8 ms·

Yes it would be terrible if IPCC reports were somehow to be censored or politically biased! https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Image-193

Yes it would be terrible if IPCC reports were somehow to be censored or politically biased! https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Image-1930-689x1024-1.png https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Im... Climatologist: "We have to get rid of the medieval warm period" https://www.rossmckitrick.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/climategate.10yearsafter.pdf https://www.rossmckitrick.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/climat... Climategate emails (IPCC): "It seems that a few people have a very strong say, and no matter how much talking goes on beforehand, the big decisions are made at the eleventh hour by a select core group. Is it true that only climate sceptics have political interests and are potentially biased? If not, how can we deal with this? How should we deal with flaws inside the climate community? I think, that "our" reaction on the errors found in Mike Mann's work were not especially honest. All these decisions about IPCC chairs and co-chairs are deeply political I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is ! IPCC report: https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6syr/pdf/IPCC_AR6_SYR_SPM.pdf https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6syr/pdf/IPCC_AR6_SYR_SPM.pdf "Equity remains a central element in the UN climate regime ... Prioritising equity, climate justice, social justice, inclusion and just transition processes can enable adaptation and ambitious mitigation actions and climate resilient development ... cash transfers and public works programs [are] highly feasible and increase resilience to climate change" IPCC press release: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2023/03/IPCC_AR6_SYR_PressRelease_en.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2023/03/IPCC_AR6_SYR... "these choices need to be rooted in our diverse values, worldviews and knowledges, including scientific knowledge, Indigenous Knowledge and local knowledge" https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/feb/01/leaked-emails-climate-jones-chinese https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/feb/01/leaked-e... Today the Guardian reveals how Jones withheld the information requested under freedom of information laws. Subsequently a senior colleague told him he feared that Jones's collaborator, Wei-Chyung Wang of the University at Albany, had "screwed up". The apparent attempts to cover up problems with temperature data from the Chinese weather stations provide the first link between the email scandal and the UN's embattled climate science body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, as a paper based on the measurements was used to bolster IPCC statements about rapid global warming in recent decades.

TheOtherHobbes 4y ago
Now try the real climate science. https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2019/07/24/climate-epochs-that-werent/#:~:text=During%20the%20Medieval%20Warm%20Period,temporary%20Viking%20occupation%20of%20Greenland https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2019/07/24/climate-epochs-.... https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/01/harvard-led-analysis-finds-exxonmobil-internal-research-accurately-predicted-climate-change/ https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/01/harvard-led-a...
- revelio 4y ago
  But exactly? Your first link is supporting my points and the second isn't related to it, are you aware of that or is this a sort of knee jerk reaction based on keyword matching? The first article is about how the Medieval Warm Period did indeed happen. That isn't a rebuttal, it's support for the fact that Michael Mann's "getting rid of it" from the IPCC reports was biased censorship of scientific results, the thing the OP was complaining about. The IPCC has a long and terrible track record of blocking results that don't support the worst case scenarios (i.e. which would make their research less important to fund). The point their article makes is only that the MWP didn't happen everywhere, so it wasn't global warming. But so what? Modern "global" warming isn't global either. Temperature changes differ in different parts of the world. Your second article has nothing to do with the IPCC, and isn't actually meaningful anyway. Go read about the details. Exxon were using the same approaches as in academia, just reproducing their models, and concluded correctly that this sort of modelling was probably unreliable and at any rate couldn't be evaluated at the time. That's being presented as that they "knew" and "hid" the results. But the models weren't right despite claims to the contrary, so their assessment was reasonable.
  - mnky9800n 4y ago
    i don't think you need a model to look at temperature records and see they have been increasing without a natural climate explanation. Unless there is some large igneous province spewing carbon into the atmosphere that you are aware of that the rest of us is not.

TheOtherHobbes 4y ago

Now try the real climate science. https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2019/07/24/climate-epochs-that-werent/#:~:text=During%20the%20Medieval%20Warm%20Period,temporary%20Viking%20occupation%20of%20Greenland https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2019/07/24/climate-epochs-.... https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/01/harvard-led-analysis-finds-exxonmobil-internal-research-accurately-predicted-climate-change/ https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/01/harvard-led-a...

revelio 4y ago
But exactly? Your first link is supporting my points and the second isn't related to it, are you aware of that or is this a sort of knee jerk reaction based on keyword matching? The first article is about how the Medieval Warm Period did indeed happen. That isn't a rebuttal, it's support for the fact that Michael Mann's "getting rid of it" from the IPCC reports was biased censorship of scientific results, the thing the OP was complaining about. The IPCC has a long and terrible track record of blocking results that don't support the worst case scenarios (i.e. which would make their research less important to fund). The point their article makes is only that the MWP didn't happen everywhere, so it wasn't global warming. But so what? Modern "global" warming isn't global either. Temperature changes differ in different parts of the world. Your second article has nothing to do with the IPCC, and isn't actually meaningful anyway. Go read about the details. Exxon were using the same approaches as in academia, just reproducing their models, and concluded correctly that this sort of modelling was probably unreliable and at any rate couldn't be evaluated at the time. That's being presented as that they "knew" and "hid" the results. But the models weren't right despite claims to the contrary, so their assessment was reasonable.
- mnky9800n 4y ago
  i don't think you need a model to look at temperature records and see they have been increasing without a natural climate explanation. Unless there is some large igneous province spewing carbon into the atmosphere that you are aware of that the rest of us is not.