"Peer Review" now a Dead Letter

[Oddball]

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.

Obvious deflection from the admittedly fraudulent process is obvious.

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.

No, they did a fraudulent job of "reviewing" it..."Inadequate" implies negligence and sloppy methodology, not outright fraud.

 

[Old Rocks]

So, they stated that they needed to better in the future than they had in the past, and mapped policy that is neccessary to do so. What I see is an organization striving to do better in a vital field.

But what I see among it's detractors is the determination to lie about the information this organization presents in every way possible.

 

[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.

Obvious deflection from the admittedly fraudulent process is obvious.

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.

No, they did a fraudulent job of "reviewing" it..."Inadequate" implies negligence and sloppy methodology, not outright fraud.

You know that is total bullshit. What is a fraud is the outright willfull ignorance people like you exhibit and bring to this discussion.

Once again, there is not a single Scientific Society, not a single National Academy of Science, and not a single major University that denies the fact of AGW.

 

[Oddball]

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

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

 

[skookerasbil]

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”. .

Ray..........the rest of the goofballs that post in here are complete naive jackasses, but you? WTF Ray........you gotta be kidding me. If George Soros stated that he runs idea's for donations past Rush Limbaugh, would you believe him?? Think the KuKluxKlan invites Spike Lee to its constitutional gatherings?


Just not sure where you come up with this idea that just because its a group of scientists, the intentions are 100% noble

 

[flacaltenn]

Kinda sad --- end of an era.. We'll never see science of that quality again in our lifetimes..

 

[Wry Catcher]

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

the ipcc is openly admitting that their peer review process was fraudulent!

No they did not. No where in the links was there any use of the word fraudulent.

 

[Dr Grump]

So, they stated that they needed to better in the future than they had in the past, and mapped policy that is neccessary to do so. What I see is an organization striving to do better in a vital field.

But what I see among it's detractors is the determination to lie about the information this organization presents in every way possible.

Odd lives in a sound bite world. If he actually dug a little deeper, wasn't so cynical, or caught up in his own braggadocio he might actually learn something.

The nay-sayers end game is that scientists make shit up to get money. I know several scientists - in several different fields. A couple of them rely on grants, but they sure as shit don't lie about stuff to get it. Why? Because it is too easy to get caught out for a start. But the underlying reason is, they're scientists. They have no interest in making shit up...It's not how they roll. They are not politicians...

 

[Oddball]

It's not the naysayers saying this...It's the goddamn IPCC itself.

You clods remind me of the dimwits who still say OJ didn't do it.

 

[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”. .

Ray..........the rest of the goofballs that post in here are complete naive jackasses, but you? WTF Ray........you gotta be kidding me. If George Soros stated that he runs idea's for donations past Rush Limbaugh, would you believe him?? Think the KuKluxKlan invites Spike Lee to its constitutional gatherings?


Just not sure where you come up with this idea that just because its a group of scientists, the intentions are 100% noble

In science the concept of nobility is invalid. The whole idea is to figure out how things work. When the working of these things impign on the lives of humans, or can improve our lives, then scientists have the duty to tell us about it, as well as they can.

That there are politics among people doing science is simply the fact that it is humans doing the science. However, when you get scientists from multiple fields agreeing on general concept, and only argueing about the details, then you can bet that the concept is valid.

 

[Old Rocks]

It's not the naysayers saying this...It's the goddamn IPCC itself.

You clods remind me of the dimwits who still say OJ didn't do it.

I posted the IPCC statement. There was no admittance of fraud in that statement. There was a determination to use better information and have it vetted better in future studies. A reasonable goal.

 

[Wry Catcher]

It's not the naysayers saying this...It's the goddamn IPCC itself.

You clods remind me of the dimwits who still say OJ didn't do it.

I suggest you either post the quotes proving you're not a liar, or, stop digging and appearing to be both a liar and a fool (evidence of which I do not need).

 

[Oddball]

It's not the naysayers saying this...It's the goddamn IPCC itself.

You clods remind me of the dimwits who still say OJ didn't do it.

I posted the IPCC statement. There was no admittance of fraud in that statement. There was a determination to use better information and have it vetted better in future studies. A reasonable goal.

I posted the excerpts of the full report in the OP...That they didn't come out and say the word "fraud" doesn't change the fraud.

If willfully excluding all research and researchers that don't comport with your desired outcome isn't fraudulent, nothing is.

If the best thing you Bozos have is haggling over semantics, then you're even further gone into la-la-land than even I had thought...And that's saying something.

 

[Dr Grump]

It's not the naysayers saying this...It's the goddamn IPCC itself.

You clods remind me of the dimwits who still say OJ didn't do it.

if that is what they were ACTUALLY saying you might have a point. But they're not. You're cherrypicking. We can all do that....

 

[Oddball]

I don't have to cherry pick anything...The IPCC admitted it.

 

[Dr Grump]

It's not the naysayers saying this...It's the goddamn IPCC itself.

You clods remind me of the dimwits who still say OJ didn't do it.

I posted the IPCC statement. There was no admittance of fraud in that statement. There was a determination to use better information and have it vetted better in future studies. A reasonable goal.

I posted the excerpts of the full report in the OP...That they didn't come out and say the word "fraud" doesn't change the fraud.

If willfully excluding all research and researchers that don't comport with your desired outcome isn't fraudulent, nothing is.

If the best thing you Bozos have is haggling over semantics, then you're even further gone into la-la-land than even I had thought...And that's saying something.

You do realise that the part you highlighted in red in the OP was the opinion of the piece you linked, not the IPCC, right? You do know that?

 

[skookerasbil]

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”. .

Ray..........the rest of the goofballs that post in here are complete naive jackasses, but you? WTF Ray........you gotta be kidding me. If George Soros stated that he runs idea's for donations past Rush Limbaugh, would you believe him?? Think the KuKluxKlan invites Spike Lee to its constitutional gatherings?


Just not sure where you come up with this idea that just because its a group of scientists, the intentions are 100% noble

In science the concept of nobility is invalid. The whole idea is to figure out how things work. When the working of these things impign on the lives of humans, or can improve our lives, then scientists have the duty to tell us about it, as well as they can.

That there are politics among people doing science is simply the fact that it is humans doing the science. However, when you get scientists from multiple fields agreeing on general concept, and only argueing about the details, then you can bet that the concept is valid.

its is inded valid..........amongst those with the established preconceptions..........that is very, very clear.


The Royal Society should rename itself: The Closed Society!!!



Anybody with half a brain knows it too.............

 

[Oddball]

I posted the IPCC statement. There was no admittance of fraud in that statement. There was a determination to use better information and have it vetted better in future studies. A reasonable goal.

I posted the excerpts of the full report in the OP...That they didn't come out and say the word "fraud" doesn't change the fraud.

If willfully excluding all research and researchers that don't comport with your desired outcome isn't fraudulent, nothing is.

If the best thing you Bozos have is haggling over semantics, then you're even further gone into la-la-land than even I had thought...And that's saying something.

You do realise that the part you highlighted in red in the OP was the opinion of the piece you linked, not the IPCC, right? You do know that?

Right...And the black bolded was straight off the report itself, complete with page references.

They giving ESL classes in your neck of the planet?...I'd advise you sign up.

 

[Dr Grump]

I don't have to cherry pick anything...The IPCC admitted it.

I have just read the link to the IPCC presser from the American Thinker piece. It says no such thing

You're a fraud....and a schill...you should be ashamed...

 

[Oddball]

The presser isn't the report itself.

I can read and comprehend the English language...I don't need some media flack bullshit artist to tell me that what I just read isn't what I just read.