What is the IPCC

[mamooth]

That's why it's important to be fudging the old historical temps even to this day....

I don't envy you for how rough it's going to be for you, your withdrawl from conspiracy theory addiction. After all, your conspiracy fix is all that's keeping you going, after your "step response" theory crashed.

 

[Crick]

I'd like to point out that scientists - almost every man jack of them - were convinced that AGW was a valid theory and that we should be worried about anthropogenic warming, before any of these adjustments were ever made. AGW does not rely on those adjustments. Did you think that it did?

There's your main problem BullWinkle

Hello FCT, long time no see.

My name is not Bullwinkle. Feel free to call me Crick or even by my actual name, Abraham. From hereon, if you address Bullwinkle, I'll have to assume you're talking to someone else.

with this 4 thread campaign to resurrect the never existing credibility of the IPCC.

It was only its unjustifiably tattered reputation among the deniers of this forum that I sought to improve. A little knowledge can go a long ways.

You don't understand why these folks would alter data that didn't fit their preconceived notions.

I think you slipped a letter or two there.

What I do understand and that I am having an absurdly difficult time getting across to the deniers here, is that the IPCC hasn't touched a single bit of data since they were founded. They have made no adjustments to anyone's data. Addressing such complaints to the IPCC is barking up the wrong tree in the wrong forest on the wrong planet.

You just SAID there WERE preconceived notions didn't you?

No, I did not. I said "that scientists - almost every man jack of them - were convinced that AGW was a valid theory and that we should be worried about anthropogenic warming, before any of these adjustments were ever made"

Well its vitally important to REDUCE past historical temperatures so that you make constant media claims about UNPRECEDENTED temps -- isn't it?

It is vitally important that climate scientists make their data as accurate as possible. That is what has been done here.

In terms of THIS OP -- it's a total fail. Because you failed to read and comprehend the most important statement of "What the IPCC is".. It's their Mission Statement stupid..

IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf

PRINCIPLES GOVERNING IPCC WORK
Approved at the Fourteenth Session (Vienna, 1-3 October 1998) on 1 October 1998, amended at the Twenty-First Session (Vienna, 3 and 6-7 November 2003), the Twenty-Fifth Session (Mauritius, 26-28 April 2006) and the Thirty-Fifth Session (Geneva, 6-9 June 2012)

ROLE
2. The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.

NOT to present unbiased climate science, NOT to investigate alternative views and explanations, but to look at information RELEVENT to HUMAN INDUCED climate change. It's a political body that reviews and writes the conclusions. And they SELECT those scientists who will pervert their work enough to comply with their Mission Statement.

I hope you weren't under the mistaken belief that the IPCC was supposed to be the world's new weatherman. They were formed to investigate human caused global warming. That such a statement should appear (and be renewed, repeatedly) in their founding documentation is certainly to be expected - as are, unfortunately, the paranoid delusions of the AGW deniers in this forum.

That is the sort of thing that made me think the conversation around here might be improved with some objective fundamentals.

 

[flacaltenn]

Mammoth:

Do you even know what the subject is? Or is this just a spin the wheel response? No. The observations I have made about the complex response of the climate being modeled by conventional System Analysis methods can't crash. In fact, in the past couple years, MOST of what I was saying has been picked up as the excuses coming from your beleagured heroes to explain why their models and dire predictions are the actual "crash" dummies. .

More and more papers on heat storage and lags and variable inter-dependencies for feedback conditions in the Climate system. And how the expectation that temperature rise would look exactly like the intitiating stimuli is (and always was) a juvenile expectation...

You're beyond useless as a foil.. And you do nothing but damage to your cause..

 

[Billy_Bob]

Proven Liars on data......................Caught in the past falsifying data on climate...................

Untrue. If you think that to be the case, let's see your evidence.

Before you waste your time making the attempt, you might want to think about the FACT that the IPCC neither conducts nor finances research. Since they own no data, what data could they have falsified?

Your kidding... Right?

The IPCC funds research that is "politically theirs" and uses others works, such as the fraud Michale Mann, Or James Hansen, Or the CRU/EAU/MET/NOAA/NASA which is now churning out the data point manipulations all over the globe in an effort to make their failed models appear relevant prior to Paris.....

 

[Billy_Bob]

The scandal of fiddled global warming data - Telegraph
http:http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterfe...acier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html

Its amazing to see what a little homogenization, break point alignment and data point manipulations will do for the historical record..

 

[flacaltenn]

I'd like to point out that scientists - almost every man jack of them - were convinced that AGW was a valid theory and that we should be worried about anthropogenic warming, before any of these adjustments were ever made. AGW does not rely on those adjustments. Did you think that it did?

Let's try this again Bullwinkle. YOU SAID in the quote right above that "every man jack of them- were convinced ... of AGW... BEFORE they doctored any data. Is that not a preconcieved notion? Just like the main IPCC Mission Statement that they are only interested in information "relevent to Human Caused Climate Change"..???

And YES.. I DO DECLARE that AGW depends on those adjustments to way past gone historical temperature records. And if you could read and understand the simple graphs you post -- MAYBE you could too.

When that happens, we'll discuss pet names. But in the meantime, the dissonance of equating you with the name of a renown scientist is far too much for me to handle.

 

[Billy_Bob]

I'd like to point out that scientists - almost every man jack of them - were convinced that AGW was a valid theory and that we should be worried about anthropogenic warming, before any of these adjustments were ever made. AGW does not rely on those adjustments. Did you think that it did?

And then we have reality...

Where the rise in temp from 1900-1950 was just 0.51 deg C, stated as natural variation by the IPCC AR1, and the rise from 1951 through 2000 was just 0.50 deg C, stated as purely man made rise by the IPCC as well. Devoid of the fact that they some how stopped natural variation and allowed only man to cause the second rise. Pure fools fantasy...

Then to top it all off the last 18 years 5 months of ZERO trend despite the continued rise in CO2 showing it totally independent of any causation. Disproving CO2 drives anything...

Except for empirical evidence, the IPCC would have their fantasy land... Gia has shown them liars.. all by herself..

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I'd like to point out that scientists - almost every man jack of them - were convinced that AGW was a valid theory and that we should be worried about anthropogenic warming, before any of these adjustments were ever made. AGW does not rely on those adjustments. Did you think that it did?

^ debunked numerous times today alone

 

[Crick]

Proven Liars on data......................Caught in the past falsifying data on climate...................

Untrue. If you think that to be the case, let's see your evidence.

Before you waste your time making the attempt, you might want to think about the FACT that the IPCC neither conducts nor finances research. Since they own no data, what data could they have falsified?

Your kidding... Right?

The IPCC funds research that is "politically theirs" and uses others works, such as the fraud Michale Mann, Or James Hansen, Or the CRU/EAU/MET/NOAA/NASA which is now churning out the data point manipulations all over the globe in an effort to make their failed models appear relevant prior to Paris.....

As has been stated here repeatedly, the IPCC neither conducts nor finances research. I haven't the FAINTEST idea what you mean when you say they "fund research that is "politically theirs"". They fund NO RESEARCH. That seems like a simple enough concept. Are you really having trouble getting a handle on it?

 

[Crick]

I'd like to point out that scientists - almost every man jack of them - were convinced that AGW was a valid theory and that we should be worried about anthropogenic warming, before any of these adjustments were ever made. AGW does not rely on those adjustments. Did you think that it did?

^ debunked numerous times today alone

Show us Frank. I think the new rules require you do so.

 

[Old Rocks]

I'd like to point out that scientists - almost every man jack of them - were convinced that AGW was a valid theory and that we should be worried about anthropogenic warming, before any of these adjustments were ever made. AGW does not rely on those adjustments. Did you think that it did?

Let's try this again Bullwinkle. YOU SAID in the quote right above that "every man jack of them- were convinced ... of AGW... BEFORE they doctored any data. Is that not a preconcieved notion? Just like the main IPCC Mission Statement that they are only interested in information "relevent to Human Caused Climate Change"..???

And YES.. I DO DECLARE that AGW depends on those adjustments to way past gone historical temperature records. And if you could read and understand the simple graphs you post -- MAYBE you could too.

When that happens, we'll discuss pet names. But in the meantime, the dissonance of equating you with the name of a renown scientist is far too much for me to handle.

Well, Flatass, maybe you should talk to some glacialogists about what they have been seeing since the turn of the last century.

Now one of the major predictions of the climate change driven by global warming is that the weather swings will be wider and wilder. So, this year, here in the US, as well as other nations, we are certainly seeing that in spades. The Southeast gets a very cold winter, and, here in the West, we get a record warm winter, with almost no snow. Texas is finally getting rain, and how. I do believe that this summer is going to get real interesting.

Those that are on the IPCC panel are simply compiling what all the scientists around the world have been seeing.

 

[westwall]

I'd like to point out that scientists - almost every man jack of them - were convinced that AGW was a valid theory and that we should be worried about anthropogenic warming, before any of these adjustments were ever made. AGW does not rely on those adjustments. Did you think that it did?

AGW is a theory that has been proven false. That occurred about 15 years ago. Since that time the proponents have resorted to wholesale data falsification in a effort to prop up their now fraudulent work.

Climatology was a legit branch of science till then, now it is discredited by all except those who are poised to benefit from the greatest fraud in human history.

 

[Muhammed]

IPCC?

Isn't that the inventor of the scissor lift and dumbfounded 17 year old idiots?

 

[westwall]

I'd like to point out that scientists - almost every man jack of them - were convinced that AGW was a valid theory and that we should be worried about anthropogenic warming, before any of these adjustments were ever made. AGW does not rely on those adjustments. Did you think that it did?

^ debunked numerous times today alone

Show us Frank. I think the new rules require you do so.

It HAS been shown many, many, many times before. Feel free to look it up yourself right here in this very same Environmental forum.

 

[mamooth]

Mammoth:

Do you even know what the subject is?

As I recall, it was about you trying to apply your Systems knowledge to climate, and failing at it. Which was expected, being engineer's arrogance syndrome always leads to failure.

Or is this just a spin the wheel response? No. The observations I have made about the complex response of the climate being modeled by conventional System Analysis methods can't crash. In fact, in the past couple years, MOST of what I was saying has been picked up as the excuses coming from your beleagured heroes to explain why their models and dire predictions are the actual "crash" dummies.

Ooh, megalomania. Your system can't fail. It's just can't.

More and more papers on heat storage and lags and variable inter-dependencies for feedback conditions in the Climate system. And how the expectation that temperature rise would look exactly like the intitiating stimuli is (and always was) a juvenile expectation...

You're beyond useless as a foil.. And you do nothing but damage to your cause..

You told us climate was acting like a step-response to a solar step-input from 30 or so years ago. Since the temperature curve isn't even remotely looking like it's asymptotic to a new equilibrium temperature, your theory was obviously wrong. Do you have a new theory to replace your failed theory yet?

 

[Crick]

I'd like to point out that scientists - almost every man jack of them - were convinced that AGW was a valid theory and that we should be worried about anthropogenic warming, before any of these adjustments were ever made. AGW does not rely on those adjustments. Did you think that it did?

^ debunked numerous times today alone

Show us Frank. I think the new rules require you do so.

It HAS been shown many, many, many times before. Feel free to look it up yourself right here in this very same Environmental forum.

Link please.

Although, before you waste any more of my time, what are the TWO of you claiming has been debunked? Are you claiming that climate scientists were not worried about AGW before the major data holders made adjustments to their data or that AGW relies on those adjustments?

 

[westwall]

I'd like to point out that scientists - almost every man jack of them - were convinced that AGW was a valid theory and that we should be worried about anthropogenic warming, before any of these adjustments were ever made. AGW does not rely on those adjustments. Did you think that it did?

^ debunked numerous times today alone

Show us Frank. I think the new rules require you do so.

It HAS been shown many, many, many times before. Feel free to look it up yourself right here in this very same Environmental forum.

Link please.

I've shown you many, many times. You waste your time looking it up again.

 

[Old Rocks]

I'd like to point out that scientists - almost every man jack of them - were convinced that AGW was a valid theory and that we should be worried about anthropogenic warming, before any of these adjustments were ever made. AGW does not rely on those adjustments. Did you think that it did?

^ debunked numerous times today alone

Show us Frank. I think the new rules require you do so.

It HAS been shown many, many, many times before. Feel free to look it up yourself right here in this very same Environmental forum.

Link please.

I've shown you many, many times. You waste your time looking it up again.

All you have ever shown us, Walleyes, is that you are unable to read real scientific articles, and are quite ignorant as to what real scientists are presenting in the way of evidence.

 

[Old Rocks]

I'd like to point out that scientists - almost every man jack of them - were convinced that AGW was a valid theory and that we should be worried about anthropogenic warming, before any of these adjustments were ever made. AGW does not rely on those adjustments. Did you think that it did?

AGW is a theory that has been proven false. That occurred about 15 years ago. Since that time the proponents have resorted to wholesale data falsification in a effort to prop up their now fraudulent work.

Climatology was a legit branch of science till then, now it is discredited by all except those who are poised to benefit from the greatest fraud in human history.

So you keep repeating, ad nauseum. Yet the vast majority of the scientists worldwide totally disagree with you.

Figure 1: Response to the survey question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" (Doran 2009) General public data come from a 2008 Gallup poll.

Most striking is the divide between expert climate scientists (97.4%) and the general public (58%). The paper concludes:

"It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes. The challenge, rather, appears to be how to effectively communicate this fact to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists."

The 97 consensus on global warming

I give lying assholes like you credit for the successful campaign you have ran to instill doubt into those with no science background. You successfully did this concerning tobacco, and gained years for the tobacco interests to make billions while killing Americans with tobacco.

 

[skookerasbil]

97%

LOL.......that whole narrative is false. Always has been. There are tens of thousands of Masters and PHd scientists that, at a minimum, state that the whole man-made part is bogus. Tens of thousands........but to the alarmist activists, those scientists are all fake scientists. OK

Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring 97-Percent Consensus Claims - Forbes

Climate Alarmists Caught Doctoring 97 Percent Consensus Claims Human Events

Embedded media from this media site is no longer available