No, the IPCC does not state its data is bad, but the reports have faced criticism and contained some errors
. Critics have argued that the IPCC’s assessments have sometimes been too conservative or that certain findings have been overstated or misinterpreted. The IPCC itself has acknowledged errors, including some concerning the Himalayan glaciers and the Netherlands’ elevation, and has issued corrections and taken steps to improve data transparency and access.
Specific criticisms and errors
Himalayan glacier data: The IPCC’s 2007 report included an error stating that Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035, which was based on a single source and was factually incorrect. The IPCC has apologized for this error.
Netherlands sea level data: Another error in the same report involved the elevation of the Netherlands, which was overstated in some versions.
Misinterpretation of data: Some critics have argued that the IPCC’s data has been misinterpreted to downplay the severity of climate change.
Lack of consensus: The IPCC has been criticized for being too cautious and requiring a very high level of consensus before concluding that human activity is influencing climate change.
IPCC’s response
Apologies and corrections: The IPCC has apologized for its errors and has promised to be more careful in the future.
Improved data transparency: The IPCC has made efforts to improve data transparency and access, including providing more detailed documentation for its figures and reports.
Acknowledgement of limitations: The IPCC also acknowledges that its models have limitations and that some of its projections are uncertain.
Important to remember
The vast majority of climate scientists agree: Despite these criticisms, the IPCC’s findings are still widely accepted as credible and are based on the consensus of thousands of scientists.
The scientific process is ongoing: Climate science is a constantly evolving field, and it is normal for the IPCC to revise its findings as new data becomes available and our understanding of the climate system improves.
Criticism is a part of the scientific process: Criticism and debate are healthy parts of the scientific process, and the IPCC is open to criticism and debate about its findings.
=================
Fraser Institute - conservative privately funded - public persuation outfit - Dark Money
Breakaway Institute -
The San Francisco Chronicle has referred to the Breakthrough Institute as “one of the most controversial organizations in the environmental movement.” Many environmental scientists and academics disagree with its environmental positions. Critics claim the Institute advocates right-wing ideas that would negatively impact climate change. The Institute claims that they are “basically liberals, just ones who arrive at different conclusions.” 19
================
I’ve got to wonder how much Dark Money has found its way in Mike Yohe’s pocket - but “open disclosure” isn’t one of his suits. Like all those climate science denying institutes, it’s none of our business.
Like the running of our government under the GOP - it’s none of our business.
I put more trust in a group that has corrected or admitted its errors than I’ve that keeps repeating them, after being corrected. I trust who tell me to please check their facts.
Yes they do. they admitted that have been running hot data in the climate models for years now.
For three years and a hundred thousand newspapers and magazine articles and with the consensus of scientists that the Great Barrier Reef was doomed to extinction because of ocean warming. Then the reef got better. It turned out the reef had life cycles and the expansion of people along the coastal area drove away the birds, which was a source of fertilizer for the reef. None of the newspapers or magazine articles admitted that they were wrong. They just printed the reef was doing the best in had in centuries.
So, in 37 years we still have no models that match or datum points to work with. Just the consensus of thousands of scientists that say Climate Change does exist. I don’t know of anyone that says Climate Change does not exist. The question is why lawyers who want to engage in Climate Change lawsuits are unable to find any scientists that can prove in court that there is enough Climate Change produced by any one entity to be measured. The second point is that CO2 is a big part of life on earth. To say it is all negative is not scientific by any means. Higher CO2 levels were needed do to the fact that we were getting close to the point where plants were being reduced do to low carbon levels.
The third issue is you are a denier. I ask you to provide proof and ocean rise above normal rise and you gave me three areas that were published by scientists that had ocean rise. I proved you were wrong do to bad data. One was even shown to be gaining land from the ocean. The point being, you cannot be shown scientific data that will ever change your mind because you are political not scientific. Bill Gates was able to reverse his mind, so he must be able to digest the science.
Sidetracking the issues at hand. Where are your scientific datum points? Without datum points you have no science other than political science.
And your empty baiting is a real disappointment. It’s a shame you don’t have little more substance and gumption about you.
I mean playing the jerk behind the fence and bushes, with your peas shooter at the ready, is a ridiculous look. Find more constructive outlets for your frustrations.
You’ve receive plenty of links to that. If you were half as smart as you try to project, you could find it plenty easy enough.
But if you are blind and deaf and apathetic towards the truth - then I guess, you will always be blind to the libraries full of evidence. Guess it can be a good way to hide one’s illiteracy, I hear your president refuses to handle anything more complex than a comic book.
Mike Yohe why have you let yourself be blinded by the gold?
We The People have a moral ethical right - along with a pragmatic need - to learn what scientists have learned about this planet’s biosphere and climate engine without constant dishonest crossfire.
We should not tolerate serious scientists always being drown out by amoral, dishonest and frankly ignorant arguments - that an astoundingly ruthless PR factory repeats over and over again, without ever learning a damned thing from the evidence in front of us.
But if no one show ups, no one shows up, it is what it is.
Claiming America has a climate policy is a bit of a howler in itself, don’t you think?
