• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The IPCC Is Wrong

PoS

PoS

Minister of Love
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2014
Messages
33,902
Reaction score
26,619
Location
Oceania
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Has the IPCC been wrong before

Unfortunately the IPCC's record is far from good when it comes to getting things right.
The most notable case was the so-called Himalaya-Gate affair, when the organisation released an alarmist report in 2007, claiming that the Himalyan glacier will have melted by 2035. As it transpired the report was without any scientific basis and was based on a report an IPCC employee ("expert reviewer" Murari Lal) had read in the New Scientist magazine. The New Scientist article itself was drawn up from a short telephone call with an obscure Indian scientist called Syed Hasnain, who it transpired had absolutely no scientific evidence to support his claim.
The report (printed in 1999) had gone unnoticed until 2005, when without the necessary scrutiny, it was used by the WWF as a campigning tool to prove that glaciers were melting. It was then picked up without any scrutiny or peer review by Lal and the IPCC as they prepared their 2007 report.
Another faux-pas of the IPCC was Amazon-Gate when the IPCC claimed that up to 40% of the rain forests in the Amazon were at risk from global warming and would likely be replaced by "tropical savannas" if temperatures continued to rise.
The scientific-looking report, on which this claim was based, was a non-peer reviewed article for the WWF, by an Australian policy analyst and a freelance journalist for the Guardian newspaper (not even experts let alone scientists!).
The IPCC was forced to withdraw it's 2007 prediction that sea levels would rise by 18-59 cm over the course of this century due to "two technical errors" in it's calculations.
Click to expand...

Why would anyone trust such a lying organization? It's nothing more than a propaganda arm for end of the world alarmists.
 
PoS said:
Has the IPCC been wrong before



Why would anyone trust such a lying organization? It's nothing more than a propaganda arm for end of the world alarmists.
Click to expand...

LOL.

“Amazongate”. The fake controversy that the deniers jumped on immediately.

The newspaper that ‘broke’ that story retracted it.

But the deniers still go with it.

Redirect Notice

Now... you were concerned about organizations that lie?
 
Threegoofs said:
LOL.

“Amazongate”. The fake controversy that the deniers jumped on immediately.

The newspaper that ‘broke’ that story retracted it.

But the deniers still go with it.

Redirect Notice

Now... you were concerned about organizations that lie?
Click to expand...

What about Himalaya gate and the hockey stick graph?
 
:roll:

The best you can come up with is a spammy website with some anonymous text, where the company went bankrupt in 2017, and hasn't allowed any edits since spring 2018? Are you really that desperate to find anything negative about the IPCC?

The Himalayan glacier claim was a mistake -- as the IPCC itself acknowledged. It was also, let's face it, a small mistake -- it's not like one prediction about Himalayan glaciers was the key proof of AGW. Given that each Assessment Report summarizes thousands of papers, pretty much all of which are coherent with AGW, that's actually an outstanding track record.

The IPCC's claim about the Amazon was, in fact, correct. They should have cited the original study instead of the WWF.

No, the 18-59cm figure was not desperately wrong due to uncited "technical errors."

So, we have one genuine error and two non-errors, out of what, 100,000 claims over thousands of pages of documents? OMG NOOOOO!!!

Back in the real world, the IPCC is made up of hundreds of scientists who actually study climate science, from around the world. They pore over a large volume of peer-reviewed papers, including the tiny handful that are critical of AGW and summarize it for use by government officials, to help them determine how to set policies. While the process is certainly not perfect, and there definitely are legitimate criticisms of the IPCC and its process (none of which were remotely mentioned in that link) it does a pretty good job overall.

If anything, the low quality of your "source" and post display the weakness and desperation of the denier point of view.
 
PoS said:
What about Himalaya gate and the hockey stick graph?
Click to expand...

Oh, wait. You provide three examples in 30 years of IPCC reports, I immediately show how one is fake... and you blow past that to the other two?

LOL.

Well, the Himalayan glacier was in error. And it was incredibly minor, and in one report.

The ‘hockey stick’ was confirmed, independently, at least a dozen times.
That paleoclimate data is not controversial at all, except for idiots who think ‘Amazongate’ was a thing.
 
[h=1]The IPCC can't learn from past mistakes – wants more grey literature[/h][FONT=&quot]You’d think that after the drubbing they got last time around from the InterAcademy council for citing mentions of climate effects in travel brochures, climbing magazines, and the Himalayan glacier’s melting by 2035 fiasco, and other blunders, they’d want less grey literature. But apparently this is the anything goes in co-opted climate science beating out…


June 22, 2012 in IPCC.
[/FONT]
 
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[h=1]Fix the mistakes that put climate science on a dead end path![/h][FONT=&quot]By Larry Kummer. From the Fabius Maximus website. Summary: Let’s trace the misrepresentation and misuse of RCP8.5 from a new paper back to its earliest days. This shows how a big mistake and a small one combined to put much of climate science on a dead-end road. And how climate scientists’ refusal to recognize these…
[/FONT]
June 5, 2018 in Climate News.
 
Threegoofs said:
Oh, wait. You provide three examples in 30 years of IPCC reports, I immediately show how one is fake... and you blow past that to the other two?

LOL.

Well, the Himalayan glacier was in error. And it was incredibly minor, and in one report.

The ‘hockey stick’ was confirmed, independently, at least a dozen times.
That paleoclimate data is not controversial at all, except for idiots who think ‘Amazongate’ was a thing.
Click to expand...

The fact that there are this many errors from the IPCC shows that it cannot be trusted, pure and simple.
 
PoS said:
Has the IPCC been wrong before



Why would anyone trust such a lying organization? It's nothing more than a propaganda arm for end of the world alarmists.
Click to expand...

Wrong? How 'bout just plain BS? My favorite is the totally meaningless Global Warming Potential (GWP) numbers
IPCC WG1 AR5 Chapter 8 Page 710
where we are told:

8.7.1.2 The Global Warming Potential Concept

The Global Warming Potential (GWP) is defined as the time-integrated RF due to a pulse
emission of a given component, relative to a pulse emission of an equal mass of CO2
​
Table 8.7 Page 714 says the GWP for methane is 86.

In the so-called popular press, that translates out to: "Methane has 86 times the heat trapping
power of CO2" which of course is total BS.

The GWP has been thoroughly discussed on these boards here -.
A rehash here would be counter productive.
 
Steve Case said:
Wrong? How 'bout just plain BS? My favorite is the totally meaningless Global Warming Potential (GWP) numbers
IPCC WG1 AR5 Chapter 8 Page 710
where we are told:

8.7.1.2 The Global Warming Potential Concept

The Global Warming Potential (GWP) is defined as the time-integrated RF due to a pulse
emission of a given component, relative to a pulse emission of an equal mass of CO2
​
Table 8.7 Page 714 says the GWP for methane is 86.

In the so-called popular press, that translates out to: "Methane has 86 times the heat trapping
power of CO2" which of course is total BS.

The GWP has been thoroughly discussed on these boards here -.
A rehash here would be counter productive.
Click to expand...

Yes. Anonymous internet posters with no expertise in the area have proven all the experts wrong.

Such a common occurrence in your world.
 
Here is a list of the uathors of "IPCC AR5 Summary for Policy Makers". Funny how these armchair uneducated keystrokers know more than they do.

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5_summary-for-policymakers.pdf


Drafting Authors:
Ottmar Edenhofer (Germany), Ramón Pichs-Madruga (Cuba), Youba Sokona (Mali), Shardul
Agrawala (France), Igor Alexeyevich Bashmakov (Russia), Gabriel Blanco (Argentina), John
Broome (UK), Thomas Bruckner (Germany), Steffen Brunner (Germany), Mercedes Bustamante
(Brazil), Leon Clarke (USA), Felix Creutzig (Germany), Shobhakar Dhakal (Nepal/Thailand), Navroz
K. Dubash (India), Patrick Eickemeier (Germany), Ellie Farahani (Canada), Manfred Fischedick
(Germany), Marc Fleurbaey (France), Reyer Gerlagh (Netherlands), Luis Gómez-Echeverri
(Colombia/Austria), Sujata Gupta (India/Philippines), Jochen Harnisch (Germany), Kejun Jiang
(China), Susanne Kadner (Germany), Sivan Kartha (USA), Stephan Klasen (Germany), Charles
Kolstad (USA), Volker Krey (Austria/Germany), Howard Kunreuther (USA), Oswaldo Lucon
(Brazil), Omar Masera (México), Jan Minx (Germany), Yacob Mulugetta (Ethiopia/UK), Anthony
Patt (Austria/Switzerland), Nijavalli H. Ravindranath (India), Keywan Riahi (Austria), Joyashree
Roy (India), Roberto Schaeffer (Brazil), Steffen Schlömer (Germany), Karen Seto (USA), Kristin
Seyboth (USA), Ralph Sims (New Zealand), Jim Skea (UK), Pete Smith (UK), Eswaran Somanathan
(India), Robert Stavins (USA), Christoph von Stechow (Germany), Thomas Sterner (Sweden), Taishi
Sugiyama (Japan), Sangwon Suh (Republic of Korea/USA), Kevin Chika Urama (Nigeria/UK/Kenya),
Diana Ürge-Vorsatz (Hungary), David G. Victor (USA), Dadi Zhou (China), Ji Zou (China), Timm
Zwickel (Germany)
Draft Contributing Authors
Giovanni Baiocchi (UK/Italy), Helena Chum (Brazil/USA), Jan Fuglestvedt (Norway), Helmut
Haberl (Austria), Edgar Hertwich (Austria/Norway), Elmar Kriegler (Germany), Joeri Rogelj
(Switzerland/Belgium), H.-Holger Rogner (Germany), Michiel Schaeffer (Netherlands), Steven J.
Smith (USA), Detlef van Vuuren (Netherlands), Ryan Wiser (USA)
Thhors.

And this is just the summary. Each paper has an entire working group of the world's most formidable Climatological experts.
 
Media_Truth said:
Here is a list of the uathors of "IPCC AR5 Summary for Policy Makers". Funny how these armchair uneducated keystrokers know more than they do.

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5_summary-for-policymakers.pdf


Drafting Authors:
Ottmar Edenhofer (Germany), Ramón Pichs-Madruga (Cuba), Youba Sokona (Mali), Shardul
Agrawala (France), Igor Alexeyevich Bashmakov (Russia), Gabriel Blanco (Argentina), John
Broome (UK), Thomas Bruckner (Germany), Steffen Brunner (Germany), Mercedes Bustamante
(Brazil), Leon Clarke (USA), Felix Creutzig (Germany), Shobhakar Dhakal (Nepal/Thailand), Navroz
K. Dubash (India), Patrick Eickemeier (Germany), Ellie Farahani (Canada), Manfred Fischedick
(Germany), Marc Fleurbaey (France), Reyer Gerlagh (Netherlands), Luis Gómez-Echeverri
(Colombia/Austria), Sujata Gupta (India/Philippines), Jochen Harnisch (Germany), Kejun Jiang
(China), Susanne Kadner (Germany), Sivan Kartha (USA), Stephan Klasen (Germany), Charles
Kolstad (USA), Volker Krey (Austria/Germany), Howard Kunreuther (USA), Oswaldo Lucon
(Brazil), Omar Masera (México), Jan Minx (Germany), Yacob Mulugetta (Ethiopia/UK), Anthony
Patt (Austria/Switzerland), Nijavalli H. Ravindranath (India), Keywan Riahi (Austria), Joyashree
Roy (India), Roberto Schaeffer (Brazil), Steffen Schlömer (Germany), Karen Seto (USA), Kristin
Seyboth (USA), Ralph Sims (New Zealand), Jim Skea (UK), Pete Smith (UK), Eswaran Somanathan
(India), Robert Stavins (USA), Christoph von Stechow (Germany), Thomas Sterner (Sweden), Taishi
Sugiyama (Japan), Sangwon Suh (Republic of Korea/USA), Kevin Chika Urama (Nigeria/UK/Kenya),
Diana Ürge-Vorsatz (Hungary), David G. Victor (USA), Dadi Zhou (China), Ji Zou (China), Timm
Zwickel (Germany)
Draft Contributing Authors
Giovanni Baiocchi (UK/Italy), Helena Chum (Brazil/USA), Jan Fuglestvedt (Norway), Helmut
Haberl (Austria), Edgar Hertwich (Austria/Norway), Elmar Kriegler (Germany), Joeri Rogelj
(Switzerland/Belgium), H.-Holger Rogner (Germany), Michiel Schaeffer (Netherlands), Steven J.
Smith (USA), Detlef van Vuuren (Netherlands), Ryan Wiser (USA)
Thhors.

And this is just the summary. Each paper has an entire working group of the world's most formidable Climatological experts.
Click to expand...

Funny how these "formidable" climate experts are always wrong. It seems theyre not as good as you think they are.
 
PoS said:
Funny how these "formidable" climate experts are always wrong. It seems theyre not as good as you think they are.
Click to expand...

Darn, who to believe? Scientists from around the world or a PoS on an internet board? Decisions, decisions ...
 
Slavister said:
Darn, who to believe? Scientists from around the world or a PoS on an internet board? Decisions, decisions ...
Click to expand...

Who's asking you to believe me? Why dont you do your own research instead of getting on your knees to a bunch of so-called experts who publish alarmist nonsense in order to keep their funding.
 
PoS said:
Who's asking you to believe me? Why dont you do your own research instead of getting on your knees to a bunch of so-called experts who publish alarmist nonsense in order to keep their funding.
Click to expand...

PoS, maybe this topic could be part of your next book. :)
 
vesper said:
PoS, maybe this topic could be part of your next book. :)
Click to expand...

LOL no thanks, it will probably be so boring my readers will bash me. My latest work in progress does take a shot at Burning Man though. :mrgreen:
 
not that the IPCC being wrong about something changes literally any of the facts about climate change and human involvement.
 
nekrodev said:
not that the IPCC being wrong about something changes literally any of the facts about climate change and human involvement.
Click to expand...

The only fact right now is that the world has gone slightly warmer by a couple of degrees, now as to what's causing it, and how this impacts humanity, and what to do about it is still not decided.
 
PoS said:
The only fact right now is that the world has gone slightly warmer by a couple of degrees, now as to what's causing it, and how this impacts humanity, and what to do about it is still not decided.
Click to expand...

There are many facts, including that globe is warming, and that humans a non-negligible factor, and we have pretty good ideas about how this will affect us. Just because you don't like any of those facts doesn't mean they're not facts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom