progressiveslol wrote on Dec 31^st, 2013 at 6:28pm:

Some of us know enough to realise that we don't know enough. Others don't.

Some of us accept the advice of the best qualified, however unpleasant. Others search for convenient, but palatable, fictions.

progressiveslol wrote on Dec 31^st, 2013 at 6:28pm:


Denying the high school level science that underpins Anthropogenic Global warming and its inevitable changes in the earths climate is DEEPLY UNSCIENTIFIC

I had a quick read through his submission. Here is an example where he made a very elementary error in his judgement:

Quote:


That in itself demonstrates that he doesn't understand the difference between equibrium climate sensitivity and transient climate response. It's understandable for someone commenting on on subject matter outside his field. The transient climate response for the last 50 years is indeed just above 1 degree, but this fails to include delayed feedback.

It also demonstrates that he didn't bother to read the Working Group 1 report "The Physical Science basis", because the explanation in right there in black and white, and it includes this graph in Figure 9.2:

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/fig9-1.htm

However, the fact that he would make such pronouncements without even once consulting a worker in the field shows an arrogant disregard for experts in the field.

It also begs the question that if he set himself the task of reviewing this very document, how could he miss an entire chapter?

He says in his report that most people just read the summary for policymakers, however, he obviously didn't even read that document, because it's spelled out in black and white even in that summary. Most people apparently doesn't include himself:

Quote:


So is this another example of an esteemed physicist who has "lost it" with old age? It seems the most likely explanation.

It's unfortunate that people like Patrick Moore and our friend here, who lapse into pseudoscience during their senior years by commenting on subjects where they lack any clear knowledge.

Quote:


I disagree. It's hardly purist when he gets some of the basic facts wrong himself.

Pierre Darriulat demands a conventional scientific summary by the IPCC in its reports, when IPCC is producing a different type of report, that has inputs from many nations, and individuals.

Its a silly demand to make and then on this basis impose a total disregard for anything the IPCC concludes.

The IPCC isn't producing a publication in a Physics Journal on elementary particle physics.

Whilst Pierre makes some valid comments concerning the format, language and conclusions of the latest IPCC report, they really aren't relevant in this instance. He is acting like a peer reviewer for an International Scientific Journal. They always pick at any element of a paper for the purpose of improving it or perhaps exposing an error etc.

Personally I find the output and recommendations made by the IPCC very conservative (not surprising seeing as how many people and nations are involved in their report making process)

Happy New Year Chimp (When it comes)

Chimp_Logic wrote on Dec 31^st, 2013 at 8:42pm:


Perhaps a Peer Reviewer who is not familiar with the subject matter of the paper and who doesn't actually read it properly.

You've got to keep the faith 

It must be remembered that the

Intergovernmental

Panel on Climate Change is a political forum. It is the Politicians who met in Stockholm to decide on the wording of the Summary for Policy Makers.

The scientific reports must agree with the SPM, not the other way around, The tail wagging the dog. The political imperative overriding the scientific imperative.

Is it any wonder the underlying reports reflect the SPM?