IPCC, Politics pushed the science, which was flawed.

MrVicchio · 03-14-08, 01:07 PM

Quote:

In a recent NCPA study, Kesten Green and J. Scott Armstrong used these principles to audit the climate forecasts in the Fourth Assessment Report. Messrs. Green and Armstrong found the IPCC clearly violated 60 of the 127 principles relevant in assessing the IPCC predictions. Indeed, it could only be clearly established that the IPCC followed 17 of the more than 127 forecasting principles critical to making sound predictions.

A good example of a principle clearly violated is "Make sure forecasts are independent of politics." Politics shapes the IPCC from beginning to end. Legislators, policymakers and/or diplomatic appointees select (or approve) the scientists — at least the lead scientists — who make up the IPCC. In addition, the summary and the final draft of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report was written in collaboration with political appointees and subject to their approval.

Sadly, Mr. Green and Mr. Armstrong found no evidence the IPCC was even aware of the vast literature on scientific forecasting methods, much less applied the principles.

The IPCC and its defenders often argue that critics who are not climate scientists are unqualified to judge the validity of their work. However, climate predictions rely on methods, data and evidence from other fields of expertise, including statistical analysis and forecasting. Thus, the work of the IPCC is open to analysis and criticism from other disciplines.

The IPCC's policy recommendations are based on flawed statistical analyses and procedures that violate general forecasting principles. Policymakers should take this into account before enacting laws to counter global warming — which economists point out would have severe economic consequences.

Climate panel on the hot seat*-*-*The Washington Times, America's Newspaper

More proof of what I was saying before. The AGW crowd follows not the science, but the politics. Jfuh, Middleground et al will gnash teesth and wail about this thread, they will deny, spin and turn it however they want... it's their CHOICE to follow political pandering and power grabbing over science. But they can't say they didn't know what was going on.

jfuh · 03-14-08, 06:37 PM

Actually it's more proof of what I have been saying - deniers have absolutely no scientifically citable sources; they only have opinion articles written by deniers in news papers that take a similar position. Such articles are in no way justifiable with often false accusations or mis-information (as is this case).
As demonstrated above H. Sterling Burnett is another of the global warming deniers that works for a conservative think tank in Washington with absolutely 0 scientific back ground whatsoever.
The article was published in the commentary section of the Washington times which itself is a conservative news source similar to weekly standard.

So far Vicchio you've fit the bill perfectly, blog sites, and opinion articles you're still 0 for ANY scientific literature.
Your source cites a study done by Kesten Green and J. Scott Armstrong both members of the same conservative think tank as Mr. Burnett the NCPA. Why is this study not published? Couldn't be possible that they are trying to hide the fact that the study itself is rubbish and would never pass peer review would it?

MrVicchio · 03-14-08, 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfuh

Actually it's more proof of what I have been saying - deniers have absolutely no scientifically citable sources; they only have opinion articles written by deniers in news papers that take a similar position. Such articles are in no way justifiable with often false accusations or mis-information (as is this case).
As demonstrated above H. Sterling Burnett is another of the global warming deniers that works for a conservative think tank in Washington with absolutely 0 scientific back ground whatsoever.
The article was published in the commentary section of the Washington times which itself is a conservative news source similar to weekly standard.

So far Vicchio you've fit the bill perfectly, blog sites, and opinion articles you're still 0 for ANY scientific literature.
Your source cites a study done by Kesten Green and J. Scott Armstrong both members of the same conservative think tank as Mr. Burnett the NCPA. Why is this study not published? Couldn't be possible that they are trying to hide the fact that the study itself is rubbish and would never pass peer review would it?

Spoken like a true Tool of Big Government. Do they pay you by chance? Or are you willingly an accomplice?

jfuh · 03-14-08, 10:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrVicchio

Spoken like a true Tool of Big Government. Do they pay you by chance? Or are you willingly an accomplice?

What does any of this have to do with big government? Nothing at all. Instead of defending your own assertions with scientific literature or that which uses real scientific findings this is the best you can come up with?
Until you can support your assertions my point of credibility stands.

CaptainCourtesy · 03-15-08, 01:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrVicchio

Spoken like a true Tool of Big Government. Do they pay you by chance? Or are you willingly an accomplice?

Moderator's Warning:

Knock off the personal attacks, now, or you will receive further consequences.

MrVicchio · 03-15-08, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfuh

What does any of this have to do with big government? Nothing at all. Instead of defending your own assertions with scientific literature or that which uses real scientific findings this is the best you can come up with?
Until you can support your assertions my point of credibility stands.

I bring science, you claim it's tainted by "big oil", or isn't properly peer reviewed or is flawed because it disagrees with the IPCC. No matter what anyone brings here, you ignore it, attack it (or the person.. but most of us have thicker skin and don't go running to mommy) and my favorite, you just dismiss it and start preaching from the book of algore.

I've been merely using your tactics against you. It appears doing so causes you much anger and endangers my ability to post here.

jfuh · 03-15-08, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrVicchio

I bring science, you claim it's tainted by "big oil", or isn't properly peer reviewed or is flawed because it disagrees with the IPCC.

Hang on, who's said anything about big oil? The first mention of it is by you right here. I said that the study you posted from the source was all by the NCPA - a conservative think tank to which has not provided any thing on how they conducted their study, nor is the study itself published in any scientific medium. That's not science at all and I think you better study the topic of what is and isn't scientific before you continue making these ridiculous assertions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrVicchio

No matter what anyone brings here, you ignore it, attack it (or the person.. but most of us have thicker skin and don't go running to mommy) and my favorite, you just dismiss it and start preaching from the book of algore.

You've brought in ONLY blog sources and opinion articles, they'd have some merrit if it was shown just how the studies were done and presented in scientific medium the same way that the sources I bring into the arguments are. Your stuff has not faced any form of scruitiny or fact check - hence again 0 credibility. I've asked for a single scientific publication from you that agrees with your assessment that AGW is bull****. You've still to present a single source. You don't like the rules of the game, then don't play it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrVicchio

I've been merely using your tactics against you. It appears doing so causes you much anger and endangers my ability to post here.

sorry you're the one that's lost your cool and gone off on a rage. Don't cower out when you can't face the music. All you need is to either provide sound rational or a scientific source to support your claim, you've done neither and instead gone off into a conspiracy mentality - that doesn't work and you will be called each time you provide such sources as the one above. My tactics have been within the rules and guidelines of scientific method with sources that have been peer reviewed or go off of what has been peer reviewed. That's how science works - not by opinion articles or "studies" to which there's no criteria provided.

MrVicchio · 03-15-08, 07:05 PM

I disagree with you based on millions of years of climate. You disagree based on 20 years of politically charged "science" that covers a mere 120 years of "temp" records many of which are comprimised by location today.

Silly Jfuh, Science is the search for TRUTH, not political idealogy.

jfuh · 03-15-08, 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrVicchio

I disagree with you based on millions of years of climate. You disagree based on 20 years of politically charged "science" that covers a mere 120 years of "temp" records many of which are comprimised by location today.

Silly Jfuh, Science is the search for TRUTH, not political idealogy.

What about the millions of years of climate. That it was changing? Yes and all the continents used to be one giant supercontinent pangea, so what? Has nothing at all to do with the topic your presenting.
You're assertion is that the IPCC report is flawed - that has nothing to do with millions of years of climate. Again, support your claim.

MrVicchio · 03-16-08, 12:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfuh

What about the millions of years of climate. That it was changing? Yes and all the continents used to be one giant supercontinent pangea, so what? Has nothing at all to do with the topic your presenting.
You're assertion is that the IPCC report is flawed - that has nothing to do with millions of years of climate. Again, support your claim.

I did, did you not go to the source and read it?

You really should, all the answers you claim to seek are there, you just lack the clarity to accept them.