Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill8
Okay, the wiki has not changed significantly, and no, the IPCC does not do peer review.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergo...Climate_Change
For a minute there I was concerned that they might have started hosting a peer review journal, but no, they haven't.
But, I see now that you did not claim that IPCC does peer review, you claimed that it reviewed peer-reviewed material and edited out that with which it does not agree.
Sorry, I misread.
But, you are the one making the claim, so it now falls upon you to provide supporting evidence. So, can you name some article the IPCC rejected, and give arguments why it shoudl not have been?
However, as I said, the IPCC is a political body, it does not create global warming theory.
Now, what you have done is throw up a red herring, trying to distract from my line of argument by claiming something about the IPCC, which ultimately does not respond to my arguments.
It's technically both a red herring and a straw man. With some adhominem implied on the straw man. |
I guess you've fogotten about climategate. Would a senate report do?
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In this report, Minority Staff of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works examine key documents and emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU). We have concluded:
• The emails were written by the world’s top climate scientists, who work at the most prestigious and influential climate research institutions in the world.
• Many of them were lead authors and coordinating lead authors of UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports, meaning that they had been intimately involved in writing and editing the IPCC’s science assessments. They also helped write reports by the United States Global Change Research Program (USGCRP).
• The CRU controversy and recent revelations about errors in the IPCC’s most recent science assessment cast serious doubt on the validity of EPA’s endangerment finding for greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. The IPCC serves as the primary basis for EPA’s endangerment finding for greenhouse gases.
• Instead of moving forward on greenhouse gas regulation, the Agency should fully address the CRU controversy and the IPCC’s flawed science.
The scientists involved in the CRU controversy violated fundamental ethical principles governing taxpayer-funded research and, in some cases, may have violated federal laws.
In addition to these findings, we believe the emails and accompanying documents seriously compromise the IPCC-backed “consensus” and its central conclusion that anthropogenic emissions are inexorably leading to environmental catastrophes.
An independent inquiry conducted by the UK’s Information Commissioner has already concluded that the scientists employed by the University of East Anglia, and who were at the center of the controversy, violated the UK’s Freedom of Information Act.1 Another independent inquiry, headed by Sir Muir Russell, is investigating allegations that the scientists in the CRU scandal manipulated climate change data.2
In our view, the CRU documents and emails reveal, among other things, unethical and potentially illegal behavior by some of the world’s preeminent climate scientists.3
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...5-12b7df1a0b63
In 2007 the IPCC banned the ICSC from attended the IPCC Climate Change Conference because they had evidence the warming was due to solar activity.. Which it is.