IPCC-problemer

ISIS skrev:
Tja, hvad skal man sige!:

Hansen colleague rejected IPCC AR4 ES as having "no scientific merit", but what does IPCC do?

...kan ikke lige finde
præcis oversættelse - det nærmeste er "vandsprøjt"

A waterspout is an intense columnar vortex (usually appearing as a funnel-shaped cloud) that occurs over a body of water and is connected to a cumuliform cloud. In the common form, it is a non-supercell tornado over water

FN understreger, at fejlene i rapporterne ikke rokker ved opfattelsen af, at den globale opvarmning er menneskeskabt.

"When the right-wing American critics who are likely to welcome much of this report raise a glass in celebration whenever Dr Pachauri does go, they should remember who put the chairman in his current place.
It was George W Bush. This was seen by some as a move to install a compliant developing country economist who wouldn't stand in the way of industrial growth. He arranged the appointment of a former railway engineer who proceeded to drive right over his toes"

"Det uafhængige forskningsorgan, der har gennemgået panelets arbejde, har fokuseret mest på struktur og ikke substans,

IAC betvivler ikke panelets overordnede konklusion om menneskeskabte klimaforandringer"

"Ledende forfattere bør klart dokumentere at hele spektret af tankevækkende videnskabelige anskuelser har været overvejet,"

"Rajendra Pachauri har ingen planer om selv at trække sig som formand, lod han efterfølgende forstå.:

"For øjeblikket arbejder jeg under et meget, meget klart mandat,« sagde Rajendra Pachauri. »Vi har lyttet til og lært af vores kritikere. Nu hvor undersøgelsen er blevet gennemført, mener jeg, at jeg har et ansvar for at implementere forandringerne."

"The IPCC should develop and adopt a rigorous conflict of interest policy that applies to all individuals directly involved in the preparation of IPCC reports, including senior IPCC leadership . . ."

"If the IAC Review recommendations are to have any meaning at all then Pachauri should go. Talk of retroactive application and grandfathering of the rules are a slippery slope back to the same sort of ad hocracy that got the IPCC into trouble in the first place."

"It is an excellent, thoughtful report. While the report focuses on procedural questions and does not address any questions of scientific content, its recommendations have far-reaching substantive implications, such as for how to deal with uncertainty. The report also directly addresses difficult subjects such as conflict of interest, policy advocacy and tenure of the IPCC chairman."

The men who set up the panel – led by its first chairman Bert Bolin, a Swedish meteorologist, and John Houghton, then head of the UK Met Office and first chairman of the IPCC's scientific working group – were already believers in what they called "human-induced climate change". The IPCC was, from the start, essentially a political pressure group, producing evidence to support the view that global warming was the most serious crisis facing the planet. This guided the selection of all the key scientists chosen to compile the IPCC's findings (such as those involved in the Climategate affair). And this explains all the searching questions that have built up around its hugely influential reports ever since.

The first major row over the IPCC came when it was revealed that the most widely publicised and alarmist claim in its second report, in 1995, was inserted after the text had been signed off by the other scientists involved – while 15 passages which countered alarm over climate change had been excised. This famously provoked Professor Fred Seitz, former president of the US National Academy of Sciences, to say that in 60 years as a scientist he had never seen a "more disturbing corruption" of scientific procedure.

"Achim Steiner, the executive director of the U.N. Environment Program, told delegates at an IPCC conference in South Korea that more work was needed to convince the public of the threats of global warming.
"Indeed, a rigorous, credible and convincing (report) -- at least in terms of the global public -- may in part rest on your decisions here in terms of this scientific body and the way it operates and communicates," he said.
Steiner called on the IPCC delegates to work to restore public confidence as the international community prepares for a major climate summit this year in Mexico."

"It is obvious that Dr Pachauri should resign and take the rest of his discredited panel with him. But there is a very good reason why those who first challenged his views need not bother to press the issue: while Dr Pachauri and his allies remain in place few people will believe future IPCC scare stories about the world drastically overheating"

Climate change sceptics are likely to be given greater prominence in BBC documentaries and news bulletins following new editorial guidelines that call for impartiality in the corporation's science coverage.