Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
and while you are at it, explain why the surface temperature of Venus does not drop during its 2,000 hour night...also using the greenhouse hypothesis as described by climate science.
why are none of our inhouse skeptics taking SSDD to task for an incredibly stupid statement?
and while you are at it, explain why the surface temperature of Venus does not drop during its 2,000 hour night...also using the greenhouse hypothesis as described by climate science.
why are none of our inhouse skeptics taking SSDD to task for an incredibly stupid statement?
There are just too many of such stupid statements to keep up.
In the case of Venus, it's a combination of steady 200 mph winds in the upper atmosphere redistributing heat, and a very slow energy exchange between the atmosphere and space. Venus is well insulated by clouds from solar radiation coming in, and by CO2 from longwave going out.
Or it's the crushing weight of the atmosphere of Venus swamps any "Global Warming"
That perfectly describes the global warming cult, sport.Or it's the crushing weight of the atmosphere of Venus swamps any "Global Warming"
Standard cult practice, in any cult, in to declare how the whole world is part of vast conspiracy, and that only the chosen few are wise enough to know the RealTruth. Cultists like Frank don't see themselves as cultists; they see themselves as the elite, possessing special wisdom that the common man lacks.
Of course, everyone else correctly sees them as cultists, a fact that really bothers the cultists.
That perfectly describes the global warming cult, sport.
No, the whole world doesn't agree with you.That perfectly describes the global warming cult, sport.
Given that the whole world agrees with us, we don't need to declare the world is part of a conspiracy against us, and that only we select few have the knowledge the world lacks. Hence, we on the rational side are clearly not the cult.
You, however, have to constantly invoke the vast global socialist conspiracy, along with a myriad of other conspiracy theories, along with invoking your own secret speshul knowledge. Hence, you denialists are the cult.
It's not so much that the two of you are in disagreement. It's that, without rational justification, you choose to disagree with the vast majority of climate scientists about what is happening to our climate.
What they do is assemble and summarize the research that draws the conclusions that they want. All else is rejected.I don't think you understand how the IPCC works. They do not commission research. They do not direct research. They simply assemble and summarize the research that is done. Scientists are not plugged in to the IPCC. The IPCC is plugged in to scientists.
It is what they do. The even have included opinion pieces from environmentalist activists as supposedly "peer reviewed".That is not what they do. If you think it is, then show us the research that comes to opposing conclusions. If the IPCC's position is false, the majority of research must also come to opposing conclusions. It should be child's play to find such work. Have at it.
It is what they do. The even have included opinion pieces from environmentalist activists as supposedly "peer reviewed".That is not what they do. If you think it is, then show us the research that comes to opposing conclusions. If the IPCC's position is false, the majority of research must also come to opposing conclusions. It should be child's play to find such work. Have at it.
IPCC has been smoked out as the political hack machine that it is. Time to wake up and smell the latte.
All else is rejected by who? Are you going to invoke the massive climate science conspiracy? Please don't disappoint me.
http://reviewipcc.interacademycounc...Evaluation of IPCCs Assessment Processes.pdf
Recommendation
? The IPCC should make the process and criteria for selecting participants for scoping
meetings more transparent.
The IPCC has no formal process or
criteria for selecting authors, although some Working Group Co-chairs established their own for the fourth assessment, considering factors such as scientific expertise and excellence, geography, gender, age, viewpoint,and the ability to work in teams.9 Establishing such criteria and applying
them in a transparent manner to all Working Groups would alleviate some of the frustrations voiced.
An analysis of the 14,000 references cited in the Third
Assessment Report found that peer-reviewed journal articles comprised 84
percent of references in Working Group I, but comprised only 59 percent
of references in Working Group II and 36 percent of references in
Working Group III (Bjurström and Polk, 2010).
Non-peer-reviewed sources are to be listed in the reference sections of
IPCC reports, followed by a statement that they are not peer-reviewed. The
objectives are to ensure that all information used in IPCC reports receives
some sort of critical evaluation and its use is open and transparent, and
that all references used in the reports are easily accessible.
Although the Committee finds that IPCCs procedures in this respect
are adequate, it is clear that these procedures are not always followed.
Some of the errors discovered in the Fourth Assessment Report had been
attributed to poor handling of unpublished or non-peer-reviewed sources
(Ravindranath, 2010). Moreover, a search through the Working Group
reports of the fourth assessment found few instances of information
flagged as unpublished or non-peer-reviewed
Handling the full range of views
An assessment is intended to arrive at a judgment of a topic, such as the
best estimate of changes in average global surface temperature over a specified
time frame and its impacts on the water cycle. Although all reasonable
points of view should be considered, they need not be given equal
weight or even described fully in an assessment report. Which alternativeviewpoints warrant mention is a matter of professional judgment
Equally important is combating confirmation biasthe tendency of
authors to place too much weight on their own views relative to other
views (Jonas et al., 2001). As pointed out to the Committee by a presenter10
and some questionnaire respondents, alternative views are not always
cited in a chapter if the Lead Authors do not agree with them. Getting the
balance right is an ongoing struggle. However, concrete steps could also be
taken. For example, chapters could include references to all papers that
were considered by the authoring team and describe the authors rationale
for arriving at their conclusions.
Articles: IPCC Admits Its Past Reports Were Junk
The IAC reported that IPCC lead authors fail to give "due consideration ... to properly documented alternative views" (p. 20), fail to "provide detailed written responses to the most significant review issues identified by the Review Editors" (p. 21), and are not "consider[ing] review comments carefully and document[ing] their responses" (p. 22). In plain English: the IPCC reports are not peer-reviewed.
The IAC found that "the IPCC has no formal process or criteria for selecting authors" and "the selection criteria seemed arbitrary to many respondents" (p. 18). Government officials appoint scientists from their countries and "do not always nominate the best scientists from among those who volunteer, either because they do not know who these scientists are or because political considerations are given more weight than scientific qualifications" (p. 18). In other words: authors are selected from a "club" of scientists and nonscientists who agree with the alarmist perspective favored by politicians.
I don't think you understand how the IPCC works. They do not commission research. They do not direct research. They simply assemble and summarize the research that is done. Scientists are not plugged in to the IPCC. The IPCC is plugged in to scientists.
IPCC Cites an Unpublished Journal 39 Times | NoFrakkingConsensusThe Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had an experience like that. It was so impressed by one edition of the academic journal Climatic Change that it cited 16 of the 21 papers published that month. The journal editors should take a bow. When three-quarters of a single issue of your publication is relied on by a Nobel-winning report, youre doing something right.
Except for one small problem. The issue in question May 2007 didnt exist yet when the IPCC wrote its report. Moreover, none of the research papers eventually published in that issue had been finalized prior to the IPCCs cutoff date.
As the IPCC chairman recently reminded us, that organizations 2007 report:
was based on scientific studies completed before January 2006, and did not include later studies
Thats what the rules say. And thats what was supposed to have happened. But according to the online abstracts for each of the 16 papers cited by the IPCC and published in the May 2007 issue of Climatic Change (see my working notes here):
15 of them werent accepted by the journal until Oct. 17, 2006
the other wasnt accepted until May 18, 2006
The first date is highly significant. As the second box on this page makes clear, the IPCC expert review period ended on June 2, 2006 for Working Group 1 and on July 21, 2006 for Working Group 2. This means the expert reviewers had offered their comments on the second draft and had already exited the stage. It means the IPCC had reached the utmost end of a process that represented years of collective labour.
It is what they do. The even have included opinion pieces from environmentalist activists as supposedly "peer reviewed".That is not what they do. If you think it is, then show us the research that comes to opposing conclusions. If the IPCC's position is false, the majority of research must also come to opposing conclusions. It should be child's play to find such work. Have at it.
IPCC has been smoked out as the political hack machine that it is. Time to wake up and smell the latte.
Really? Care to include some links to credible scientific sources? Otherwise, just ignorant flap-yap.
Looks like a couple other folks chimed in to cover that ground.All else is rejected by who? Are you going to invoke the massive climate science conspiracy? Please don't disappoint me.
You are serious, right?Just out of curiosity, WHOSE political body do you think it is?
