Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[truman]

It had 2,500 reviewers. Pretty impressive.

 

So a peer reviewed report has errors...so much for peer review....

[convert]

It had 2,500 reviewers. Pretty impressive.

 

Are they 2500 qualified reviewers?

 

 

Have they only been counted once, or has the IPCC counted some twice or more?

 

http://mclean.ch/climate/docs/IPCC_numbers.pdf

 

 

PS I see that you've changed your signature

[Wildcat]

Are they 2500 qualified reviewers?

 

 

Have they only been counted once, or has the IPCC counted some twice or more?

 

http://mclean.ch/climate/docs/IPCC_numbers.pdf

 

 

PS I see that you've changed your signature

 

According to your article, yes.

 

Your article contains lines like this:

 

Among the authors and reviewers of each component of the IPCC 4AR there were an assortment of universities that might be receiving funding for research that assumes a human influence on climate

 

 

Is it meant as a spoof? It can't seriously be suggesting discounting anyone with university background..... I think it is meant to be serious, but it reads like paranoid bunkum.

 

Do you really believe there is anything to it apart from hot air and jealousy?

Edited January 26, 2010 by Wildcat

[Wildcat]

So a peer reviewed report has errors...so much for peer review....

 

A minor one in an obscure section of the report. Read the corrections listing you will find more. You will find it not uncommon in any report on the scale of the IPCC report for the occassional bit to slip through. The important point is that it was the most accurate report on the subject of its time and that it continues to represent the consensus opinion on the subject.

[convert]

According to your article, yes.

 

Your article contains lines like this:

 

 

 

 

Is it meant as a spoof? It can't seriously be suggesting discounting anyone with university background..... I think it is meant to be serious, but it reads like paranoid bunkum.

 

Do you really believe there is anything to it apart from hot air and jealousy?

 

No it's not meant as a spoof. Do you deny the figures in the report? Do you deny that some reviewers have been at least double counted.

 

Do you deny that the IPCC used reviewers that had a vested interest (re funding and grants) in the content of the report being alarmist?

 

 

PS Why did you change your signature?

[Wildcat]

No it's not meant as a spoof. Do you deny the figures in the report? Do you deny that some reviewers have been at least double counted.

 

Do you deny that the IPCC used reviewers that had a vested interest (re funding and grants) in the content of the report being alarmist?

 

 

PS Why did you change your signature?

 

I don't trust the numbers in the report, but even if he is correct all he has done is establish the number of people reviewing the IPCC report was huge and unprecedented.

 

By claiming funding and grants mean a vested interest, you discount everyone that has an informed opinion on the subject.

 

I changed my signature because, I felt like it and I prefer this one? why would you like me to bring it back?

 

Incidentally the person that wrote your report was also responsible for the travesty of statistics, discussed here:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/07/24/old-news/

 

if you are interested in peer review problems, I suggest looking at the discussion on the page about how such a flawed report managed to get published.

 

Links to more deconstructions of it:

http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2009/07/editorial-standards-at-agu-journals.html

 

To be honest after reading those reports I wouldn't trust him to work on a check out in a supermarket.

Edited January 26, 2010 by Wildcat

[Omar Khatib]

Let's face it, climate science is full of hysterical greenies. Peer review in their case is a tremendous circle-jerk amongst themselves in order to agree on the books they've collectively cooked.

 

I have a suggestion: put all climate scientists on a polygraph machine and ask them questions on industry, transport and the environment. If the results show them to be nutters who want us to all to be running around in rabbit skins then sack them, and purge science of these zealots.

 

Let's get real scientists back on the case

[truman]

After the government's drug "tsar" got the push is John Beddington next?

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7003622.ece

 

Can't see Milliband being too pleased...

[Wildcat]

After the government's drug "tsar" got the push is John Beddington next?

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7003622.ece

 

Can't see Milliband being too pleased...

 

I can't see why.

 

His comments in and of themselves seem fair enough. He himself says “It’s unchallengeable that CO2 traps heat and warms the Earth and that burning fossil fuels shoves billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere." He does say “I don’t think it’s healthy to dismiss proper scepticism. Science grows and improves in the light of criticism", but then no one does the problem is the unhealthy scepticism denying the unchallengeable. The problem and misleading nature of the article is that by omission and juxtaposition of information it makes it look like he has already come to a conclusion that Phil Jones's email was unnacceptable, when in fact all he is doing is laying down some principles no one would object to. What is missing from the report is the context that the information was repeatedly being requested for political effect, that he was unable to provide some of the data because it was not open source and the context that the vast bulk of the data was already in the public domain anyway.

 

Similarly, whilst Professor Hulme does say "Pachauri’s choice of words has not been good", that doesn't necessarily imply the criticism is as the article implies, because the context of what Pachauri said is not given. He did dismiss the himalayan inaccuracy in November, but if that happened as I suspect in a press conference when he was unprepared then I can't say I am surprised or concerned he dismissed it, when a representative of an organisation is jumped with a criticism he knows nothing about, you expect them to do what they are paid to do which is back up and defend the actions of the organisation that employs them. The important point is that the criticism was accepted once it was made prperly and checked.

 

If anyone should be looking at their job it is the Times journalist. Not only are the scientists views so misleadingly misrepresented, but the concluding paragraphs that claim the IPCC report has over estimated what the science is now telling us is the opposite of true as I have already shown. Similarly the claim that the Met Office data overestimates warming, is the exact opposite of the conclusions of the analysis that came out a month ago.

 

It is a shame journalists aren't held to account the same way our scientists are.

Edited January 27, 2010 by Wildcat

[Wildcat]

Interesting article here about Lord "Munchausen", asking why he won't defend his views instead prefering speaking tours and publishing rubbish in non-peer reviewed publications.... is it because he is a charlatan?

 

http://www.desmogblog.com/why-wont-monckton-join-scientific-debate