What I wanted to do on Wednesday (when I came down with an odd little sickness) was write the definitive debunking of the IPCC AR6 report that was released on Monday and has been making news this week. I failed at that because I'm not as far along at a starting point as many other people. There's too much to read and digest in a couple of days. Lots of people with big head starts on me have already done much of that heavy lifting. In a bit of reading around, you can get a good idea of the things wrong with it, if you read the right sources.
Some good sources are
- Roger Pielke Jr.
- Steven McIntyre
- The No Tricks Zone (from Germany in English)
- And, of course, Watts Up With That
The report was greeted with media adopting, "Red Flag Warning" and similar strident language. I don't think it's justified.
Since we're nearing the peak of hurricane season, a tropical storm will pass to our west by Sunday and another is behind it by three or four days following a similar track, the way the paper addresses hurricanes was something I'm sensitive to. There's a subtle mistake (very likely) here that Roger Pielke spotted since he's the author of one of the papers:
I don't mean to be trite but one of the most downloaded papers in history says most published papers are wrong. In that paper, presents a list of factors that are associated with results being wrong. This one seems to be custom written for IPCC papers.
Corollary 6: The hotter a scientific field (with more scientific teams involved), the less likely the research findings are to be true.
This is one of them.