Is a review in order of the IPCC and it's corrupt practices?

Question

And should it be abolished? As one of it's members indicates.



"Over the years, as I have learned more about the data and procedures of the IPCC I have found increasing opposition by them to providing explanations, until I have been forced to the conclusion that for significant parts of the work of the IPCC, the data collection and scientific methods employed are unsound. Resistance to all efforts to try and discuss or rectify these problems has convinced me that normal scientific procedures are not only rejected by the IPCC, but that this practice is endemic, and was part of the organisation from the very beginning. I therefore consider that the IPCC is fundamentally corrupt. The only "reform" I could envisage, would be its abolition."

Dr. Vincent Gray..

http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=155&Itemid=1

.
.

Edit:

Dana, you bought the whole thing hook line and sinker. Until the daily surface temperature station readings have this symbol ∑ integrated into their formula on an hourly basis, the surface temperature measurements are meaningless, as far as I am concerned.

.
.

EDIT:

GCNP58

Are average temperatures still computed by averaging a minimum / maximum thermometer to derive daily measurements at each surface location?

.
.

Answer 1

They and their conclusions should be taken with a grain of salt, that is for sure. They are based primarily on political decisions as well as economic. They know there is a huge stockpile of money out there to study and push a scare agenda. These environmentalists are skeptics of everything except their own religiously held envirionmentalists views. They should learn that skepticsm is a key ingredient of scientific reasoning. I, of course, would like it abolished but it seems pretty unlikely. They seem to be winning for now in their propaganda war.

Answer 2

No, No, No, do no longer you comprehend consensus? it rather is the recent gadget of technological wisdom. We in simple terms locate what a majority of individuals have faith and we settle for it. This eliminates that nagging situation interior of technological wisdom of that pesky scientific technique. Who cares that this would lead us to nonetheless believing the international is flat. If we are in a position to all conform to the consensus, then we can all be incorrect or good jointly. whilst each physique accepts this philosophy, and the thought that the gov't could act against the prefer of the folk, as lots of the AGWers right here have stated. we are in a position to all have the utopia that they are working for in China. Institute a one toddler coverage and function our species slowly die out, all interior the call of our glrious goddess Gaia. won't or no longer it rather is astonishing?

Answer 3

Go through the IPCC AR4 markups and search for Gray's criticisms. Most of them are unsupported assertions or conclusions based on analyses that have been superceded by more recent results. I particularly like his comment SPM-799, which is typical of the skeptics tone that everything is wrong, but they see no need to justify why they think it is wrong.

Gray represents the old guard, who can't admit they got out on the wrong side of the issue 40 years ago. It's sad for him, but that doesn't mean anyone should take him seriously until he provides detailed scientific evidence for the assertions like in SPM-799 that he makes. However, that goes for all skeptics.

Answer 4

Vincent Gray tried to get his ideas published by the IPCC. Since the other scientists didn't agree with him, he failed. And so "The IPCC is no darn good." Phooey.

"The drafting of reports by the world’s pre-eminent group of climate scientists is an odd process. For many months scientists contributing to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change tussle over the evidence. Nothing gets published unless it achieves consensus. This means that the panel’s reports are extremely conservative – even timid. It also means that they are as trustworthy as a scientific document can be."

George Monbiot

Larry - and so even more unqualified in climatology.

Answer 5

Vincent Gray is not the only IPCC reviewer to be upset by the politicization of the science. Christopher Landsea resigned because of exaggerations tieing global warming to increased hurricane activity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Landsea

Roger Pielke, the most prolific and respected climatologist on the planet, has also criticized the IPCC. Pielke believes mankind is changing the environment but he thinks land use/land cover changes make more of an impact than increasing CO2.
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2007/09/01/the-2007-ipcc-assessment-process-its-obvious-conflict-of-interest/

Answer 6

Considering it's run by the UN, the most corrupt organization in the history of the planet, it doesn't surprise me that they lie for their many agendas.

With the global warming issue, lies are the norm. Al Gore's movie was so full of lies it should've been labeled a comedy routine. We already know ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN lie on a regular basis. They've been caught so many times it's pathetic.

Just the other day Anderson Cooper had some special on "global warming" where he lied about the ice melting in Greenland. I doubt he'll apologize. They prefer to leave the lie out there and just move on.

They figure the general public is too dumb to figure it out.

Answer 7

I like the editorial in today's paper, especially the "After that, it's all by guess and by golly as far as the climate change part of the problem goes because, while we think that human activity plays a part in global warming, we don't know how big a part. The roots of the problem are still only vaguely understood. "
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/editorial/story/4064623p-4667474c.html

But I guess it doesn't bother the dana's of this world that the lower income and the poor have to pay so much more for their food now that we're using basic ingredients like corn to fix a problem that does not exist.

Answer 8

Dana,

William Gray is the Meteorologist / hurricane specialist
Vincent Gray is a PhD, Physical Chemist

Answer 9

Give me a break, Tomcat.

Yeah, one skeptic thinks the IPCC's methods are unsound. Therefore he must be right and the IPCC must be corrupt.

I think it's about time to stop disregarding the opinions of the vast majority in favor of the opinions of a tiny minority, don't you? A concensus does not require that every member agree. Being correct about global climate change does not require that a physical chemist (corrected by Larry) agree.

I do have one criticism of the IPCC though - I wish they wouldn't be so conservative in their projections, but I understand that the politicians require it.

*edit* I don't really care about your opinion of the surface temperature record. Studies have proven that they are reliable, as have satellite temperature measurements.

jim z - your comment that the IPCC's conclusions are primarily based on political and economic factors is a lie, and you know it.

Answer 10

The IPCC is a consortium of thousands of scientists. I don't see any reason to bother them because you, or one of their former members, doesn't agree with their conclusions. If that's the basis, we're going to have to investigate everyone, aren't we?