The author says:

"The IPCC itself does not commission research. It attempts to put together all that independently generated information in order to get the big picture."

That is monumentally wrong; see:

http://hro001.wordpress.com/2010/04/14/uns-climate-bible-gets-21-fs-on-report-card/

The IPCC uses activists for much of its reports and relies on "grey" literature or reports which are ideological or political in nature.

The history of the IPCC has been one of mistake, corruption and ideology concerned with using the lie of AGW to justify a growth in the UN's influence and to redistribute wealth from the West to the 3rd world.

The latest example of that is the creation of 'disaster' fund whereby nations like the Philippines which just experienced an entirely natural weather disaster, can demand compensation from Western nations for their creation of AGW:

http://zeenews.india.com/news/eco-news/typhoon-haiyan-revives-compensation-row-at-un-climate-talks_891230.html

The IPCC is a farce and has no scientific validity as the 2010 IAC enquiry found:

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/29880.html

This article is prolix amphigory.

You're so full of it, cohenite/Anthony Cox.

I was under the impression that post Karl Popper the essence of science was that you stated a hypothesis and tried to disprove it. Darwin for example in the Origin of Species puts forward the hypothesis that evolution is driven by natural selection and the struggle for existence at the beginning of the book. The rest of the book then tries to disprove it and when he fails you end up accepting the model. If you get data (best through an experiment) that falsifies the hypothesis you reject it.

With regard to AGW the problem is that the past 15 years have not substantiated the models.

I am reminded of the words of Tim Michen:
Science adjusts its views based on what’s observed,
Faith is the denial of observation, so belief can be preserved.

Yes, Anthony, we can blame it all on the Sun, can't we?

If you fancy a little read, find a potted history of your pet theory here http://www.aip.org/history/climate/solar.htm

PS: ice volume, or extent? What's the important measure when deciding whether Arctic ice is disappearing?

Others have dealt with the science aspect of it..

The problem from the public policy point of view is that these much vaunted climate models have proved useless, and even counter productive in deciding policy. During the megadrought in SE Aus we were told it would continue, so a number of states built desalination plants which now take up space. During the subsequent 2-3 years of flooding, we were told the flooding was worse due to high ocean temperatures (which had not been forecast, or even mentioned before the flooding). In fact there is no indication that teh flooding was worse than the last, major round in the 1970s..

When severe bushfires hit NSW early in the season we were told it was due to climate change, although nothing much had been said about bushfires before that (the recent IPCC report doesn't say anything about fires, only about dryness).

When a big typhoon hit the Philippines we were told it was due to global warming when, in fact, the IPCC report admitted that scientists cannot not find any trend in storms.

Scientists can be left to sort this matter out among themselves, but as far as framing public policy goes, the track record of the climate models to date suggest that any attempt to control emissions so that such an such a limit in CO2 would keep the earth at this or that temperature increase is a waste of time. The models just aren't that accurate..

If the way we live is such a serious problem shouldn't we see other less debatable circumstantial evidence – like salination of the land, soil loss, air & water pollution, habitat & species loss et cetera?

We might see an emergence of “winners” & "losers" with "winners" developing a new “ethic”, like that “greed is good” & the development of an economy that encourages it.

We might also see personal, family & community breakdown, disenchantment with materialism, depression, loss of hope & even suicide.

In poorer nations we might start to see critical social division where people started risking their lives & even the lives of their children to streets lined with gold.

A radicalisation of poor people that only by sacrificing their own lives could they fight against perceived global injustices – we might expect them to see this as a holy war with tactics like guerrilla warfare & terrorism rather than to conventional confrontation where they would be annihilated by superior richer forces.

Disempowered nations might even look to develop weapons of mutual destruction, or at least their disempowered and poverty stricken citizens might accept this tactic by their leaders without objection.

Where per capita use of fossil fuels is high we might see evidence of closing borders against refugees & a building up of defences.

Health wise, resulting from excessive consumerism we might see obesity or heart conditions et cetera on a phenomenal scale.

Urged on by the representatives of such nations using catch cries like “democratic principles” & “our way of life is not negotiable”, we might anticipate that even where problems like global warming are acknowledged, the response would be to prop up the lifestyle with new technology to allow for continued & even expanding per capita consumerism. We would expect to hear a lot about “clean” coal, “eco” tourism, electric cars & de-salination run by “safe” nuclear power.

Common sense tells me that, although nothing can be certain, connecting the dots strongly suggests that we are going the wrong way.

Chris Baulman
@landrights4all

Hi Luci; I've read Weart but not for a while; I recalled that Lubos had given him a serve way back when:

http://motls.blogspot.com.au/2007/06/realclimate-saturated-confusion.html

I wish you guys would address the issues; Stockwell has written a paper detailing how the solar variation can explain temperature and because you can't or won't understand it you default back to mummy's AGW apron strings.

The author of this gibberish is a believer; his belief in the integrity of the IPCC and the science of the consensus amply demonstrates that.

The author's comment about climate models is particularly insightful:

"Computer models have an enormous advantage over models that depended on human calculations. Because they are so fast, they enable us to calculate very precisely just what difference it would make if certain measurements were inaccurate by some particular margin."

This guy hasn't got a clue; it is not computational speed which is the problem but the assumptions the climate computers are modelled with [this guy doesn't know the difference between a model and a computer which is used to calculate the model parameters]. The climate models have either misunderstood the roles of water, clouds and the sun. If you don't believe me read the emails where the climate scientists admit that.

Now luci and the other one, ozdoc; same something sensible.

Wow! The global warming mob are really scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Forced to admit no warming for 16 years, & many of their other clams becoming more doubtful daily, as more new evidence is produced in peer reviewed studies, they have turned to the dreamers.

We get psychologists, psychiatrists, & now Philosophers, & all the other types who have to take their shoes off to count above ten dragged in to try some new red herrings.

Well sorry John, you're on a fools errand. You'd be much better off going back to where you can't be proved wrong. It is very dangerous staking your reputation on things you don't understand.

The IPCC's latest report claims that there is increasing certainty that CO2 will cause dangerous global warming over the course of the 21st century. This assertion is based on an aggregate of computer models of the world's climate developed by climate modellers around the world.

However, in relying on those models, the IPCC fails to address the growing gap between the model predictions and actual measured temperatures, viz. University of Alabama, Huntsville Campus (UAH) Lower Troposphere satellite measurements, and combined sea-surface temperature records compiled by the Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office and land surface temperature records compiled by the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia.

Whereas the models predicted increasing temperature with increasing CO2 emissions, there has been no statistically significant increase in global temperature in the past 15 years, despite the increases in anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

This clearly suggests that the computer models grossly overstate the sensitivity of global temperature to anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

Luciferase
Glanced at your link about the sun connection.. no-one now doubts that there is a connection between the solar cycles and climate, but there is a lot of argument about just how much the warming that occurred between the mid-70s and the turn of the century was due to changes in the sun.. the link is supposed to have broken down. Also, no-one is sure of the mechanism. If you want confirmation of this try this 2009 paper from the proceedings of the Royal Academy A http://www.atmos.washington.edu/2009Q1/111/Readings/Lockwood2007_Recent_oppositely_directed_trends.pdf
The solar physicist Mike Lockwood who co-authored the paper agreed that there was substantial evidence for such a link, but that the link broke down in the past 40 years.. that may be so, or it may be the result of our poor understanding of the link.. whatever. But the people who wrote the item you linked are guilty of not being aware of the latest research in this area..

Raycom did Mummy read that big IPPC report for you or did you just copy and paste from whatsupwiththat.tard?

Cobber the hound
The IPCC has form when it comes to misrepresenting the facts. Ben Santer was involved in one such exercise in 1995, which is worth recounting.

S Fred Singer and Dennis T Avery, in their book 'Unstoppable Global Warming' published by Rowman and Littlefield in 2007, give the following account (see pp 120-121):
(Start of quote)
"The IPCC's Climate Change 1995 was reviewed by its consulting scientists in late 1995. The 'Summary for Policy Makers' was approved in December, and the full report , including Chapter 8, was accepted. However, after the printed report appeared in May 1996, the scientific reviewers discovered that major changes had been made "in the back room" after they had signed off on the science chapter's contents. Santer, despite the shortcomings of the scientific evidence, had inserted strong endorsements of man-made warming in Chapter 8 (of which he was the IPCC-appointed lead author):

"There is evidence of an emerging pattern of climate response to forcing by greenhouse gases and sulfate aerosols ... from the geographical, seasonal and vertical patterns of temperature change ... These results point toward a human influence on global climate. (IPCC, Climate Change 1995, Chapter 8, 412)

The body of statistical evidence in chapter 8, when examined in the context of our physical understanding of the climate system, now points to a discernible human influence on the global climate. "( IPCC, Climate Change 1995, Chapter 8, 439)

(cont.in next post)

(Previous post cont.)
Santer also deleted these key statements from the expert-approved chapter 8 draft:

"None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed (climate) changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases."

"While some of the pattern-base studies discussed here have claimed detection of a significant climate change, no study to date has positively attributed all or part (of the climate change observed) to (man-made) causes. Nor has any study quantified the magnitude of a greenhouse gas effect or aerosol effect in the observed data -- an issue of primary relevance to policy makers."

"Any claims of positive detection and attribution of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced."

"While none of these studies has specifically considered the attribution issue, they often draw some attribution conclusions, for which there is little justification."

"When will an anthropogenic effect on climate be identified? It is not surprising that the best answer to the question is, "We do not know."

Santer single-handedly reversed the "climate science " of the whole IPCC report -- and with it the global warming political process. The "discernible human influence" supposedly revealed by the IPCC has been cited thousands of times since in media around the world and has been the "stopper" in millions of debates between non-scientists.

The journal Nature mildly chided the IPCC for redoing chapter 8 to "ensure that it conformed" to the report's politically correct Summary for Policy Makers. In an editorial, Nature favoured the Kyoto treaty.
(cont. next post)

(Previous post cont.)

The Wall Street Journal, which did not favour Kyoto, was outraged . Its condemning editorial, "Coverup in the Greenhouse, " appeared 11 June 1996. The following day, Frederick Seitz, former president of the National Academy of Sciences, detailed the illegitimate rewrite in the Journal in a commentary titled, "Major Deception on Global Warming."
(End of quote)

Nothing has changed since Santer's deception.

You should be familiar with more recent misrepresentations, such as :
the 'hockey stick' scandal;
alarmist outcomes generated with unvalidated IPCC climate models ;
the Climategate scandal;
IPCC claims re Himalayan glaciers disappearing by 2035,
destruction of 40 percent of the Amazonian rain forest,
halving of African agricultural production.

The IPCC continues to rely on assertion, which it effectively uses to con politicians et al into believing in the dangerous AGW hypothesis. Yet it has not been able to produce any compelling empirical scientific evidence that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are the driver of global warming.

Yep it's quite amazing --when one runs through Raycom's list --just how many fudges the IPCC has been involved in.

Another telling factor is --on a quick scan of this thread-- of the three true believers in AGW, two offer nothing but personal abuse.

Perhaps here is the reason the IPCC is not claiming AGW caused the typhoon at Tacloban.
7,000 dead, prison at Tacloban wrecked, 200 rebels escaped, 1898;
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/44204307

Has anyone heard about this in major media, like in the pro CO2 lobby ABC and SMH?

cohenite,

"I wish you guys would address the issues; Stockwell has written a paper detailing how the solar variation can explain temperature and because you can't or won't understand it you default back to mummy's AGW apron strings."

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/4/045022

"Although it is generally believed that the increase in the mean global surface temperature since industrialization is caused by the increase in green house gases in the atmosphere, some people cite solar activity, either directly or through its effect on cosmic rays, as an underestimated contributor to such global warming. In this letter a simplified version of the standard picture of the role of greenhouse gases in causing the global warming since industrialization is described. The conditions necessary for this picture to be wholly or partially wrong are then introduced. Evidence is presented from which the contributions of either cosmic rays or solar activity to this warming is deduced. The contribution is shown to be less than 10% of the warming seen in the twentieth century."

Sorting through the waffle designed to make the author seem impartial, the key points in John Burnheim's article are.

Some climatologists, including "eminent" ones are sceptical about global warming.

Climate scientists base their findings on computer modelling which scientists from other disciplines do not trust.

The best indicator of who is right on this topic could be gleaned from the exchange between cohenite and ozdoc at the beginning of the replies. Cohenite submits a reasoned argument complete with supporting links, ozdoc submits a sneery one liner directed at cohenite.

Gee, that's funny Poirot. If the sun has little bearing on the Earth's temperature, how do you account for the fact that the Earth's temperature has swung wildly from hotter to colder throughout it's 4.56 billion year history before humans were around to pump their insignificant contribution of CO2 into the atmosphere? 90% of atmospheric CO2 comes from volcanic outgassing.

Could I remind you that the reason why life exists on Earth is because earth inhabits the "goldilock's zone" around the sun where a planet orbiting it's star is not too close to be too hot and not too far to be too cold for liquid water to exist on the surface.

The little quote that you cut and pasted from your link, and which you hold up as same sort of proof positive that your position is correct, does not address that little fact at all. It simply says that the sun is not a big factor in Earth's climate, when quite obviously it is a major factor. The sun's output varies (although generally, it is getting hotter) and that is far more likely to have immediate effects on Earth's climate then anything the human race can do.

Astronomers who are watching the sun at the moment are concerned that the sun has not undergone the normal changes associated with it's Maunder Minimum. They are worried that the sun may be undergoing a cooling period.

There are two different subjects that as usual are being spun into debate about climate change and scepticism, not direct debate about CO2.

There is scepticism about CO2 causing AGW.
There is less scepticism that climate change occurring.

I think it correct to say a majority of people think human activity is affecting climate but that the cause is not CO2.

Surely sensible debate should be about warming due CO2 or not.

Plus, debate should be allowed as to whether or not other possible causes of warming exist in some regions, or globally.

How about some real science, instead of junk science to rake in money from trading schemes.

Poirot; in your own words explain what Sloan and Wolfendale are doing in their latest Letter, NOT paper; a Letter is not peer reviewed.

While we all wait eagerly for your synopsis a bit of history. S&W are specialists in the Cosmic Ray dispute. The CR dispute is about whether CR from cosmic solar sources other than the sun [although the sun also emits CRs] can vitiate the effect of the sun on the planet's weather mainly through the formation of clouds.

S&W wrote a 2008 paper opposing this idea which in turn was critiqued by Shaviv, one of the world's leading CR and solar specialists; see here for a discussion:

http://motls.blogspot.com.au/2008/04/sun-climate-link-reply-to-sloan-and.html

The theory of CRs influencing climate really gained momentum with the work of Eigil Friis-Christensen and Knud Lassen, and subsequently Henrik Svensmark in the 1990s although the idea had been around since the 1970s.

The theory and opposition to it is discussed in this Wall Street Journal article:

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424053111904900904576554063768827104

The author explains, with a bit of flourish, that CR theory is based on

"charged subatomic particles from outer space, or "cosmic rays," whose atmospheric levels appear to rise and fall with the weakness or strength of solar winds that deflect them from the earth. These shifts might significantly impact the type and quantity of clouds covering the earth, providing a clue to one of the least-understood but most important questions about climate. Heavenly bodies might be driving long-term weather trends."

As you can see this contradicts AGW theory.

The point of all this Poirot, is that S&W's latest paper is about CRs not solar activity which is a completely different thing.

Nothing about S&W contradicts Stockwell's paper which is NOT about CRs. But thanks for coming Poirot.

I always find it odd the way that many of cohenite’s links turn out to be articles written by a certain Mr Anthony Cox. Mr Cox is a lawyer and secretary to the No Climate Tax Climate Sceptics Party with no expertise in climate science. Even more remarkably, cohenite often fails to carefully read what Mr Cox has written and gets it wrong. But even then, going and having a look at what Mr Cox has written it becomes clear that he is not interested in what the science has to offer and frequently follows the line and uses graphs from blogs by other non-experts, such as Jo Nova, Anthony Watts, Ken Stewart, Werner Brozek and so on.

Taking the latest blog post cohenite linked to of Mr Cox and David Stockwell as an example, we have the claim that “The IPCC is a farce and has no scientific validity as the 2010 IAC enquiry found”

But is this the case? Well you can read the IAC review at http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/report.html

What did the IAC actually say about the IPCC process?

“The Committee found that the IPCC assessment process has been successful overall.”

That doesn't sound at all like the IAC finding the IPCC process having no scientific validity.

It then goes on to make recommendations around tightening up management and governance at the IPCC to address issues that have arisen outside the IPCC.

So why, if their claims that the IAC found the IPCC had no validity are correct did cohenite or Mr Cox not link directly to the report to show that? What is it in the IAC report about the IPCC that they were trying to hide?

On a flexi-day are you Agro? Nice cherry-picking; that would be the only favourable comment made about the IPCC from the report.

Well let's have a look at what the IAC report really said. They provided “A simple typology of uncertainties”; obviously because they thought the IPCC did not know what uncertainty meant.

The IAC provided a stats 101 primer for the different types of "uncertainty". For instance for “Unpredictability”, they list, “Projections of human behaviour not easily amenable to prediction (e.g. evolution of political systems). Chaotic components of complex systems.”

For examples of “Structural uncertainty”, they say, “Inadequate models, incomplete or competing conceptual frameworks, lack of agreement on model structure, ambiguous system boundaries or definitions, significant processes or relationships wrongly specified or not considered.”

For “Value uncertainty: Missing, inaccurate or non-representative data, inappropriate spatial or temporal resolution, poorly known or changing model parameters.”

The IAC knew that the IPCC reports were dismal. Statistician William Briggs notes:

"they reminded the IPCC that “probabilistic approaches are available” and that they should consider reporting “ranges of outcomes and their associated likelihoods”. To make this complete, there’s a sarcastic lesson on rhetoric: “A 10% chance of dying is interpreted more negatively than a 90% chance of surviving.”

Folks, this is elementary! But school wasn’t over. There’s a hilarious table in which various wordings of uncertainties are mapped to numerical measures, e.g. “Very low confidence” maps to “Less than 1 out of 10 chance.” This is so basic it is like reminding a physicist that the speed of light is constant. IPCC members must be furious to be spoken to in this manner!"

Are you an IPCC member Agro?

The IAC concluded with this aside:

"[The IPCC should] be aware of a tendency for a group to converge on an expressed view and become overconfident in it”.

And you think the IAC report was favourable to the IPCC Agro? What would I or anyone else have to hide with conclusions like that?

LEGO,

"Gee, that's funny Poirot. If the sun has little bearing on the Earth's temperature...."

Nice try...although we're discussing the increase in temperature since industrialisation correlating with the rapid rise in CO2.

""Although it is generally believed that the increase in the mean global surface temperature since industrialization...."

Cohenite,

You have little scientific credibility and your link sources are often laughable.

Agronomist nailed it.

Says Poirot who links and links and links and hasn't got a clue about any of it.

We'll see what Agro comes back with. In the meantime why don't you toddle down the back and check how the rest of the pixies are going.

For anyone who's interested, here's an enlightening article by Michael Mann on Richard Muller - whom Mann perceives as something akin to a white knight on a Trojan horse.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-e-mann/michael-mann-richard-muller_b_4313508.html

Gave me another perspective on Muller, who it appears was only ever playing "catch-up" anyway.

(I predict cohenite will give Mann the shortest shrift of the two:)

Dear Poirot.

The climate scientists predicted on Thursday that Sydney would be fine and sunny on Saturday. I just looked out my window and it is pouring with rain.

LEGO,
You must have scientific evidence to prove you saw it raining and that is was raining!

Once again cohenite has offered a wealth of misinformation.
The guidelines quoted by cohenite, and attributed to the IAC were in fact taken from the IPCC's own guidelines (written 2005, or 5 years prior to the IAC report);

Guidance Notes for Lead Authors of the
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report on Addressing Uncertainties
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/supporting-material/uncertainty-guidance-note_ar4.pdf

NOTE; The IAC DID NOT “provide(d) a stats 101 primer for the different types of "uncertainty"; they merely reproduced an Excerpt of the IPCC's own guidelines.
It should also be noted, cohenite's (mis) quote:
"[The IPCC should] be aware of a tendency for a group to converge on an expressed view and become overconfident in it”
Was also taken from the same Notes for AR4 (written 5 years before the IAC report):

"6. Be aware of a tendency for a group to converge on an expressed view and become overconfident in it [3]. Views and estimates can also become anchored on previous versions or values to a greater extent than is justified. Recognize when individual views are adjusting as a result of group interactions and allow adequate time for such changes in viewpoint to be reviewed."

Were you being deliberately misleading, cohenite, or just sloppy? This is a classic example of typical denialist strategy; misquotes, poor use of sources and use of highly questionable sources.

Crap Grim; I get sick of being called a liar by the hounds of AGW.

In respect of Uncertainty this is a list of the IAC conclusions about the IPCC reports:

Uncertainty: Many conclusions of AR4 were based upon little or no evidence, and were not traceable to the underlying science if it existed.
•Unpublished and non-peer-reviewed literature was used in violation of even the weak procedure then existent and was almost never appropriately flagged.
•There was no traceability in the assignment of ratings for level of scientific understanding and likelihood.
•Quantitative probabilities (as in the likelihood scale) were used to describe the probability of well-defined outcomes when there was insufficient evidence i.e exaggeration
•The confidence scale was used to assign subjective probabilities to ill-defined outcomes.
•Formal expert elicitation procedures were not used to obtain subjective probabilities for key results.
•Inappropriate use of unpublished and non-peer reviewed material which has not been critically evaluated compounds the uncertainty of any conclusions.
•High confidence was attributed on little evidence and to vague statements.
•Many statements have weak evidentiary basis.
•Conclusions were stated so vaguely as to make them impossible to refute.
•Authors reported high confidence in statements for which there is little evidence.
•Anonymous unsubstantiated ratings are worthless.
•WG2 SPM assigned high confidence on little evidence.

All are referenced to parts of the IAC report; for instance this one:

•Quantitative probabilities (as in the likelihood scale) were used to describe the probability of well-defined outcomes when there was insufficient evidence i.e exaggeration

Can be referenced to recommendation 11 on page 40 of the IAC report here:

http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/report/Climate%20Change%20Assessments,%20Review%20of%20the%20Processes%20&%20Procedures%20of%20the%20IPCC.pdf

Of course the IAC used bits and pieces of past IPCC reports; that is what it was evaluating!

The only ones doing the misleading here and anywhere the scam of AGW is being discussed are the AGW groupies like Grim.

Cherry season again Mr Cox?

The IPCC considered the recommendations in detail at its 32nd (11-14 October 2010), 33rd (10-13 May 2011), 34th (18-19 November 2011) and 35th (6-9 June 2012) Sessions. Four Task Groups were established to address issues related to procedures, governance and management, conflict of interest policy, and communications strategy. In the following sections, the final decisions taken by the IPCC in response to the IAC recommendations are summarized. Further details about the consultations and decisions leading to the final decisions referred to below can be found in the Reports of the 32nd, 33rd, 34th and 35th Sessions of the IPCC and on the webpage of the respective Session.

http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization_review.shtml

Not cherries doc, but nuts.

So your argument is the IAC DID make justified complaints about the process in the IPCC reports but its alright now because the IPCC committee now says they've learnt their lesson and the consequent reports will be ok.

You might be gullible mate but peddle that nonsense elsewhere.

Look at AR5 and the criticism it has received. All of a sudden AR5 pulls a rabbit out of its backside which says they're now 95% certain humans are responsible for AGW which hasn't been happening for a climatically significant period as defined by wonder boy Santer and the rest of the crew!

You couldn't make this junk up and you're satisfied they've learnt their lesson!

Quote:
“Well let's have a look at what the IAC report really said. ++They provided “A simple typology of uncertainties”; obviously because they thought the IPCC did not know what uncertainty meant.”++
False. The IAC (“They”) provided no such thing. The IPCC provided specific guidelines to their lead authors.
Quote:
“The IAC provided a stats 101 primer for the different types of "uncertainty"”
False again. The IPCC supplied the guidelines.
Quote:
“The IAC knew that the IPCC reports were dismal”.
Falsehood number 3. What the IAC said was “The Committee found that the IPCC assessment
process has been successful overall.”
Quote:
The IAC concluded with this aside:
"[The IPCC should] be aware of a tendency for a group to converge on an expressed view and become overconfident in it”.

No, the IAC didn't. As previously pointed out, that quote was lifted from the IPCC's own guidelines. What the IAC did conclude (under the heading “Conclusions”; go figgur) was:

Conclusions
The overall structure of the IPCC assessment process appears to be sound,
although significant improvements are both possible and necessary for the
fifth assessment and beyond. Key improvements include enhancing the
transparency of the process for selecting Bureau members, authors, and
reviewers; strengthening procedures for the use of the so-called ‘gray liter-
ature;’ strengthening the oversight and independence of the review
process; and streamlining the report revision process and approval of the
Summary for Policymakers.

If you're sick of being called a liar, cohenite, perhaps you should try sticking with the truth.

Pure bilge Grim; the IAC was being polite; but beneath the niceties the criticism was damning.

I repeat all came from the IAC report. How can the IPCC reports be reasonable science when that list of complaints is made? That list was about uncertainty and the statistical standards used by the IPCC. Look at this IAC list of conclusions about the bias in the IPCC reports:

•The scoping of AR4 was not done by people selected by a transparent process and criteria.
•The writing of AR4 was not controlled by people selected by a formal process and criteria.
•Properly documented alternative views were not given due consideration.
•Genuine controversies were not adequately reflected.
•Authors did not respond effectively to significant review issues in many cases.
•AR4 is not a proper "assessment"" as the authors were not independent and did not consider the full range of available knowledge."
•Selection bias was rampant - both in terms of personnel and the publications included for assessment.
•AR4 did not even get to the first step in considering the range of thoughtful views.
•Controversial issues did not receive appropriate consideration as even the weak existing procedures were not followed.
•There is no evidence that all thoughtful views were considered.
•The IPCC indulged in advocacy.
•Authors placed too much weight on their own views relative to other views.
•WG2 SPM amplified the negative impacts of climate change contained in the underlying report.
•Lead Authors were at liberty to reject critical review comments without justification.

Again take the first one:

•The scoping of AR4 was not done by people selected by a transparent process and criteria.

This is discussed on page 31 of the IAC report:

http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/report/Climate%20Change%20Assessments,%20Review%20of%20the%20Processes%20&%20Procedures%20of%20the%20IPCC.pdf

And so on with the rest of them.

Grim, doc and the other groupies are seeking to hide behind some gratuitous bureaucratic language used by the IAC and are ignoring the meat of the report which was damning.

I'm not going to accuse Grim of lying; I just think he's delusional.

cohenite,

My pixies are telling me that you continually get blown out of the water by people who are scientifically knowledgeable.

Canny little guys, eh?

cohenite,

"....the IAC was being polite......"

That's always your fallback line.

Remember when Steve McIntyre tried to squirm out of his association with Watts' mistake-ridden paper a while back.

McIntyre almost bent over backwards to disassociate himself - saying he'd been hasty and that he shouldn't have been included as a "co-author".

You said McIntyre was just being self-effacing and didn't want the glory.

(titter, tee hee)

With that sort of glory, who needs....?

You make it up as you go along

I get banned for calling you an idiot Poirot, so I won't.

LEGO wrote: “The climate scientists predicted on Thursday that Sydney would be fine and sunny on Saturday. I just looked out my window and it is pouring with rain.”

Did they?

Who are these climate scientists and why are they wasting their time predicting weather when we have meteorologists for that?

And why is it that “sceptics” so often cannot tell the difference between weather and climate?

‘But it was cold somewhere in the world yesterday!’ - “Sceptic”

To top things off, however, JF Aus pipes up with a sarcastic, look-at-me-I’m-pretending-to-be-someone-who-accepts-the-science-on-climate-change comment; further demonstrating the confusion amongst “sceptics” as to what requires evidence and that which we can (or cannot) take at face value without resorting to the argument from incredulity fallacy.

You guys really are a bright bunch, aren’t you.

A J Phillips,

You should be able to answer whether AGW - Kyoto - IPCC science has measured and assessed photosynthesis-linked warmth in ocean algae plant matter proliferated by unprecedented land use and sewage nutrient pollution.

Can you answer that Mr/Ms Phillips?

Gas from plant matter in animal cud is measured in AGW science but what about AGW links to ocean algae, especially where ice is reported melting more than usual?

Is warmth in algae measured or not, or what scientific grounds exist to not measure it?

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2012/june/arctic-algal-blooms-060712.html

Gee, JF Aus, that's a good question!

But because I'm sure you're not one to throw out a red herring with some unrelated, out-of-the-blue question in rebuttal, I'll give you the chance to explain how you think yourself and LEGO are entitled to any sort of credibility after your apparent confusing of meteorology with climate science, and naivety of the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" point before I answer it.

After all, if I'm to take your concerns seriously, I'm going to want to know that I'm dealing with someone who knows what they're talking about, and doesn't just randomly grab an argument that they've read on WUWT and thinks sounds good, as a rebuttal. Because, as I'm sure you understand, answering a question with something that one believes is an unknown, is fallacious.

That's what creationists do.

AJ Phillips,

How can you be sure about a red herring if you have no relevant scientific evidence?

I think I am entitled to connect study of meteors with climate because influence on change in climate is dominated by oceans including biology of ocean ecosystems, and marine biology is not (yet) included in meteorological or climate science.

My background might enlighten you.
Since the early 1960’s I have been working with chemicals underwater in the ocean but in recent years reaction in those chemicals has changed because of solar energy being increasingly reduced slightly, apparently due increased green vegetable matter also decreasing visibility. Now at this moment you may be thinking of a real nut case.

Briefly and in other words, think of light penetration in water and a background in underwater ocean filmmaking. That experience led to stumbling on malnutrition amongst seafood protein dependent Pacific islanders. And long term independent general research and observations of substance since 1982 has focused on possible causes and solutions.
Increased green matter in ocean water does not just affect film exposure.

First hand observation indicates epiphyte algae matter reducing photosynthesis in estuary and bay and lagoon seagrass that forms nurseries supplying food web dependent fish and animals.
Fish are not immune to starvation, neither are seafood dependent islanders.
Living things require adequate food in order to survive and to multiply, the latter including fish.
The problem is not overfishing, as media claims without scientific evidence.
The problem is food web collapse primarily due to algae due to nutrient pollution, due to sewage nutrient loadings dumped daily in food web ecosystem currents.
The nutrients are bonded to the fresh water that tends toward the surface and wind blown currents.

Experience indicates solutions are not occurring due media suppression of debate while editorial focus is often on non-sense.

Algal blooms are increasing in number and mass, including ocean dead zones where land use and sewage nutrient proliferated algae increases is even leading to anoxia.

Continued…………

Cont’d……….

There is now so much algae also in rivers, bays, lagoons and whole open ocean nearer to heavily populated regions such as northern hemisphere waters.

Basic science explains increased matter and heat transfer particle to particle. So, take a beaker of water with pea soup added and an equal beaker of pure water, boil both equally, allow to cool, measure which retains warmth for a longer period.

I have a slight advantage here. For my first job after leaving school I was given an old army jeep, a half round straw broom and a spanner.
The job was loosening ends of stock water troughs on a 240,000 acre outback Australian sheep and cattle station, to sweep out sand and algae.
After 3 months I was over it. I had gone bush due excitement of handling horses, so I asked the station manager why the trough cleaning. Reply was this.
When stock arrive late afternoon they want cool water, if water is warm some stock hang by the dusty watering place till maybe midnight, some stay till morning before returning to where feed can be found, while loitering dust gets in the wool, reducing value of that wool.

Somewhere pre Internet there has surely been a study on warmth retaining characteristics of algae. Or did farmers just put a finger in the water and find out?
So therein is that food-web-aside, but serious question again.

Has AGW – Kyoto – IPCC - climate science, measured and assessed photosynthesis-linked warmth in ocean macro and micro algae plant matter proliferated by land use and sewage nutrient pollution?

Please answer that question. For a number or reasons there is dire urgent need to attend to the algae problem.

(I cannot speak for LEGO except to say that incomplete science focused on emissions is pitting many good people against each other in debate influenced by trading scheme spin pumped out by once respected and trusted major media

JF Aus, what do you think the ARGO ocean buoys have been measuring these many years.

Your fixation on algae is similar to the whole marine research community on Townsville had for so many years on crown of thorns.

It is a strange thing, how a bee in someone's bonnet can make them blind to the rest of the world. Don't be a one trick pony, it's counter productive.

Hasbeen,

I think your attitude here is a fault in human intelligence. Such attitude can negatively impact on humanity and environment because it can cause people to turn away from solutions required. Example, you are wrong but sound correct to the uninformed;

The ARGO buoys are deployed and operate in open ocean waters and they work in deep water, compared to coastal shallow ocean ecosystem waters where I have spent a lifetime, and where ARGO buoys would foul on coastlines.

My focus on algae is where general research has taken me. Life has apparently taken you on path of unjustified useless criticism.

Crown of Thorns larvae feed on nutrient proliferated algae, unprecedented daily loadings of nutrients are feeding unprecedented algae that in turn feeds COTS larvae and maintains abnormal survival rates.

Abnormal damage by COTS is killing coral as you know but what you don’t know is dead coral attracts invasive algal growth that surely retains added solar warmth energy during photosynthesis. Think of a big pond of water going rotten, warming, you surely understand that.

Is it a bee in the bonnet? Or is it mentoring to finish the job once started?
Better than being a no trick pony, eh Hasbeen.

Why don’t you answer the question, or ask someone who can and let us know.
Then I will get onto another focus ‘trick’, like indicating possibly viable and sensible solutions that could generate substantial business and many thousands of jobs, new productivity, exports, tax revenue etcetera.

I think a war of words between posters on this site is can sometimes be counter productive, jealousy also.

(P.S. My post limit of 4 in 24 hours may soon be reached but I will return)

Sorry JF Aus, but I don't need evidence for AGW to know that confusing meteorology with climate science is an astonishing display of ignorance. Nor do I need evidence for AGW to understand that different claims require different degrees of evidence. Thus your question simply comes across as a diversionary tactic; as if you were trying to say, “See? There’s something you don’t know too! Only this time confusing general knowledge and basic logic with complex data sets and the conclusions that may be deduced from them.

AJ Phillips,

I think your failure to answer my question provides example of testimony to why the world is in such a mess, so much data on hand yet economies and lifestyle and poverty and food security all going downhill instead of improving.
I think the evasiveness of your answer is incredible.
I have asked a reasonable question, albeit a very inconvenient one, and you have totally failed to answer it.
You seem to be claiming the subject is not in your field, meteorology perhaps.

As for what you do reply with, Wikipedia defines meteorology as the interdisciplinary scientific study of the atmosphere.
I note meteorological phenomena includes temperature and water vapour.
And this at Wiki;
“Meteorology, climatology, atmospheric physics, and atmospheric chemistry are sub-disciplines of the atmospheric sciences.

So what are you talking about with your comment, “ confusing meteorology with climate science” ?

You seem to be saying climate is nothing to do with meteorology. Best see Wikipedia;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteorology
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteorology_(Aristotle)

Moving on with a water vapour question, do you think there could be warmth in a major algae bloom causing cloud vapour trails to appear to start to form parallel above that major bloom of algae? Here;
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/view.php?id=40716

And for you to believe or not, algae is linked to ice melting, although increased matter and associated increased warmth is still not yet apparently published.
Pity you are unable to answer my question as asked in the earlier post. Do try. I admit I am a student and I am asking for an answer.

Bit by bit however, at least science is now looking at algae links to ice;
http://www.futurity.org/underwater-tree-rings-show-650-years-sea-ice-change

JF Aus,

You don’t get to throw up a red herring, demand that someone answer it, then think you’ve somehow nullified their original point because they can’t answer your unrelated and irrelevant question.

I am not being evasive. I will quite happily and openly admit that I don’t have an answer for you. I said that I would answer your question once you had explained to me how you and LEGO have any credibility left on this topic after the silly comments you had both made, knowing full well that you couldn’t (and apparently overestimating your ability to recognised when dropping it and quietly moving on would be the wise thing to do). So technically there still wouldn’t be any evasiveness on my behalf even if I thought I had an answer.

LEGO failed to recognise an important distinction between climate and weather (and you, apparently, had missed that) - one that rendered his argument invalid - and all the Wikipedia articles in the world won’t get around that. So by all means, keep digging. In the meantime, here’s some information regarding weather versus climate, in case you still don’t know what I’m talking about http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/climate/climate_weather.html.

<<You seem to be saying climate is nothing to do with meteorology.>>

How you get this from what I have said is beyond me. I never said or implied anything of the sort. This is merely a strawman you have constructed. You can point to all the similarities between climate science and meteorology you like, but it was the difference between the two that mattered.

AJ Phillips,

Meteorology is surely supposed to mean study of meteors. What’s more, meteors are likely linked to algae, even to first life on our planet.
http://www.medicaldaily.com/seeds-life-collected-during-perseid-meteor-shower-scientists-say-algae-can-only-have-come-space

These days, meteorology has been split into various fields of study such as climate and weather. But in reality, climate is changed by weather and weather is changed by climate.
It is confusing, brief presence of El Nino or La Nino causing long term hot climate associated with drought, or short term humidity associated with flooding.

I have made no demand.

As for LEGO, there were many comments happening at the time, none from me until I dropped in briefly trying to change the subject, which I succeeded in doing because here I am discussing more on topic matters with you.

You have now answered my question in the best way you could. You do not know. I wish you could have said that in the first place. Anyway, thank you.

I have not constructed any strawman, your opinion.

As for climate and meteorology, you mentioned that confusing meteorology with climate is an astonishing display of ignorance. You said, quote, “I don't need evidence for AGW to know that confusing meteorology with climate science is an astonishing display of ignorance. (end quote)

Look, I think meteorology should include everything to do with the atmosphere, including biology that keeps waterways cool and not evaporating so much.
As oceans dominate short term weather conditions then oceans surely influence long term climate.

Maybe you can understand my point of view from being out there in the actual environment, as opposed to be trained to focus on a specific field of science.
I am not disciplined, neither is nature.

I hear medical science is now so specifically trained there are not enough GP’s.

So where to from here? Can I ask, do you think there may sometimes be photosynthesis-inked warmth in ocean algae plant matter? Could you arrange experiment to find out?

OLO has considerable evidence online in my earlier comments about algae.

Here now at the following link it is possible to see evidence, independent to my input, of the difference between normal and algae inundated areas of ocean.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/ocean-bloom.html

N.B
Government in Australia must become aware algae is also killing ocean ecosystems. There is impact and consequences especially for nearby seafood dependent SW Pacific Islands people.

Warmth in algae is an aside issue that also needs dire critically urgent attention, including proper sewage treatment worldwide to reduce the nutrient loading proliferating so much algae.

Suppressing news of evidence of ocean phenomena-damage and debate about solutions is causing damage and consequences to dramatically worsen.

algae are sensitive to changes in both temperature and solar radiation.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/11/13/1313775110