Posted on 08/29/2010 2:03:55 AM PDT by bruinbirdman
Discovery of a series of embarrassing errors in its work.
A review of the practices of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been conducted in response to intense criticism of the body, whose reports are used by governments to inform policy decisions on global warming.
Conducted by a committee of representatives from the world's leading scientific bodies, the analysis is expected to recommend a number of changes to the way the IPCC compiles and checks its extensive 1,000 page reports.
The committee, which is made up of scientific organisations that form the InterAcademy Council, is also expected to recommend changes to help the IPCC keep its reports, which take around six years to complete, more up to date with current science.
Evidence given to the committee has also called for a tightening of the way facts and references are checked before the reports are published.
The IPCC has been under scrutiny after it admitted making an error in its 2007 report, that stated Himalayan glaciers could melt to a fifth of current levels by 2035 – a statement that was wrong by over 300 years.
The panel has also been criticised over the sources of information it used to compile the report after a number of statements were found to be based on information taken from reports by environmental lobby groups, magazine articles and student dissertations.
Climate change sceptics have seized upon the mistakes and non-scientific sources of information, using it to question the validity of the IPCC's conclusions that humans are causing the climate to change.
Climate scientists insist the conclusions are still robust.
Professor Robert Watson, the chief scientific adviser to the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and a former chair of the UN's IPCC, told the InterAcademy Council's review committee
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
Big fat, robust lies.
“Climate scientists insist the conclusions are still robust.
Big fat, robust lies.”
Especially those who are on the big fat dole, keeping their bank accounts robust, to spew their tripe.
When you begin with a conclusion, then alter data to prove the conclusion, that does not alter the conclusion.
yitbos
I think the time for ‘warnings’ is over. It’s time to start putting these con men and scam artists in prison where they belong.
Yo, chief ..
Yeah?
It's 0600 and the temp is 27F
A little warmer than yesterday, eh?
Yeah ... 26 yesterday
A regular heat wave
heh heh
OK .. lemmee jot that down ..... tooooo wennnnnnnnntyyyyyyy sssssssevvvvvvvvinnnnnnnnnnnnn d'greeeeeeeeeeeessssssssss.
(6 years later)
As noted, the trend is towards a warming of the planet since ......
They don’t show much confidence in a theory when they use the word “robust,” rather than “true,” or “likely” to describe it.
"Errors" my butt.
The guilt is not in the doing, it's in the getting caught. /liberal axiom
When I was writing formal papers the verbiage was “factual” or “based on these facts.”
I don't even know how “robust” fits into scientific methodology
Global Warming on Free Republic
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
