You can really be seriously obtuse sometimes, tenguy. Neither of the links you posted contain the information you say they do. There is, in fact, no mention whatsoever of a "Secretariat" or a "Board" in either of those links.

Now you have provided additional information on the Secretariat, which I will accept at face value. But do you really expect the office staff of the IPCC to consist of people with PhD's? Their job is not to make policy or conduct research. This is you at your disingenuous best.

Here's the relevant excerpt from the website.

 

Sorry, I ran out of time during that post and cut it short.

You take the information on the IPCC Secretariat at face value?? It's on their freakin' website, did you think that someone else posted it there??

So now who works for the IPCC? The "secretariat" does, of course they are not all scientists, but this is who actually works for the IPCC and who pulls the various reports together from the work groups.

Now as far as the people who are contributors to the work groups they are not exclusively climate scientists, in fact they are both scientists and non-scientists from every other field imaginable. This is clearly mentioned in the website, in fact your womb mate posted the information, so it must be true.

So will you please admit that the scientists who are responsible for the reports from the IPCC are not just climate scientists?

Because that is the root of this whole fucking side bar.

Remember, I do not claim that the work of the IPCC is bogus, but I do have tolerance for those who raise reasonable objections to some of their reports.

 

Maybe you missed it, but I admitted that some time ago. Clearly, there are people from other scientific disciplines, as well as social scientists. But the work of synthesizing the IPCC's work on climate change is done by working groups, and the participants are fully qualified to do so.

 

I did miss it, I'll take your word on it.

Okay, now let's see if we can agree on something else, regarding the IPCC. For the last few years, there have been many criticisms raised is the ecology/climatology circles about the number of the reports that were released by the IPCC that contained errors and for a nmber of potential conflict of interest by authors. Some have expressed concern that those errors were caused through the incorporation of reports that had not had peer review. In one instance that I read, the IPCC was accused of releasing reports that contained 70% non-peer reviewed material.

Now these criticisms have been documented in many websites and in scientific literature.

New Scientist criticized the IPCC for conflict of interest among it's authors.
*not_secure_link*www.newscientist.c...-interest-claimed-for-ipcc-energy-report.html

The Chairman of the IPCC has been accused of having a conflict of interest due to the many business dealing he has developed as a result of his chairmanship.
*not_secure_link*www.telegraph.co.u...Indian-institute-run-by-UN-climate-chief.html

SA also ran two criticisms of the non-peer material finding its way into the final synthesized reports.
*not_secure_link*www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=ipcc-slips-on-himalayan-ice

*not_secure_link*www.scientificamer...ational-science-panel-recommends-ipcc-reforms


Have you read these or have you heard of them?

 

Like I said in an earlier post, what you're doing is like asking Catholics if they've read the latest critcism of the Pope. This isn't about real science to them, it's a faith-based community.

 

Which boils down to these folks regarding the scientific community as a religion.

They believe what they are told, why? Because they want to believe it.

 

I ran across these two articles today, more for the intelligent to ponder and the weak-minded to ignore:


*not_secure_link*www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/04/us-climate-sulphur-idUSTRE7634IQ20110704

See, the reason that global warming didn't follow the religionists' predictions is that they didn't account for pollution from asian nations (no, really!) So we have to stop the Asian nations from polluting the air, and that will increase global warming, so then we can destroy the economy of developed nations through legislation to stop global warming. Get it? I don't.

*not_secure_link*papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1871503

Turns out that it's not scientific ignorance that makes people skeptical of global warming, it's scientific knowldege. Money quote from the abstract: "On the whole, the most scientifically literate and numerate subjects were slightly less likely, not more, to see climate change as a serious threat than the least scientifically literate and numerate ones." So you see, the problem you true believers are having with the rest of us isn't that we're not smart enough to understand, it's that we're too smart to accept faulty, manipulated, politically generated data. Quit quoting bullshit and give us hard, repeatable data.

 

The the problem with you deniers prtndr is you by this point can't do anything except wobble around in constantly contradicting orbits.

Also there's no possible ways deniers like yourself can possibly claim you're the reasonable skeptic at this point. For two reasons. One because you never do look at the hard data and sources we do post. And two and more importantly because you keep contradicting yourself.

 

ROFLMAO

 

Hey Prtndr lets look at the other side of the story

I see something I thought I'd already posted didn't make it.

So, I'll post it now.


China Coal Consumption Linked To Global Cooling

*not_secure_link*www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/04/global-warming-china-air-pollution_n_889897.html

 

*not_secure_link*motorcitytimes.com/mct/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/ban-co2.png

 

This is all that we are asking for,,we dont want their left arm,,just substantial, consistent facts. So far, it does not exist.

 

Now, you are being just a plain smartass.

 

OK, is this better?

*not_secure_link*motorcitytimes.com/mct/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Change.png

 

Actually, this is much better.

 

Yeah, facts would be nice. But facts and religion don't mix.

And we all know the new religion is Global Warming

*not_secure_link*www.frugal-cafe.com/public_html/frugal-blog/frugal-cafe-blogzone/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/carbon-credits.jpg

 

I follow no religion, I live my life to make ME happy.

 

And it is the nasty ole' USofA that is causing all of the trouble. Ignore China and India, they are emerging nations.

 

But I bet you only like Fox News, Huh Prtrndr?

Fox News uses backyard grilling to ‘debunk’ climate change

*not_secure_link*www.rawstory.com/r...s-backyard-grilling-to-debunk-climate-change/


And I think this link contained in this story is worth repeating because it reinforces just how wrong prtndr is.


Survey: Scientists agree human-induced global warming is real

*not_secure_link*www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-01/uoia-ssa011609.php

 

Both questions were asked without quantifiers. Of course global temperatures have risen, just as they have throughout the earth's cycles. So the answer would be most definitely yes, I am surprised that only 90% agreed.

Has human activity accelerated global warming, again without question the answer is yes, why did only 82% agree?

Now why not ask the questions requiring quantifiable answers?

How much have global temperatures risen?

What percentage of the change is attributable to human activities?

All these studies and surveys are meaningless, unless of course you are a devotee to the religion called science envy.