re: #130 Bagua

I agree the decision is partly political, but then the IPCC AR4 is itself a political document.

In the past when it suited your goals you argued the exact opposite:

I am absolutely “seriously”arguing that it is not the case that the IPCC deliberately misstated the scientific consensus to pander to politics.

The IPCC is very clear and very specific in defining the language they use in their report on the scientific consensus. Perhaps they will change this in the next report, but for now this is the consensus. And notice that they say “very likely” which equals > 90%, they do not say the term they identify as >99%. They most definitely do not use Certain 100% as “everyone knows” that would be contrary to science.

This is what I mean, one second the IPCC is supposed to represent the scientific consensus and is not a political compromise, the next second it is “in limbo” because one of its legs has been kicked out by thieves who have misrepresented stolen private correspondence, and the second after that it is a “political document” when that assertion aligns with a political inquiry of CRU.

I’m not going to say that the IPCC cannot in theory be both a political document and represent the true scientific consensus, but I do not think both assertions can be true in today’s world. I think it was always a political compromise with foot-draggers that have now proven that they aren’t beneath misrepresenting stolen emails to further their dishonest agenda.