How credible is the IPCC?

Answer 1

They have flip flopped and been caught lying on many issues.

The hockey stick graph was the focal point of the first report. It was discovered that the data was just not factual. They made no retraction.

Climategate proved that many of the leading experts were lying about data. No retraction was made.

The IPCC has very few actual scientists and even fewer climate experts in their working group. The leader is an Economist. Of the 3000 people involved, only fewer than 60 are involved with science at all.

There models ignore and negative feed backs of water vapor and have managed to be unable to reproduce the past. (An essential element of the models ability to reliably predict the future). They place 90% realiability on models that are 60% accurate.

There projections have continuously been far more extreme when compared with the real weather patterns.

They claimed we should see an increase in the size and scope of hurricanes. Level 5 hurricanes are currently lower in number and NASA claims we are seeing a 30 year low in storms.

Arctic is is predicted to melt. Since 2007 Arctic summer ice has grown by 26%.

The 2007 report claimed a sea level rise of 3 to 5 mm. Less than 1 mm has been seen.

Would you trust a group that has no background in the subject and been wrong every time they suggested an event?

The IPCC has also been involved in other scandals including:

Himalaya-Gate - Alarmist report by the IPCC that the Himalyan glacier will have melted by 2035. As it transpired the report was without any scientific basis.

Amazon-Gate - The IPCC claimed that up to 40% of the rain forests in the Amazon were at risk from global warming and would likely be replaced by "tropical savannas" if temperatures continued to rise.

The scientific-looking report, on which this claim was based, was a non-peer reviewed article for the WWF, by an Australian policy analyst and a freelance journalist for the Guardian newspaper (not even experts let alone scientists!).

But the biggest scandal to date is the IPCC's claim, made in 1995, that it had found "a "discernible human influence" on the earth's changing climate. The claim was inserted by the report's lead author, Ben Santer of the Lawrence Livermore government laboratory, after the IPCC's consulting scientists had agreed a draft that specifically said no such "human fingerprint" had been found.

Due to this deliberate reversal of the report's findings, Santer also altered the trajectory of every IPCC document since. He argued that the alteration that it was justified based on two of his own studies, which "cherry-picked" the earth's temperature record from 1963-1987, deliberately ignoring temperatures that didn't confirm the Greenhouse theory. Thus the "discernible human influence" as claimed by the IPCC remains without scientific support to this day.

Answer 2

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is widely regarded as a reputable and authoritative source on climate science. Its reports undergo rigorous peer review by experts in the field, ensuring high credibility. The IPCC's work is also endorsed by numerous governments around the world, further bolstering its credibility.