Re: OT: Climate Change

On Apr 12, 1:51 am, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
bill.slo...@xxxxxxxx wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

Here's what their policy is though. Inspect it for yourself.

the IPCC in its "Appendix A to the Principles Governing IPCC Work," .... states:

"Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after acceptance by the
Working Group or the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for
Policymakers or the Overview Chapter."

It seems they don't like the idea of any change that might contradict their predetermined
summary.

The IPCC's job is to put together a review. Once they've worked out
the broad outline of what they want to say - "Summary for
Policymakers" and "Overview Chapter" - it makes sense to clean out
apparent inconsistencies in the supporting documents.

You mean that 'supporting the IPCC case' is more important than telling the truth and you think
that's acceptable ?

At the moment the world is producing a steady stream of scientific
publications on global warming. The IPCC's job is to reduce this flood
of information to a more or less coherent story, resolving apparent
contradictions in the process.

The IPCC isn't a regilious organisation, and has no access to absolute
truth. They've got to work out a point of view that is acceptable to a
majority of the IPCC board and publish it. This necessarily involves
suppressing minority opinions, and I find that - in this context - not
only acceptable but unavoidable.

That's exactly what the AGWists accuse the likes of Exxon and Mobil of. There's a difference, the
IPCC is publicly funded and is mean to be 'politically' neutral. Any such neutrality has clearly
been long abandoned and AGW is now totally a political or quasi-religious issue and very little
indeed to do with science.

If the bulk of the reliable evidence points to a specific conclusion,
even a politically neutral organisation is going to adopt it. This has
everything to do with science. The fact that you don't seem to have a
clue about the science involved would explain why you might think that
the conclusion wasn't based on the scientific data available.

Anybody who
wants to change policy after the broad outline has been agreed has to
wait until the next review. You've got to be pretty fond of conspiracy
theories to find anything suspect in this.

I call it perverse. And I'm being kind.

Not kind, ignorant.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen


.

Relevant Pages

  • The Hockeystick - Global Warming Scandal of the Decade
    ... The 'Hockeystick' - Global Warming Scandal of the Decade ... The basics of science involve a number of simple rules, ... The global warming issues alarmingly have not been sufficiently scrutinized. ... About every 5 years the IPCC has issued assessments of the global climate. ...
    (soc.culture.filipino)
  • The Hockeystick - Global Warming Scandal of the Decade
    ... The 'Hockeystick' - Global Warming Scandal of the Decade ... The basics of science involve a number of simple rules, ... The global warming issues alarmingly have not been sufficiently scrutinized. ... About every 5 years the IPCC has issued assessments of the global climate. ...
    (soc.culture.thai)
  • OT: The Hockeystick - Global Warming Scandal of the Decade
    ... The 'Hockeystick' - Global Warming Scandal of the Decade ... The basics of science involve a number of simple rules, ... The global warming issues alarmingly have not been sufficiently scrutinized. ... About every 5 years the IPCC has issued assessments of the global climate. ...
    (alt.sports.football.pro.ne-patriots)
  • Re: Science lies foully murdered. The Environmental Faith is the New Fascism.
    ... Science is an abstract without any volition. ... distorted in the IPCC by administrative fiat. ... contested, policy is distorted, counterproductive, wasteful, damaging. ... > litmus for a banal version of dialectical materialism. ...
    (rec.audio.tubes)
  • Re: OT - Global Warming Revisited
    ... >which statement of k00k science you are taking issue with. ... >the IPCC summary reports), there is a problem. ... >scientists who have no agenda. ... >based on politics rather than science? ...
    (alt.machines.cnc)