Climate Change Debate Held.... Very interesting outcome...

[westwall]

You realize that the IPCC's output is based entirely on the sum of the peer reviewed science in the field. If it's crap, all science is crap. Is that your position?

Most of what the IPCC uses is non peer reviewed crap put out by activist NGO's.

"'Grey' literature, which led to the "Glaciergate" scandal of 2010 when it was revealed that the rate at which Himalayan glaciers are losing ice (gone by 2035!) was stated as fact even though it was not based on evidence, will no longer be a problem for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Because they have declared that grey literature will no longer be grey - any information they choose to use will be considered peer reviewed just by being posted on the Internet by the IPCC.

Most rational people would simply not use grey literature after the errors of the 2007 report, to avoid controversy and therefore keep climate studies as politically agnostic as possible. It isn't like global warming deniers are ever getting through peer review, so grey literature would seem to be unnecessary, unless you feel like the ridiculous claim that African farmers are going to suffer 50% yield drops by 2020 absolutely must be included in a science report (that one was also shown to have been made up).

Instead, they have embraced grey literature.. Makes no sense, right? Maybe it does. If I want to have fewer people living in poverty, for example, I simply redefine poverty and - presto - people are no longer poor. I could have a terrific career in politics if I simply got people to believe I cured poverty by redefining it. Redefining grey literature takes poor science and attempts to call it rich."

IPCC Gives Up On Science Makes Grey Literature Official

 

[IanC]

You realize that the IPCC's output is based entirely on the sum of the peer reviewed science in the field. If it's crap, all science is crap. Is that your position?

Most of what the IPCC uses is non peer reviewed crap put out by activist NGO's.

"'Grey' literature, which led to the "Glaciergate" scandal of 2010 when it was revealed that the rate at which Himalayan glaciers are losing ice (gone by 2035!) was stated as fact even though it was not based on evidence, will no longer be a problem for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Because they have declared that grey literature will no longer be grey - any information they choose to use will be considered peer reviewed just by being posted on the Internet by the IPCC.

Most rational people would simply not use grey literature after the errors of the 2007 report, to avoid controversy and therefore keep climate studies as politically agnostic as possible. It isn't like global warming deniers are ever getting through peer review, so grey literature would seem to be unnecessary, unless you feel like the ridiculous claim that African farmers are going to suffer 50% yield drops by 2020 absolutely must be included in a science report (that one was also shown to have been made up).

Instead, they have embraced grey literature.. Makes no sense, right? Maybe it does. If I want to have fewer people living in poverty, for example, I simply redefine poverty and - presto - people are no longer poor. I could have a terrific career in politics if I simply got people to believe I cured poverty by redefining it. Redefining grey literature takes poor science and attempts to call it rich."

IPCC Gives Up On Science Makes Grey Literature Official

thanks for that.

it really is too bad that the IAC (InterAcademy Council) report came out during climategate and the aftermath. no one remembers the scathing rebukes, or the recommendations that were ignored.

 

[Crick]

Rebukes of all science? Rebukes of all climate science? Rebukes that had any impact on the validity of AGW? And what recommendations do you believe were ignored Ian?

 

[Crick]

You realize that the IPCC's output is based entirely on the sum of the peer reviewed science in the field. If it's crap, all science is crap. Is that your position?

You actually wrote this knowing that much of their "peer" reviewed data comes from magazine articles with no basis in science. Pure conjecture with no basis in reality. The IPCC even admitted that it was true. You are such a shill..

View attachment 38636

The magazines they are drawing from are peer reviewed science journals - THE basis of science. Show us where the IPCC admits they'e working from conjecture with no basis in science or reality. Or admit you're a stinking, unmitigated liar.

OMG!!! No they are not... This is like trying to convince a wall that it is a floor.. The only one lying here is you..

UN climate change panel based claims on student dissertation and magazine article

The revelation will cause fresh embarrassment for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which had to issue a humiliating apology earlier this month over inaccurate statements about global warming.

The IPCC's remit is to provide an authoritative assessment of scientific evidence on climate change.

In its most recent report, it stated that observed reductions in mountain ice in the Andes, Alps and Africa was being caused by global warming, citing two papers as the source of the information.

However, it can be revealed that one of the sources quoted was a feature article published in a popular magazine for climbers which was based on anecdotal evidence from mountaineers about the changes they were witnessing on the mountainsides around them.

Himalayas? Hahahahahaaaaaaa....

 

[IanC]

You realize that the IPCC's output is based entirely on the sum of the peer reviewed science in the field. If it's crap, all science is crap. Is that your position?

You actually wrote this knowing that much of their "peer" reviewed data comes from magazine articles with no basis in science. Pure conjecture with no basis in reality. The IPCC even admitted that it was true. You are such a shill..

View attachment 38636

The magazines they are drawing from are peer reviewed science journals - THE basis of science. Show us where the IPCC admits they'e working from conjecture with no basis in science or reality. Or admit you're a stinking, unmitigated liar.

OMG!!! No they are not... This is like trying to convince a wall that it is a floor.. The only one lying here is you..

UN climate change panel based claims on student dissertation and magazine article

The revelation will cause fresh embarrassment for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which had to issue a humiliating apology earlier this month over inaccurate statements about global warming.

The IPCC's remit is to provide an authoritative assessment of scientific evidence on climate change.

In its most recent report, it stated that observed reductions in mountain ice in the Andes, Alps and Africa was being caused by global warming, citing two papers as the source of the information.

However, it can be revealed that one of the sources quoted was a feature article published in a popular magazine for climbers which was based on anecdotal evidence from mountaineers about the changes they were witnessing on the mountainsides around them.

Himalayas? Hahahahahaaaaaaa....

you really don't know about the Himalayas scandal? Pachauri, the head of the IPCC, accused the scientist who brought up the mistake of 'voodoo science' and tried to get him fired. when that failed he made up an excuse that it the prediction was for 2350 instead of 2035. when it turned out the source of the quote was an extreme green environmental group brochure, Pachi just shut up.

why do you always think gross mistakes and the cover-up afterwards are inconsequential?

 

[IanC]

Rebukes of all science? Rebukes of all climate science? Rebukes that had any impact on the validity of AGW? And what recommendations do you believe were ignored Ian?

I havent actually read anything about the IAC report in a long time. they found a lot of problems and made a lot of suggestions. but the IPCC has basically ignored them.


InterAcademy Council Report Urges Fundamental Reform Of IPCC
"
The use of 'gray literature' from unpublished or non-peer-reviewed sources, like including speculation from a 1999 magazine story claims that Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035, needed to be addressed and was, with the the IAC saying that unpublished and non-peer-reviewed literature needs to be appropriately flagged.

The report also criticized the Working Groups. The Working Group II report, they noted, contained statements that were assigned high confidence but for which there was little evidence.

The lack of any oversight resulted in errors that cast the accuracy of the entire report in a bad light, like claims that 55 per cent of the Netherlands was below sea level when the figure is 26 per cent and Himalayan glaciers melting by 2035, which would require a drop of 50 feet per year, well-beyond even the most exaggerated estimates.

The IAC recommended that 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 - 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.

The IAC also noted "slow and inadequate response to revelations of errors in the last assessment" by the IPCC.
"

there is a link to the actual report in that article

 

[Crick]

And you believe the IPCC has ignored those recommendations? Why?

 

[Crick]

the IPCC uses a subsection of science papers that are heavily skewed to the positions of the lead authors.

Prove it. Let's see the hordes of papers with dissenting opinions Ian,

 

[jc456]

the IPCC uses a subsection of science papers that are heavily skewed to the positions of the lead authors.

Prove it. Let's see the hordes of papers with dissenting opinions Ian,

Funny the thing you want and yet are unwilling to provide, eh? You are a hypocrite

 

[mamooth]

Thread summary:

The same tiny clique of denier fringe cultists keeps repeating their nutty conspiracy theories. Denialism is purely a conspiracy cult now. It's hard to tell denier rants from the rants of birthers, 9/11 truthers, antivaxxers or any other conspiracy cultists, being that bitter weeping all kind of sounds alike.

Deniers, the world classifies you as comic relief now. So proceed with the show. Here we are now, entertain us.

 

[jc456]

Thread summary:

The same tiny clique of denier fringe cultists keeps repeating their nutty conspiracy theories. Denialism is purely a conspiracy cult now. It's hard to tell denier rants from the rants of birthers, 9/11 truthers, antivaxxers or any other conspiracy cultists, being that bitter weeping all kind of sounds alike.

Deniers, the world classifies you as comic relief now. So proceed with the show. Here we are now, entertain us.

Summary, man tooth providing a summary. Too funny!

 

[SSDD]

keep your poor head above water.

I suggest you just quietly go away....you are so far out of your depth, and such a ridiculous, pathetic liar, that you are no longer even fun to rip to shreds. Now it's too much like beating a child.

A Downs child.

 

[Crick]

Was there a medieval warm period and if so where and when - Springer

Abstract
It has frequently been suggested that the period encompassing the ninth to the fourteenth centuries A.D. experienced a climate warmer than that prevailing around the turn of the twentieth century. This epoch has become known as theMedieval Warm Period, since it coincides with the Middle Ages in Europe. In this review a number of lines of evidence are considered, (including climatesensitive tree rings, documentary sources, and montane glaciers) in order to evaluate whether it is reasonable to conclude that climate in medieval times was, indeed, warmer than the climate of more recent times. Our review indicates that for some areas of the globe (for example, Scandinavia, China, the Sierra Nevada in California, the Canadian Rockies and Tasmania), temperatures, particularly in summer, appear to have been higher during some parts of this period than those that were to prevail until the most recent decades of the twentieth century. These warmer regional episodes were not strongly synchronous. Evidence from other regions (for example, the Southeast United States, southern Europe along the Mediterranean, and parts of South America) indicates that the climate during that time was little different to that of later times, or that warming, if it occurred, was recorded at a later time than has been assumed. Taken together, the available evidence does not support aglobalMedieval Warm Period, although more support for such a phenomenon could be drawn from high-elevation records than from low-elevation records.

The available data exhibit significant decadal to century scale variability throughout the last millennium. A comparison of 30-year averages for various climate indices places recent decades in a longer term perspective.

Again, no support for the contention the the MWP was particularly warmer for the globe.

HOLY CRAP! You had to go all the way back to 1994 for a paper that bad! Try coming up with something a little more current why don't ya!

Here's the MWP in Patagonia, you know... Argentina. That far enough away for ya?


Abstract
Climate and environmental reconstructions from natural archives are important for the interpretation of current climatic change. Few quantitative high-resolution reconstructions exist for South America which is the only land mass extending from the tropics to the southern high latitudes at 56°S. We analyzed sediment cores from two adjacent lakes in Northern Chilean Patagonia, Lago Castor (45°36′S, 71°47′W) and Laguna Escondida (45°31′S, 71°49′W). Radiometric dating (210Pb, 137Cs, 14C-AMS) suggests that the cores reach back to c. 900 BC (Laguna Escondida) and c. 1900 BC (Lago Castor). Both lakes show similarities and reproducibility in sedimentation rate changes and tephra layer deposition. We found eight macroscopic tephras (0.2–5.5 cm thick) dated at 1950 BC, 1700 BC, at 300 BC, 50 BC, 90 AD, 160 AD, 400 AD and at 900 AD. These can be used as regional time-synchronous stratigraphic markers. The two thickest tephras represent known well-dated explosive eruptions of Hudson volcano around 1950 and 300 BC. Biogenic silica flux revealed in both lakes a climate signal and correlation with annual temperature reanalysis data (calibration 1900–2006 AD; Lago Castor r = 0.37; Laguna Escondida r = 0.42, seven years filtered data). We used a linear inverse regression plus scaling model for calibration and leave-one-out cross-validation (RMSEv = 0.56 °C) to reconstruct sub decadal-scale temperature variability for Laguna Escondida back to AD 400. The lower part of the core from Laguna Escondida prior to AD 400 and the core of Lago Castor are strongly influenced by primary and secondary tephras and, therefore, not used for the temperature reconstruction. The temperature reconstruction from Laguna Escondida shows cold conditions in the 5th century (relative to the 20th century mean), warmer temperatures from AD 600 to AD 1150 and colder temperatures from AD 1200 to AD 1450. From AD 1450 to AD 1700 our reconstruction shows a period with stronger variability and on average higher values than the 20th century mean. Until AD 1900 the temperature values decrease but stay slightly above the 20th century mean. Most of the centennial-scale features are reproduced in the few other natural climate archives in the region. The early onset of cool conditions from c. AD 1200 onward seems to be confirmed for this region.

Late Holocene air temperature variability reconstructed from the sediments of Laguna Escondida Patagonia Chile 45 30 S

So, the temperatures at two lakes in South America were "warmer" than the global mean from 600 to 1150AD. Meaningless. I can find thousands of spots today that are warmer than the global mean and thousands that are colder.

 

[Crick]

Himalayas? Hahahahahaaaaaaa....

you really don't know about the Himalayas scandal?

I was very familiar with the Himalayas incident in AR4. That's why I was laughing.

 

[westwall]

And you believe the IPCC has ignored those recommendations? Why?

Because they have. It's really that simple.

 

[Crick]

I wish real arguments were that easy to win. You're pathetic.

 

[JoeMoma]

Global warming means we are all DOOMED! DOOMED!

 

[Crick]

Why don't you try again after some coffee...

 

[Billy_Bob]

Thread summary:

The same tiny clique of denier fringe cultists keeps repeating their nutty conspiracy theories. Denialism is purely a conspiracy cult now. It's hard to tell denier rants from the rants of birthers, 9/11 truthers, antivaxxers or any other conspiracy cultists, being that bitter weeping all kind of sounds alike.

Deniers, the world classifies you as comic relief now. So proceed with the show. Here we are now, entertain us.

The man tooth summary:
I got no data..
I got no proof..
But your deniers.. alha akkkkbar global warming are gonna die...

SUBSTANCE = ZERO

 

[Billy_Bob]

Rebukes of all science? Rebukes of all climate science? Rebukes that had any impact on the validity of AGW? And what recommendations do you believe were ignored Ian?

I havent actually read anything about the IAC report in a long time. they found a lot of problems and made a lot of suggestions. but the IPCC has basically ignored them.


InterAcademy Council Report Urges Fundamental Reform Of IPCC
"
The use of 'gray literature' from unpublished or non-peer-reviewed sources, like including speculation from a 1999 magazine story claims that Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035, needed to be addressed and was, with the the IAC saying that unpublished and non-peer-reviewed literature needs to be appropriately flagged.

The report also criticized the Working Groups. The Working Group II report, they noted, contained statements that were assigned high confidence but for which there was little evidence.

The lack of any oversight resulted in errors that cast the accuracy of the entire report in a bad light, like claims that 55 per cent of the Netherlands was below sea level when the figure is 26 per cent and Himalayan glaciers melting by 2035, which would require a drop of 50 feet per year, well-beyond even the most exaggerated estimates.

The IAC recommended that 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 - 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.

The IAC also noted "slow and inadequate response to revelations of errors in the last assessment" by the IPCC.
"

there is a link to the actual report in that article

This article points out the drastic flaws in the methodology that was pointed out in the debate. It also shows that they were fully aware of their "Grey" work being purported as fact when it was nothing but conjecture.

Very Nice Ian. Going to add this one to the many book marks I have along with Westwall's article. These two articles make it abundantly clear that this is all by design and not due to science. they were told of the shortcomings in their work and yet they continued, unabated to spew lies and half-truths. That is more disconcerting than the bad science as it shows they will do anything, totally devoid of honor, to us to further their agenda.