Climate policy - IPCC or not?

[MOTORVATOR]

So to save derailing the other threads,

http://www.pistonheads.co.uk/gassing/topic.asp?h=0...

http://www.pistonheads.co.uk/gassing/topic.asp?h=0...

It seems that recent revelations have bought IPCC into question as a reasonable document to formulate policy.

So on the basis Gordon is just about to 'save the world' with our dosh and climategate is gathering speed, do you think the IPCC document should be used for formulation of policy or has it been discredited?

[anonymous-user]

Both really. They've been discredited AND an investigation is needed.

[cmsapms]

IPCC has discredited itself, right from the word go, by allowing politicians and other vested interests to have the final say in what's published and what's not.

An investigation might be a good idea, but who'll appoint the investigation panel? I'm sure you can guess. One thing's for sure, taxes'd have to rise to pay for that amount of whitewash!

The very existence of east anglia poly's CRU dishonesty should have had journalist's baying at the doors of government/IPCC asking what the fck's going on. I haven't seen much evidence of this amongst journos working for any of the media outlets favoured by the country's muppetry (Beeb/Sun etc). They're certainly not pushing it, consigning it to "inside" pages.

So, this'll be another nail in the AGW/MMCC coffin that'll go unremarked by the vast majority of the already brainwashed.

Option 2, I think!

[MOTORVATOR]

Guam said:

Voted for Investigation as I think that is a Balanced way through this mess, not being able to check all the work personally (who could), I believe we should give some of the "scientists" some benefit of the doubt, my instictive feelings are to have them binned outright, however that would make me no different to the Blind Faith Brigade so independent investigation (I vote TB for the panel) is the way I would like to see this go


Cheers

Thing is I agree that a balanced view has to be taken. I'm even in agreement with Ludo that this latest stuff doesn't mean the whole document is scientific nonsense.

The bit that sticks with me is that the fundamental question that was asked of IPCC was whether warming exists in the first place and it seems that the figures used were adjusted to give a false result.

All the rest of the scientific studies referred to in the document are now then based on a false premise and therefore are out of context.

It seems to me now that we don't actually know whether climate change is a problem or not because the basics have been sodded about with.

So at the risk of becoming tiresome with the question.

Ludo et al should the document be relied upon for formulation of policy?

[ShadownINja]

There is an alternative organisation to the IPCC which has scientists only (no politicians) as members. I cannot remember what they are called, though.

[Jasandjules]

The IPPC has been utterly discredited, as has the entire peer review process.

Therefore, an investigation is needed into this matter, by the police.

[Guybrush]

Investigation required. No whitewash. This is a very serious matter.