Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
questionmark

IPCC report onclusions 'well-founded'

7 posts in this topic

Review of questioned IPCC report says conclusions 'well-founded'

Dutch government finds minor inaccuracies in contested paper, but reasserts that 'climate change poses "substantial risks" to most parts of the world'

.

arrow3.gifRead more...

hmmm... why has nobody eager to put on some e-mails taken out of context on the forum jumped on this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a lot of nit-picking. Granted, these facts should be made as accurate as possible, but attacking the entire theory based on this is about like the Birther movement. There are probably better places to attack AGW hypothesis.

And that was in response to why people should not be hammering on this. If their conclusion was that the errors did nothing to destroy the theory, then it's nitpicking. I do agree they need to have people vetting every line of these reports before they publish them, that's just common sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a lot of nit-picking. Granted, these facts should be made as accurate as possible, but attacking the entire theory based on this is about like the Birther movement. There are probably better places to attack AGW hypothesis.

And that was in response to why people should not be hammering on this. If their conclusion was that the errors did nothing to destroy the theory, then it's nitpicking. I do agree they need to have people vetting every line of these reports before they publish them, that's just common sense.

You obviously haven't held the report - its huge. In the nature of things mistakes are going to be made and not spotted until its to late. Considering its size its the paucity of genuine errors which is remarkable.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then I stand corrected, maybe? Although, even though the number of errors is few, if they aren't already factchecking the thing before they publish it, maybe they should. You might drop that 12 or so number down to 5 or 6.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then I stand corrected, maybe? Although, even though the number of errors is few, if they aren't already factchecking the thing before they publish it, maybe they should. You might drop that 12 or so number down to 5 or 6.

Indeed any errors in a report of such significance is totally unacceptable really. We all have to make up our own minds in the end, and giving the skeptics easy targets will prevent many from verifying the actual weight of data out there.

It is the position that the IPCC has deliberately set out to deceive which is objectionable.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In related news:

CRU climate scientists 'did not withold data'

Climate scientists at a top UK research unit have emerged from an inquiry with their reputations for honesty intact but with a lack of openness criticised.

The Independent Climate Change Email Review was set up by the University of East Anglia (UEA) after more than 1,000 e-mails were hacked from its servers.

Climate "sceptics" claimed the e-mails showed that UEA scientists manipulated and suppressed key climate data.

But these accusations are largely dismissed by the report.

Source: BBC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed any errors in a report of such significance is totally unacceptable really. We all have to make up our own minds in the end, and giving the skeptics easy targets will prevent many from verifying the actual weight of data out there.

It is the position that the IPCC has deliberately set out to deceive which is objectionable.

Br Cornelius

And despite the temptation to follow the horde, I have yet to contend that they have intentionally done anything deceitful. I question the politics involved, and am still open to other possibilities for it rather than CO2, but I'm not denying that the scientists have it right. I am not in a position to deal with the science involved in climate change, but I certainly do have ideas running around my head on how to soften the blow enough for us to survive it. Like dealing with the symptoms as we work on the solution to the core problem.

The reason those reports need to be as error free as possible, is because the politicians are using them to base their actions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.