Replies

If they are deliberately skewing their models by introducing spurious factors, there will be an outcry in the scientific community sooner or later.

That would depend on what you mean by "spurious". The IPCC has described its modeling procedure pretty well; the upper-range estimates have been obtained by taking out some negative feedback factors in some models. They evaluate a range of models to come up with a range of climate scenarios, and then the evaluate the consequences of those possibilities.

The media alarmists tend to glom onto the worst-case scenarios and present them as if they were the likeliest scenarios -- which isn't the case. But "moderate changes" don't make stories that lots of people will read. So there really isn't a scandal here (nor is there a deliberate attempt to skew the science) -- the name of the IPCC game is to evaluate the broadest possible set of circumstances, and then propose various ways to address different sets of circumstances.

Of course, members of the IPCC community have seized upon particular aspects of the reports and used them to push their own agendas. Not much can be done about that.

I am viewing this climate debate with some amusement. 40 years ago I was working for one of the scientists who was developing climate models. I could have stayed in that field and made a career of it. But now here we are looking at Mars, or some of us are anyway. What are we going to do about Mars? Terraform of course, can't just leave all that real estate undeveloped going to waste. So we are going to terraform Mars, but aren't real sure what effect we might be having on earth's climate. It's Keystone Cops down here.

>>>>>Of course, members of the IPCC community have seized upon particular aspects of the reports and used them to push their own agendas. Not much can be done about that.

A great deal can be done about that. The people who intentionally use the IPCC reports as a source of propaganda can be revealed for being the prostitutes that they are. Practicing science with a moral prospective of altitude and distance does not ultimately serve the public which invariably gets taxed to pay the salary of the climate scientist.