"Peer Review" now a Dead Letter

[Old Rocks]

The earth was much warmer in the days of the Romans thru the Medieval periods. It must of been all of the carts, wagons and sea fairing vessels powered by carbon based fuels.

Your proof of which is? Links?

Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years

 

[Old Rocks]

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...

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 In plain English: the IPCC reports are not peer-reviewed.​

Of course, I'm stunned that folks didn't know this before. The IPCC reports have never been peer-reviewed. Additionally, the IPCC is a policy group, not a group that does science.

One of the fundamental issues with this whole thing is that the alarmists depend on the fact that many conflate science with activism, and the alarmists certainly aren't going to correct any such misunderstanding.

Are the PNAP publications peer reviewed?

Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years

 

[Zander]

More FAIL from the AGW freaks...........

 

[Zander]

I have peer reviewed the OP and find it 1,000,000 % (one million percent!) accurate.

 

[Old Rocks]

Now Zander, old boy, your peer level is with the Three Stooges. Therefore you would approve of willfull ignorance and outright lies.

 

[Zander]

Now Zander, old boy, your peer level is with the Three Stooges. Therefore you would approve of willfull ignorance and outright lies.

I have peer reviewed this post and found it to be 1,000,000 % inaccurate. Sorry old rocks, you fail ......as usual. Shouldn't you be out on a ledge somewhere? Your religion of AGW is failing all over the world....

 

[daveman]

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...

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.​

Of course, I'm stunned that folks didn't know this before. The IPCC reports have never been peer-reviewed. Additionally, the IPCC is a policy group, not a group that does science.

One of the fundamental issues with this whole thing is that the alarmists depend on the fact that many conflate science with activism, and the alarmists certainly aren't going to correct any such misunderstanding.

World socialism is the only thing that will save us from AGW fear-mongering.

 

[Old Rocks]

Daveboy, there ain't nothing going to save you from your willfull ignorance.

 

[Zander]

Daveboy, there ain't nothing going to save you from your willfull ignorance.

Your own ignorance is on display every time you post. Your short bus awaits.....

 

[Oddball]

Daveboy, there ain't nothing going to save you from your willfull ignorance.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhRUe-gz690]Black Knight - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Old Rocks]

Really? Now Zander, you senile old fool, all you do is post yap-yap. You seem totally incapable of realizing that whatever your political views are, they do not affect the physical laws of the universe one whit.

The whole of the scientific establishment, in every nation on earth, states that AGW is a fact and a clear and present danger. And all you people do is flap yap about sociolism, and other poltical views. In the mean time, we see the third year in a row with a major breadbasket being affected adversly by a climate that is steadily increasing the number of extreme weather events every decade. By the numbers at Swiss Re and Munich Re, there is now a yearly average of 3 to 5 times as many extreme weather events as there was forty years ago.

The inevitable consequences of the amount of GHGs that we have been putting into the atmosphere are now upon us. But you idiots would not only avoid tryiing to reduce the amount of GHGs that we put into the atmosphere, but would even prevent us from preparing for the consequences. Your political take on AGW is going to bite you in the ass, bigtime.

 

[Oddball]

The whole of the scientific establishment, in every nation on earth, states that AGW is a fact and a clear and present danger.

Total lie.

Give it up, Black Knight...

 

[Old Rocks]

Well now, how about a Scientific Society, a National Academy of Science, or a major University that denies the reality of AGW? Even Outer Slobovia?

Now Oddie, you can link us to one, can you not?

 

[Zander]

Really? Now Zander, you senile old fool, all you do is post yap-yap. You seem totally incapable of realizing that whatever your political views are, they do not affect the physical laws of the universe one whit.

The whole of the scientific establishment, in every nation on earth, states that AGW is a fact and a clear and present danger. And all you people do is flap yap about sociolism, and other poltical views. In the mean time, we see the third year in a row with a major breadbasket being affected adversly by a climate that is steadily increasing the number of extreme weather events every decade. By the numbers at Swiss Re and Munich Re, there is now a yearly average of 3 to 5 times as many extreme weather events as there was forty years ago.

The inevitable consequences of the amount of GHGs that we have been putting into the atmosphere are now upon us. But you idiots would not only avoid tryiing to reduce the amount of GHGs that we put into the atmosphere, but would even prevent us from preparing for the consequences. Your political take on AGW is going to bite you in the ass, bigtime.

Thanks for proving my point. Do you realize how illiterate you actually are? Seriously, there is a reason you are still working as a laborer in a mill in your late sixties- it's because you're stupid and uneducated. You are the perfect tool for the Globull Warmist cult to recruit- a dumb old man who lacks critical thinking skills.

PS- I am at least 15-20 years younger than you, you doddering, illiterate, brain dead fool. It's an "Avatar" not a personal picture. Now go **** yourself you decrepit loser.

 

[Si modo]

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...

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.​

Of course, I'm stunned that folks didn't know this before. The IPCC reports have never been peer-reviewed. Additionally, the IPCC is a policy group, not a group that does science.

One of the fundamental issues with this whole thing is that the alarmists depend on the fact that many conflate science with activism, and the alarmists certainly aren't going to correct any such misunderstanding.

Are the PNAP publications peer reviewed?

Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years

If I weren't so used to your strawmen, that post of yours would cause whiplash.

But it's funny you think that had anything to do with what I said.

 

[IanC]

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...

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.​

Of course, I'm stunned that folks didn't know this before. The IPCC reports have never been peer-reviewed. Additionally, the IPCC is a policy group, not a group that does science.

One of the fundamental issues with this whole thing is that the alarmists depend on the fact that many conflate science with activism, and the alarmists certainly aren't going to correct any such misunderstanding.

Si modo at least understands the basic underpinnings of the IPCC, unlike some of the posters here.

the actual climate science has been used as a combination of camoflauge and armor by the IPCC. the actual science discussed by the Working Groups is biased by the Lead Authors, with dissenting views minimalized or ignored altogether. even the biased position presented by the Working Groups is discarded if the Summary for Policy Makers disagrees with particular findings.

this is why the IAC was called in to scrutinize the methods of the IPCC and make recommendations to improve it. its report did not seem to make much of an impact and AR5 will be subjected to a blizzard of criticism that is warranted, which should in turn result in the demise of the IPCC. but U.N. projects never die, but they do get ignored and dismissed as useless once their futility is exposed, which will happen.

 

[daveman]

Daveboy, there ain't nothing going to save you from your willfull ignorance.

Really? An independent commission just told you that the IPCC has totally bastardized the peer-review process -- and you insist they did nothing wrong.

Now who's being willfully ignorant again?

 

[IanC]

Daveboy, there ain't nothing going to save you from your willfull ignorance.

Really? An independent commission just told you that the IPCC has totally bastardized the peer-review process -- and you insist they did nothing wrong.

Now who's being willfully ignorant again?

Old Rocks cannot even admit that Michael Mann is ethically challenged in his science. expecting him to change his opinion on the IPCC would be too great a change in his worldview for an old man to withstand.

 

[Old Rocks]

I see. And all the scientific societies are also mislead?

Both the American Geophysical Union and the Geological Society of America have very strong statements concerning global warming and it's cause. The American Meteorlogical Society has this statement;

http://www.ametsoc.org/amsnews/jointacademies.pdf

The American Meteorological Society (AMS), the nation's leading professional society
for those involved in the atmospheric and related sciences, has endorsed a recent
statement on climate change by the 11 national science academies.
The “Joint Academies’ Statement: Global Response to Climate Change,” released on 7
June by the U.S National Academy of Science and 10 other national science academies,
calls on world leaders to acknowledge the threat of climate change, address its causes,
and prepare for its consequences
The academies’ statement notes that sufficient scientific understanding of climate change
exists for all nations to identify cost-effective steps that can be taken now to contribute to
substantial and long-term reductions in net global greenhouse gas emissions that cause
global warming. The statement echoes the findings and recommendations of several
previous reports by the U.S. National Academies. The complete statement is available at
http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

When this was written the CO2 level was 375 ppm. Today it nearly 400 ppm. That differance is one quarter of the differance that seperates an interglacial from continental ice sheets. And we accomplished it in 7 years.

 

[Si modo]

Damn, Rocks doesn't even know what peer review is.

Yet he plays at science.