Is CAGW a pseudo-science?

[Mike Davis]

Philip:
Here is something related to IPCC:
http://www.c3headlines.com/2010/05/ipcc ... -stop.html

Excerpt:
It is now well known by most that the 2007 report is rife with non peer-reviewed publications. In fact, a recent audit was conducted on the AR4 and it was found that some 5,587 (out of 18,000) references were not peer-reviewed publications. Despite the well known, actual facts, the IPCC just can't seem to help themselves by simply not repeating known lies.

Really, would it be possible for the United Nation's IPCC to just stop the lying? Nahhhh. It's time to kill the IPCC since it has already murdered its credibility.

A link to the audit:
http://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com ... -card.html

[Mike Davis]

It gets better from Tom Nelson:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/enviro ... ature.html
Excerpt:
In a hearing at the InterAcademy Council, an organisation of the world's science academies which is conducting an independent review of the processes and procedures of the IPCC, Dr Pachauri described the inclusion of the glacier claim as "human failure" which should not have happened.

But the IPCC's chairman said there was a need to use information which was not from peer-reviewed scientific journals, because in some places that was the only research that had been done.

He said the media and other sections of society had misunderstood the role of such information, labelling it grey literature, "as if it was some form of grey muddied water flowing down the drains".
However form this:
http://www.noconsensus.org/ipcc-audit/n ... rtised.php
16 references to Pachauri claiming:
Excerpt:
When asked if the discussion paper could be taken into consideration in the on-going round of scientific review by IPCC, he said, "IPCC studies only peer-review science. Let someone publish the data in a decent credible publication. I am sure IPCC would then accept it, otherwise we can just throw it into the dustbin."

That lead to an interesting article were the last excerpt was from:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 213045.cms

[Mike Davis]

Philip:
Without Q and offspring Groupie here today I was wandering around finding things and I also found this:
Excerpt:
"That seems all well and good, except the MOC [Meridional Overturning Circulation] is not following the IPCC script. As the paper by Dr. Willis shows, there has been no slowdown over the past 7 years and probably none over the past 20 years, years during which global temperatures are purported to have risen significantly...The conveyor belt doesn't work as scientists thought and that has implications for global heat transfer, and hence climate, over time. Now it would appear that discrepancy was only the beginning and climate science has once again gotten the conveyor belt currents wrong...This shows the weakness of the science behind climate change. The predictions of future climate change are based on current understanding of how climate works—the theory. And the theory is based on observations of climate behavior in the past—the data. Except that the data regarding fluctuations in the MOC were spotty and incomplete. Now, with better data it looks like the theory is wrong. This in turn, means that all existing models are based on incorrect assumptions and may also have been calibrated using erroneous historical data. Yet predictions of future disaster generated by these models form the heart of the climate change alarmists' case for radical socioeconomic change."

And:
Now, as it turns out, the flow is neither steady nor does it respond to the projected effects of climate change as scientists supposed. A number of climate scientists have hypothesized that global warming would weaken the MOC. This prediction eventually made its way into the IPCC's 2007 AR4 Working Group I report (see “10.3.4 Changes in the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation”). Here is part of what the the IPCC said about global warming and the MOC:

The reduction in MOC strength associated with increasing greenhouse gases represents a negative feedback for the warming in and around the North Atlantic. That is, through reducing the transport of heat from low to high latitudes, SSTs are cooler than they would otherwise be if the MOC was unchanged. As such, warming is reduced over and downstream of the North Atlantic. It is important to note that in models where the MOC weakens, warming still occurs downstream over Europe due to the overall dominant role of the radiative forcing associated with increasing greenhouse gases.

The IPCC based its predictions on simulations from 19 coupled models integrated from 1850 to 2100 under SRES A1B atmospheric CO2 and aerosol scenarios up to year 2100. Some of the models continue the integration to year 2200 with the forcing held constant at the values of year 2100. The results from these simulations are shown in figure 10.15 from the report, reproduced below. Estimates of late-20th century MOC based on direct observation are shown as vertical bars on the left.
You can track it back to here:
http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content ... te-science
it appears that Doug Hoffman has done research for all of us or should I say compilation of others' research.

[Philip]

Following is also highly relevant (apologies if you've already mentioned it Mike):

http://calderup.wordpress.com/2010/05/0 ... ion-intro/

[Mike Davis]

Philip:
That can not be referred to enough. If every post you and I made in answer to Q and Groupie was a referral to just this thread about Popper, the speach about Cargo Cult science, or the speech about Pathological science it would suffice as evidence of their faith based Faux science positions.
http://www.lhup.edu/~DSIMANEK/cargocul.htm
http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~ken/Langmuir/langmuir.htm
Even VOODOO Science:
http://www.skepdic.com/voodooscience.html
Park lists seven warning signs of voodoo science:

1.

A discovery is pitched directly to the media, bypassing peer review, e.g., Pons & Fleischmann's claims about cold fusion and Dennis Lee's claims about free energy.
2.

A powerful "establishment" is said to be suppressing the discovery.
3.

An effect is always at the very limit of detection.
4.

Evidence for a discovery is anecdotal.
5.

A belief is said to be credible because it has endured for centuries, i.e., commits the fallacy of appeal to tradition. E.g., acupuncture and Ayurvedic medicine.
6.

An important discovery is made in isolation (the "lone genius").
7.

New laws of nature are proposed to explain an incredible observation. A common lament of parapsychologists.