Temp Charts and lies

Originally posted by Tapdancer ↑

Struggler quoted: "The point is that science is the best you can do at any given point. So you've got to act on it."

But "The Science" is miserable when it comes to climate science! Which is the "correct" science? Consider:

(i) 'Ooh, we may get 4 degrees warming due to CO2 by 2100. We MUST act on that.'

(ii) 'Steady on, there. Looks like we'll only get 1.3 degrees warming from all causes. What's the hurry?'

(iii) 'What do you guys mean by warming? We may be heading for cooling! Let's act on that!'

(i) 'The missing heat has gone into the deep ocean.'

(ii) 'We don't have evidence to suggest that the quantum of what you call the "missing heat" has in fact gone into the ocean.'

(iii) 'Missing heat?? There is no missing heat to start with. The CO2 warming hypothesis is so incomplete as to be laughable.'

(i) '97% of climate scientists say the science is settled.'

(ii) '97% of those climate scientists polled at the time said the science was settled.'

(iii) 'The majority of scientists say the science is not settled.'

(i) 'Climate scientists are in the best position to make a call on what are the causes and effects of climate change.'

(ii) 'Climate scientists and the institutions for whom they work are proving themselves to be just as much advocates for various causes, as they are for the pure pursuit of knowledge.'

(iii) 'Climate science has become a business, and has therefore lost that position of faith that the community virtually unreservedly once held for Science as a whole.'

So: If we must act on the science, whose views do we act on: (i), (ii) or (iii)?

Expand

None.

You restructure the IPCC, starting by booting out the Indian (gravy) train conductor heading it up. You get rid of Working Group II, Working Group III and the Task Force. Working Group I (The Physical Science Basis) should be restructured into Working Group Disciplines; Atmos. Phys., Atmos. Chem., Solar Phys., Meteorology, Oceanography, Computer Modelling, etc. Computer modelling should be a pool group so that no science group can claim not to make coding available to scrutiny because of intellectual property. Key aspects of research in each discipline should be identified, prioritised and assigned competitively on a co-funded basis. All data, work, etc. of any Working Group should be subject to multiple levels of review; intra-group, inter-group, IPCC review panel, Academia, Public. Everything should be published in the Journal of the IPCC. Not sure how you decide the jobs done to the point of taking action of any particular kind, if at all, but I will probably think of one after I have pushed the post message button.