"Peer Review" now a Dead Letter

[saveliberty]

here you go 57 & Oddball:

Dot Com thinks cartoons are real too.

 

[Dr.House]

here you go 57 & Oddball:

<snip>

Dot Com thinks cartoons are real too.

Be nice to Dottie Dumbfuck...

He just found out that there's no Tooth Fairy...

 

[Dot Com]

that has to be Frank in the car

 

[Dot Com]

here you go 57 & Oddball:

<snip>

Dot Com thinks cartoons are real too.

Be nice to Dottie Dumbfuck...

He just found out that there's no Tooth Fairy...

you are the only asswipe on the board who uses baby-talk. be proud boy.

 

[Oddball]

Cartoons ain't scientific peer review either, numbnutz.

 

[Dr.House]

Dot Com thinks cartoons are real too.

Be nice to Dottie Dumbfuck...

He just found out that there's no Tooth Fairy...

you are the only asswipe on the board who uses baby-talk. be proud boy.

Go away, child....

 

[Dr.House]

Cartoons ain't scientific peer review either, numbnutz.

Dottie Dumbfuck never had an original thought...

Holds the USMB record for most threads created with no replies...

True story....

 

[saveliberty]

A one post knockout. Way too easy.

 

[Dot Com]

House (Gimpy) holds the record for piggy-backing on other people's threads. His commentary is as about as interesting as watching paint dry as well.

 

[Dr.House]

you are the only asswipe on the board who uses baby-talk. be proud boy.

House (Gimpy) holds the record for piggy-backing on other people's threads. His commentary is as about as exciting as watching paint dry as well.

Well, that was mature....

 

[daveman]

Let's see if we can get this to sink in....

THE IPCC IS OPENLY ADMITTING THAT THEIR PEER REVIEW PROCESS WAS FRAUDULENT!

That only happened in the rightwingnut denier cult echo chamber and in your pathetically retarded and very diseased brain, screwball, not in the real world.

 

[daveman]

here you go 57 & Oddball:

Yeah. Got anything besides emotionalism and fear-mongering?

Didn't think so.

 

[Dot Com]

the poster who's username is now considered a verb at USMB

 

[Oddball]

Care to address the content of the OP, Gomer, or are you just here to put up stupid cartoons?

 

[saveliberty]

Maybe you should have let me handle that one Oddball. I don't have a Foamy for President sig. lol

 

[Oddball]

Foamy is one of the very few cartoons anymore that isn't stupid.

 

[daveman]

the poster who's username is now considered a verb at USMB

Excuse me...cabbage soup for dinner last night. I gotta go take a big Dot Com.

 

[Trakar]

Let's see if we can get this to sink in....

THE IPCC IS OPENLY ADMITTING THAT THEIR PEER REVIEW PROCESS WAS FRAUDULENT!

That only happened in the rightwingnut denier cult echo chamber and in your pathetically retarded and very diseased brain, screwball, not in the real world.

It happened because the scientific auditing outfit that the IPCC brought on board to check its work, found that work to be an affront to legitimate science.

You lose.

Got link?

The reason I ask, is that the link I'm looking at to the review by the InterAcademy Council would have to be terribly distorted and read backwards like an old Zepplin album to yeild that interpretation. As Harold Shapiro stated when he introduced the review's findings:

"...Overall, IPCC’s assessment process has been a success and served society well. The assessments have put IPCC on the world stage, raised public awareness of climate change, and driven policymakers to consider options for responding to climate change. Indeed, these were among the reasons IPCC was awarded a share of the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007..."

InterAcademy Council | Review of the IPCC | An Evaluation of the Procedures and Processes of the InterGovernmental Panel on Climate Change

They offered some general, mostly administrative advice, identified some procedural weaknesses that could be improved, and made positive recommendations:

Recommendation: The IPCC should establish an
Executive Committee to act on its behalf between
Plenary sessions. The membership of the
Committee should include the IPCC Chair, the
Working Group Co-chairs, the senior member of the
Secretariat, and three independent members who​

include individuals from outside of the climate

community. Members would be elected by the​

Plenary and serve until their successors are in place.

Sounds good to me!
what amount of support and authority would those who object to the current IPCC be willing to acknowledge if this recommendation were inacted?

Recommendation: The IPCC should elect an
Executive Director to lead the Secretariat and handle
day-to-day operations of the organization. The term
of this senior scientist should be limited to the time​

frame of one assessment.

Reasonable, logical, nothing at all that I see as a problem or issue of concern. Again,
what amount of support and authority would those who object to the current IPCC be willing to acknowledge if this recommendation were inacted?

Recommendation: The IPCC should encourage
Review Editors to fully exercise their authority to
ensure that reviewers’ comments are adequately
considered by the authors and that genuine controversies​

are adequately reflected in the report.

Absolutely! I feel that this is done currently, but any enhancement and improvement built into the report itself would be a great help to individuals like myself (and others here,...even those I frequently disagree with) who use these reports as a guide to exploring and understanding the many different aspects of modern climate change science. And while I see many "for the sake of improving and always striving forward toward the ideal" (which is a big Progressive concept) reasons to laud such recommendations, I just don't see any benefit to those who are asserting a global conspiracy now, to an IPCC.2 There simply is no evidence these people will accept as legitimate except that which confirms what they have already chosen to believe, not just in the absence of compelling evidences, but despite scientifically compelling evidences.
(for those interested, the rest of the reccomendations can be found in the full report at: InterAcademy Council | Review of the IPCC | An Evaluation of the Procedures and Processes of the InterGovernmental Panel on Climate Change )

 

[Oddball]

IOW, what the IPCC has done to this point is entirely tainted.

Thanks.

 

[Trakar]

IOW, what the IPCC has done to this point is entirely tainted.

Thanks.

Speaking of tainted, that isn't a hole in the ground you're digging that corn out of.