Climate Distortion

[flacaltenn]

My, my, ol' Oddie once more demostrating his idiocy.

Why don't you RESPOND to the observation that the majority of cites in the IPCC reports are NOT peer reviewed?

Because you CAN'T or you WON'T.. I'm getting tired of these alarmists.. I think we need some new ones...

 

[RollingThunder]

What makes you think he isn't published?

What makes you think he is? Or are you just blowing smoke, as usual.

In any case, the faulty thesis he posts on his blog has not been published and never will be. If even I can spot his errors on first reading, any real experts are going to reject his nonsense out of hand.

I suggest you go back and study how debate works. You made a claim that the author of the blog I linked to, who happens to be a professor at the University of Washington, isn't published. For the record, he...has an actual PhD in climatology

I suggest you read things more carefully. I said Mass isn't a published climate scientist. He has published some papers in the field of meteorology but since there is some overlap between the two fields, I'll give you that one. He does not, however, have "an actual PhD in climatology".

In any case the holes in his argument are still there.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What makes you think he is? Or are you just blowing smoke, as usual.

In any case, the faulty thesis he posts on his blog has not been published and never will be. If even I can spot his errors on first reading, any real experts are going to reject his nonsense out of hand.

I suggest you go back and study how debate works. You made a claim that the author of the blog I linked to, who happens to be a professor at the University of Washington, isn't published. For the record, he...has an actual PhD in climatology

I suggest you read things more carefully. I said Mass isn't a published climate scientist. He has published some papers in the field of meteorology but since there is some overlap between the two fields, I'll give you that one. He does not, however, have "an actual PhD in climatology".

In any case the holes in his argument are still there.

Interesting how you cut off most of my post. Is that because it destroyed your assertion that he is not published? Does the fact that he actually edits more than one journal where studies on climatology are routinely published make you look incredibly stupid and uninformed?

You do not have enough integrity to debate the subject, I can safely put you into the same category of the rest of the airheads who try to convince me that the AGW extremists are the authorities. You are an idiot, and will be treated like one from now on.

 

[Trakar]

OK. You have a blog for your science, the rest of us have a PNAS publication. As well as peer reviewed articles like those from this source;

AGW Observer

You obviously did not read the blog. The person who wrote it is a meteorologist in the Pacific Northwest and insists that anthropomorphic driven climate change is a fact. The fact that you are willing to reject him simply because he doesn't agree with Hanson proves how much you care about science.

No, his piece is rejected because it's blogscience, if he disagrees with Hansen's paper, he should write a rebuttal and send it to PNAS, where it can be properly vetted and then it will receive a proper review among the climate science community.

 

[RollingThunder]

I know more about peer reviewed journals than you know about tying your shoe. Not only can I differentiate between a blog and a peer reviewed journal, I know that peer review happens after the paper is published, not before.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL.....you are such a lying retard, Fartbag. You obviously know nothing about the peer review process. Not too surprising, given what a scientific ignoramus you've shown yourself to be. Peer review happens before the paper is published, not after, you flaming nitwit.

Scientific Peer Review Process

There is a great deal of information out there on scientific topics, but what can be trusted? The key question to ask is: Has it been peer reviewed?

Peer review is a popcorn fart.

You're mistaking "peer review" for your brain, screwball.

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.

IPCC Admits Its Past Reports Were Junk

LOLOLOLOL.....so extremely funny....you poor deluded rightwingnuts.

The only problem with your article lifted from a far rightwingnut rag is that the supposed quotes from the Inter-Academy Council report on the IPCC aren't in the report.

The report is available online at InterAcademy Council | Review of the IPCC | An Evaluation of the Procedures and Processes of the InterGovernmental Panel on Climate Change so check it yourself and if you can find those quotes, show us where and prove me wrong.

Here's a pretty good summary of what they actually said.

InterAcademy Council Report Recommends Fundamental Reform of IPCC Management Structure
(excerpts)

UNITED NATIONS — The process used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to produce its periodic assessment reports has been successful overall, but IPCC needs to fundamentally reform its management structure and strengthen its procedures to handle ever larger and increasingly complex climate assessments as well as the more intense public scrutiny coming from a world grappling with how best to respond to climate change, says a new report from the InterAcademy Council (IAC), an Amsterdam-based organization of the world’s science academies.

The IPCC was established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme to inform policy decisions through periodic assessments of what is known about the physical scientific aspects of climate change, its global and regional impacts, and options for adaptation and mitigation. Representatives of 194 participating governments make up the Panel, which sets the scope of the assessments, elects the Bureau that oversees them, and approves the Summaries for Policymakers that accompany the massive assessment reports themselves, which are prepared by thousands of scientists who volunteer for three Working Groups.

These assessment reports have gained IPCC much respect including a share of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. However, amid an increasingly intense public debate about the science of climate change and costs of curbing it, IPCC has come under closer scrutiny, and controversies have erupted over its perceived impartiality toward climate policy and the accuracy of its reports. This prompted U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and IPCC chair Rajendra K. Pachauri to issue a letter on March 10 this year requesting that the IAC review IPCC and recommend ways to strengthen the processes and procedures by which future assessments are prepared.

The IAC report makes several recommendations to fortify IPCC’s management structure, including establishing an executive committee to act on the Panel’s behalf and ensure that an ongoing decision-making capability is maintained. Given that the IAC report was prompted in part by the revelation of errors in the last assessment, the committee examined IPCC’s review process as well. It concluded that the process is thorough, but stronger enforcement of existing IPCC review procedures could minimize the number of errors. To that end, IPCC should encourage review editors to fully exercise their authority to ensure that all review comments are adequately considered. Review editors should also ensure that genuine controversies are reflected in the report and be satisfied that due consideration was given to properly documented alternative views. Lead authors should explicitly document that the full range of thoughtful scientific views has been considered.


And here's the most recent statement from the IAC.

Statement by IAC

InterAcademy Council comments on the adoption of many of committee's recommendations by IPCC on May 13 in Abu Dhabi

“On behalf of the InterAcademy Council and the IAC committee that authored the report reviewing the processes and procedures of the IPCC, we are pleased that so many of our report’s recommendations were adopted today by the IPCC in Abu Dhabi. We are grateful to the U.N. and IPCC for seeking an independent review by the IAC and for acting on our report. We hope our report will continue to inform management of the IPCC as it carries out its Fifth Assessment Report on climate change science.”

 

[RollingThunder]

My, my, ol' Oddie once more demostrating his idiocy.

Why don't you RESPOND to the observation that the majority of cites in the IPCC reports are NOT peer reviewed?

Because the IAC never said that.

 

[IGetItAlready]

I am sure the usual idiots are going to pop in here and accuse me of saying something else, but there are some facts we need to get straight.

1. The climate is changing.
2. Humans are having an impact on that change.
3. Hanson is going to destroy all credibility if people think he is representative of the science.

This week, with great fanfare, NASA scientist James Hansen and associates released a paper "The Perception of Climate Change" in the journal PNAS that claims that recent heat waves and droughts were caused by human-induced climate change. To quote their abstract:

" It follows that we can state, with a high degree of confidence, that extreme anomalies such as those in Texas and Oklahoma in 2011 and Moscow in 2010 were a consequence of global warming because their likelihood in the absence of global warming was exceedingly small."

This paper (found here) has been quoted in hundreds, if not thousands, of media outlets and newspapers and has garnered the praise of many environmental advocacy groups.

The problem? Their conclusions are demonstrably false and their characterization of the science and statistics are deceptive at best.

Cliff Mass Weather Blog: Climate Distortion

As I've stated in similar posts, THIS is in fact the problem with having an intelligent debate regarding climate change.

Too many alarmists shooting off their mouths and rationalizing their exaggerations and outright lies with the belief that changing minds, regardless the means employed to do so, would serve the greater good.

Crap like this does nothing but further polarize opposing views and ensure productive debate never sees the light of day.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

OK. You have a blog for your science, the rest of us have a PNAS publication. As well as peer reviewed articles like those from this source;

AGW Observer

You obviously did not read the blog. The person who wrote it is a meteorologist in the Pacific Northwest and insists that anthropomorphic driven climate change is a fact. The fact that you are willing to reject him simply because he doesn't agree with Hanson proves how much you care about science.

No, his piece is rejected because it's blogscience, if he disagrees with Hansen's paper, he should write a rebuttal and send it to PNAS, where it can be properly vetted and then it will receive a proper review among the climate science community.

Do you know anything about statistics? I suggest you go look up the Bell curve, and then explain why Hanson thinks it doesn't apply to climatology. Once you do that you can argue that the OP doesn't know what he is talking about.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I am sure the usual idiots are going to pop in here and accuse me of saying something else, but there are some facts we need to get straight.

1. The climate is changing.
2. Humans are having an impact on that change.
3. Hanson is going to destroy all credibility if people think he is representative of the science.

This week, with great fanfare, NASA scientist James Hansen and associates released a paper "The Perception of Climate Change" in the journal PNAS that claims that recent heat waves and droughts were caused by human-induced climate change. To quote their abstract:

" It follows that we can state, with a high degree of confidence, that extreme anomalies such as those in Texas and Oklahoma in 2011 and Moscow in 2010 were a consequence of global warming because their likelihood in the absence of global warming was exceedingly small."

This paper (found here) has been quoted in hundreds, if not thousands, of media outlets and newspapers and has garnered the praise of many environmental advocacy groups.

The problem? Their conclusions are demonstrably false and their characterization of the science and statistics are deceptive at best.

Cliff Mass Weather Blog: Climate Distortion

As I've stated in similar posts, THIS is in fact the problem with having an intelligent debate regarding climate change.

Too many alarmists shooting off their mouths and rationalizing their exaggerations and outright lies with the belief that changing minds, regardless the means employed to do so, would serve the greater good.

Crap like this does nothing but further polarize opposing views and ensure productive debate never sees the light of day.

That is exactly what I said in the OP, and they still jumped in and defended the extremists.

 

[Trakar]

...I know that peer review happens after the paper is published, not before...

While not much of the rest of what you posted coincides with what I am familiar with in regards to journal publication, this above sentence is true and accurate to my experience. While submitted papers are vetted for both editorial standards and general scientific accuracy, true peer-review doesn't occur until the weeks and months after a paper is published. One of the best measures of how successfully a paper is received is through the number of times it is cited in subsequent publication references.

 

[Trakar]

No, his piece is rejected because it's blogscience, if he disagrees with Hansen's paper, he should write a rebuttal and send it to PNAS, where it can be properly vetted and then it will receive a proper review among the climate science community.

Do you know anything about statistics? I suggest you go look up the Bell curve, and then explain why Hanson thinks it doesn't apply to climatology. Once you do that you can argue that the OP doesn't know what he is talking about.

Nothing in your response addresses anything I posted, you might as well not have even repeated my posting as though it were something you were responding to.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No, his piece is rejected because it's blogscience, if he disagrees with Hansen's paper, he should write a rebuttal and send it to PNAS, where it can be properly vetted and then it will receive a proper review among the climate science community.

Do you know anything about statistics? I suggest you go look up the Bell curve, and then explain why Hanson thinks it doesn't apply to climatology. Once you do that you can argue that the OP doesn't know what he is talking about.

Nothing in your response addresses anything I posted, you might as well not have even repeated my posting as though it were something you were responding to.

Nothing in your post addresses anything in my OP, I guess that makes us even.

 

[Trakar]

Do you know anything about statistics? I suggest you go look up the Bell curve, and then explain why Hanson thinks it doesn't apply to climatology. Once you do that you can argue that the OP doesn't know what he is talking about.

Nothing in your response addresses anything I posted, you might as well not have even repeated my posting as though it were something you were responding to.

Nothing in your post addresses anything in my OP, I guess that makes us even.

I prefer grilled scallions to the carmelized onions generally mixed into the bleu cheese plate sauce when I order the porterhouse.

 

[flacaltenn]

<<Q.W.>>

I don't know why you want to help these clowns from shooting themselves in both feet. Both R.T. and Trakar aren't gonna accept a measly meterologist telling them where the weather comes from. Not when the sainted bishop Hansen of AGW pulls a credentials swap and starts forecasting tomorrow's weather.

The desparation for recognition and power is obvious here. And Hansen is in the process of "jumping the shark". And if a measly little meteorologist DARES to defy them -- well heck -- just destroy their character publicly. Just like the bimbo squads did when Clinton had his "shark week"..

 

[Trakar]

<<Q.W.>>

I don't why you want to help these clowns from shooting themselves in both feet. Both R.T. and Trakar aren't gonna accept a measly meterologist telling them where the weather comes from. Not when the sainted bishop Hansen of AGW pulls a credentials swap and starts forecasting tomorrow's weather.

The desparation for recognition and power is obvious here. And Hansen is in the process of "jumping the shark". And if a measly little meteorologist DARES to defy them -- well heck -- just destroy their character publicly. Just like the bimbo squads did when Clinton had his "shark week"..

LOL, you ladies covey up and console each other, I'm headed out to my first Tail-gate (brats and grilled mudbugs) of the season. I'll check back in on y'all this evening, ...or Monday.

Go Seahawks!!!

 

[flacaltenn]

<<Q.W.>>

I don't why you want to help these clowns from shooting themselves in both feet. Both R.T. and Trakar aren't gonna accept a measly meterologist telling them where the weather comes from. Not when the sainted bishop Hansen of AGW pulls a credentials swap and starts forecasting tomorrow's weather.

The desparation for recognition and power is obvious here. And Hansen is in the process of "jumping the shark". And if a measly little meteorologist DARES to defy them -- well heck -- just destroy their character publicly. Just like the bimbo squads did when Clinton had his "shark week"..

LOL, you ladies covey up and console each other, I'm headed out to my first Tail-gate (brats and grilled mudbugs) of the season. I'll check back in on y'all this evening, ...or Monday.

Go Seahawks!!!

Titans are gonna crush your birds --- loser..

 

[RollingThunder]

<<Q.W.>>

I don't why you want to help these clowns from shooting themselves in both feet. Both R.T. and Trakar aren't gonna accept a measly meterologist telling them where the weather comes from. Not when the sainted bishop Hansen of AGW pulls a credentials swap and starts forecasting tomorrow's weather.

The desparation for recognition and power is obvious here. And Hansen is in the process of "jumping the shark". And if a measly little meteorologist DARES to defy them -- well heck -- just destroy their character publicly. Just like the bimbo squads did when Clinton had his "shark week"..

You're so lost in some insane little denier cult fantasy world that you're reduced to gibbering mindlessly.

 

[skookerasbil]

<<Q.W.>>

I don't why you want to help these clowns from shooting themselves in both feet. Both R.T. and Trakar aren't gonna accept a measly meterologist telling them where the weather comes from. Not when the sainted bishop Hansen of AGW pulls a credentials swap and starts forecasting tomorrow's weather.

The desparation for recognition and power is obvious here. And Hansen is in the process of "jumping the shark". And if a measly little meteorologist DARES to defy them -- well heck -- just destroy their character publicly. Just like the bimbo squads did when Clinton had his "shark week"..

You're so lost in some insane little denier cult fantasy world that you're reduced to gibbering mindlessly.

 

[flacaltenn]

<<Q.W.>>

I don't why you want to help these clowns from shooting themselves in both feet. Both R.T. and Trakar aren't gonna accept a measly meterologist telling them where the weather comes from. Not when the sainted bishop Hansen of AGW pulls a credentials swap and starts forecasting tomorrow's weather.

The desparation for recognition and power is obvious here. And Hansen is in the process of "jumping the shark". And if a measly little meteorologist DARES to defy them -- well heck -- just destroy their character publicly. Just like the bimbo squads did when Clinton had his "shark week"..

You're so lost in some insane little denier cult fantasy world that you're reduced to gibbering mindlessly.

^^^^^^^^ funnyashell..

And you've been gibbering mindlessly long enough in a little fantasy world that that you are an insane cult member... Take THAT TinkerBelle..

C'mon -- compare those two posts and tell me who needs to seek treatment to become a regular member of society eh??

 

[skookerasbil]

<<Q.W.>>

I don't why you want to help these clowns from shooting themselves in both feet. Both R.T. and Trakar aren't gonna accept a measly meterologist telling them where the weather comes from. Not when the sainted bishop Hansen of AGW pulls a credentials swap and starts forecasting tomorrow's weather.

The desparation for recognition and power is obvious here. And Hansen is in the process of "jumping the shark". And if a measly little meteorologist DARES to defy them -- well heck -- just destroy their character publicly. Just like the bimbo squads did when Clinton had his "shark week"..

You're so lost in some insane little denier cult fantasy world that you're reduced to gibbering mindlessly.

fAiL