"Peer Review" now a Dead Letter

[Oddball]

As the the IPCC flagship, SS Goebbels Warming, takes yet another direct hit amidships....

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 In plain English: the IPCC reports are not peer-reviewed.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.

Read more: Articles: IPCC Admits Its Past Reports Were Junk

 

[Wry Catcher]

As the the IPCC flagship, SS Goebbels Warming, takes yet another direct hit amidships....

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 In plain English: the IPCC reports are not peer-reviewed.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.

Read more: Articles: IPCC Admits Its Past Reports Were Junk

Rules/FAQ - American Thinker

lol, no wonder odd-dude is so odd.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

There is a phrase for this - "you scratch my back and I will scratch yours".
For the "scientist"...boatloads of grant and seed money...
For the IPCC...http://www.ipcc.ch/meetings/session29/doc3.pdf
For the politicians...they get to say "we care".

 

[Oddball]

As the the IPCC flagship, SS Goebbels Warming, takes yet another direct hit amidships....

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.

Read more: Articles: IPCC Admits Its Past Reports Were Junk

Rules/FAQ - American Thinker

lol, no wonder odd-dude is so odd.

The AT piece cites and links to the IPCC statement numerous times.

You lose again, Danny Vermin.

 

[skookerasbil]

LOL......been pointing this out for over 10 years..................


Oddball FTMFW

 

[Wry Catcher]

As the the IPCC flagship, SS Goebbels Warming, takes yet another direct hit amidships....



Read more: Articles: IPCC Admits Its Past Reports Were Junk

Rules/FAQ - American Thinker

lol, no wonder odd-dude is so odd.

The AT piece cites and links to the IPCC statement numerous times.

You lose again, Danny Vermin.

Wrong again Danielle. No where in the primary source is the word "Junk" used; the only place "Junk" is used is in the partisan piece pubished by the right wing AT.

 

[Oddball]

Whatever...Fact is the IPCC has admitted that their "peer review" process was a flat-out fraud.

Niggling parsing of semantics won't change that.

 

[Dot Com]

another newsmaxx article?

 

[daveman]

As the the IPCC flagship, SS Goebbels Warming, takes yet another direct hit amidships....

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.

Read more: Articles: IPCC Admits Its Past Reports Were Junk

Rules/FAQ - American Thinker

lol, no wonder odd-dude is so odd.

The IPCC is feeding you bullshit, and you like it. That's okay, but don't expect normal people to believe you when you tell us it's yummy.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well now, all one has to do is look at independent articles in the many scientific journals. If they are showing evidence and data that is counter to what the IPCC report did, then there is a problem. But if they are not, and are reporting data and evidence that is supporting the IPCC data, then there is no problem.

And if I wish information on any branch of science, the last place I go is to a political rag or think tank.

 

[Oddball]

All one has to do is look at the IPCC openly admitting that its peer review process is an outright fraud.

 

[Old Rocks]

All one has to do is look at the continued posting of outright drivel by Oddie to understand that he has little to no understanding of science.

 

[uscitizen]

"Peer Review" now a Dead Letter

So now I won't know if it safe to tie my boat up to one?

 

[daveman]

All one has to do is look at the continued posting of outright drivel by Oddie to understand that he has little to no understanding of science.

So, you're saying IPCC rigorously followed accepted peer-review process?

Because if you're saying that, you're lying.

 

[Old Rocks]

Are you saying that the IPCC predictions were wrong? Because if you are stating that, you are correct. They were far too conservative, we are seeing consequences right now that we did not expect until mid-century.

They had a lot of material to review, and did an inadaquete job of reviewing all of it. Nonetheless, their information and predictions are far closer to reality than the idiotic denial we see coming from the politics of the right wing.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Whatever...Fact is the IPCC has admitted that their "peer review" process was a flat-out fraud.

Niggling parsing of semantics won't change that.

No where is it written that their peer review process was a flat-out fraud.

You really are a piece of shit, but I suppose you're heard that many times before.

 

[flacaltenn]

As the the IPCC flagship, SS Goebbels Warming, takes yet another direct hit amidships....

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.

Read more: Articles: IPCC Admits Its Past Reports Were Junk

Rules/FAQ - American Thinker

lol, no wonder odd-dude is so odd.

That's it?? That's all ya got? Everything quoted in the OP checks out. Verifyable back to the ACTUAL IPCC statement.. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/IAC_report/IAC_PR_Completion.pdf

You always just duck, hide your head and lash out? And I bet you consider yourself informed on this topic yes??

 

[flacaltenn]

Well now, all one has to do is look at independent articles in the many scientific journals. If they are showing evidence and data that is counter to what the IPCC report did, then there is a problem. But if they are not, and are reporting data and evidence that is supporting the IPCC data, then there is no problem.

And if I wish information on any branch of science, the last place I go is to a political rag or think tank.

I understand here that you're calling the IAC a "political rag or a think tank"? They are exactly the snooty elistist type of institution that you adore. And the IPCC implemented their recommendations didn't they?

This practice of shooting the messenger needs to stop. Because the BIGGER OP here is that NOWHERE IN THE MAINSTREAM has this been covered. THAT is the bigger shame.

 

[Wry Catcher]

As the the IPCC flagship, SS Goebbels Warming, takes yet another direct hit amidships....



Read more: Articles: IPCC Admits Its Past Reports Were Junk

Rules/FAQ - American Thinker

lol, no wonder odd-dude is so odd.

That's it?? That's all ya got? Everything quoted in the OP checks out. Verifyable back to the ACTUAL IPCC statement.. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/IAC_report/IAC_PR_Completion.pdf

You always just duck, hide your head and lash out? And I bet you consider yourself informed on this topic yes??

I'm sure in your mind everything in the OP checks out. I suspect your didn't research the issue as long as everything in the OP confirmed what you wanted to hear.

I don't "duck, hide and lash out; I simply pointed out that odd-dude is odd ( a very nice observation given how truly fucked up he is).

 

[Old Rocks]

IPCC completes review of processes and procedures
Over the past two years, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) undertook a
complete review of its processes and procedures – effectively the IPCC’s “constitution”. Decisions on
governance and management, conflict of interest, and procedures were taken by a meeting of the
Panel, the IPCC’s governing body, at its 35th session in Geneva on 6-9 June 2012. The Panel also
adopted a communications strategy.
The decisions taken in Geneva complete the process of implementation of a set of recommendations
issued in August 2010 by the InterAcademy Council (IAC), the group created by the world's science
academies to provide advice to international bodies. United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon
and IPCC Chair Rajendra Pachauri jointly asked the IAC to undertake an independent review of IPCC
processes and procedures in March 2010. The decision documents are posted on the IPCC website
IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change .
The decisions taken in Geneva in June include:
• adoption of a communications strategy governing how the IPCC communicates with policymakers,
other stakeholders and the media, based on guidance agreed by the IPCC at its 33rd
session in Abu Dhabi in May 2011;
• further steps to implement the Conflict of Interest policy approved in Abu Dhabi and at the 34th
session of the IPCC in Kampala in November 2011;
• revisions to procedures for electing the IPCC’s Bureau – the Chair, IPCC Vice-Chairs, Co-
Chairs of the Working Groups and the Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories
(TFI) and the Vice-Chairs of the Working Groups – including strengthening the representation
of Southwest Pacific states;
• further clarification of the functions of the IPCC Secretariat and of the Technical Support Units
(TSUs) that support the Working Groups, TFI and Synthesis Report, and
• approval of mostly editorial revisions to procedures agreed in Kampala.
“These latest changes further strengthen IPCC operations as it prepares to release its Fifth
Assessment Report in 2013 and 2014. With the completion of the review, the IPCC can now focus
fully on its mandate to assess in a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the
scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of
the risks of climate change, its potential impacts, and options for adaptation and mitigation,” IPCC
Chair Rajendra Pachauri said.
The IPCC’s 32nd session in Busan, Republic of Korea, in October 2010, adopted most of the IAC
recommendations, and set up Task Groups to work on their implementation. The bulk of the work was
completed for approval at the IPCC’s 33rd and 34th sessions. Decisions at these meetings covered a
strengthening of the IPCC procedures including the review process for IPCC reports, the use of nonpeer-
reviewed literature, the selection of authors, and the treatment of uncertainty. Other decisions
involved the creation of an Executive Committee to strengthen IPCC governance between Panel
sessions, and the limitation of the term of office of the Chair, IPCC Vice-Chairs and Co-Chairs to one
term – usually the timeframe of one assessment.