What literature does the IPCC assess?

[Crick]

http://www.ipcc.ch/news_and_events/docs/factsheets/FS_ipcc_assess.pdf

Many posters here suffer the misunderstanding that the IPCC conducts or finances the conduct of climate research. As explained here, "Its role is to assess the scientific, technical and socio-economic literature relevant to understanding climate change, its impacts and future risks, and options for adaptation and mitigation." Cited material is fully reference in the text and footnotes and unpublished material is made available upon request. The frequent charge that the IPCC prevents the public from seeing the material upon which its conclusions are based is simply unsupportable by the facts.

 

[skookerasbil]

all rigged

 

[skookerasbil]

Breaking New Climate Data Rigging Scandal Rocks US Government Principia Scientific Intl

 

[skookerasbil]

Climate guru Brace for massive cover-up after data rigging scandal - OSNet Daily

 

[skookerasbil]

UN IPCC Climate Report Untrustworthy - The Business Journals

 

[skookerasbil]

These bozo's even admit they screw around with the data >>>

IPCC Researchers Admit Global Warming Fraud

 

[skookerasbil]

When the United Nations' last major climate change report was released in April, it omitted some country-specific emissions data for political reasons, a trio of new papers argue, sounding a warning bell about the global politicization of climate science.



ghey


Data Deleted From UN Climate Report Highlight Controversies

 

[Crick]

Why no replies here?

 

[IanC]

Why no replies here?

because you duck or dodge any inconvenient questions.

eg. in the past I asked you about AR4 citing 16 papers in a single issue of the journal Climatic Change for a total of 39 times in two Working Groups over numerous chapters. even though that particular issue was published after AR4 was released! and over a year past the deadline set by the IPCC for inclusion.

I have also brought up papers that were cited by the IPCC, against their guidelines, because they hadnt been accepted for publication, and never were published as referenced.

 

[mamooth]

Ian, nobody understands why they should care about the inane topics that you babble about. What makes sense to the CultofMcIntyre usually won't make any sense to normal people, and the cultists need to understand that.

 

[IanC]

Ian, nobody understands why they should care about the inane topics that you babble about. What makes sense to the CultofMcIntyre usually won't make any sense to normal people, and the cultists need to understand that.

hahahahaha. I prefer to think of the topics as more arcane than inane. and I dont particularly care if 'normal people' make sense of what I say. my words are directed at those who infer meaning from incomplete but meaningful information. I also try not to tell people what to think, and I prefer not to use personal insults.

in this thread the topic is IPCC literature. I could say, "what idiot decided to quote grey literature and state that the Himalayan glaciers will melt by 2035". strong, direct, demeaning. it points out that someone made a big mistake.

but I dont want to point out a mistake. I want to point out behaviour that is fundamental to the IPCC process. in my comment above I referenced a previous instance where I pointed out to Crick that rules were evaded to support the position of the lead coordinating authors. why is this important?

there is already a large amount of established evidence from which lead authors can select to support their discretionary position. the IPCC is not supposed to be in the business producing new evidence but it seems like the lead coordinating authors and their teams get to cite their own unvetted work before it has even been released to the public sphere, and sometimes even before it has gone through peer review, and occasionally when it has not even been deemed worthy of being published. (can you imagine how bad the paper must be to get rejected even when it is known to be cited by the IPCC?)

I think all but the most credulous of people can recognize that 16 papers cited dozens of times but accepted after the deadline and published after the IPCC report was released is a blatant disregard of the rules and shows a systemic bias in how the IPCC works.

 

[IanC]

Ian, nobody understands why they should care about the inane topics that you babble about. What makes sense to the CultofMcIntyre usually won't make any sense to normal people, and the cultists need to understand that.

mamooth invokes the ad hom of cultism here. McIntyre was brought in on AR4. his published criticisms of Mann's hockeystick needed to rebutted in some fashion. several groups tried, with limited success. - Bishop Hill blog - Caspar and the Jesus paper . this gives the skeptic's version of events. of particular note, Eugene Wahl was named in the Phil Jones's infamous 'delete all AR4 emails' email. when finally asked, Wahl did admit that he deleted all AR4 correspondence after being contacted by Mann. it is hard to imagine that all of those investigations that led to 'exoneration' never once asked him whether he deleted anything.

I challenge anyone to read both the skeptics' version of events and the warmers' version, and then make up their own minds about where the truth lies.

 

[Crick]

McIntrye was not "brought in". He brought himself in when the IPCC started taking inputs from "self-identified" experts. Monckton got in on the same ticket. Do you consider Monckton a climate scientists Ian?

 

[IanC]

McIntrye was not "brought in". He brought himself in when the IPCC started taking inputs from "self-identified" experts. Monckton got in on the same ticket. Do you consider Monckton a climate scientists Ian?

how funny is that!!!!! you couldnt jump fast enough to prove my point. hahahahaha

because you duck or dodge any inconvenient questions.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

IPCC is on record that it uses climate change to redistribute wealth. Its like Bernie Madoff telling you, yes I'm a scam artist your money is gone, now how much do your want to invest in my equity fund.

IPCC is a scam

 

[mamooth]

Ian, thanks for proving my point. Again. And thanks ahead of time for the way you'll constantly do so in the future.

CultofMcIntyre acolytes just don't get that their cult jabbering is considered to be senseless by all the normal people. And when you tell them that, they respond by ... turning up the volume of the cult jabbering.

 

[jc456]

Ian, thanks for proving my point. Again. And thanks ahead of time for the way you'll constantly do so in the future.

CultofMcIntyre acolytes just don't get that their cult jabbering is considered to be senseless by all the normal people. And when you tell them that, they respond by ... turning up the volume of the cult jabbering.

I love your misuse of the word cult.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Ian, thanks for proving my point. Again. And thanks ahead of time for the way you'll constantly do so in the future.

CultofMcIntyre acolytes just don't get that their cult jabbering is considered to be senseless by all the normal people. And when you tell them that, they respond by ... turning up the volume of the cult jabbering.

I love your misuse of the word cult.

Projection

 

[IanC]

McIntrye was not "brought in". He brought himself in when the IPCC started taking inputs from "self-identified" experts. Monckton got in on the same ticket. Do you consider Monckton a climate scientists Ian?

still dodging and ducking, eh?

are you OK with the IPCC breaking its own rules? a fairly simple question to answer.

 

[Crick]

McIntrye was not "brought in". He brought himself in when the IPCC started taking inputs from "self-identified" experts. Monckton got in on the same ticket. Do you consider Monckton a climate scientists Ian?

still dodging and ducking, eh?

are you OK with the IPCC breaking its own rules? a fairly simple question to answer.

What is it you believe I am dodging and ducking? And to what rules and what breaking do you refer?