IPCC - Exposed!

[betsy]

The world's been going through all hoops in efforts to follow the dictates of this so-called "authoritative" body. What more when it's backed by big names in Hollywood: http://www.allameric...en_Speakers.php

Unfortunately, climate change mania had over-ruled common sense in a lot of cases, directly affecting society.

Excerpts from article....

]World's Top Climate Body Includes Unqualified 'Experts'[/b]

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) performs one of the most important jobs in the world. Its purpose is to survey the scientific literature, to decide what it all means, and to write an ongoing series of reports. These reports are informally known as the Climate Bible.

The Climate Bible is cited by governments around the world. It is the reason carbon taxes are being introduced, heating bills are rising, and costly new regulations are being imposed. It is why everyone thinks carbon dioxide emissions are dangerous.

Put simply: the entire planet is in a tizzy because of a UN report. What most of us don't know is that, rather than being written by a meticulous, upstanding professional in business attire, this report was produced by a slapdash, rule-breaking teenager.

The IPCC has lounged, for more than two decades, in a large comfy chair atop a pedestal. When it is mentioned in broadcasts, newspapers, and books it is portrayed as a paragon of scientific truth and authority.

In early 2010, the InterAcademy Council, a collection of science bodies from around the world, took an historic step. It established a committee whose purpose was to investigate IPCC policies and procedures.

The committee posted a questionnaire on its website and invited interested parties to respond. Answers to those questionnaires were eventually made public after the names of the respondents had been removed.

People with direct experience of this organization were remarkably frank in their feedback. According to them, scientific excellence isn't the only reason individuals are invited to participate in the IPCC.

Remember, this is a UN body. It therefore cares about the same things other UN bodies care about. Things like diversity. Gender balance. Regional representation. The degree to which developing countries are represented compared to developed countries.

The collected answers to the questionnaire total 678 pages. As early as page 16, someone complains that: "some of the lead authors...are clearly not qualified to be lead authors." Here are other direct quotes:.....more...

(This post is an exclusive excerpt from the newly-published book, "The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World's Top Climate Expert.")

http://www.huffingto..._b_1069474.html

Author Donna Laframboise exposes the IPCC in a TV interview

Donna Laframboise exposes that:

• The IPCC reports are not written by 4000 climate scientists.
  
• The IPCC does not use the ‘top climate scientists’, some are a decade away from getting a PHD.
  
• The IPCC Reports are not always peer reviewed.
  

(video interview on The Bolt Report)

http://www.wakeup2th...a-tv-interview/

Edited October 20, 2012 by betsy

[MiddleClassCentrist]

Heheh. First off, "includes" unqualified experts... OF COURSE THERE ARE PEOPLE STUDYING AT IPCC... Science is an academic process, including having a new set of eyes looking at the subject matter.

I'd rather people working toward a PhD than the alternative of right wing climate "expert".

How to be a right wing expert on climate change: Talk loudly, be convinced of your opinion whether facts support it or not, never back down or hint weakness by acknowledging anything about alternate points of view or information that does not align with your opinion.

Edited October 20, 2012 by MiddleClassCentrist

[betsy]

Heheh. First off, "includes" unqualified experts... OF COURSE THERE ARE PEOPLE STUDYING AT IPCC... Science is an academic process, including having a new set of eyes looking at the subject matter.

Ha ha ha

If that's how leftists interpret what a so-called "expert" is, then I'm afraid credibility of some other left-backed programs should be questioned.

Scrutiny shouldn't be given only to the IPCC.

I'd rather people working toward a PhD than the alternative of right wing climate "expert".

Nothing wrong about working on a PhD. Being passed off as an "expert," is. What more when all nations rely on their so-called "expertise."

How to be a right wing expert on climate change: Talk loudly, be convinced of your opinion whether facts support it or not, never back down or hint weakness by acknowledging anything about alternate points of view or information that does not align with your opinion.

But the problem is about what is fact and what is myth, isn't it?

Whistle-blowing is not exclusive to government policies or behaviours, you know.

Edited October 20, 2012 by betsy

[Mighty AC]

People unfamiliar with science seem to think that research is carried out by the top dogs. The big guns design the studies and analyze the results but the grunt work is carried out by grad students trying to earn a phd. Doctorates are earned by doing research that leads to publication. The top research being carried out in every field from medicine to theoretical physics is done the same way.

What I don't understand is why any credible news agency would give Donna Laframboise a voice on climate issues. Her degree is in WOMEN'S STUDIES!! By all means consult her on gender bias, glass ceilings, the war on women by the republican party and most religions BUT NOT CLIMATE CHANGE....or anything scientific. What a joke.

[cybercoma]

Obviously someone has no idea what graduate students do. It's like saying a doctor in residency is not qualified to look you over. They are and they do in teaching hospitals all the time. Sometimes the full doctor they're working with doesn't even see you. Does that mean anyone can walk into a hospital and do it? Of course not.

[kraychik]

Obviously someone has no idea what graduate students do. It's like saying a doctor in residency is not qualified to look you over. They are and they do in teaching hospitals all the time. Sometimes the full doctor they're working with doesn't even see you. Does that mean anyone can walk into a hospital and do it? Of course not.

Try reading the article, rather than responding to irrelevant replies from others in this thread who are more concerned with playing the role of palace guard for the UN and the sacred cow of AGW, which turn this into a thread resembling the game of broken telephone.

Thanks for the post, betsy. I will be sure to read Laframboise's book.

[Sleipnir]

Unfortunately, climate change mania had over-ruled common sense in a lot of cases, directly affecting society.

Unfortunately, you know nothing about climate change.

[wyly]

Obviously someone has no idea what graduate students do. It's like saying a doctor in residency is not qualified to look you over. They are and they do in teaching hospitals all the time. Sometimes the full doctor they're working with doesn't even see you. Does that mean anyone can walk into a hospital and do it? Of course not.

true, my daughter makes extra cash by editing/organizing research papers for MD's and she's not even a med student...

[cybercoma]

Copy editing is not the same thing as doing the research. Grad students actually conduct research.

[wyly]

Copy editing is not the same thing as doing the research. Grad students actually conduct research.

of course it's not, the point being it doesnt matter who puts the final article the research has already been done, it doesn't matter much who presents the finished work...it all has to be reviewed by the primary researcher...

Donna Laframboise exposes that

:The IPCC reports are not written by 4000 climate scientists.

or my daughters situationeven though she rewote/edited medical research papers it still had to be approved by the researcher....and the same would apply to the IPCC reports...Laframbboise would likely have issue with daughter being credited on those medical research reports..... Edited October 25, 2012 by wyly

[SpankyMcFarland]

Even Harper admits climate change is real. It's over, guys.

[Shady]

Even Harper admits climate change is real. It's over, guys.

What do you mean by climate change?

[On Guard for Thee]

It means the global temperature is increasing because we are living more and more in a "greenhouse" type atmosphere due in large part to the release of previously sequestered CO2. Can't believe you haven't you heard of it?

[TimG]

It means the global temperature is increasing because we are living more and more in a "greenhouse" type atmosphere due in large part to the release of previously sequestered CO2. Can't believe you haven't you heard of it?

Except almost no one disagrees with that. The disagreement is about whether CO2 reduction policies are worth the cost and the simple observation that the climate is changing does not provide any evidence to support the argument that it is cost effective to reduce CO2 emissions.

[On Guard for Thee]

I was just 'splainin it to Shady. I won't bother trying to explain cost effectiveness just now.

[eyeball]

Except almost no one disagrees with that. The disagreement is about whether CO2 reduction policies are worth the cost...blah blah blah.

The problem is it's taken decades for the reality of AGW to sink into your side.

So, by the time the need to do anything sinks in we'll probably already be sunk.

Maybe by then you'll have come up with an excuse for our inaction on the left.

Edited December 31, 2014 by eyeball

[Guest]

We were sunk right from the beginning. The idea that the species was going to get together long enough to take the steps necessary to reverse the kind of change that took 200 years and a population increase from ~1 billion to ~7 billion to cause was misguided from the start.

Who knows, if we'd spent all the money we wasted on windmills on R&D, we might have fusion energy by now.

[TimG]

The problem is it's taken decades for the reality of AGW to sink into your side.

I don't what you mean by "your side". I remember back in 97 when the kyoto protocol was all the rage that I assumed we were screwed because there was no way any policy would successfully reduce CO2 emissions (nevermind the completely idiotic policies which were part of kyoto). I only became skeptical of the science after I started looking into it because I wanted to know the best estimate for sea level rise in Vancouver over the next 50 years. It was at that point that I discovered what a steaming pile BS the science behind the predictions of doom was and how it is was largely driven by politics and not data.

[On Guard for Thee]

So after 50 years you don't care? Sounds like a true GW naysayer. You don't know what 5 or 6 feet of rise will do to Vancouver?

[TimG]

So after 50 years you don't care? Sounds like a true GW naysayer. You don't know what 5 or 6 feet of rise will do to Vancouver?

My main motivation for looking was I wanted to make sure local politicians were doing enough to adapt. In any case, a 7 foot rise is not going happen for centuries if it even happens at all. There will be plenty of time to build whatever dikes/seawalls/whatever required to keep Vancouver dry. The main point is we can't doing anything about the problem other than adapt so it really makes no difference if the rise is 1 foot or 15 feet. We are just going to have to deal with it. Edited December 31, 2014 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

We can quite creating the problem. I suppose back in the day Americans figured the economy couldn't possibly survive without slaves but that got proven wrong as well, didn't it.

[TimG]

We can quite creating the problem. I suppose back in the day Americans figured the economy couldn't possibly survive without slaves but that got proven wrong as well, didn't it.

Well, at the time, plenty of other economies survived without slaves so that idea was clearly nonsense. When it comes to CO2 emissions the only examples of low emission economies are places like Somalia and Haiti. It should come as no surprise that aspiring for the standard of living of the average Haitian is not something that appeals to most voters. Edited January 1, 2015 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

And which other economies would that be to have done so well without slaves? If you think Haiti and Somalia have low CO2 emissions you obviously have never been there. It's just as silly to try and relate the politics of these two countries to CO2 production. Go travel and learn and get back to us.

[TimG]

And which other economies would that be to have done so well without slaves?

At the time: the Northern US and the UK, France, Germany, .... Really.

Learn some history if you want to make silly analogies.

If you think Haiti and Somalia have low CO2 emissions you obviously have never been there.

Their per capita emissions are among the lowest in the world. More importantly, if we actually cared about the IPCC grandstanding the per capita emissions for the world will need to get down to that level. It is clear that you have no clue about what is actually required to reduce emissions significantly and you just jumped on the bandwagon. Fortunately, most people who make decisions are not as shallow as you and understand that it is an impossible task. Edited January 1, 2015 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

Luckily people who make decisions, at least we can have hope, don't have their heads buried so deeply in the sand. Like I say, actually go to Port au Prince and then get back to us.