The IPCC\’s defence

However, he said that the mistake, included in its 2007 assessment global warming, did not alter the broad picture of man-made climate change.

He told the BBC: \”I don\’t see how one mistake in a 3,000-page report can damage the credibility of the overall report.

\”Some people will attempt to use it to damage the credibility of the IPCC; but if we can uncover it, and explain it and change it, it should strengthen the IPCC\’s credibility, showing that we are ready to learn from our mistakes.\”

That\’s the Himalayan glacier nonsense: the idea that they would all melt away by 2035 being obvious nonsense on the face of it.

Now, if it had in fact been hte IPCC which had uncovered it then that might in fact be a reasonable defence. Science does indeed progress by continual re-examination and the expulsion of mistakes and errors from the canon.

But it wasn\’t the IPCC which uncovered the mistake at all.

All of which leads one to wonder what other such mistakes there might be in there. And, inevitably, what process should be used to go and uncover them.

Like, for example, having another look at how those temperature records and proxies have been put together.

Worth recalling the most basic point about all of this. Whatever is done about climate change, from nothing to slashing emissions to nett zero by 2050 as some insist we should. This is the most expensive decision the human race has had to take so far. Whatever has to be spent on the science underlying that decision, the sums laid out are trivial in comparison to he sums at issue in hte decision. Worth making sure that we\’re getting the science right.

4 thoughts on “The IPCC\’s defence”

  1. Plus of course, when an Indian minister brought the mistake to the IPCC’s attention, their chairman simply dismissed it as “Voodoo science”- and kept on publishing the same mistake for a further two years without any attempt to check.
    And they’ve got previous- it took the intervention of a US senator to extract the data whereby Mann’s hockey stick was proved to be invalid- and they still promote a similar profile on the basis that there are other studies showing the same thing- no-one has been able to get the data to check said other studies.
    The IPCC attitude seems to be that they are right regardless- they produce no evidence, and what evidence has been dug out shows them mistaken. They think the burden of proof is on the world to prove them wrong- I prefer the conventional approach that the burden is on them to prove themselves right. After all I could produce a theory that, say, there’s a new ice age coming- and if I was able to corner all the evidence, as the IPCC have for their theory, no-one could prove me wrong.

  2. Brian, follower of Deornoth

    “I don’t see how one mistake in a 3,000-page report can damage the credibility of the overall report.”

    One mistake would not. One barefaced lie certainly does.

  3. “Whatever has to be spent on the science underlying that decision, the sums laid out are trivial in comparison to he sums at issue in hte decision. Worth making sure that we’re getting the science right.”

    So you’d think someone, somewhere, in some scientific institute or Government department would say ‘Let’s spend a relatively paltry sum proving and quantifying what changes to levels of CO2 will do to atmospheric temperature’.

    It is a simple enough affair: Sealed chambers with different levels of CO2 in the gases air inside. See how (or even if) the temperatures differ when all are exposed to an external source of heat such as the sun. I’m pretty sure one of the leaked CRU emails suggested this although I can’t quite find it at the moment.

    It would actually help the computer modellers and the warmists if the effect of CO2 itself was proven and quantified rather than just being theoretical. I’m assuming it hasn’t been done because if it had it would be the very backbone of their argument and would be waved at sceptics with gay abandon.

  4. Gareth,

    Generally the controversy around the effects of CO2 are not whether it warms the atmosphere, but whether that warming causes subsequent further warming, or whether it triggers other processes that create cooling. Whether there are positive or negative feedbacks.

    Without positive feedbacks, the catastrophic warming spoken about ceases to exist.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *