Ok, I can accept this was an error back in AR5. The IPCC reports are huge undertakings and involve a lot of people. Mistakes happen. You have written about inconsistencies in the IPCC work, for instance those between WG1 and WG2.
These mistakes and inconcistensies reflect badly on the IPCC. We know for a fact that bewteen the final draft …
Ok, I can accept this was an error back in AR5. The IPCC reports are huge undertakings and involve a lot of people. Mistakes happen. You have written about inconsistencies in the IPCC work, for instance those between WG1 and WG2.
These mistakes and inconcistensies reflect badly on the IPCC. We know for a fact that bewteen the final draft and the published report only a few are doing the editing. And we know changes have been made in such instances.
Anyone studying for a PhD shall be aware of the dangers of assumptions and authoritative statements. They shall know to challenge them. In my research the most profound difference we make is to challenge the "everybody knows that"-statements. "Everybody knows" is asssumption and the game of telephone. Ask how they know and people get confused or angry. Often both.
The case you are showing here is both assumption, authoritative and convenient. In the field of climate, with so much zealotry and poorly diguised mix of political wants into research it is just too convenient to ignore the error.
Maybe it was not intentional in the first place. But it became covenient, and more than a decade without being called out shows it became intentional.
Ok, I can accept this was an error back in AR5. The IPCC reports are huge undertakings and involve a lot of people. Mistakes happen. You have written about inconsistencies in the IPCC work, for instance those between WG1 and WG2.
These mistakes and inconcistensies reflect badly on the IPCC. We know for a fact that bewteen the final draft and the published report only a few are doing the editing. And we know changes have been made in such instances.
Anyone studying for a PhD shall be aware of the dangers of assumptions and authoritative statements. They shall know to challenge them. In my research the most profound difference we make is to challenge the "everybody knows that"-statements. "Everybody knows" is asssumption and the game of telephone. Ask how they know and people get confused or angry. Often both.
The case you are showing here is both assumption, authoritative and convenient. In the field of climate, with so much zealotry and poorly diguised mix of political wants into research it is just too convenient to ignore the error.
Maybe it was not intentional in the first place. But it became covenient, and more than a decade without being called out shows it became intentional.
This is scientific malpractice.