[Micah Foehammer]

Originally Posted by robertthebard Fact: The panel considered to be the authoritative source of information doesn't do their own research. They compile everyone's data, and then it's edited by people that don't even evaluate the data given, some of whom can lose money if the reports are too conservative, or too liberal.

Partially true. The IPCC in and of itself does not conduct their own research. The data comes from a myriad of sources; some from government agencies, some from independent researchers.

It's not true that the data isn't evaluated. Some of the data that the IPCC uses comes from previously peer-reviewed literature. It has already been pre-screened if you will. To suggest that the IPCC didn't sift thru the data sets without some form of screening is silly imo.

It's also not true that the IPCC members stand to lose money if they don't toe the IPCC line. Scientists who participate in the IPCC assessment process do so without any compensation other than the normal salaries they receive from their home institutions.

Fact: It's been postulated that science is in full agreement on the issue. However, it's been shown, not postulated, but shown, that they don't even agree with what goes into their reports.

Of course there isn't full agreement on the issue. Simply looking at the myriad of new papers being published and the ongoing scientific debate should be ample proof of that. Does that mean the underlying science is wrong? No. It simply means that climate scientists don't fully understand all the working parts yet.

Fact: It's been postulated that GCC scientists are some of the most brilliant minds in the world. Do people even realize just how complicated the electronics in a car are these days?

Setting aside the hyperbole on "the most brilliant minds in the world" , do you really have any idea how complex climate theory can be?

Originally Posted by Cerek As for GCC scientists being the best in the world, it's a documented fact that some of the most prominent ones manipulated some of the data and also refused to share their data with other scientists who wished to test the data for themselves. Both of these examples go completely against basic scientific practice, so that certainly calls into question the claim these scientists are the best in the world. The best do not deviate from standard procedures or refuse to share their data because the other scientists "just want to find something wrong with it". Instead, they DO share the data because the only way for research to be given any credibility is by having the data tested by others and reaching the same (or similar) results.

Sadly some of that is true.

On the issue of sharing data, there are some well documented instances, at least two of which directly tied to CRU and the IPCC reports, where a very limited number of researchers have seemingly taken great pains to restrict availablity of their data sets. The CRU was cited specifically for that in several investigations. Although the data sets were ultimately provided as requested, the delay was significant. It should be noted that almost every major journal requires its authors to make their data available to other researchers. In at least one notable case tied back to CRU, the request for data came before the actual publication of the journal article. In that case, the delay was warranted. It should also be noted that the vast majority of climate data is publicly available thru government agencies and universities.

That does not invalidate the rest of the research.

As for manipulation of data sets, there are absolutely no documented instances that data has been falsified. None. Have some data sets been excluded? Yes, sometimes with good reason; othertimes, maybe not. One of the basic truths of science is that your conclusions are only as good as your data. It shouldn't surprise anyone that recording sensors frequently fail or that equipment malfunctions. In both cases, that can result in data records which are only partially accurate. Rather than throw out the entire data set, scientists will eliminate the questionable portion of the data and keep the reliable data. As I stated before, a great deal of the IPCC data came from peer-reviewed literature.

Here's a quote from Roger Pielke Jr., a noted climate scientist (google him if you don't know who he is or want more details)

First, the IPCC is not engaged in research. It apparently violated its own terms of reference when it allowed scientists to re-process data from the peer reviewed literature. So the IPCC clearly violated its own norms. However, even in violating its own norms, because it is not a research organization, it is very hard to say that it engaged in scientific fraud. But even if the IPCC was a research organization, the selective omission of data might be a questionable practice but hardly rises to any level of misconduct, which generally refers to fabrication, falsification or plagiarism. There is no evidence of that here. Just cherrypicking, perhaps egregious leading ultimately to misrepresentation, but nonetheless cherrypicking. It can appear unseemly when revealed (which is why it is not a good idea to do so in the first place), but misconduct? No. Did it engage in any other kind of "fraud"? Well now we are into the area of semantics. As The authors of the IPCC TAR chapter under discussion clearly wanted to present information that (a) best positioned their work for inclusion in the SPM, and (b) avoided giving "skeptics" ammunition. So they stage managed the process to present a picture that they thought best conveyed the storyline that they wanted. Was this fraud? I see no evidence for such a claim. Again, misrepresentation but not fraud. I suspect that others may have a different view, and perhaps some of this is more than semantic. But let me say this. If the IPCC finds itself in a situation where people are debating whether its activities are best characterized in terms of misrepresentation or fraud, then that is not a good place to be.

Much has been made of the IPCC "models" and their inaccuracy. What IPCC actually presented were a range of "projections" based on socio-economic models tied to future fossil fuel usage, population growth and other factors. They weren't intended to be predictions of actual temperature changes, but rather to illustrate the range of possibilities. From IPCC's own website:

Climate projections are distinguished from climate predictions in order to emphasize that climate projections depend upon the emission/concentration/radiative forcing scenario used, which are based on assumptions, concerning, for example, future socio-economic and technological developments that may or may not be realized, and are therefore subject to substantial uncertainty.

In other words, they simply represent POSSIBLE future outcomes.

Some of the folks here seem to think that the IPCC report represents "some sort of sacred text" or "to denigrate it as a sham". Pielke says "Our work suggests neither. Instead, from the perspective of its assessment products it is a valuable if imperfect organization."