Quote:
Originally Posted by octothorp
Very interesting read, HOZ, thanks for posting this link. However, I would argue that you're misrepresenting what the paper actually says: it's more about the problem of a consensus-building mandate than about whether the science here is actually wrong. As the paper says, the consensus-building mandate has actually resulted in the IPCC communicating at times too aggressive and at times too conservative estimates of the effects of man-made climate change:
"But consensus- making can also lead to criticism for being too conservative, as Hansen (2007) has most visibly argued. Was the IPCC AR4 too conservative in reaching its consensus about future sea-level rise? Many glaciologists and oceanographers think they were (Kerr, 2007; Rahmstorf, 2010), leading to what Hansen attacks as ‘scientific reticence’."
Of course, the paper also contains the part that you reference, about work that's done by a single, expert working group is presented as being done by the entire membership of the IPCC. But it's not suggesting that there's a dissenting opinion in the IPCC, nor is it suggesting that all 2700 members need to approve the work; simply that it should be communicated as being from the working group, not the entire membership.
Anyway, I can understand, HOZ, why you would want to use this paper to support your position that the science done by the IPCC is wrong, or is silencing dissenting voices, but that's not what this paper is saying at all.
|
I said NOTHING about the science one way or the other
right in my first post. I did say the so called scientific consensus on AGW trumpeted by many is bogus and the credibility of the IPCC is in tatters.
So.....where have I said the science is wrong in this thread?