Ruh Roh Scooby reads that trhe IPCC is full of fibbers!

[westwall]

The InterAcademy Council has ruled that the IPCC's report on climate change has "little evidence" to support it's claims about global warming. The IAC is made up of the top scientific academies (to include The Royal Society) what was that about consensus of all the different scientific organisations there olfraud?

CLIMATE CHANGE LIES ARE EXPOSED



A damming report has highlighted questions over the credibility of a leading climate change body
Tuesday August 31,2010
By Donna Bowater 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 on little proof.

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. It can’t just be a matter of adjusting the practices. They have got to look at what are the consequences of having got it wrong in terms of what the public think is going on. Admitting that it needs to reform means something has gone wrong and they really do need to look at the science.”

Climate change sceptic David Holland, who challenged leading climate change scientists at the University of East Anglia to disclose their research, said: “The panel is definitely not fit for purpose. What the IAC has said is substantial changes need to be made.”

The IAC, which comprises the world’s top science academies including the UK’s Royal Society, made recommendations to the IPCC to “enhance its credibility and independence” after the Himalayan glaciers report, which severely damaged the reputation of climate science.

It condemned the panel – set up by the UN to ensure world leaders had the best scientific advice on climate change – for its “slow and inadequate response” after the damaging errors emerged.


SEARCH UK NEWS for:

Among the blunders in the 2007 report were claims that 55 per cent of the Netherlands was below sea level when the figure is 26 per cent.

It also claimed that water supplies for between 75 million and 250 million people in Africa will be at risk by 2020 due to climate change, but the real range is between 90 and 220 million.

The claim that glaciers would melt by 2035 was also rejected.

Professor Julian Dowdeswell of Cambridge University said: “The average glacier is 1,000ft thick so to melt one at 15ft a year would take 60 years. That is faster than anything we are seeing now so the idea of losing it all by 2035 is unrealistic.”

In yesterday’s report, the IAC said: “The IPCC needs to 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 to respond to climate change.”

The review also cast doubt on the future of IPCC chairman Dr Rajendra Pachauri.

Earlier this year, the Daily Express reported how he had no climate science qualifications but held a PhD in economics and was a former railway engineer.

Dr Pachauri has been accused of a conflict of interest, which he denies, after it emerged that he has business interests attracting millions of pounds in funding. One, the Energy Research Institute, is set to receive up to £10million in grants from taxpayers over the next five years.

Speaking after the review was released yesterday, Dr Pachauri said: “We have the highest confidence in the science behind our assessments.

“The scientific community agrees that climate change is real. Greenhouse gases have increased as a result of human activities and now far exceed pre-industrial values.”


Express.co.uk - Home of the Daily and Sunday Express | UK News :: Climate change lies are exposed

 

[Zander]

I have peer reviewed this post and find it 1,006% accurate!!

 

[Old Rocks]

Of course if one wishes to see what was really said, you go to the source, rather than a partisan hack job.

InterAcademy Council | Review of the IPCC | An Evaluation of the Procedures and Processes of the InterGovernmental Panel on Climate Change

UNITED NATIONS — 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

 

[Si modo]

"IPCC needs to fundamentally reform". 'Nuff said.

 

[Old Rocks]

OK, the IPCC will fundementally reform the way it vets it's reports. So will you denialist retards do the same with the constant lies that you put out? Hell no, for that is all that you have.

Once again, the faux scientists of this board sow doubt and ignorance, but cannot explain the overwheming consensus among real scientist concerning AGW and it's affects.

 

[Si modo]

OK, the IPCC will fundementally reform the way it vets it's reports. So will you denialist retards do the same with the constant lies that you put out? Hell no, for that is all that you have.

Once again, the faux scientists of this board sow doubt and ignorance, but cannot explain the overwheming consensus among real scientist concerning AGW and it's affects.

What does a 'denialist retard' deny?

 

[midcan5]

If you stand in front of a mirror naked with your wife or lover you wonder at the marvel that is evolution, dependent on your age you then attack each other, or say time for whole grain.

If you walked outside this summer you'd sweat and wonder could it be any hotter, you hope not and you think wouldn't it be nice if we all took better care of Gawd's creation for our grandchildren.

And if you are one of those who need whole grain, you think back a bit to other summers.

"If even the strongest believers are a little unsure about God, and the strongest atheists are a teeny bit anxious that they might be wrong, there's room, perhaps, for one person to begin to try to imagine the world view of another, no matter what the brain sees as true." Lisa Miller reviewing Sam Harris's work

 

[Si modo]

If you stand in front of a mirror naked with your wife or lover you wonder at the marvel that is evolution, dependent on your age you then attack each other, or say time for whole grain.

If you walked outside this summer you'd sweat and wonder could it be any hotter, you hope not and you think wouldn't it be nice if we all took better care of Gawd's creation for our grandchildren.

And if you are one of those who need whole grain, you think back a bit to other summers.

"If even the strongest believers are a little unsure about God, and the strongest atheists are a teeny bit anxious that they might be wrong, there's room, perhaps, for one person to begin to try to imagine the world view of another, no matter what the brain sees as true." Lisa Miller reviewing Sam Harris's work

I'm moved. Really. Of course, I had some baked beans with my barbeque last night, too. That may have something to do with it.

 

[konradv]

"IPCC needs to fundamentally reform". 'Nuff said.

Aren't you doing what you say the AGW believers do? Cherry-picking what you like?!?!

 

[Si modo]

"IPCC needs to fundamentally reform". 'Nuff said.

Aren't you doing what you say the AGW believers do? Cherry-picking what you like?!?!

Well, that is the thesis of the report. Sorry (not really, but it tends to calm the emotional basketcases when I say that).

 

[konradv]

"IPCC needs to fundamentally reform". 'Nuff said.

Aren't you doing what you say the AGW believers do? Cherry-picking what you like?!?!

Well, that is the thesis of the report. Sorry (not really, but it tends to calm the emotional basketcases when I say that).

No, it isn't. At least not in intent. I see admissions of a need for more openess and better PR, but nothing at all implying there's something wrong with the science, the deniers' underlying claim!

 

[Si modo]

Aren't you doing what you say the AGW believers do? Cherry-picking what you like?!?!

Well, that is the thesis of the report. Sorry (not really, but it tends to calm the emotional basketcases when I say that).

No, it isn't. ....

Okie doke.

You're stuck in the gates.

 

[konradv]

Well, that is the thesis of the report. Sorry (not really, but it tends to calm the emotional basketcases when I say that).

No, it isn't. ....

Okie doke.

You're stuck in the gates.

It's on you. You're the one cherry-picking again.

 

[Si modo]

No, it isn't. ....

Okie doke.

You're stuck in the gates.

It's on you. You're the one cherry-picking again.

OK. Baby steps are needed (no surprise). What do you actually think the thesis of the report is?

 

[konradv]

Okie doke.

You're stuck in the gates.

It's on you. You're the one cherry-picking again.

OK. Baby steps are needed (no surprise). What do you actually think the thesis of the report is?

I don't have time to take someone through baby steps. This is supposed to be an adult board. Who needs your little games? How about posting something substantive, instead of highly redacted, misleading excerpts of other people's posts? Learn that from the "Climategate" thieves?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I have peer reviewed this post and find it 1,006% accurate!!

I concur.

We have a Consensus that the Warmers are totally full of crap

 

[Si modo]

It's on you. You're the one cherry-picking again.

OK. Baby steps are needed (no surprise). What do you actually think the thesis of the report is?

I don't have time to take someone through baby steps. This is supposed to be an adult board. Who needs your little games? How about posting something substantive, instead of highly redacted, misleading excerpts of other people's posts? Learn that from the "Climategate" thieves?

So, you don't know what the thesis of the report is?

 

[westwall]

OK, the IPCC will fundementally reform the way it vets it's reports. So will you denialist retards do the same with the constant lies that you put out? Hell no, for that is all that you have.

Once again, the faux scientists of this board sow doubt and ignorance, but cannot explain the overwheming consensus among real scientist concerning AGW and it's affects.

Uh, I know it has probably escaped you (what doesn't) but the only group to have proveably lied is the....uh.... well how do I say this?... uhhhhh... THE IPCC you jackass!

 

[westwall]

If you stand in front of a mirror naked with your wife or lover you wonder at the marvel that is evolution, dependent on your age you then attack each other, or say time for whole grain.

If you walked outside this summer you'd sweat and wonder could it be any hotter, you hope not and you think wouldn't it be nice if we all took better care of Gawd's creation for our grandchildren.

And if you are one of those who need whole grain, you think back a bit to other summers.

"If even the strongest believers are a little unsure about God, and the strongest atheists are a teeny bit anxious that they might be wrong, there's room, perhaps, for one person to begin to try to imagine the world view of another, no matter what the brain sees as true." Lisa Miller reviewing Sam Harris's work

And if you thought about it a little harder and looked back through a little more history than oh say the last 25 years, you would notice that the summer heat was breaking records THAT HAD BEEN SET BEFORE! And if you actually looked at the instrumentation and how NOAA has been droppingather stations in rural area (that benefit from the urban island effect that NOAA and the alarmists love to exploit) you would find that there are now less measuring stations being used than at any time past 1915.

So historical fact added to data manipulation equals maybe this wasn't the hottest summer on record. It certainly wasn't in the southwest deserts.

But then again what I ask of you requires intellectual honesty, a trait the alarmists abandoned years ago.

 

[westwall]

It's on you. You're the one cherry-picking again.

OK. Baby steps are needed (no surprise). What do you actually think the thesis of the report is?

I don't have time to take someone through baby steps. This is supposed to be an adult board. Who needs your little games? How about posting something substantive, instead of highly redacted, misleading excerpts of other people's posts? Learn that from the "Climategate" thieves?

Then stop acting like a 4 year old, oh wait my four year old acts FAR better than you so let's drop it a year or so.

So here is the most relevant sentence from the IAC

“The IPCC’s credibility has been deeply dented and something has to be done. It can’t just be a matter of adjusting the practices. They have got to look at what are the consequences of having got it wrong in terms of what the public think is going on. Admitting that it needs to reform means something has gone wrong and they really do need to look at the science.”


Is that plain enough for you little one?