Are confidence levels in the IPCC too high?

[questioner]

I want to resurrect thread with this tid bit:
The IPCC Lies Just Keep Coming: Multiple Violations of IPCC's Own Policies Generate More Untruths

Read here. The IPCC, and those supporting climate scientists, continue their damnedest to destroy any shred of credibility and reputation remaining for the science community, in general. Not only did the scientists exuberantly fudge the climate scientific facts, they bent just about every IPCC rule to advance the political agenda within the 2007 climate report publication.

One policy rule that was blatantly ignored, and then denied to have been violated (and still deny), was the rule that no scientific publication would be included after the January 2006 deadline.

"A few weeks ago, IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri declared in an essay that one of the reasons the 2007 IPCC report (also called AR4 - which stands for Fourth Assessment Report) is perceived as being too conservative in some respects is because it: ...was based on scientific studies completed before January 2006, and did not include later studies...But this is only the beginning. In Chapter 2 of Working Group 1's report, six papers are cited that weren't published prior to January 2006 - despite Pachauri's assurances to the contrary. Nor were they published prior to January 2007. Rather, they all appeared sometime during the 2007 calendar year"..."If you think that's bad, Chapter 11 of Working Group 1's report cites 17 papers with a 2007 publication date"

From:
http://www.c3headlines.com/2010/05/the- ... ruths.html

Which links to this:
http://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com ... dates.html

I do believe the "Creative License" taken by the defenders of the IPCC is being displayed for what it is: Lies!

What Pachauri said was that the scienctific studies were completed before Jan 2006. He did not say published. In order to prove Pachauri a liar, the submission dates of those papers published in 2007 needs to be cited. It often takes over a year for the peer review and corrections to be completed.

[Mike Davis]

Q:
How hard is it for you to read quotes from one of your heroes. I guess I will just have to go find the words he actually said for you. I posted it around here.

"People can have confidence in the IPCC's conclusions…Given that it is all on the basis of peer-reviewed literature." - Rajendra Pachauri, IPCC chairman, June 2008
"The IPCC doesn't do any research itself. We only develop our assessments on the basis of peer-reviewed literature." - Rajendra Pachauri, IPCC chairman, June 2007
"This is based on peer-reviewed literature. That’s the manner in which the IPCC functions. We don’t pick up a newspaper article and, based on that, come up with our findings." - Rajendra Pachauri, IPCC chairman, June 2008 (click quote to go to YouTube video. Remarks begin at 1 minute, 15 seconds)
[in the online version of this document a sound clip appears here]
[regarding news articles in the report]
"As IPCC Chairman Rajendra K. Pachauri recently stated: 'IPCC relies entirely on peer reviewed literature in carrying out its assessment...'" - US Environmental Protection Agency, December 2009 (bottom of PDF's page 7)
"When asked if the discussion paper could be taken into consideration...[Pachauri] 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.'" - Times of India, November 2007
"This is the key document on climate change, and from now on you can forget any others you may have read or seen or heard about. This is the one that matters. It is the tightly distilled, peer-reviewed research of several thousand scientists" - Irish Independent, November 2007
"Make no mistake about how central the IPCC is to the global warming debate. The IPCC's reports are why ours and other governments...are calling for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions...[those] attacking the IPCC...have never researched nor published any climate science in peer-reviewed journals - and peer review is how science works." - ABC News, Australia, November 2009
"The IPCC bases its work on papers that have been published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature." - The Economist, December 2009
"The IPCC does not do scientific research itself, but builds its assessments on peer-reviewed and published scientific papers. " - ABC News, Australia, February 2007
"The IPCC relies on the peer-reviewed scientific literature for its conclusions, which must meet the rigorous requirements of the scientific method..." - Joe Romm, Salon.com, February 2008
"The first phase [of the IPCC report] will be released in Paris next week...The report will draw on already published peer-reviewed science." - CBC News, Canada, January 2007
"Without a strong, peer-reviewed science base [provided by the IPCC]...the case for action on climate change would not be as unequivocal as it is today." - Ban Ki-Moon, United Nations Secretary General, August 2008
"[The IPCC report] used only peer reviewed published science..." - Associated Press science writer Seth Borenstein, February 2007. This story appeared in newspapers large and small in countries that included Russia, Canada, and the United States.
"The [IPCC] report will draw on already published peer-review science." - Associated Press science writer Seth Borenstein, January 2007. This story appeared in newspapers in countries that included South Africa and the United States.
"The knowledge of climate change contained within peer-reviewed scientific publications is periodically assessed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change." - Science Alert.com, November 2008.
"Journalists must follow basic principles for screening evidence - making sure, for example, that scientific research is properly peer reviewed. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a particularly valuable source of information on climate change..." - The New Nation, Bangladesh, September 2009

I linked the source for this quote already.
I guess this is another case of misdirection by lying from you! You do not read the links provided and then claim they are wrong!

[Mike Davis]

Then there was the e-mail claiming a paper would not appear in the IPCC report if the lead authors had to redefine Peer-review to accomplish that goal!
There is also evidence laying around of papers written after the fact to support claims by lead authors such as what Santer did!He was not alone as it appeared to become common practice. It appears that peer-reviewed papers were quoted that did not contain the statements or graphs that were credited to them. Sort of like your claim that Hansen got it right in 1988 in spite of what the transcript shows.

[Mike Davis]

Q:
I actually need only one quote to show that you are a liar:
When asked if the discussion paper could be taken into consideration...[Pachauri] 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.'" - Times of India, November 2007

Further quote:
The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, headed by Dr R K Pachauri, in its last report had, in contrast, warned that "glaciers in Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world" and that at current rate of depletion, "the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high" if the global temperatures rise unabated.

Dr Pachauri, when contacted by TOI for a response to the discussion paper, said, "I'd like to find out the secret source of this divine intervention... I don't understand the logic of this... I am puzzled where this magical science has come from... This is something indefensible."

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."

This was related to Glaciergate as the original 2035 claim was not in a peer-reviewed paper.

I guess that makes the entire IPCC process a lie!

[Mike Davis]

I found an interesting situation where the IPCC report used a paper fir reference that ended up being published in 2008 20 months after the IPCC report was released. However that is only the tip of the iceberg because what was said in the iPCC report was in conflict with the paper. IPCC:
It is cited (incorrectly, given its eventual 2008 publication date) as Vaughan, 2007 on this page to support a statement whose plausibility it actually rejects. The IPCC declares:

If the Amundsen Sea sector were eventually deglaciated, it would add about 1.5 m to sea level, while the entire West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) would account for about 5 m (Vaughan, 2007). [bold added]

Paper:
It is cited (incorrectly, given its eventual 2008 publication date) as Vaughan, 2007 on this page to support a statement whose plausibility it actually rejects. The IPCC declares:

If the Amundsen Sea sector were eventually deglaciated, it would add about 1.5 m to sea level, while the entire West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) would account for about 5 m (Vaughan, 2007). [bold added]
Better yet the author of the paper was:
# Working Group 1, Chapter 4 lists a D. Vaughan (UK) as a contributing author
# WG1, Chapter 10 lists a D. Vaughan (UK) as a contributing author
# WG2, Chapter 15 lists a David G. Vaughan (UK) as one of two coordinating lead authors
# WG2's Summary for Policymakers lists a David Vaughan as a drafting author
# WG2's Technical Summary lists a David Vaughan (UK) as a lead author

Link to web site where I located this:
http://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com/
The paper in question which was published in 2008:
http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/769/1/The_return ... -_nora.pdf

All in all an interesting paper that contradicts itself on many points but actually mentions natural variations as a possibility of cause. Pay attention to the continental map to see the region this report covers.

[Mike Davis]

Here is a paper that looks at all the peer reviewed papers and not just those used by the IPCC:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? ... id=1612851
Insofar as establishment climate science has glossed over and minimized such fundamental questions and uncertainties in climate science, it has created widespread misimpressions that have serious consequences for optimal policy design. Such misimpressions uniformly tend to support the case for rapid and costly decarbonization of the American economy, yet they characterize the work of even the most rigorous legal scholars. A more balanced and nuanced view of the existing state of climate science supports much more gradual and easily reversible policies regarding greenhouse gas emission reduction, and also urges a redirection in public funding of climate science away from the continued subsidization of refinements of computer models and toward increased spending on the development of standardized observational datasets against which existing climate models can be tested.