Comments on: What to do with the IPCC? http://climateaudit.org/2010/02/10/what-to-do-with-the-ipcc/ by Steve McIntyre Tue, 21 May 2013 15:32:22 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: A modest proposal in lieu of disbanding the IPCC | Watts Up With That? http://climateaudit.org/2010/02/10/what-to-do-with-the-ipcc/#comment-254884 Sun, 13 Feb 2011 08:02:32 +0000 http://climateaudit.org/?p=10223#comment-254884 [...] and ideas to improve the IPCC process. Ryan Maue wrote a fine piece for ClimateAudit titled “What to do with the IPCC?” which describes some of the thoughts by different climate researchers. There are a number of [...]

]]> By: danley wolfe http://climateaudit.org/2010/02/10/what-to-do-with-the-ipcc/#comment-223326 Tue, 23 Feb 2010 17:50:43 +0000 http://climateaudit.org/?p=10223#comment-223326 I fail to see why it would be diffult to fix the way the IPCC work is done and reported. First IPCC is not allowed to shape and make policy. Second recognize that computer code models are not theories unless the data and scientific hypotheses are falsifiable and testable in genuine scientific context. A long range projection that is 100 years out of sample is not a hypothesis. Recognize that all of the model runs say things like expected temperature rise of 1.5-4.5 deg C and sea level rise of 39 feet — over the next 100 years is pure nonsense. Real scientists would not make these statements, let alone call them “highly likely.” Next get rid of the subjective ranking IPCC uses based on Delphi voting of the authors of the report ranking as 90% likely, 95% very likely, 99% highly likely when these numerical likelihoods are not based on scientific findings but opinions of authors who have huge vested interests and unavoidable cognitive biases (selection bias, attribution bias, filtering bias, etc.). Make all persons involved pass examination / training on the scientific method and ethics in science.

]]> By: ryanm http://climateaudit.org/2010/02/10/what-to-do-with-the-ipcc/#comment-221556 Sun, 14 Feb 2010 06:45:13 +0000 http://climateaudit.org/?p=10223#comment-221556 updated post with Letter to Editor by Paul Epstein — as directed to by my fossil fuel masters.

]]> By: ianl8888 http://climateaudit.org/2010/02/10/what-to-do-with-the-ipcc/#comment-221302 Fri, 12 Feb 2010 22:04:13 +0000 http://climateaudit.org/?p=10223#comment-221302 Geoff Sherrington

I have no argument with Doherty’s ability and output

The opinion piece he wrote for the AFR was at best uninformed and more likely disingenuous – it doesn’t help. Look carefully at his view on assembling data from two disparate provenances into one linear graph

]]> By: Geoff Sherrington http://climateaudit.org/2010/02/10/what-to-do-with-the-ipcc/#comment-221234 Fri, 12 Feb 2010 09:00:50 +0000 http://climateaudit.org/?p=10223#comment-221234 Re Ianl8888,

I have tremendous respect for the capability and work of Prof Doherty. In my reading of his attitude, which is subjective and therefore might be wrong, he is doing little more than saying “There is important futher science to be done, so let’s get this Climategate distraction out of the way quickly to allow better concentration of effort on real advances”.

It would surprise me if he would (hypothetically) look at employing any of the Climatgate people or their type to assist in his progress. It’s like swatting a fly and hoping you hit it first time.

]]> By: Streetwise Professor » Open Access Review http://climateaudit.org/2010/02/10/what-to-do-with-the-ipcc/#comment-221193 Fri, 12 Feb 2010 01:50:43 +0000 http://climateaudit.org/?p=10223#comment-221193 [...] hierarchical, peer review system.  University of Alabama-Huntsville climatologist John Christy has suggested that this could serve as a replacement for the highly politicized, deeply…: The IPCC selects lead authors from the pool of those nominated by individual governments. Over [...]

]]> By: Jimchip http://climateaudit.org/2010/02/10/what-to-do-with-the-ipcc/#comment-221095 Thu, 11 Feb 2010 19:38:03 +0000 http://climateaudit.org/?p=10223#comment-221095 Re: Ross McKitrick (Feb 10 21:13),

[My whine] Why can’t the US just do that?

I don’t know.

]]> By: Jimchip http://climateaudit.org/2010/02/10/what-to-do-with-the-ipcc/#comment-221094 Thu, 11 Feb 2010 19:34:54 +0000 http://climateaudit.org/?p=10223#comment-221094 Re: Steven Mosher (Feb 10 15:23),

They were using the IPCC assessments as the ‘King of Peer-Reviewed Literature’ and not what it was even designed to do in the beginning. Cart, horse, wrong order.

]]> By: Shoveling into the wind: Blizzards and global warming « Climate Audit http://climateaudit.org/2010/02/10/what-to-do-with-the-ipcc/#comment-221022 Thu, 11 Feb 2010 16:04:44 +0000 http://climateaudit.org/?p=10223#comment-221022 [...] the many suggestions that the IPCC be cherished, tweaked, or scrapped by Nature in a recent opinion piece by 5-climatologists, one was by John Christy who proposed a Wikipedia-style assessment process or [...]

]]> By: PhilJourdan http://climateaudit.org/2010/02/10/what-to-do-with-the-ipcc/#comment-221014 Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:31:49 +0000 http://climateaudit.org/?p=10223#comment-221014 Paul, but they will be back as long as they believe they have the righteousness of truth on their side, as well as a majority of people. That is why the seekers of the truth must remain vigilant and constantly probing the “consensus” for the truth.

Once we stop asking the questions, those in charge will stop providing any rationale for their actions except the tired old “for the good of the people”.

You are right, the IPCC does not serve a good purpose. But Copenhagan failed because of the efforts of the skeptics, not in spite of them.

]]>