IPCC claims are melting away

The grammatical blunder by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has raised skepticism about the credibility of future reports the committee may produce. RTs Lauren Lyster talked about this issue with Pat Michaels, Senior Fellow at the CATO Institute.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• climate
• change
• CATO
• Institute
• experts
• global
• warning
• scientists
• IPCC
• report
• glaciers
• melt
• error
• Lauren
• Lyster
• Pat
• Michaels

[malmswax]

This is clearly disinformist- The IPCC has a responsibility to report accurate information...and yet another report is shown to be wildly incorrect.

US out of UN...IPCC funding should be disbanded. I do not want my tax dollars supporting this trash!!!!!

Smash the system!

[evcrawfish]

weatherman = weather guesser

climate change expert = liar manipulator weather guesser

a song comes to mind... hmmm

"tell me lies, tell me sweet little lies"

squirrel farts produce methane, got tax their nuts

[kennjohnsen]

Global warming is over, now it's global cooling, the famous weather forecaster Pier Corbyn forecast cooling in the next 20 years.

[vsnips]

Bill put forward today 3/1/11 in US to defund the IPCC, finaly the money is running out

[ZangaroZen]

@malmswax, thanks for the comment on my channel. But as I see it most discussions don't require verbosity of gossip and opinions and so CAN be handled in a blog. Facts are terse, and video topic is the "2035 figure" error and yet there's 5 minutes of BS claims and extrapolations in nonsense, on everything unrelated to the transposition of a zero. Where in that video is the zero transposition error of 2350 ever mentioned? Name the exact minute/second point. There is none.

[ZangaroZen]

@malmswax, again I prefer FACTS on the TOPIC AT HAND. Your first link clearly notes:

a) 1 error in 10,000 pages, raised 2 years after the IPPC release

b) that error was a zero transposition, 2035 rather than 2350

c) ignoring ONE ACTUAL TYPO IN CONTEXT (see point b) is a desperately dishonest attempt to invalidate a massive report

As for your latest 5 page email, it's longer than any of the opinion links. Gossip/opinion verbage doesn't trump the above facts. A typo was noted and corrected.

[malmswax]

@ZangaroZen The reason for the non debate is that there are limited number of characters imposed by youtube. Thus when people like yourself come here, and try to look smart, nothing gets said, and it quickly becomes a train-wreck.

You clearly cannot understand what has been posted or sent. The "opinion pieces" were from the Journal of Nature. Perhaps they are too "biased" for your liking.

The 'typo" you refer to is in fact a major flaw in scientific theory construction.

Regards.

[ZangaroZen]

@malmswax, sorry to hear you're scared of debating in a blog for all to see.

1. Thanks for your additional 2 emailed links, which amount to more of the same opinion pieces, frankly I prefer facts.

2. For all the talk of numerous (by you) and multiple (in one opinion piece), only the transposition of a zero, 2035 instead of 2350, is ever mentioned. A typo that took skeptics 2 years to notice.

3. No process is perfect, one typo in 10,000 pages comes very close though, hardly a scandal

[malmswax]

@ZangaroZen I don't debate on these boards- I welcome to your opinion, and you should act in accordance with your beliefs.

1- Opinion pieces abound...both sides in the debate utilize them. Sorry you find that one problematic.

2- Word like "multiple" vs "numerous" confuse the main issue.

3- The 2007 error on Himalayan glaciers reflected a lack of coordination: it appeared in the impacts report even though the science group didn't find any supported info by any peer-reviewed studies.

Last Post.

[ZangaroZen]

@malmswax, your link scientificamericanDOTcom/artic­le.cfm?id=ipcc-error-correctio­n-moves-at-glacial-speed has issues:

1. It's a reprint OPINION piece from eenewsDOTnet who have regulation axes to grind.

2. You say "numerous" errors, but the reprint says "multiple". Multiple is far less than numerous, trivial in a 10,000 page report.

3. Only error mentioned is 2035, a transposition typo of 2350.

4. IPPC report was released in 2007, while the typo was only reported October 2009.

Your issue?

[ZangaroZen]

@malmswax, didn't get your Scientific American link by email/comment on my channel, do resend.

Transposition errors are easy to make and miss. When one is found, it's simply a matter of noting it's a transposition error and correcting it, not showing clear desperation by declaring the other 24,000,000 million characters in a 10,000 page report are invalid as well, and scream conspiracy.

What do you suggest other than "global government" and "a larger solution" to a global problem?

[malmswax]

@ZangaroZen I have sent you a link from the June 16, 2010 Scientific American That details the lack of an IPCC mechanism to correct just such error (and there were numerous ones in the report cited)- Check the link here...my comment was from a year ago, and obviously I was pissed-off. Global government, and the people who support it are using this crisis to impose a larger "solution" on the planet...and I don't like it one bit.