IPCC Admits Reports on AGW Were Flawed.

This report was published October 2010. It was requested by the IPCC. The IPCC is now implementing the changes recommended.

Just read the first page of the executive summary to see what it's actually about, as opposed to quotes above. (Well, they are presented as quotes, but they don't actually appear to be in the report that is referenced.)

Or just read IAC's overall assessment of the IPCC review process, page 25:

"Conclusions
The overall structure of the IPCC assessment process appears to be sound,
although significant improvements are both possible and necessary for the
fifth assessment and beyond. Key improvements include enhancing the
transparency of the process for selecting Bureau members, authors, and
reviewers; strengthening procedures for the use of the so-called ‘gray literature;’
strengthening the oversight and independence of the review
process; and streamlining the report revision process and approval of the
Summary for Policymakers."

If you'll just look on the page you referenced, you'll see where the IAC thanked the IPCC for voting to adopt most of the process changes that they recommended. That's the statement by IAC link.

So, you've some right-winger who cherrypicked the supposed quotes to make this look like some profound attack on the IPCC. If you'll just bother to scan the actual report, you'll likely conclude otherwise.

 

You'll have to take that up with the right-wing nuts who sold you on this nonsense article in your post. They are lying to you . . . those who would lie for you are lying to you.

Bob Wilson

 

If by everyone do you mean the politicians? Yep, they always tell the truth. Not.

I posted a reason magazine video in response to a news thread about academic freedom, a UC Irvine professor gives an interview and says the environmental science is completely politicized. We have my nut-job governor, with his hand picked team, editing an enviromental report to completely remove the science that higher sea levels are going to add to enviromental problems in low lying galviston island.

We can hope that the IPCC will do better on the next report. People are watching, but I doubt the reforms really have been fully enacted. That piece is quite moldy though. Other organizations like NOAA, twisted by both sides of the political skew, seem to put out more unbiased work. Compared to the amount of money we pay the coal companies to pollute the air, the amount spent on environmental science is small.

Not to make this too political, but how do I get the money back for the iraq war? We were promised WMDs.

Do you know the way you can tell a politician is lying? If the lips are moving the odds are they are lying.