More on the IPCC process

2 thoughts on “More on the IPCC process”

  1. “In my opinion, as someone who knows the IPCC process and its outputs well, I don’t think a detailed review would find more than vanishingly small number of poorly supported or erroneous statements, among thousands of scientific statements that are robustly supported.”

    Isn’t that all the more of a reason to review AR4? Let me put it another way — would you rather have a body vetted scientists outing and then explaining errors in AR4, or would you rather have the skeptics do it? The skeptics are riding high right now with just two errors (Amazon and Himalayas); think how bad the situation would be if there were five or six?


  2. Good point, T Greer. The point I have made elsewhere is that the IPCC is undergoing its own review … looking at its processes and making modifications so that it continues to improve. Any organisation worth its salt does exactly that, whether it’s making kitchen equipment, launching spaceships or all building bridges.

    What is interesting, is that the two errors which are being played up by the denialists do not knock over the fact that Himalayan glaciers are melting rapidly ( and I’ll already posing major issues within the region) or that the Amazon is drying rapidly as a result of rapid climate shifts related to greenhouse gas warming.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s