Old Rocks
Diamond Member
Really?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
About the IAC
In May 2000 all of the world's science academies created the IAC to mobilize the best scientists and engineers worldwide to provide high quality advice to international bodies - such as the United Nations and the World Bank - as well as to other institutions.
In a world where science and technology are fundamental to many critical issues - ranging from climate change and genetically modified organisms to the crucial challenge of achieving sustainability - making wise policy decisions has become increasingly dependent on good scientific advice.
The IAC is client-driven and works on a project-by-project basis. It has developed mechanisms and procedures to guarantee the scientific quality of its reports, the policy-relevance of its recommendations and the absence of regional or national bias. The IAC collaborates closely with the IAP - the global network of science academies, the InterAcademy Medical Panel, the International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences, and the International Council for Science. The IAC Secretariat is hosted by the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW) in Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
As the the IPCC flagship, SS Goebbels Warming, takes yet another direct hit amidships....
Read more: Articles: IPCC Admits Its Past Reports Were JunkThe IAC reported that IPCC lead authors fail to give "due consideration ... to properly documented alternative views" (p. 20), fail to "provide detailed written responses to the most significant review issues identified by the Review Editors" (p. 21), and are not "consider[ing] review comments carefully and document[ing] their responses" (p. 22). In plain English: the IPCC reports are not peer-reviewed.
The IAC found that "the IPCC has no formal process or criteria for selecting authors" and "the selection criteria seemed arbitrary to many respondents" (p. 18). Government officials appoint scientists from their countries and "do not always nominate the best scientists from among those who volunteer, either because they do not know who these scientists are or because political considerations are given more weight than scientific qualifications" (p. 18). In other words: authors are selected from a "club" of scientists and nonscientists who agree with the alarmist perspective favored by politicians.
Rules/FAQ - American Thinker
lol, no wonder odd-dude is so odd.
Years of peer review retorts all down the drain huh Old Rocks? lol
Manipulated data in models which can't predict anything. Now the shame of politics within the community of faithers. Pretty much what we have said since day one here.
Are you saying that the IPCC predictions were wrong? Because if you are stating that, you are correct. They were far too conservative, we are seeing consequences right now that we did not expect until mid-century.
They had a lot of material to review, and did an inadaquete job of reviewing all of it. Nonetheless, their information and predictions are far closer to reality than the idiotic denial we see coming from the politics of the right wing.
Are you saying that the IPCC predictions were wrong? Because if you are stating that, you are correct. They were far too conservative, we are seeing consequences right now that we did not expect until mid-century.
They had a lot of material to review, and did an inadaquete job of reviewing all of it. Nonetheless, their information and predictions are far closer to reality than the idiotic denial we see coming from the politics of the right wing.
Sorry, turd, but the IPCC keeps revising its predictions downward. In other words, even they admit their predictions have been far to extreme.
Are you saying that the IPCC predictions were wrong? Because if you are stating that, you are correct. They were far too conservative, we are seeing consequences right now that we did not expect until mid-century.
They had a lot of material to review, and did an inadaquete job of reviewing all of it. Nonetheless, their information and predictions are far closer to reality than the idiotic denial we see coming from the politics of the right wing.
I'm sure in your mind everything in the OP checks out. I suspect your didn't research the issue as long as everything in the OP confirmed what you wanted to hear.
I don't have to cherry pick anything...The IPCC admitted it.
I have just read the link to the IPCC presser from the American Thinker piece. It says no such thing
You're a fraud....and a schill...you should be ashamed...
I posted the excerpts of the full report in the OP...That they didn't come out and say the word "fraud" doesn't change the fraud.It's not the naysayers saying this...It's the goddamn IPCC itself.
You clods remind me of the dimwits who still say OJ didn't do it.
I posted the IPCC statement. There was no admittance of fraud in that statement. There was a determination to use better information and have it vetted better in future studies. A reasonable goal.
If willfully excluding all research and researchers that don't comport with your desired outcome isn't fraudulent, nothing is.
If the best thing you Bozos have is haggling over semantics, then you're even further gone into la-la-land than even I had thought...And that's saying something.
Years of peer review retorts all down the drain huh Old Rocks? lol
Manipulated data in models which can't predict anything. Now the shame of politics within the community of faithers. Pretty much what we have said since day one here.
What on earth are you blathering about?
Here you can find reams of peer reviewed articles concerning AGW;
AGW Observer
Are you saying that the IPCC predictions were wrong? Because if you are stating that, you are correct. They were far too conservative, we are seeing consequences right now that we did not expect until mid-century.
They had a lot of material to review, and did an inadaquete job of reviewing all of it. Nonetheless, their information and predictions are far closer to reality than the idiotic denial we see coming from the politics of the right wing.
Sorry, turd, but the IPCC keeps revising its predictions downward. In other words, even they admit their predictions have been far to extreme.