What literature does the IPCC assess?

[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?

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

because you duck or dodge any inconvenient questions.

Ian, do you consider Lord Christopher Monckton to be a climate scientist?

 

[IanC]

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?

let's do a timeline for this thread. first you start a thread on "what literature does the ipcc access", then you complain because you arent getting any replies. after several days I tell you that you are not getting any response because you duck, dodge and ignore any inconvenient questions, and give an example of IPCC breaking its own rules which you had previously ignored in an earlier thread.

mamooth responded with his usual ad homs of cult and conspiracy, to which I expanded my position and added two more examples.

when you returned to this thread, did you respond to the dozens of citations of 16 articles published in one volume of a climate science journal AFTER the IPCC report was released? no

did you respond to my derisive comment on the grey literature story of the Himalayan glaciers melting by 2035? no

did you respond to my comment on how the IPCC cited papers that were not even accepted or published? no

why did you start this thread if you didnt want to converse about the topic?

 

[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?

I will respond to your question even though you continue to duck mine.

I do not know exactly how McIntyre came to be involved as an expert reviewer for the IPCC. I do know that he was in the middle of probably the biggest public controversy in climate science at the time, Mann's hockeystick. McIntyre was treated shabbily and those in charge repeatedly failed to uphold the documented policies of the IPCC. moreover, it was the the discussions about how to deal with McIntyre's criticisms that led to the FOI which prompted Jones' delete all emails email. those documents have never been released. the IPCC cited papers by Wahl and Ammand to rebut McIntyre but those papers were not accepted (contrary to press releases), and were not within the proscribed deadlines anyways.

as to Monckton. I would not describe him as a climate scientist although he does have at least one climate science peer reviewed paper to his name. climate science historian is probably a better description of him. he is undoubtedly better versed in what has happened in this field than most of the scientists working in it. because of that I think he was more than qualified as an expert reviewer.

 

[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?

I will respond to your question even though you continue to duck mine.

I do not know exactly how McIntyre came to be involved as an expert reviewer for the IPCC.

By submitting himself as a self-identified expert, that's how.

I do know that he was in the middle of probably the biggest public controversy in climate science at the time, Mann's hockeystick.

It is only a controversy in the minds of deniers and the ignorant. It is NOT a controversy among actual climate scientists and you and I both know that is a fact.

McIntyre was treated shabbily

Shabbily? By who? Let's hear some names. And do you believe Mann has been treated fairly? Hansen? Jones?

and those in charge repeatedly failed to uphold the documented policies of the IPCC.

So you are accusing the IPCC itself of having treated McIntyre shabbily. Do tell.

moreover, it was the the discussions about how to deal with McIntyre's criticisms that led to the FOI which prompted Jones' delete all emails email.

A mistake which Jones has admitted and for which he has been publicly and repeatedly castigated by his employers.

those documents have never been released.

What documents are you talking about? The deleted emails? Discussion about McIntyre? If they've never been released, how is it that you seem to know of them?

the IPCC cited papers by Wahl and Ammand to rebut McIntyre but those papers were not accepted (contrary to press releases), and were not within the proscribed deadlines anyways.

Cited them where? That hardly seems the topic for the assessment reports.

as to Monckton. I would not describe him as a climate scientist

Good, because he is not.

although he does have at least one climate science peer reviewed paper to his name. climate science historian is probably a better description of him. he is undoubtedly better versed in what has happened in this field than most of the scientists working in it. because of that I think he was more than qualified as an expert reviewer.

He may be well versed in gossip and backbiting but he is NOT versed at all in the science.

Now what is the question you say I've been ducking?

 

[IanC]

By submitting himself as a self-identified expert, that's how.

OK. show me some evidence of that. also, are you implying that he is not an expert in the paleorecontruction field?

 

[IanC]

It is only a controversy in the minds of deniers and the ignorant. It is NOT a controversy among actual climate scientists and you and I both know that is a fact.

right, that's why there was a congressional hearing, the Wegman Report and the North report.

 

[IanC]

A mistake which Jones has admitted and for which he has been publicly and repeatedly castigated by his employers.

I'll bite. when was he publically castigated for his (successful) attempt at subverting FOI? when was Jones even officially asked whether he sent the email and/or deleted his AR4 correspondence. please supply a link because I will be checking.

 

[IanC]

Cited them where? That hardly seems the topic for the assessment reports

- Bishop Hill blog - Caspar and the Jesus paper
"
Shortly after its publication, the hockey stick and its main author, Michael Mann, came under attack from Steve McIntyre, a retired statistician from Canada. In a series of scientific papers and later on his blog, Climate Audit, McIntyre took issue with the novel statistical procedures used by the hockey stick's authors. He was able to demonstrate that the way they had extracted the temperature signal from the tree ring records was biased so as to choose hockey-stick shaped graphs in preference to other shapes, and criticised Mann for not publishing the cross validation R2, a statistical measure of how well the temperature reconstruction correlated with actual temperature records. He also showed that the appearance of the graph was due solely to the use of an estimate of historic temperatures based on tree rings from bristlecone pines, a species that was known to be problematic for this kind of reconstruction.

The controversy raged for several years, involving blue riband panels, innumerable blog postings, endless name-calling and dark insinuations about motivations and conflicts of interest. In May 2005, at the height of the controversy, and on the very day that McIntyre was making a rare public appearance in Washington to discuss his findings, two Mann associates, Caspar Amman and Eugene Wahl, issued a press release in which they claimed that they had submitted two manuscripts for publication, which together showed that they had replicated the hockey stickexactly, confirmed its statistical underpinnings and demonstrated that McIntyre's criticisms were baseless. This was trumpeted as independent confirmation of the hockey stick. A few eyebrows were raised at the dubious practice of using a press release to announce scientific findings. Some also noted that on the rare occasions that this kind of announcement is made, it tends to be about papers that have been published, or at least accepted for publication. To make such a dramatic announcement about the submission of a paper was unusual in the extreme.

The first of these papers ("the GRL paper") was submitted to Geophysical Research Letters, the journal of the American Geophysical Union. It took the form of a rebuttal of a McIntyre paper that had attacked the hockey stick and had been published in the same journal. From the first, the McIntyre paper had been controversial. Apart from Amman and Wahl's paper, there were three other papers taking issue with it. However, it turned out that some of these attempted rebuttals were less well formed than others. In fairly short order, Amman and Wahl's paper was rejected, many of its criticisms either relating to other McIntyre papers than the one at hand, or relying on the second paper for their arguments. Since the second paper was unpublished, it was effectively impossible for McIntyre to defend himself against these criticisms. Shortly after Amman and Wahl's paper was rejected, another of the rebuttals, that of a physicist called David Ritson, was also shot down by the journal's editors.

Meanwhile the second, longer paper ("the CC paper") had started its long road to publication at the journal Climatic Change. This article purported to be a replication of the hockey stick and confirmation of its scientific correctness. However, in a surprising turn of events, the journal's editor, prominent global warming catastrophist Steven Schneider, mischievously asked none other than Steve McIntyre to be one of the paper's anonymous peer reviewers.

We have seen above that one of the chief criticisms of the hockey stick was the fact that its author, Michael Mann, had withheld the validation statistics so that it was impossible for anyone to gauge the reliability of the reconstruction. These validation statistics were to be key to the subsequent story. At the time of their press release Wahl and Amman had made public the computer code that they'd used in their papers. By the time their paper was submitted to Climatic Change, McIntyre had reconciled their work with his own so that he understood every difference. And he therefore now knew that Wahl and Amman's work suffered from exactly the same problem as the hockey stick itself: the R2number was so low as to suggest that the hockey stick had no meaning at all, although another statistic, the reduction of error statistic (or RE) was relatively high. It was only this latter figure that had been mentioned in the paper. In other words, far from confirming the scientific integrity of the hockey stick, Wahl and Amman's work confirmed McIntyre's criticisms of it! McIntyre's first action as a peer reviewer was therefore to request from Wahl and Amman the verification statistics for their replication of the stick. Confirmation that the R2 was close to zero would strike a serious blow at Wahl and Amman's work.

Caspar AmmanWahl and Amman's response was to refuse any access to the verification numbers, a clear flouting of the journal's rules. As a justification of this extraordinary action, they claimed that they had shown that McIntyre's criticisms had been rebutted in their forthcoming GRL paper, despite the fact that the paper had been rejected by the journal some days earlier. At the start of July, with his review of the CC paper complete, McIntyre took the opportunity to probe this point, by asking the journal to find out the anticipated publication date of the GRL paper. Wahl and Amman were forced to admit the rejection, but they declared that it was unjustified and that they would seek publication elsewhere.

Sir John HoughtonWith the replication of the hockey stick in tatters, reasonable people might have expected some sort of pause in the political momentum. Seasoned observers of the climate scene, however, will be unsurprised to hear that global warming eminences grises like Sir John Houghton and Michael Mann continued to cite the Wahl and Amman papers despite the CC paper being in publishing limbo and the GRL paper being apparently dead and buried. The Wahl and Amman press release was not withdrawn either.
....
As 2005 neared its end, two important events loomed large. The first was the year end deadline for submission of papers for the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report on the state of the climate, and realisation soon dawned on McIntyre and the observers of the goings-on at GRL:

the IPCC needed to have the Wahl and Amman papers in the report so that they could continue to use the hockey stick, with its frightening and unprecedented uptick in temperatures. Mountains were going to be moved to keep the papers in play.
"


the IPCC wanted to save the hockeystick. they were willing to break their own rules to accomplish that. are you willing to say that it is OK for the IPCC to break its own rules to support an agenda?

 

[IanC]

He may be well versed in gossip and backbiting but he is NOT versed at all in the science

he is extremely well versed in the science. that is why he spends a lot of time talking about the science.

the gossip and backbiting come from the other side.

just like when you and Old Rocks, etc, spend all your time smearing reputations rather than examining ideas.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Real scientists argue facts and lab results, cults argue credentials

 

[jc456]

He may be well versed in gossip and backbiting but he is NOT versed at all in the science

he is extremely well versed in the science. that is why he spends a lot of time talking about the science.

the gossip and backbiting come from the other side.

just like when you and Old Rocks, etc, spend all your time smearing reputations rather than examining ideas.

and he is still ducking and dodging. still hasn't answered one of your questions. Asked you a bunch and you were courteous and answered his. It's so typical for these worms.

 

[IanC]

He may be well versed in gossip and backbiting but he is NOT versed at all in the science

he is extremely well versed in the science. that is why he spends a lot of time talking about the science.

the gossip and backbiting come from the other side.

just like when you and Old Rocks, etc, spend all your time smearing reputations rather than examining ideas.

and he is still ducking and dodging. still hasn't answered one of your questions. Asked you a bunch and you were courteous and answered his. It's so typical for these worms.

it is understandable. he has a double standard that depends on which side of the question he prefers. he is OK with breaking rules and shoody science if it is in defense of his favoured position.

he obviously agrees with breaking rules that help his side. he dismisses them in his head by saying it doesnt matter.

 

[Crick]

And you do not? What is your opinion of Roy Spencer's widely publicized fabrication of CMIP5 model results? Did you find that acceptable? How about Legates conclusions about the AGW consensus to be found in peer reviewed climate studies? Was that good science Ian? Don't waste our time with your holier-than-thou bullshit.

 

[IanC]

And you do not? What is your opinion of Roy Spencer's widely publicized fabrication of CMIP5 model results? Did you find that acceptable? How about Legates conclusions about the AGW consensus to be found in peer reviewed climate studies? Was that good science Ian? Don't waste our time with your holier-than-thou bullshit.

I see that you are still ducking and dodging. do you admit that the IPCCC has broken its own rules in respect to citing literature that was not available at the posted deadline? yes or no?

 

[IanC]

And you do not? What is your opinion of Roy Spencer's widely publicized fabrication of CMIP5 model results? Did you find that acceptable? How about Legates conclusions about the AGW consensus to be found in peer reviewed climate studies? Was that good science Ian? Don't waste our time with your holier-than-thou bullshit.

I did not follow Legates' counter analysis of the Cook survey of climate science papers. apparently he judged them on whether they specifically mentioned human attribution, and by that standard there was a very low percentage that confirmed AGW. is that right?

what did you think when Cook left the metadata lying around and whatshisname released it? the same metadata that had been requested by many others who wanted to check the results of the paper. that metadata showed many problems with their procedures, my favourite was how one volunteer ranked well over a thousand studies in one 24 hour period. did that show due dilligence?

I leave it to anyone who is interested in that bogus 97% study to read up on it. Richard Tol found many actual mistakes in it.

 

[IanC]

And you do not? What is your opinion of Roy Spencer's widely publicized fabrication of CMIP5 model results? Did you find that acceptable? How about Legates conclusions about the AGW consensus to be found in peer reviewed climate studies? Was that good science Ian? Don't waste our time with your holier-than-thou bullshit.

are you talking about the mismatch between model predictions and measurement reality that Christie started off a few years ago?

I actually like this one the best. it only shows the slopes of the data, which negates the problems of where and how to normalize the data. the models run hot. period.

Spencer tried to answer the bleating of critics with various 'improvements, like showing the actual runs and normalizing the start point to a five year average, as well as adding a land surface temp dataset.

of course we could just go to the IPCC for information. here is a base graph from AR5 draft, with animation added

so tell me specifically what you thought Spencer did wrong. Im not seeing your point.

 

[Muhammed]

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.

You look very ignorant and silly when you are fucking that strawman.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

And you do not? What is your opinion of Roy Spencer's widely publicized fabrication of CMIP5 model results? Did you find that acceptable? How about Legates conclusions about the AGW consensus to be found in peer reviewed climate studies? Was that good science Ian? Don't waste our time with your holier-than-thou bullshit.

are you talking about the mismatch between model predictions and measurement reality that Christie started off a few years ago?

I actually like this one the best. it only shows the slopes of the data, which negates the problems of where and how to normalize the data. the models run hot. period.

Spencer tried to answer the bleating of critics with various 'improvements, like showing the actual runs and normalizing the start point to a five year average, as well as adding a land surface temp dataset.

of course we could just go to the IPCC for information. here is a base graph from AR5 draft, with animation added

so tell me specifically what you thought Spencer did wrong. Im not seeing your point.

AR5, lead author Ottmar "we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy" Edenhofer

 

[IanC]

do any of you other warmers think Spencer was unfair? Crick doesnt seem to be responding at this time. I dont blame him.

why is cherrypicking arctic sea ice levels OK but not satellite temperatures, at 1979?

do you guys think it is more or less fair to use a five year average for the beginning of the normalization at the beginning of the graph?

 

[Crick]

And you do not? What is your opinion of Roy Spencer's widely publicized fabrication of CMIP5 model results? Did you find that acceptable? How about Legates conclusions about the AGW consensus to be found in peer reviewed climate studies? Was that good science Ian? Don't waste our time with your holier-than-thou bullshit.

are you talking about the mismatch between model predictions and measurement reality that Christie started off a few years ago?

I actually like this one the best. it only shows the slopes of the data, which negates the problems of where and how to normalize the data. the models run hot. period.

Spencer tried to answer the bleating of critics with various 'improvements, like showing the actual runs and normalizing the start point to a five year average, as well as adding a land surface temp dataset.

of course we could just go to the IPCC for information. here is a base graph from AR5 draft, with animation added

so tell me specifically what you thought Spencer did wrong. Im not seeing your point.

HotWhopper Roy Spencer s latest deceit and deception

I've posted this link at least three times.