Quote:
Originally Posted by oil pan 4
I cite specific portions of a report and you make vague excuses for the ipcc that don't seem to even apply to what I was talking about.
That's alright because in only about 300 pages I found 3 other inconsistencies I was saving incase we got past the first one.
Over all I like the ipcc a lot more since their very public, messy breakup with the dooms day climate cultists.
I for one want the ipcc to do air tight peer reviewed science.
I think that is the worst thing that could happen to the crazy climate nut jobs.
|
Your citations provide zero useful information.
I'm not making excuses for anybody.
All we get out of you is,that climate science is 'junk' science.
The IPCC is just a clearing house for thousands of submissions,often by un-paid volunteers,whom receive nothing for their efforts.
As long as humans are involved in anything,we can't be surprised by mistakes.
All science can provide are probabilities based upon numerical models which incorporate the most extensive and sophisticated extant statistical tools available.
Just as Crichton,you're saying nothing about the range of possible outcomes produced by the models,nor their degree of confidence for coming to pass,which are a regular feature of the IPCC reports.For all disciplines.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you believe you've experienced inconsistencies,it's of no value to any of us until you identify them specifically,and support your claims with evidence contrary to what's been published.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
And then there's the issue of,how would you know the difference between one claim or another? How are you qualified to make the distinction?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The IPCC does not 'do' science.It only 'reports' on peer-reviewed research.(and some of that has been found to be from pseudo-scientific,pay-to-publish,fake journals like J. Patrick Michaels publishes for the fossil-fuel lobby).And I'm uncertain that you'll ever find a scientist that would associate 'iron-clad' with science.Again,it's only probabilities and likelihoods.It's just a work-in-progress.