Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sounds like you've got a point... until you think it through. Who else would you get to do it?
Also looks to me like you've been contemplating visiting the metallic milliners/hardware hatters, because you're flirting with a conspiracy theory there aren't you?
Lets see, someone who does not have a conflict of interest concerning the topic? If you can't see having the researcher whose work is being evaluated in charge of accepting or dismissing the reviewers comments, then you have no clue about proper peer review. You have read the AR4 comments have you not? Comments were made about inconsistencies of method and errors with the data, and the reviewer waved them off with excuses, closing the comment. Yeah, no potential for bias there. /boggle
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turboblocke
As the review comments are freely available, I'm sure that some deniers have already analysed them. So what did they find? How come we haven't heard of Reviewgate? Seems to me that you're implying that there's fire when there isn't even any smoke.
Your claim = you do the work.
Ah, denier... nice antagonistic word. Why not just come on out and call people Nazi's? Your rhetoric is pathetic.
And yes, they were shown to be problems with the reviewers, conflicts of interest, and dismissals by those in charge of the reviews. It is one of the reasons why the IPCC is considered a joke political organization these days. You might know this if pulled your head out of the sand once in a while.
Lets see, someone who does not have a conflict of interest concerning the topic? If you can't see having the researcher whose work is being evaluated in charge of accepting or dismissing the reviewers comments, then you have no clue about proper peer review.
See you haven't answered the question again: Who is this person that you suggest who would also be considered suitable to all the governments involved in selecting the members and still be competent?
You also misstate the work of the Lead Authors: their job is to write a report based on the research, not to do the research themselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander
You have read the AR4 comments have you not? Comments were made about inconsistencies of method and errors with the data, and the reviewer waved them off with excuses, closing the comment. Yeah, no potential for bias there.
Obviously you have some examples in mind: what percentage of comments were treated in such a manner. Please show you evidence for once.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander
Ah, denier... nice antagonistic word. Why not just come on out and call people Nazi's? Your rhetoric is pathetic.
And yes, they were shown to be problems with the reviewers, conflicts of interest, and dismissals by those in charge of the reviews. It is one of the reasons why the IPCC is considered a joke political organization these days. You might know this if pulled your head out of the sand once in a while.
Oh dear not the "Poor me" defense: that only works in the schoolyard. The term "denier" refers to someone who denies the evidence and differentiates them from someone who is a bona fide sceptic.
And where's the proof of your claims? Let me guess, some activist blog presenting second hand accounts of what someone might have said, just like your "Report Card" link.
If you wish to continue this discussion, kindly extract your digit and provide some evidence, otherwise you will just prove that you have an empty hand.
I stated the temps have plateaued. You objected with the claim that the ocean is deeper than than 700 meters. Good for you, but since you have no information to object past that, your point of objection stops at just that, which is the data does not show below 700m.
So what is your point then? Does your mention have any direction to a conclusion? If you are simply saying that the information I provided is not complete, I won't argue, but it does conflict with the claims of the ocean being warmer.
Now if you want to continue that claim, you need to provide data that supports that the below 700m is warmer. Which you have not.
Your claim was that ocean temperatures have plateaued, but you only provided partial evidence. I didn't say you were wrong, I just said that you didn't show the whole story. Until you do your claim is not validated. If you want to modify it to just claiming the plot shows that temps have plateaued in the top 700m of the oceans over the last few months, your plot would support that (ignoring error bars of course.)
And yes, they were shown to be problems with the reviewers, conflicts of interest, and dismissals by those in charge of the reviews. It is one of the reasons why the IPCC is considered a joke political organization these days. You might know this if pulled your head out of the sand once in a while.
He must have missed all the Climategate back and forth emails between the cabal regarding how they corrupted the peer review process. They attempted to shut out skeptical, legitimate papers that didn't meet their approval, they threatened editors to reject skeptical papers, they reviewed each others work, thereby ensuring the "consensus" among other things.
The last IPCC report is FILLED with gray literature that just happened to make it in, despite rules that said it shouldn't.
The IPCC has had to retrack quite a few conclusions and more and more of their predictions of the dire consequences are falling apart.
This is sad. You really do not understand the difference between the report of this panel and the peer reviewed literature. Amazing. It is no wonder that you believe in global warming.
He doesn't understand the summary report of the IPCC is a political statement, which many IPCC object to and refute the claims made by the bureaucrats.
According to official science, global temperatures were meant to rise this century in line with increasing levels of man-made carbon dioxide, but didn’t. Now the puzzle has allegedly been solved: the heat is more than 300 metres below the world’s oceans, where it appears conveniently safe from physical verification.
Yep, this is what the AGWarmists are reduced to when their "models" don't pan out.
And WHO is one of the authors that make this claim?
Why non other than Kevin “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.… Our observing system is inadequate.” Trenberth. I guess he found a way to explain how the cabal's models fell short.
Of course, the claim is completely unverifiable....which is how the AGWarmists like it.
This is sad. You really do not understand the difference between the report of this panel and the peer reviewed literature. Amazing. It is no wonder that you believe in global warming.
I see that as usual, you don't make any reply to my comments, but just repeat your position. Given that you have not addressed them in substance, can I assume that they stand unopposed? If you object, please make a substantive reply.
He must have missed all the Climategate back and forth emails between the cabal regarding how they corrupted the peer review process. They attempted to shut out skeptical, legitimate papers that didn't meet their approval, they threatened editors to reject skeptical papers, they reviewed each others work, thereby ensuring the "consensus" among other things.
The last IPCC report is FILLED with gray literature that just happened to make it in, despite rules that said it shouldn't.
The IPCC has had to retrack quite a few conclusions and more and more of their predictions of the dire consequences are falling apart.
Still trying for the conspiracy theory. Yawn.
Did you miss the link to the IPCC's rules on gray literature:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turboblocke
this is what the IPCC procedures say:
Quote:
:
ANNEX 2
PROCEDURE FOR USING NON-PUBLISHED/NON-PEER-REVIEWED SOURCES IN IPCC
REPORTS Because it is increasingly apparent that materials relevant to IPCC Reports, in particular, information about the experience and practice of the private sector in mitigation and adaptation activities, are found in sources that have not been published or peer-reviewed (e.g., industry journals, internal organisational publications, non-peer reviewed reports or working papers of research institutions, proceedings of workshops etc) the following additional procedures are provided. These have been designed to make all references used in IPCC Reports easily accessible and to ensure that the IPCC process remains open and transparent...
Back to GISTEMP... are any of you going to explain why you believe that it's flawed, when it gives comparable results to the other temperature anomaly measurements, both surface and satellite based?
These agencies are PUBLIC, they do not get to decide who gets to see them as they are paid for by tax payer money.
I do understand the irony of what I'm going to say: "Simple slogans satisfy simple souls."
The philosophy that you show above is simplistic in the extreme. I can't tell whether it's totally socialist: "The State belongs to the People" or totally Freeloader: "Let the People/State pay for the research so that the Private Sector can exploit it for free."
Where do you draw the line: is all State data to be made available to the People, from tax/criminal records to weapons/hi-tech/medical etc research to strategic analyses? What about intelligence information?
Are you going to stop patenting State research so that it's freely available instead of bringing in licensing fees?
Of course, after a while, the point about research will probably be moot, as all the decent scientists will have left government employ. You see, they make their living by doing research and publishing findings. If they have to give away all their research to their competitors, then they won't be happy.
Over to you for your explanation on how this is going to work in practice...
Did you miss the link to the IPCC's rules on gray literature:
Where on Earth are you getting your (false) information from? If you were a real sceptic, you should be looking at those sources sceptically.
You mean the one they changed for the upcoming report?
I still have to ask - how can anyone put any stock in these unproven climate models, that haven't been right yet?
Only true believers would put faith in something as unreliable, untested and unproven as this. It's like a religious cult.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
