H-m-m-m! Let us think about that a moment. Most scientists can think on their own. They don't have to believe in the 'official' conclusion. They can look at evidence and draw their own conclusions, aside from political influence. So they do have a choice.
Now why would anyone want to trust the IPCC? Is it because they have in the past proved to be a bastion of truth? No! They have been caught in lie after lie.
Has the IPCC gone with the consensus of scientists of the world? No, for there are over 31,000 scientists who have taken time out of their lives to voice their disagreement and all of these scientists have been ignored in lieu of a relative handful of political hacks disguised as scientists. These scientists, such as Mann, Hansen and Jones, have been caught red handed cooking the books or outright hiding their research. In fact, the IPCC with only a few crooked scientists at their side have falsely claimed the consensus of scientists of the world.
Have the predictions of the IPCC proven out to be true? Absolutely not.
Quote by Noel Brown, UN official: "Entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of "eco-refugees," threatening political chaos."
Nothing was done and we are still here.
Can you say that the IPCC is totally scientific and without political influence? Absolutely not and this is what the IPCC wishes upon us peons of the world:
Quote from the UN's Own "Agenda 21": "Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level."
So their goal is clearly a political goal not a scientific goal.
When it comes down to a blog or the IPCC I would consider any blog as more relevant than the IPCC, since the IPCC has an agenda. I would take Farmer Brown's or a crystal ball reader's opinion over the IPCC since they have proven to be more accurate over the years and not politically driven.
The IPCC has proven to live in a fantasy world, where political goals are more important than data and science.
Quote by Chris Folland of UK Meteorological Office: “The data don't matter. We're not basing our recommendations [for reductions in carbon dioxide emissions] upon the data. We're basing them upon the climate models.”
Quote by David Frame, climate modeler, Oxford University: “Rather than seeing models as describing literal truth, we ought to see them as convenient fictions which try to provide something useful.”
In true science, there is no fiction. Only in the realm of literature is there 'science fiction'.
In direct answer to the question, it is totally politics.
I thought it wasn't supposed to be a scientific document anyway, I thought it was widely accepted as political propaganda. Or is that too obvious for those wearing their government issued blinkers to see?
A very stupid question. Many of these things you call "scientific mistakes" are in fact typos. Others are stylistic choices. The whole point of these ten pages was to ensure consistency between separate documents.
Apparently everything you do is perfect on the first attempt...although you did manage to spell "IPCC" incorrectly in your question.
Wow, I love how you twist a list of errors in a draft to "scientific corrections".
You also appear to have missed the interrogation mark right after Donna's headline. Do you know what it means? It means that your beloved photographer Donna is not sure about her assertions.
The irony of course is that one of those 'scientific corrections' actually provided a cooler temperature for a specific period, nor a warmer one as deniers claim are constantly being manipulated into the science.
Too funny!
It's political it always has been, no doubt there are some genuine mistakes, but of course that will happen when you keep messing with it.
Their 95% certainity doesn't look so good does it.
The whole thing needs to be circle filed and rewritten as a confession to making a scam
Please tell me you're not going to use that site to prove that the IPCC is w....
Oh. You are.
Let's see, blog? IPCC? Who to believe?
"It's political it always has been."
Of course the report is political.
The science is long settled.
Virtually all of the scientific community knows that.
The problem today is, how to get countries and governments to do that has to be done.
Maybe you remember when the United States delegation was booed by the rest of the conference and told to either get with the program or get out of the way.
The US representative called home, and got permission, probably from the Bush white house, to agree to the deal.
https://www.google.com/#q=us+delegation+...
That's where we still are -- trying to get the politicians to do what the science has said for 20 years now.
Edit: Sagebrush, "Look at linlyons, for example, ... You can't think on your own. So you must go with the established authority."
I can do a fair bit of thinking.
I see you quote various deniers.
Maybe that's what you call thinking.
Quite clearly I'm following the science.
And, the main body of scientific thinking.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warm...
"The finding that the climate has warmed in recent decades and that human activities are already contributing adversely to global climate change has been endorsed by every national science academy that has issued a statement on climate change, including the science academies of all of the major industrialized countries."
https://www.google.com/#q=scientific+org...
https://www.google.com/#q=universities+g...
And you're still talking about the oism petition - that's been shown to be meaningless.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/scrutini...
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2013/10/02/10-pages-of-ipcc-science-mistakes/
" ... But here’s the bottom line: my argument (that a scientific document is being crassly manipulated) and Betts argument (that IPCC authors made 10 pages worth of scientific mistakes), are equally damning. The IPCC doesn’t look good in either case. ... "
" ... In Chapter 2 alone, the 52 authors are collectively responsible for 18 instances of scientific mistakes that now need fixing. Their combined brainpower, plus the efforts of that chapter’s four review editors, were apparently insufficient to the task.
The authors of Chapter 5 similarly made 11 scientific mistakes. And the authors of Chapter 11 made 21 scientific errors. ... "
