Comments on: IPCC Chief Blames Lack of Knowledge Base for 'Glaciergate' http://cleantechnica.com/2010/01/23/ipcc-chief-blames-lack-of-knowledge-base-for-glaciergate/ Clean Tech News & Views: Solar Energy News. Wind Energy News. EV News. & More. Tue, 30 Dec 2014 08:17:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.0.1 By: rich EE http://cleantechnica.com/2010/01/23/ipcc-chief-blames-lack-of-knowledge-base-for-glaciergate/#comment-8654 Tue, 26 Jan 2010 04:44:21 +0000 http://cleantechnica.com/?p=4519#comment-8654 I’m sorry Susan . You’ve done some excellent reporting but this time you’ve missed the problem .

The IPCC itself has used many non-peer reviewed papers from 1 biased source to support its position . There was no research involved in these papers . See :

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/24/the-scandal-deepens-ipcc-ar4-riddled-with-non-peer-reviewed-wwf-papers/

]]> By: rich EE http://cleantechnica.com/2010/01/23/ipcc-chief-blames-lack-of-knowledge-base-for-glaciergate/#comment-25931 Tue, 26 Jan 2010 04:44:00 +0000 http://cleantechnica.com/?p=4519#comment-25931 I’m sorry Susan . You’ve done some excellent reporting but this time you’ve missed the problem .

The IPCC itself has used many non-peer reviewed papers from 1 biased source to support its position . There was no research involved in these papers . See :

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/24/the-scandal-deepens-ipcc-ar4-riddled-with-non-peer-reviewed-wwf-papers/

]]> By: Susan Kraemer http://cleantechnica.com/2010/01/23/ipcc-chief-blames-lack-of-knowledge-base-for-glaciergate/#comment-25930 Mon, 25 Jan 2010 01:16:00 +0000 http://cleantechnica.com/?p=4519#comment-25930 Jon:

When your side’s “scientists” have published even one peer review study let alone getting them all summarized into 3,000 pages that every government in the world has approved, then you can criticize 1 error in the millions of data points summarized by the IPPC.

Glaciers are melting. One glacier region in one study had some conclusions that are not complete. That study does not represent the state of the science accurately for that region. It needs some further study. That’s all.

This happens all the time in other scientific disciplines. Even petroleum geologists make corrections. It is no big deal.

]]> By: Susan Kraemer http://cleantechnica.com/2010/01/23/ipcc-chief-blames-lack-of-knowledge-base-for-glaciergate/#comment-8653 Sun, 24 Jan 2010 18:16:41 +0000 http://cleantechnica.com/?p=4519#comment-8653 Jon:

When your side’s “scientists” have published even one peer review study let alone getting them all summarized into 3,000 pages that every government in the world has approved, then you can criticize 1 error in the millions of data points summarized by the IPPC.

Glaciers are melting. One glacier region in one study had some conclusions that are not complete. That study does not represent the state of the science accurately for that region. It needs some further study. That’s all.

This happens all the time in other scientific disciplines. Even petroleum geologists make corrections. It is no big deal.

]]> By: Jon http://cleantechnica.com/2010/01/23/ipcc-chief-blames-lack-of-knowledge-base-for-glaciergate/#comment-8652 Sun, 24 Jan 2010 07:31:46 +0000 http://cleantechnica.com/?p=4519#comment-8652 Please explain the risk? All current indicators say that the IPCC cooked all the numbers to promote a political stance. I think the real question is, is the level of risk trusting them acceptable? Are you willing to look back 30 years, realizing your economy and lifestyle was destroyed for a lie? Do you trust them to know what’s in our best interests? They have to date, yet to properly refute any accusations against them, merely that we “misunderstand” them. If they can’t promote an ideology without feeding us lies and propaganda, it’s not a worthwhile ideology.

]]> By: Jon http://cleantechnica.com/2010/01/23/ipcc-chief-blames-lack-of-knowledge-base-for-glaciergate/#comment-25929 Sun, 24 Jan 2010 07:31:00 +0000 http://cleantechnica.com/?p=4519#comment-25929 Please explain the risk? All current indicators say that the IPCC cooked all the numbers to promote a political stance. I think the real question is, is the level of risk trusting them acceptable? Are you willing to look back 30 years, realizing your economy and lifestyle was destroyed for a lie? Do you trust them to know what’s in our best interests? They have to date, yet to properly refute any accusations against them, merely that we “misunderstand” them. If they can’t promote an ideology without feeding us lies and propaganda, it’s not a worthwhile ideology.

]]> By: Buzz http://cleantechnica.com/2010/01/23/ipcc-chief-blames-lack-of-knowledge-base-for-glaciergate/#comment-8651 Sun, 24 Jan 2010 00:16:31 +0000 http://cleantechnica.com/?p=4519#comment-8651 There is no global warming, period. All of the measures that were so called “scientific” were smoothed to make a model adhere to the numbers that they wished to establish. Some figures were even erased. The fact of the matter is, we are actually heading into a period of cooling for the earth. Maybe if facts are used, idealists would wouldn’t have anything to crow about.

]]> By: Buzz http://cleantechnica.com/2010/01/23/ipcc-chief-blames-lack-of-knowledge-base-for-glaciergate/#comment-25928 Sun, 24 Jan 2010 00:16:00 +0000 http://cleantechnica.com/?p=4519#comment-25928 There is no global warming, period. All of the measures that were so called “scientific” were smoothed to make a model adhere to the numbers that they wished to establish. Some figures were even erased. The fact of the matter is, we are actually heading into a period of cooling for the earth. Maybe if facts are used, idealists would wouldn’t have anything to crow about.

]]> By: Jess @OpenlyBalanced http://cleantechnica.com/2010/01/23/ipcc-chief-blames-lack-of-knowledge-base-for-glaciergate/#comment-8650 Sat, 23 Jan 2010 16:02:55 +0000 http://cleantechnica.com/?p=4519#comment-8650 Ugh, another -gate. I think part of the problem is that we’re continuing to treat this “debate” as if the climate change skeptics are coming from a fact-based logical place, which I don’t think they are. But even then, perhaps the conversation would be more effectively framed as a question of acceptable risk. Even if you don’t believe in the climate is changing, is the level of risk acceptable?

]]> By: Jess @OpenlyBalanced http://cleantechnica.com/2010/01/23/ipcc-chief-blames-lack-of-knowledge-base-for-glaciergate/#comment-25927 Sat, 23 Jan 2010 16:02:00 +0000 http://cleantechnica.com/?p=4519#comment-25927 Ugh, another -gate. I think part of the problem is that we’re continuing to treat this “debate” as if the climate change skeptics are coming from a fact-based logical place, which I don’t think they are. But even then, perhaps the conversation would be more effectively framed as a question of acceptable risk. Even if you don’t believe in the climate is changing, is the level of risk acceptable?

]]>