Quote:
Originally Posted by cwo_ghwebb  Oh, the IPCC who ignored the requests of the scientists who didn't want their name attached to their fatuous findings? |
"The Second Assessment Report was the first and last to include a chapter on the economic impacts of climate change, of which impacts on human mortality are an important part.[...] This chapter is the only instance in which the authors of the chapter officially denounced the policy makers' summary for inaccuracy."
Comments written in response to statements that the IPCC reports do not accurately summarize the state of knowledge accuse of a "
systematic effort by some individuals to undermine and discredit the scientific process... Rather than carrying out a legitimate scientific debate... they are waging in the public media a vocal campaign against scientific results with which they disagree."
And don't forget the contributors who thought it was too weak: "Some critics have contended that the IPCC reports tend to underestimate dangers, understate risks, and report only the "lowest common denominator" findings.
"In reporting criticism by some scientists that IPCC's then-impending January 2007 report understates certain risks, particularly sea level rises, an AP story quoted Stefan Ramstorf, professor of physics and oceanography at Potsdam University as saying:"'In a way, it is one of the strengths of the IPCC to be very conservative and cautious and not overstate any climate change risk.'"
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwo_ghwebb What a bunch of windbags. We could solve the energy problems of the planet if we could just harness the hot air of the IPCC clowns. |
Likewise if they could harness the kinetic energy of unthinking knee-jerk posts.