How does the IPCC review process work and how do they approve reports?

[orogenicman]

you're right we do expect evidence. the thing is, you don't provide any.

www.ipcc.ch

has more evidence than your side of this argument could ever dream of; enough to have convinced an extremely large majority of the experts.

Yet funny you all can never provide any

You've got the link right there.

Funny, a conversation like this requires both sides provide objective evidence, rational thought and clear reason. We (courtesy of the world's climate scientists) provide you reams and reams of such things supporting our side of this argument. Yet, all we ever get from you is subjective, unevidenced irrationality.

Is it any wonder that I long ago came to the conclusions I've voiced on numerous occasions regarding the intellect of the primary denier posters on this forum?

dude, evidence isn't some report as Frank stated " IPCC Peer Reviewed Circle jerk is not evidence". so still you presented nothing. My evidence? My evidence is the fact that you have none. you can't supply any evidence that supports any such CO2 manslaughter. The observed weather and patterns of weather all negate your claim. The previous 17 years of .01 C warming contradicts the CO2 increase temperature increase cause and affect. So, still waiting on your evidence that suggests your claim as correct.

You prove his point every time you respond to his posts?

 

[jc456]

you're right we do expect evidence. the thing is, you don't provide any.

www.ipcc.ch

has more evidence than your side of this argument could ever dream of; enough to have convinced an extremely large majority of the experts.

Yet funny you all can never provide any

You've got the link right there.

Funny, a conversation like this requires both sides provide objective evidence, rational thought and clear reason. We (courtesy of the world's climate scientists) provide you reams and reams of such things supporting our side of this argument. Yet, all we ever get from you is subjective, unevidenced irrationality.

Is it any wonder that I long ago came to the conclusions I've voiced on numerous occasions regarding the intellect of the primary denier posters on this forum?

dude, evidence isn't some report as Frank stated " IPCC Peer Reviewed Circle jerk is not evidence". so still you presented nothing. My evidence? My evidence is the fact that you have none. you can't supply any evidence that supports any such CO2 manslaughter. The observed weather and patterns of weather all negate your claim. The previous 17 years of .01 C warming contradicts the CO2 increase temperature increase cause and affect. So, still waiting on your evidence that suggests your claim as correct.

You prove his point every time you respond to his posts?

that he has no evidence? you're exactly right!

 

[orogenicman]

you're right we do expect evidence. the thing is, you don't provide any.

www.ipcc.ch

has more evidence than your side of this argument could ever dream of; enough to have convinced an extremely large majority of the experts.

Yet funny you all can never provide any

You've got the link right there.

Funny, a conversation like this requires both sides provide objective evidence, rational thought and clear reason. We (courtesy of the world's climate scientists) provide you reams and reams of such things supporting our side of this argument. Yet, all we ever get from you is subjective, unevidenced irrationality.

Is it any wonder that I long ago came to the conclusions I've voiced on numerous occasions regarding the intellect of the primary denier posters on this forum?

dude, evidence isn't some report as Frank stated " IPCC Peer Reviewed Circle jerk is not evidence". so still you presented nothing. My evidence? My evidence is the fact that you have none. you can't supply any evidence that supports any such CO2 manslaughter. The observed weather and patterns of weather all negate your claim. The previous 17 years of .01 C warming contradicts the CO2 increase temperature increase cause and affect. So, still waiting on your evidence that suggests your claim as correct.

You prove his point every time you respond to his posts?

that he has no evidence? you're exactly right!

That you are intellectually dishonest.

 

[jc456]

you're right we do expect evidence. the thing is, you don't provide any.

www.ipcc.ch

has more evidence than your side of this argument could ever dream of; enough to have convinced an extremely large majority of the experts.

Yet funny you all can never provide any

You've got the link right there.

Funny, a conversation like this requires both sides provide objective evidence, rational thought and clear reason. We (courtesy of the world's climate scientists) provide you reams and reams of such things supporting our side of this argument. Yet, all we ever get from you is subjective, unevidenced irrationality.

Is it any wonder that I long ago came to the conclusions I've voiced on numerous occasions regarding the intellect of the primary denier posters on this forum?

dude, evidence isn't some report as Frank stated " IPCC Peer Reviewed Circle jerk is not evidence". so still you presented nothing. My evidence? My evidence is the fact that you have none. you can't supply any evidence that supports any such CO2 manslaughter. The observed weather and patterns of weather all negate your claim. The previous 17 years of .01 C warming contradicts the CO2 increase temperature increase cause and affect. So, still waiting on your evidence that suggests your claim as correct.

You prove his point every time you respond to his posts?

that he has no evidence? you're exactly right!

That you are intellectually dishonest.

I am nothing but honest and factual.

 

[orogenicman]

You've got the link right there.

Funny, a conversation like this requires both sides provide objective evidence, rational thought and clear reason. We (courtesy of the world's climate scientists) provide you reams and reams of such things supporting our side of this argument. Yet, all we ever get from you is subjective, unevidenced irrationality.

Is it any wonder that I long ago came to the conclusions I've voiced on numerous occasions regarding the intellect of the primary denier posters on this forum?

dude, evidence isn't some report as Frank stated " IPCC Peer Reviewed Circle jerk is not evidence". so still you presented nothing. My evidence? My evidence is the fact that you have none. you can't supply any evidence that supports any such CO2 manslaughter. The observed weather and patterns of weather all negate your claim. The previous 17 years of .01 C warming contradicts the CO2 increase temperature increase cause and affect. So, still waiting on your evidence that suggests your claim as correct.

You prove his point every time you respond to his posts?

that he has no evidence? you're exactly right!

That you are intellectually dishonest.

I am nothing but honest and factual.

See? You proved his point, yet again.

 

[jc456]

dude, evidence isn't some report as Frank stated " IPCC Peer Reviewed Circle jerk is not evidence". so still you presented nothing. My evidence? My evidence is the fact that you have none. you can't supply any evidence that supports any such CO2 manslaughter. The observed weather and patterns of weather all negate your claim. The previous 17 years of .01 C warming contradicts the CO2 increase temperature increase cause and affect. So, still waiting on your evidence that suggests your claim as correct.

You prove his point every time you respond to his posts?

that he has no evidence? you're exactly right!

That you are intellectually dishonest.

I am nothing but honest and factual.

See? You proved his point, yet again.

I know, I'm still waiting on the evidence.

 

[Crick]

On what grounds do you claim the world's climate scientists have produced no evidence of AGW? Doesn't such a claim strike you as overly broad?

 

[IanC]

it's been a while since I laid out the general skeptic's case, so here goes nothing.

the globe has warmed over the last 100+ years. no one seriously doubts that, although the amount of warming is in question.

also no one seriously doubts that CO2 has increased, or that there is a known mechanism whereby CO2 can disrupt the atmospheric radiative balance in such a way as to increase surface temperature, with all other factors remaining the same..

what remains in serious doubt are the factors that brought the globe out of the LIA, the feedbacks that control how much warming can be caused by CO2, and the models that predict what will happen.

theoretical calculations show that CO2 should cause roughly one degree celcius warming per doubling. that is not enough to cause the calamities that are forecast and it is much cheaper to adapt to changes rather than collapse industry, at least until technology has developed strategies that will actually work.

CO2 theory is in a shambles. the original 3-5C warming forecast is obviously incorrect and climate sensitivities are falling like a rock towards 1C, but the theory hasnt been revamped to match actual measurements.

so the skeptic's case is not the opposite of the warmer's position, it is basically the same without the forecasts of doom because it involves the same principles but at a much smaller scale.



the IPCC takes the warmer's side but is actually much more conservative than what is usually publicized. they focus on human attribution and therefore miss out on opportunities to investigate natural causes which play a much larger part than commonly known. the lead author's have a lot of discretion on what they put into the report and it shows. these authors have been picked from the more militant faction of climate scientists and contrary views are specifically undermined or ignored.

 

[jc456]

On what grounds do you claim the world's climate scientists have produced no evidence of AGW? Doesn't such a claim strike you as overly broad?

On what grounds? The grounds that there isn't any! I have asked day after day and nothing. You'd think you'd have something, but nope

 

[Crick]

On what grounds do you claim the world's climate scientists have produced no evidence of AGW? Doesn't such a claim strike you as overly broad?

On what grounds? The grounds that there isn't any! I have asked day after day and nothing. You'd think you'd have something, but nope

The world's climate scientists have produced mountains of evidence supporting AGW and exceedingly little evidence challenging it. That, I'm afraid, is a cold hard fact. Your ridiculous challenges do no one any good, especially those on your side of this argument.

 

[jc456]

On what grounds do you claim the world's climate scientists have produced no evidence of AGW? Doesn't such a claim strike you as overly broad?

On what grounds? The grounds that there isn't any! I have asked day after day and nothing. You'd think you'd have something, but nope

The world's climate scientists have produced mountains of evidence supporting AGW and exceedingly little evidence challenging it. That, I'm afraid, is a cold hard fact. Your ridiculous challenges do no one any good, especially those on your side of this argument.

dude, how long has this banter been going on. Since as you just stated there is all this evidence, then merely point to the link that shows that CO2 drives temperatures. that's a simple one don't you think?

 

[orogenicman]

On what grounds do you claim the world's climate scientists have produced no evidence of AGW? Doesn't such a claim strike you as overly broad?

On what grounds? The grounds that there isn't any! I have asked day after day and nothing. You'd think you'd have something, but nope

The world's climate scientists have produced mountains of evidence supporting AGW and exceedingly little evidence challenging it. That, I'm afraid, is a cold hard fact. Your ridiculous challenges do no one any good, especially those on your side of this argument.

dude, how long has this banter been going on. Since as you just stated there is all this evidence, then merely point to the link that shows that CO2 drives temperatures. that's a simple one don't you think?

"Banter" is not science. You didn't know this? Huh.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

On what grounds do you claim the world's climate scientists have produced no evidence of AGW? Doesn't such a claim strike you as overly broad?

On what grounds? The grounds that there isn't any! I have asked day after day and nothing. You'd think you'd have something, but nope

The world's climate scientists have produced mountains of evidence supporting AGW and exceedingly little evidence challenging it. That, I'm afraid, is a cold hard fact. Your ridiculous challenges do no one any good, especially those on your side of this argument.

dude, how long has this banter been going on. Since as you just stated there is all this evidence, then merely point to the link that shows that CO2 drives temperatures. that's a simple one don't you think?

I predict we will soon see a chart with no temperature axis

 

[jc456]

On what grounds do you claim the world's climate scientists have produced no evidence of AGW? Doesn't such a claim strike you as overly broad?

On what grounds? The grounds that there isn't any! I have asked day after day and nothing. You'd think you'd have something, but nope

The world's climate scientists have produced mountains of evidence supporting AGW and exceedingly little evidence challenging it. That, I'm afraid, is a cold hard fact. Your ridiculous challenges do no one any good, especially those on your side of this argument.

dude, how long has this banter been going on. Since as you just stated there is all this evidence, then merely point to the link that shows that CO2 drives temperatures. that's a simple one don't you think?

"Banter" is not science. You didn't know this? Huh.

As usual, no supporting evidence from the tons of evidence stated by my opposition. Where is it?

 

[IanC]

there are thousands of papers and datasets available for interpretation. some nominally support AGW, some oppose, most are neutral. the IPCC picks lead scientists who are looking for human attribution so they sift through the evidence looking for information that can be used to support their position.

here is an interesting case spotlighting how the choice of information can be used.

in 1997 Huang produced a borehole study using many thousands of individual results. the graph showed a strong (and warm) MWP.

after Mann's hockeystick came out he produced another borehole study using just 600 individual results, which did not go back to the MWP, and was widely used in the spaghetti graphs produced to support the hockeystick.

in 2008 he produced yet another borehole study with a few thousand individual data points, now showing a cooler MWP.


which study would an IPCC lead author use? the first inconvenient one? the second one (that appears to be ordered on demand) or the latest one that appears similar to the first in shape but offset to marginalize the MWP?

I suppose it would depend on what you were trying to emphasize.

 

[orogenicman]

On what grounds do you claim the world's climate scientists have produced no evidence of AGW? Doesn't such a claim strike you as overly broad?

On what grounds? The grounds that there isn't any! I have asked day after day and nothing. You'd think you'd have something, but nope

The world's climate scientists have produced mountains of evidence supporting AGW and exceedingly little evidence challenging it. That, I'm afraid, is a cold hard fact. Your ridiculous challenges do no one any good, especially those on your side of this argument.

dude, how long has this banter been going on. Since as you just stated there is all this evidence, then merely point to the link that shows that CO2 drives temperatures. that's a simple one don't you think?

"Banter" is not science. You didn't know this? Huh.

As usual, no supporting evidence from the tons of evidence stated by my opposition. Where is it?

Stating that you have an opposition assumes you have an opposing argument that is supported with evidence. Since you don't have either, non-sequitur.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

On what grounds? The grounds that there isn't any! I have asked day after day and nothing. You'd think you'd have something, but nope

The world's climate scientists have produced mountains of evidence supporting AGW and exceedingly little evidence challenging it. That, I'm afraid, is a cold hard fact. Your ridiculous challenges do no one any good, especially those on your side of this argument.

dude, how long has this banter been going on. Since as you just stated there is all this evidence, then merely point to the link that shows that CO2 drives temperatures. that's a simple one don't you think?

"Banter" is not science. You didn't know this? Huh.

As usual, no supporting evidence from the tons of evidence stated by my opposition. Where is it?

Stating that you have an opposition assumes you have an opposing argument that is supported with evidence. Since you don't have either, non-sequitur.

Ignoring Ian charts = AGWCult Science

 

[Old Rocks]

it's been a while since I laid out the general skeptic's case, so here goes nothing.

the globe has warmed over the last 100+ years. no one seriously doubts that, although the amount of warming is in question.

also no one seriously doubts that CO2 has increased, or that there is a known mechanism whereby CO2 can disrupt the atmospheric radiative balance in such a way as to increase surface temperature, with all other factors remaining the same..

what remains in serious doubt are the factors that brought the globe out of the LIA, the feedbacks that control how much warming can be caused by CO2, and the models that predict what will happen.

theoretical calculations show that CO2 should cause roughly one degree celcius warming per doubling. that is not enough to cause the calamities that are forecast and it is much cheaper to adapt to changes rather than collapse industry, at least until technology has developed strategies that will actually work.

CO2 theory is in a shambles. the original 3-5C warming forecast is obviously incorrect and climate sensitivities are falling like a rock towards 1C, but the theory hasnt been revamped to match actual measurements.

so the skeptic's case is not the opposite of the warmer's position, it is basically the same without the forecasts of doom because it involves the same principles but at a much smaller scale.



the IPCC takes the warmer's side but is actually much more conservative than what is usually publicized. they focus on human attribution and therefore miss out on opportunities to investigate natural causes which play a much larger part than commonly known. the lead author's have a lot of discretion on what they put into the report and it shows. these authors have been picked from the more militant faction of climate scientists and contrary views are specifically undermined or ignored.

A lot of flap yap there, Ian, with no links to peer reviewed articles to back it up.

 

[orogenicman]

there are thousands of papers and datasets available for interpretation. some nominally support AGW, some oppose, most are neutral. the IPCC picks lead scientists who are looking for human attribution so they sift through the evidence looking for information that can be used to support their position.

here is an interesting case spotlighting how the choice of information can be used.

in 1997 Huang produced a borehole study using many thousands of individual results. the graph showed a strong (and warm) MWP.

after Mann's hockeystick came out he produced another borehole study using just 600 individual results, which did not go back to the MWP, and was widely used in the spaghetti graphs produced to support the hockeystick.

in 2008 he produced yet another borehole study with a few thousand individual data points, now showing a cooler MWP.


which study would an IPCC lead author use? the first inconvenient one? the second one (that appears to be ordered on demand) or the latest one that appears similar to the first in shape but offset to marginalize the MWP?

I suppose it would depend on what you were trying to emphasize.

Could we please have the source link for this graph?

 

[IanC]

it's been a while since I laid out the general skeptic's case, so here goes nothing.

the globe has warmed over the last 100+ years. no one seriously doubts that, although the amount of warming is in question.

also no one seriously doubts that CO2 has increased, or that there is a known mechanism whereby CO2 can disrupt the atmospheric radiative balance in such a way as to increase surface temperature, with all other factors remaining the same..

what remains in serious doubt are the factors that brought the globe out of the LIA, the feedbacks that control how much warming can be caused by CO2, and the models that predict what will happen.

theoretical calculations show that CO2 should cause roughly one degree celcius warming per doubling. that is not enough to cause the calamities that are forecast and it is much cheaper to adapt to changes rather than collapse industry, at least until technology has developed strategies that will actually work.

CO2 theory is in a shambles. the original 3-5C warming forecast is obviously incorrect and climate sensitivities are falling like a rock towards 1C, but the theory hasnt been revamped to match actual measurements.

so the skeptic's case is not the opposite of the warmer's position, it is basically the same without the forecasts of doom because it involves the same principles but at a much smaller scale.



the IPCC takes the warmer's side but is actually much more conservative than what is usually publicized. they focus on human attribution and therefore miss out on opportunities to investigate natural causes which play a much larger part than commonly known. the lead author's have a lot of discretion on what they put into the report and it shows. these authors have been picked from the more militant faction of climate scientists and contrary views are specifically undermined or ignored.

A lot of flap yap there, Ian, with no links to peer reviewed articles to back it up.

actually I have presented all of this before. I looked into boreholes and presented many links to the studies. it was only after I looked at numerous papers that I stumbled across this excellent combination by JoNova. I suggest you look up the three relevent paper yourself. I think you will find the graph to be quite accurate.