing out the exception, false or misleading, or simply wrong data by one source, proves only that one source fucked up.
    Of course we must ask why. But unless a world-wide conspiracy exists, the evidence I've read is strongly convincing something is going on causing extreme climate fluctuations. Yesterday my wife and I spent the day at the California Academy of Sciences in Golden Gate Park.
    The evidence of "global warming", or climate change is overwhelming, as are the potential consequences for life as we know it if we stay the course.
    Even if the consequences are overstated, and even in the very unlikely event humans are not the actual cause of change, it's clear to me and to the scientific community that human behavior is at the very least the a proximate cause.
    Conservatives whine and complain about leaving our children and theirs in debt, yet conservatives have no concen for the safety of the air our progeny breath, the water they drink or the food they consume.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  7. Si modo
    Offline

    Si modo Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2009
    Messages:
    41,538
    Thanks Received:
    6,382
    Trophy Points:
    1,810
    Location:
    St. Eligius
    Ratings:
    +8,703
    ^^^ :rolleyes: (Froggy and Wry)
     
  8. Si modo
    Offline

    Si modo Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2009
    Messages:
    41,538
    Thanks Received:
    6,382
    Trophy Points:
    1,810
    Location:
    St. Eligius
    Ratings:
    +8,703
    For those without a clue: The IPCC is not a scientific body (although they certainly will allow that perception to exist among members of the AGW club); it is a policy-based organization.
     
    Last edited: Aug 31, 2010
  9. IanC
    Offline

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    9,200
    Thanks Received:
    1,071
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,448
    so G.T. thinks the Himalayan glaciers will melt by 2035?!?

    what does the political leanings of a newspaper have to do with the veracity of an IPPC report?
     
  10. skookerasbil
    Offline

    skookerasbil Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2009
    Messages:
    24,310
    Thanks Received:
    2,924
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Not the middle of nowhere
    Ratings:
    +6,285

    LOL...............OK s0n...............heres the problem: Reality is 95% perception and this is a lead story over on DRUDGE as we speak!!!:lol: 30 million people are going to take a gandor over to DRUDGE in the next 24 hours.............yuk..........yuk..........

    And Im laughing...........10 years ago I predicted that eventually this whole "man made" global warming crap would fall like a house of cards in slow motion = exactly whats happening. What happened? People learned that the hopelessly duped pushing this garbage were also people who were going to get their pockets lined with lots of $$$.........PAYED FOR BY REGULAR AMERICANS!!! Anti-Capitalist assholes who dont give a rats ass about the environment.:oops:
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1

Share This Page