Wrong, it took public outcries for the IPCC to revise their papers.
It took public
discussion for the IPCC to
notice the issues. Yet again, there are probably hundreds of thousands of claims in each Assessment Report, and it takes years to go over it all. No one should be surprised that they get a few trivial items wrong, and the solution for several of the errors is fairly obvious (stick to peer-reviewed literature).
If they cant get the little facts correct, then you can be damned sure their overall conclusions are suspect.
No, that's not how research actually works. I cannot imagine that there is any resource, any textbook, any peer-reviewed journal that gets every single last tiny detail 100% correct. Missing an utterly miniscule percentage of claims is not a valid excuse to reject the truth.
I mean, really. Let's grab a random claim from IPCC AR5 Physical Science Report:
It is very likely that anthropogenic forcings have made a discernible
contribution to surface and subsurface oceanic salinity
changes since the 1960s. More than 40 studies of regional and
global surface and subsurface salinity show patterns consistent with
understanding of anthropogenic changes in the water cycle and ocean
circulation. The expected pattern of anthropogenic amplification of climatological
salinity patterns derived from climate models is detected
in the observations although there remains incomplete understanding
of the observed internal variability of the surface and sub-surface salinity
fields. {3.3.2, 10.4.2, Table 10.1}
IPCC AR5, Physical Science, p 870
Drilling down to one specific claim in referenced section (10.4.2):
For the period 1950–2000 the observed amplification of the
surface salinity is 16 ± 10% per °C of warming and is twice the simulated
surface salinity change in CMIP3 models. This difference between
the surface salinity amplification is plausibly caused by the tendency
of CMIP3 ocean models mixing surface salinity into deeper layers and
consequently surface salinity increases at a slower rate than observed
(Durack et al., 2012).
ibid p903
(That page 903? It easily has a dozen claims on that page alone. Probably more, depending on what you count as a "claim.")
What did you find that specifically falsifies a) the claim that 40 studies show anthropogenic changes, AND b) any of the relevant studies? What falsifies the claim that oceanic salinity is changing? How does a bad prediction about Himalayan glaciers actually falsify any of the quoted sections above?
That same paper I cited (written by someone affiliated by the IPCC by the way) calls for an independent review of their papers, and I agree.
lol... Okay then. Who is going to pay thousands of scientists to spend 5 years poring over the papers? Who's going to select those reviewers? Do you not understand
that's what the IPCC does?!? They review papers, they determine what the current research says, they assign degrees of uncertainty and/or likelihood, and pull it all together so that policy makers know what's going on.
And what's the point to adding yet another layer of reviewers, since the deniers will not accept the conclusions, even if it was 100% correct?
Duh, I know that, pal. This is why the IPCC cannot be trusted because its politicized and looked over by government bureaucrats.
And yet, you provide no evidence that the IPCC is actually getting huge swaths of climate science wrong. Hmmmm
I welcome any criticism of IPCC critics. Bring it on. Show me where theyre wrong.
I already pointed out that your "criticisms" are petty and fallacious. If you actually need more, you can start here:
https://www.amazon.com/Merchants-Doubt-Handful-Scientists-Obscured/dp/1608193942
Learning from mistakes in climate research | SpringerLink
Or just do your own research, I'm getting awfully tired of looking stuff up only to have it completely ignored. I'll even give you a head start.
LMGTFY
The problem is that the mainstream media ignores the counterclaims in order to focus solely on the apocalypse that the IPCC predicts will happen.
The MSM ignores the counterclaims because they have finally recognized that the "counterclaims" are not legitimate and are promoting damaging ideologies. Although they sometimes still fall for the fallacious "provide balance for fake controversies" on many topics, it seems that they've wised up to that error when it comes to climate change (and vaccines, and a few other items).
As it says in my signature: "When the mistakes fall disproportionately on one side, it is no respect for the notion of truth to pretend that everything is even."
