When I see the IPCC (a political organisation) and RealClimate (a political advocacy blog) being cited as sources defining mainstream science, I know things have gone horribly wrong in the world of science.
Anyone who wants to can read the
IPCC charter to see both it's plainly stated political purpose and the narrowness of it's examination of climate change (my bold):
Quote:
INTRODUCTION
1. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (hereinafter referred to as the IPCC or, synonymously, the Panel) shall concentrate its activities on the tasks allotted to it by the relevant WMO Executive Council and UNEP Governing Council resolutions and decisions as well as on actions in support of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change process.
ROLE
2. The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies.
3. Review is an essential part of the IPCC process. Since the IPCC is an intergovernmental body, review of IPCC documents should involve both peer review by experts and review by governments.
|
So there is not even a pretense in the IPCC charter that it is anywhere near comprehensive in it's examination of climate change in spite of all the claims otherwise by it's more enthusiastic advocates, instead being focussed tightly on an already concluded "risk of human-induced climate change" hence the lack of much in the way of useful information there on direct and indirect solar factors which instead appear to have been 'played down' in the IPCC reports, given the quite extensive peer reviewed literature on the subject.
And if you look up RealClimate you will see that it is in fact hosted by Environmental Media Services and promoted by Fenton Communications, both highly political organisations with strong advocacy positions,
in spite of the spin in the RealClimate disclaimer. Even if you do not accept the fact that being hosted by and promoted by political advocacy organisations is quite revealing in itself, the tone of many of their posts which are remarkably often appear to be preemptive strikes to try to discredit competing ideas rather than expositions of relevant to the broader context of climate science should alert you that they are in fact at least in part an advocacy blog.
While both the IPCC and RealClimate have a surface look of trying to appear scientifically respectable, neither of these can be be considered as objective scientific sources by any stretch of the meaning of 'scientific'.
BTW, sorry for appearing to hit and run, but I am not going to be in a position to hang around and debate this - the fact is I start chemotherapy again tomorrow and will probably not be in a fit state to do so for some time - and in any case, the facts are as I state above, something anyone can check out for themselves, so there is nothing to left to debate except for any political spin someone may like to try on it.