http://link.springer.com/article/10.100 ... 013-9647-9

As Ive said before the existence of the IPCC originally was to develope a socioeconomic strategum to respond to the possibility of a warmer planet. At some point immediately thereafter the IPCC introduced a null hypothesis - "climate change is anthropogenic" that it presupposes and guides its scientific research selection and analysis.
Its easy to see how politics can control science by creating a perfect storm for built in bias within a promoted consensus.

Below is an example of IPCC blundering:

Nature mag published an article to discuss ways to improve communication with the public.



http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060019873




http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/ ... e2672.html


It's easy to see the 15 year period was mentioned by the IPCC as yet another attempt at alarmism.
They just got caught, again.
Why alarmists can't see that the IPCC has become a political body that maintains its own scientific community for the purpose of promoting a political agenda is flabbergasting.

Who checks the IPCC's honesty and integrity?
I know who approves of its methods - Climate Alarmists.

What political agenda? Convincing the stubborn masses that we're changing the climate? I agree, that isn't what science is for. They're not very good at communicating, and make mistakes. That doesn't mean their science isn't sound.

If you want to see a true politically motivated group, look at the denialists, who are almost entirely either anti-government or in the pockets of the carbon industry. They don't even hide it. Why should they? You're a living breathing example of why they don't need to. You just keep on thinking it's the other side that has the ulterior motives. It's fascinating.

That hasn't been evidenced.

IS the climate changing - yes

Should we base policies on alarmism - NO.

Even the IPCC isn't even certain WE are changing the climate.
For that reason, over the past past 10+ years the IPCC has been reeling in the claim that WE are changing the climate.
If you do the research you can clearly see their change in language and tone.

The HadCRUT suite of models the IPCC references have not provided an adequate climate record to date.
Because of that, datasets previously dismissed are now being revisited, particularly because natural variances previously dismissed are becoming better understood. Hence, the attention they are now beginning to receive.

In all the rush to alarm the public, the IPCC has set aside rigorous science. Something you'd expect from a political body.

Different datasets provide different temperatures for millennial cycles of warming and cooling.
If retroforcasts were off, then it's highly likely climate forecasts are off as well.


Actually, there are points in this issue from both sides that can be agreed on.
It's tribalism that keeps people from communicating what they can agree on.
History is filled with examples of groups and people that were marginalized because of tribalism. It turned out what they had to say had merit to it.

Solar physics is something that hasn't been seriously considered by the IPCC. It's incredibly complex. It's been mostly dismissed by the IPCC science club. Of the 38 co-authors and three review editors of the IPCC's solar sub-chapter only one is an expert on solar physics.

By the way, it's not the world's lone-wolf, superhero scientists that are telling us we are changing the climate. It's a selected number of scientists the IPCC declared as being in explicit agreement with their campaign that we are changing the climate, and that the planet will continue to warm. I pointed that out to you in another post but you conveniently ignored it.

Within that group, to my knowledge, there was not unanimous explicit agreement we are changing the climate by ourselves and that the planet will continue to warm if we don't do something about it. Of course there was subjective interpretation of what was thought to be implicit agreement with the IPCC's alarmist mongering.

How many times have governing bodies made hasty decisions which later turned out to be idiotic?





You personally wouldn't even know if the science was sound or not, Interbane,
Stop pretending you know that it is.
All you know is that the consensus says we're screwing up the climate.

Yes, it has.

We can know things to be true without being certain of them.



We should base policies on conclusions established by science. Which is to say, we are changing the climate.



I never said I did or would, that's what scientists are for. And they agree that climate change is man-made. Explicit agreement isn't necessary, as the conclusion is established strongly enough that it need not be mentioned. Any paper that showed a minimalization of human impact was counted as a rejection. So the error is in favor of denialists, yet it is still at 97%. And this isn't simply a small group of scientists. It's a collection of over ten thousand peer reviewed papers.

Yet you disagree with them based on the biased websites and books you've been reading, written by people with political interests or who are in the pockets of the carbon industry. Just look up their names for god's sake! The writing is on the wall here. How can you not see it?

You repeat their arguments without searching to see if their arguments are in any way valid. Every argument you've put forward has turned out to be misinformation or debunked. Why do you believe the arguments you repeat, unless you think you're qualified to understand the science?

Is anyone else reading along that doesn't find this incredible? Ant, I'm done with this thread. You've fallen off the edge into delusion.

Is that you, Robert?

I've poked my head in here a few times, but honestly it's difficult to figure out what specifically is being argued.

The problems with a consensus argument have already been acknowledged; we simply don't always have the luxury of certainty with respect to climate science. As Interbane has already stated, most of us don't have ten years to delve into the mountains of data, so the most reasonable position is to rely, for now at least, on the consensus of climate scientists. Ant tries to argue that the 97 percent figure is specious, but clearly a majority of scientists do say there's probably something to anthropogenic warming. The rest is all bluster—focusing on trivial inconsistencies in order to reject the whole kit and caboodle.

Specious? No, i wouldnt express it as such.

Reliable from an entirely historical perspective - no. That is safe to say based on prior ideological consensus claims.

Do I believe based on evidence that the climate is changing - yes. I have stated that several times.

Are there prominent scientists that question our current knoedge base - yes. There are and I am of the opinion that we should not be boxing them out of the discussion.

Is the IPCC more of a political body than an objectively driven group of scientists that are out to save the world from an apocalyptic scenario - i question that possibility.

It's all hunky dory then.