[Micah Foehammer]

Originally Posted by robertthebard In the link I provided pages ago, it discusses how the IPCC evaluates the data, builds a preliminary report, and then submits that report to another panel for final editing. It also states in that article how some of the people on the panel that actually compiled the report don't agree with who, and how that report gets edited before it's submitted. I cannot recall specific examples, but some were given in the liner notes to that chapter. What did stick with me was that the report was adjusted either conservatively or liberally, according to who was complaining about content.

Go back and read the quote I posted from Pielke. I think it sums up pretty well what I think. Since your snip TLDR seemed to indicate you didn't read it the first time, have a second go.

I believe you are referencing the quote you provided earlier in post # 81. Actually the most serious objection that you cited is from Fred Singer. Singer wasn't a member of IPCC; so his claims aren't based on first hand involvement. Can he really properly evaluate what the IPCC does?

Since you raise the issue of agendas, I suggest you check out the following link and go down and read the sections on Global Warming and SEPP funding.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S._Fred_Singer

You don't think there might be a little conflict of interest there? Maybe Singer is right, but I think a little skepticism might not be out of place.

As has been mentioned elsewhere in this thread, the only criticisms around the IPCC involved reluctance to share data, and perhaps the statistical rigor of the analysis. (See Secret Master's posts # 33 and 35 and my intervening post #34).

In the context of my post, it's not the IPCC that will lose money based on what's in their reports, it's governments, and as I indicated above, when the leader of one country can cause the chair to lose his job, there's something flawed with the system.

Actually RTB your comment relating to funding appears as a part of this sentence:

"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."

Excuse me, but the context seemed to be refering to the IPCC and that you are linking the funding to the people compiling the data and editing the report. No mention of governments in that sentence. Not my fault if you combined two separate ideas into one and then expect people to figure out what you really meant. If IPCC authors are being defunded by their governments then it's an issue with the governments NOT the IPCC.

...and yet, I have been assured time and time again, in this very thread, that they are in full agreement. I have been told that I can, if I doubt that, start calling all the major universities, and do the research to prove that they aren't, despite the fact that this very thread exists because somebody didn't agree.

That claim has been repeated endlessly along with the claim that the science is closed. I didn't fully believe either of those claims when they were first stated as fact, and after more than a fair amount of research I believe them even less now. It was hyperbole.

The appeal to validation based on consensus doesn't ring 100% true. Science isn't done by consensus - skepticism IS a natural part of the process and that's how science advances. If the history of science has shown us anything, as Cerek pointed out, it's that the consensus doesn't always get it right. That doesn't mean that the claims that a consensus does exist are invalid. Nor does it mean that the consensus is wrong.

Check out the link SM proved back in post #24. If you follow that link, you will see that that it's within the general public where the biggest divergence from consensus exists. That is simply proof that one side, the skeptics, have been remarkably more effective in getting their message out. It doesn't prove that message is right.

There is a half truth buried in the assertion of scientific agreement though. The basic underlying science is well understood and agreed upon even by some dissenting scientists.
The dispute lies in some of the details of climate change mechanisms. Even Azred's climate skeptic blog site agrees with the basic premise that manmade CO2 results in warming; the site's author simply disputes the mechnism and the extent of warming. Not the underlying science. And yes there are some folks who totally deny the effects of CO2 warming regardless of the source.

Seriously, I would have though that all of this would be relatively obvious. I don't understand why we are continuing to rehash this.

Yeah, I do. However, the quote in quotations in your post isn't mine.

LOL Yeah I know that. I simply refered to and dismissed the general hyperbole. I don't see any value in arguing over semantics regarding who is brighter or more brilliant. It's a value judgement that does not add anything to the scientific discussion imo.

The unfortunate thing here is that yes, when taken in context with the general premise of GCC science, that mankind is responsible for CC, it does tend to invalidate most of the science.

Sorry RTB but I think that is totally wrong. There’s an old legal proverb: If you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. If you have the law on your side, argue the law. If you have neither, attack the witness. That's what Singer does. And that's what some of the counter arguments in this thread (on both sides actually) do as well. In fact, I'm even a little guilty of the same thing by pointing out some details on Singer, although I don't totally dismiss him out of hand.

I think it's simply a convenient excuse for you to dismiss ALL of the research being done that supports the theory. Rather than attacking the facts by presenting solid scientific arguments, you attack the source. You have never actually proven the case that the science itself is invalid let alone that the IPCC engaged in fraud.

The IPCC does NOT represent the entire scientific community. It is one voice. Perhaps that voice is too loud or even off-key, but it is one voice nonetheless. To dismiss an entire group and body of research based on one voice simply fails any normal standard of logic.

Azred said:

As I noted to you elsewhere, my struggle is against faulty science that begins with a presumption (human beings are disrupting the climate) and then looks for data to fit the presumption.

And yet this entire thread started by you championing Roy Spencer's paper as proof of that. Spencer starts from a position opposing global warming, takes data, builds a model to support the hypothesis, and then claims "Hey look, I was right." Isn't that exactly what you claim that you object to? But since Spencer agrees with your premise, he must be right and the other scientists wrong. As Secret Master said earlier, it's better to take Spencer's paper and evaluate it on it's own merits, and judge it accordingly.