The IPCC "torques the science in certain directions"

You and I know this… but it’s still good to publish the fact, especially when that fact is being trumpted by someone who may not necessarily be viewed as one of us heretical skeptics.

This particular someone is Judith Curry, who heads the Georgia Tech school of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences:

Where do you come down on the whole subject of uncertainty in the climate science?
I’m very concerned about the way uncertainty is being treated. The IPCC [the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] took a shortcut on the actual scientific uncertainty analysis on a lot of the issues, particularly the temperature records.

Don’t individual studies do uncertainty analysis?
Not as much as they should. It’s a weakness. When you have two data sets that disagree, often nobody digs in to figure out all the different sources of uncertainty in the different analysis. Once you do that, you can identify mistakes or determine how significant a certain data set is.

Is this a case of politics getting in the way of science?
No. It’s sloppiness. It’s just how our field has evolved. One of the things that McIntyre and McKitrick pointed out was that a lot of the statistical methods used in our field are sloppy. We have trends for which we don’t even give a confidence interval. The IPCC concluded that most of the warming of the latter 20th century was very likely caused by humans. Well, as far as I know, that conclusion was mostly a negotiation, in terms of calling it “likely” or “very likely.” Exactly what does “most” mean? What percentage of the warming are we actually talking about? More than 50 percent? A number greater than 50 percent?

Are you saying that the scientific community, through the IPCC, is asking the world to restructure its entire mode of producing and consuming energy and yet hasn’t done a scientific uncertainty analysis?
Yes. The IPCC itself doesn’t recommend policies or whatever; they just do an assessment of the science. But it’s sort of framed in the context of the UNFCCC [the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change]. That’s who they work for, basically. The UNFCCC has a particular policy agenda–Kyoto, Copenhagen, cap-and-trade, and all that–so the questions that they pose at the IPCC have been framed in terms of the UNFCCC agenda. That’s caused a narrowing of the kind of things the IPCC focuses on. It’s not a policy-free assessment of the science. That actually torques the science in certain directions, because a lot of people are doing research specifically targeted at issues of relevance to the IPCC. Scientists want to see their papers quoted in the IPCC report.

This is what Al Gore and other bonafide and certified liars are calling settled science.

Clearly, what it is instead is settled bullsh*t.

Pass the word.

Crossposted(*).

CNN's Jack Cafferty: Dems are "beyond sleazy" on ObamaCare passage
Health Care and The Democratic Death Knell
  • Hank

    So Curry admits that the IPCC works for UNFCCC.
    UNFCCC has an agenda.
    They support Kyoto, Copenhagen and more importantly, cap & trade.
    IPCC provides reports that support the agenda of UNFCCC.
    And IPCC was “sloppy” in its’ analysis of temp records.

    Sounds like a consensus of idiocy.

  • “That actually torques the science in certain directions,…”

    Ain’t that exactly what the CRU, IPCC and others have been doing all along, i.e. adjusting the data to fit the conclusions they want, and literally discarding whatever does not fit?

    In real science, the stuff that doesn’t fit (the anomalies) are where discoveries are made.

    When you condemn them to the outer darkness, you are practicing religion; not science.

  • GarandFan

    Well Judith Curry just nailed her coffin shut. Let’s see if anything she writes is “published” and “peer reviewed” any longer. The Goracle will teach her!

  • Don L

    It is fun to watch the deniers on the other side finally -who us? What manipulation of numbers? What lost Data? What selected trees? Say did anyone see my hockey stick?

  • Flu-Bird

    And its the tax payers who are footing this whole IPCC bunch of fruads