We already know that there’s barely any science involved with the IPCC: it’s mostly advocacy. Now, they are simply giving up and plan on using “grey” material (via Junk Science)
(New Scientist) The IPCC decided for the first time to impose strict geographical quotas on the scientists who author its major assessment reports. There will also be a push to increase the representation of women among its authors.
Controversially, it also voted to increase the role in those assessments of “grey literatureâ€: publications not subject to peer review. Using such material in the last assessment is what led to the “glaciergate†scandal in 2010, when the report was found to have vastly overestimated the rate at which Himalayan glaciers are losing ice.
The panel publishes three voluminous assessments of the state of climate science every six years, the last of which came out in 2007.
Some critics New Scientist spoke to say the changes, which have not so far been publicly announced, will reduce the quality of the assessments by excluding the best scientists and muddying the waters between peer-reviewed and other literature.
As it is there is barely any science involved. Instead, they tend to look at sooth saying and palm reading. What the IPCC has predicted has been wrong time and time again, so they have shifted to prognosticating out to the year 2050 and beyond. No Tricks Zone lists 129 issues with the IPCC assessments, many of them revolving around the use of “grey” reports.
Now, peer review is no the be all end all. There is quite a bit of science done without peer review. Quite frankly, those on the Climate Realist side often have their research not peer reviewed, not because they do not want it, but because academia refuses to review non-alarmist reports. But, the IPCC doesn’t even bother looking to see if the reports they include are real.
Ignoring the impossibly bad sentence structuring, what a way to waffle by these supposed “critics New Scientists”.
How about insist that ALL information included for public dissemination and political and policy guidance by the UN should be based in truth and solid experimentation?
Failing that, they are failing science.
And they should produce the raw data as well as the methods at which that data is “smoothed”.
Does this mean that the ice age is going to return and we can’t go swimming anymore?
Hey, you should be happy. Swimming is not ecologically friendly. Besides, think of all the petroleum products NOT used because people are stuck at home. Think of all the roads and shorelines not traveled on that can return to normal (iced-over in this case).
There’s always a warm spot in any ice-laden cloudy lining.
Some sort of cold period will return in the future. Based on history, it’s a matter of when.