Remember me
▼ Content

Why Should We Trust (or not Trust) the IPCC?


Why Should We Trust (or not Trust) the IPCC?23-12-2015 15:14
Frank Schnabel
☆☆☆☆☆
(12)
The IPCC is regarded by many as the preeminent authority on climate change. What is the evidence that this reputation is or is not warranted?
23-12-2015 15:23
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5183)
Frank Schnabel wrote:The IPCC is regarded by many as the preeminent authority on climate change. What is the evidence that this reputation is or is not warranted?

The Pope is regarded by many Catholics as the preeminent authority on Christian morality.

What is the evidence that this reputation is or is not warranted?

If I were a member of the Global Warming congregation, I would probably accept the preachings of the IPCC as well.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
23-12-2015 15:27
Frank Schnabel
☆☆☆☆☆
(12)
No organization has attempted, on such a long term basis and with world-wide participation, such a comprehensive summary of a scientific discipline. I would like to put the IPCC on the witness stand as the preeminent expert witness in favor of drastically cutting our CO2 emissions. Our job in this thread is to build up or, if you prefer, to tear down the witness's credibility, all for the benefit of the jury (the lay public, policymakers, etc.) which is being asked to trust this witness.
23-12-2015 15:41
Frank Schnabel
☆☆☆☆☆
(12)
IBdaMann wrote:
The Pope is regarded by many Catholics as the preeminent authority on Christian morality.

What is the evidence that this reputation is or is not warranted?

If I were a member of the Global Warming congregation, I would probably accept the preachings of the IPCC as well.



Hi Mann,
I myself do not worship in the church of global warming, but many do. I realize that the exercise I am proposing will not have much effect on believers, no matter how devastating the cross-examination and rebuttal end up being in this thread. Religion is religion. But maybe we can demonstrate to a fair-minded person that the IPCC is not worthy of belief. Of course this can work against us if IPCC believers can make their case.
23-12-2015 15:42
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1079)
The IPCC is not an international organization. Over 99% of scientists in IPCC are American. China and India make up nearly half the world's population and there are hardly any Chinese or Indian scientists in IPCC. IPCC is therefore a political organization, not a scientific organization.
23-12-2015 16:07
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5183)
Frank Schnabel wrote:
But maybe we can demonstrate to a fair-minded person that the IPCC is not worthy of belief.

How do you demonstrate to any religious believer that his/her clergy should not be believed?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
23-12-2015 16:13
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5183)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
The IPCC is not an international organization. Over 99% of scientists in IPCC are American. China and India make up nearly half the world's population and there are hardly any Chinese or Indian scientists in IPCC. IPCC is therefore a political organization, not a scientific organization.

If I were to create an organization of only Australian, British and American scientists and mathematicians, whose charter it is to develop a falsifiable Global Warming model, then you would assert that the organization would not be an international science organization...but rather that it would be a political organization, yes?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
23-12-2015 17:21
Frank Schnabel
☆☆☆☆☆
(12)
IBdaMann wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
The IPCC is not an international organization. Over 99% of scientists in IPCC are American. China and India make up nearly half the world's population and there are hardly any Chinese or Indian scientists in IPCC. IPCC is therefore a political organization, not a scientific organization.

If I were to create an organization of only Australian, British and American scientists and mathematicians, whose charter it is to develop a falsifiable Global Warming model, then you would assert that the organization would not be an international science organization...but rather that it would be a political organization, yes?


.


Hi Mann and Tai Hai Chen (is Tai OK?)

I don't know the exact composition of all the scientists who participate one way or another in the IPCC. I would suspect that it is unfairly dominated by scientists from the US and western Europe. But I still think it is fair to call participation in the IPCC process international.

The important issue for the IPCC's credibility is not geographic representation. It is the scientific qualification of its participating scientists. On that score the IPCC has been criticized for choosing scientists based on geography and not standing in the field. Canadian investigative journalist, in her book The Delinquent Teenager, has a helpful perspective on this score.
RE: IPCC's credibility23-12-2015 17:24
Frank Schnabel
☆☆☆☆☆
(12)
That we common folk and everyone else are supposed to hold the IPCC in high regard is beyond dispute. We have none other than President Obama's science advisor, John Holdren, telling us that the IPCC is the source of "the most important conclusions" about climate change and that these conclusions rest on: "...an immense edifice of painstaking studies published in the world's leading peer-reviewed scientific journals. They have been vetted and documented in excruciating detail by the largest, longest, costliest, most international, most interdisciplinary, and most thorough formal review of a scientific topic ever conducted." Other bodies have weighed in on global warming from time to time, but only the IPCC has undertaken such a massive, systematic, comprehensive, world-wide, and long term effort.

So, is all this true?
23-12-2015 18:03
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1079)
Hi Mann and Tai Hai Chen (is Tai OK?)

I don't know the exact composition of all the scientists who participate one way or another in the IPCC. I would suspect that it is unfairly dominated by scientists from the US and western Europe. But I still think it is fair to call participation in the IPCC process international.

The important issue for the IPCC's credibility is not geographic representation. It is the scientific qualification of its participating scientists. On that score the IPCC has been criticized for choosing scientists based on geography and not standing in the field. Canadian investigative journalist, in her book The Delinquent Teenager, has a helpful perspective on this score.


Yes, Tai is good


The IPCC is a political organization founded in 1988 towards the end of the Cold War as a way to establish a global governance and take away the freedoms of the individual countries. They do this silly annual climate conference. For what? Not for saving the planet, but for fun. If they want to save the planet, they would do a conference once every week, not once every year.
23-12-2015 20:19
Frank Schnabel
☆☆☆☆☆
(12)
Hi Tai,

It is fair to say that the IPCC is primarily a political organization. After all, it is an organization of governments, not scientists. But they do have scientific pretensions, and that is what we will be addressing, hopefully.

That its founders were after global governance is very credible, knowing who some of the actors back in 1988 were (e.g. Maurice Strong and Bert Bolin).

For me, the first critical fact that I would bring out in my "cross-examination" of the IPCC would be its charter. The IPCC exists to serve the UNFCCC, a climate treaty which seeks to stabilize CO2 emissions. In fact, former chairman Rajendra Pachauri admitted publicly that the UNFCCC is the IPCC's "main customer." So it appears that bias was built into the IPCC from the get-go. CO2 was presumed guilty. This makes any IPCC claims that its reports are fair and objective to be very dubious.
Edited on 23-12-2015 20:21
24-12-2015 00:12
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(244)
Frank Schnabel wrote:
So it appears that bias was built into the IPCC from the get-go. CO2 was presumed guilty. This makes any IPCC claims that its reports are fair and objective to be very dubious.


The two of the previous posters in this thread are, based on previous posts, certain that the science that the IPCC is basing it's reports is dead wrong. One says that there's no such thing as a greenhouse effect, the other says that the Earth's atmospheric temperature is little affected by CO2.

What is your view?
24-12-2015 09:36
Frank Schnabel
☆☆☆☆☆
(12)
hi still,

I think the IPCC overstates the climate system's sensitivity to CO2.

What is your view on the IPCC's credibility?
24-12-2015 11:11
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Frank Schnabel wrote:
hi still,

I think the IPCC overstates the climate system's sensitivity to CO2.

What is your view on the IPCC's credibility?


I agree, for what it's worth.

But I think the debate about what effect CO2 has is misplaced.

It is better to look at the projected effects. They are generally insignificant and if anything nice. This should be the focus of those opposed to the waste of resources that the anti-CO2 hysteria has produced.
24-12-2015 12:14
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(244)
Frank Schnabel wrote:
hi still,
I think the IPCC overstates the climate system's sensitivity to CO2.
What is your view on the IPCC's credibility?


My view is that the credibility is pretty good. Not something to be relied on completely. It is a large committee, puts out a large report, lots of member nations pulling in different direction. One thing, on the science side the "error bars" are so wide it's hard for them to completely wrong.

We hope that you're right about the CO2 sensitivity.
24-12-2015 14:51
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1079)
IPCC says CO2 absorbs some of the IR shot up by Earth and then shoot absorbed IR back down to Earth. OK. What's the proof of that?
24-12-2015 15:42
Frank Schnabel
☆☆☆☆☆
(12)
Greetings Tim.

Still Learning, what facts (if true) would diminish the IPCC's credibility from your perspective?
25-12-2015 04:23
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(244)
Frank Schnabel wrote:
...Still Learning, what facts (if true) would diminish the IPCC's credibility from your perspective?


For the IPCC itself. for the science side, changes that reduced the numbers of participating volunteers. The large committee approach does slow things down a lot, but probably reduces mistakes like the Himalaya glaciers one. The IPCC itself doesn't do any research, so no new facts or insights will come from them, just collation and summarization of things that are already known.

For the policy side, if substantially different science shows up (necessarily from outside the IPCC) and adjustments aren't made quickly enough, then my view of IPCC's credibility would diminish. Might take a special report in that case, not wait for the regular one.
Edited on 25-12-2015 04:35
25-12-2015 04:25
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1079)
IPCC only has very low caliber scientists. It doesn't have famous scientists such as the distinguished Dr. William Happer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Lye5liWuZw
25-12-2015 14:21
Frank Schnabel
☆☆☆☆☆
(12)
still learning wrote: For the IPCC itself. for the science side, changes that reduced the numbers of participating volunteers...


The large number of participating scientists is one of the bragging points of the IPCC and its promoters. However, the number of participating scientists and the implied agreement among them is greatly exaggerated. We are often told about the thousands of scientists (4,000 according to some) who contribute to the IPCC reports. However, once duplicate names are removed, the actual number drops down below 2,900 according to one auditor. [http://mclean.ch/climate/docs/IPCC_numbers.pdf.]

In addition, if we count only those who contribute to the writing of the all-important Summaries for Policymakers, the number drops down below 100.

It is also completely unjustified to infer agreement among all the participating scientists solely by reason of their participation. Many participants are reviewers who have submitted comments critical of the IPCC's conclusions. Also the reviewers contribute only in their areas of expertise or on topics that interest them, not the entire report. And again, the number of scientists who draft the summaries and explicitly endorse the IPCC's central claims is very small.
25-12-2015 14:34
Frank Schnabel
☆☆☆☆☆
(12)
still learning wrote:
... The large committee approach does slow things down a lot, but probably reduces mistakes like the Himalaya glaciers one. The IPCC itself doesn't do any research, so no new facts or insights will come from them, just collation and summarization of things that are already known...


Science by committee. That ought to give one pause. As stated above, only a relative handful of participating scientists have a direct influence on the conclusions expressed by the IPCC. The policy summaries are produced by an inner core of scientists, and they are revised and agreed to, line-by-line, by representatives of member governments. This obviously is not how real scientific research is reviewed and published.
25-12-2015 14:52
Frank Schnabel
☆☆☆☆☆
(12)
still learning wrote:..For the policy side, if substantially different science shows up (necessarily from outside the IPCC) and adjustments aren't made quickly enough, then my view of IPCC's credibility would diminish. Might take a special report in that case, not wait for the regular one.


This has already happened. Here are some examples. First, the research on solar influences, long neglected by the IPCC because it sees it primary mission as promoting the CO2 theory of climate change, can no longer be ignored. I am referring specifically to the effects of the sun's variable ability to shield the earth from cosmic radiation. However, this important development barely shows up in the last report. Second, the Hockey Stick scandal and the auditing of subsequent paleoclimate studies totally discredit one of the IPCC's principal conclusions, namely that the warming experienced since the late 20th century is unprecedented in 2,000 years. But the IPCC, in its last report, stubbornly clings to that discredited conclusion.

BTW, there is a second report put out by the NIPCC (Non-Governmental Panel on Climate Change.
25-12-2015 14:55
Frank Schnabel
☆☆☆☆☆
(12)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
IPCC only has very low caliber scientists. It doesn't have famous scientists such as the distinguished Dr. William Happer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Lye5liWuZw


Hi Tai,

You are right. The expertise of the IPCC is not as advertised. Former (and now disgraced) Chairman Rajendra Pachauri boasted that only the world's top experts are chosen to participate in the IPCC review process and the writing of the reports. However, Canadian investigative journalist Donna Laframboise has shown that many world-class experts are excluded from the IPCC process. In fact many lead authors have been mere graduate students years away from getting their doctorates.
Edited on 25-12-2015 14:55




Join the debate Why Should We Trust (or not Trust) the IPCC?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Early IPCC Reports908-07-2019 07:48
What makes IPCC scientists sure warmer air hundreds of millions of years ago due to7106-06-2019 23:39
The IPCC in 20138225-05-2019 07:21
How come they never let a Chinese be in IPCC or UN climate department?229-04-2019 01:38
What makes IPCC thinks CO2 is better than O2 at trapping heat?028-04-2019 15:40
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact