"Peer Review" now a Dead Letter

[westwall]

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 In plain English: the IPCC reports are not peer-reviewed.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

Who is the IAC?

Can't follow a link?



InterAcademy Council - Home

 

[daveman]

There is not a single element of truth in your entire statement, unsurprising given the source, but you have moved beyond mere distortion and twisting into the complete fabrication of bald lies. Not that you were above such before, but there is a definite smell of desperation in their current bald application.

That would be the AGW cult you're smelling.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/199915-so-why-all-of-the-temp-adjustments.html

This says it all! Here is an excerpt from Hansens latest plea for help. This sort of verbiage only exists in the minds of the mentally challenged.i





"The precision achieved by the most advanced generation of radiation budget satellites is indicated by the planetary energy imbalance measured by the ongoing CERES (Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System) instrument (Loeb et al., 2009), which finds a measured 5-year-mean imbalance of 6.5 W/m2 (Loeb et al., 2009). Because this result is implausible, instrumentation calibration factors were introduced to reduce the imbalance to the imbalance suggested by climate models, 0.85 W/m2 (Loeb et al., 2009)."



http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/notyet/submitted_Hansen_etal.pdf

REAL scientists alter the model to reflect the data.

Climate scientists alter the data to fit the model.

 

[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

Who is the IAC?

The InterAcademy Council (IAC) produces reports on scientific, technological, and health issues related to the great global challenges of our time, providing knowledge and advice to national governments and international organizations.

InterAcademy Council - Home

 

[Trakar]

Only in the study of AGW are models given more credence than actual observations. The real physical sciences use models as a start point to lay out observational studies to be conducted in the real world. Those models are of course rarely accurate when compared with factual data. AGW "science" on the other hand almost exclusively bases it's findings on models. Models that have been proven so poor that random guesses are more accurate.

There is not a single element of truth in your entire statement, unsurprising given the source, but you have moved beyond mere distortion and twisting into the complete fabrication of bald lies. Not that you were above such before, but there is a definite smell of desperation in their current bald application.

Take a look at all the studies you have posted. Please note the percentage of those studies that are based on computer models. Get back to me when you have completed the review.

I have no reason to believe that the percentage of studies employing computer modelling for one aspect or another of those particular studies is any different from the percentage of scientific studies that utilize some aspect of computer modelling in other fields of research. If you feel that there is a significant difference in this regard please present your evidence.

One distorted example from a fringe internet political blog is hardly compelling evidence of what you assert. I look forward to reviewing your findings, data and methodology.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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



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

Who is the IAC?

The InterAcademy Council (IAC) produces reports on scientific, technological, and health issues related to the great global challenges of our time, providing knowledge and advice to national governments and international organizations.

InterAcademy Council - Home

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/InterAcademy_Panel

IAP statement on ocean acidification, 2009. Signed by 70 members. The academies state that ocean water acidity has risen due to increased carbon dioxide (CO2) caused by human activities, and that it probably will rise further with severe effects on marine ecosystems if the emission of CO2 does not decrease considerably. They urge the issue be recognized among the problems addressed by the United Nations Climate Change Conference 2009 in Copenhagen.

Did they say that global warming was wrong, or just that peer review wasn't as good as it should have been in this particular case?

InterAcademy Council Report Recommends Fundamental Reform of IPCC Management Structure

- and when this reform is undertaken, if the conclusions are the same, would you believe them? Nope.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

ATTN:

FIRST LINE of the report in question:

The process used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to produce its periodic assessment reports has been successful overallhttp://www.interacademycouncil.net/24770/27696.aspx

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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.

Here's the full paragraph, not selectively edited:

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.

InterAcademy Council - InterAcademy Council Report Recommends Fundamental Reform of IPCC Management Structure


One of the foundations of conservatism is in selectively editing what others had said and written in order to make it look the way they want it to.

 

[Oddball]

 

[Trakar]

Indeed, You and yours are a classic example of that. Yours is the only "science" that equates correlation with causation. No other science does that and the scientific method prohibits it. Yet that is the foundation of your field....

Neither Science, nor Statistics (which is the more proper reference with regards to correlation and causation) prohibit the connection of correlation and causation, in fact, correlation is most often the first, or primary, trait observed that is considered indicative of potential causation. The only thing statistics cautions against, is assuming that every correlation is indicative of causation.

Like I said, I wouldn't eat that corn (again) if I were you.

What I've found in good long science/engineering career is that WEAK data sets correlate with a WHOLE LOT of unrelated variables. Like in Dr. Dean Edells example of carrot consumption versus auto accidents.

You'll forgive my doubts, I have no way of knowing anything regarding your "good long science/engineering career" (feel free to support that assertion if you feel it important to establishing veracity for your arguments) I can only judge you by what you present on these boards, and nothing you've posted here indicates to me a strong HS science education yet alone a higher degree and multiple decade career in any physical science field. That said, as you say, all sorts of unfounded and even silly correlations exist if you look for them (hemlines, sunspots and stock prices for example). It is only through experimentation and observational variation surveys that strong correlations can be investigated for their potential to be causative factors. I've never claimed that all, or even many correlations are indicative of causal relationships.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I'm only quoting from the report YOU are using as evidence you IMBECILE.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Right. The ICPP failed to make sound quality control procedures, but we'll call them errors and then argue semantics for a while to obfuscate. It's right in the quote you took from the IAC

 

[flacaltenn]

Neither Science, nor Statistics (which is the more proper reference with regards to correlation and causation) prohibit the connection of correlation and causation, in fact, correlation is most often the first, or primary, trait observed that is considered indicative of potential causation. The only thing statistics cautions against, is assuming that every correlation is indicative of causation.

Like I said, I wouldn't eat that corn (again) if I were you.

What I've found in good long science/engineering career is that WEAK data sets correlate with a WHOLE LOT of unrelated variables. Like in Dr. Dean Edells example of carrot consumption versus auto accidents.

You'll forgive my doubts, I have no way of knowing anything regarding your "good long science/engineering career" (feel free to support that assertion if you feel it important to establishing veracity for your arguments) I can only judge you by what you present on these boards, and nothing you've posted here indicates to me a strong HS science education yet alone a higher degree and multiple decade career in any physical science field. That said, as you say, all sorts of unfounded and even silly correlations exist if you look for them (hemlines, sunspots and stock prices for example). It is only through experimentation and observational variation surveys that strong correlations can be investigated for their potential to be causative factors. I've never claimed that all, or even many correlations are indicative of causal relationships.

All I know is that it's obvious how desparate you are to link every anecdotal weather event to a 1w/m2 thermal bump over your lifetime.

I'm comfortable that none of my assertions are stretched as tight and couched in intentionally aggressive scientific intimidations as yours. I'm also very comfortable that my career experiences have created and contributed to more scientific advances than you have back issues of Popular Science.

Visual Evoked Responses, Optical Computing, Marine Mammal language parsing, Biometric Identification, Neural Network applications, Digital Subtraction Radiography/Tomography, RF Spectral Analysis/Signal Processing, KSC Shuttle Launch Instrumentation, Surface Acoustic Wave RFID, photon counting camera design, Earth Resource Satellite Image Analysis and 8 pieces of equipment in regular hospital/clinical use. Plus 6 years serving this country in capacities I can't disclose.. Any one of those you want to discuss? HS science? --- my ass...

 

[flacaltenn]

ATTN:

FIRST LINE of the report in question:

The process used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to produce its periodic assessment reports has been successful overallhttp://www.interacademycouncil.net/24770/27696.aspx

REALLY?? Did you read the actual IAC report??

http://reviewipcc.interacademycounc...tion of IPCC’s Assessment Processes.pdf

Recommendation
The IPCC should make the process and criteria for selecting participants for scoping
meetings more transparent.

The IPCC has no formal process or
criteria for selecting authors, although some Working Group Co-chairs established their own for the fourth assessment, considering factors such as scientific expertise and excellence, geography, gender, age, viewpoint,and the ability to work in teams.9 Establishing such criteria and applying
them in a transparent manner to all Working Groups would alleviate some of the frustrations voiced.

An analysis of the 14,000 references cited in the Third
Assessment Report found that peer-reviewed journal articles comprised 84
percent of references in Working Group I, but comprised only 59 percent
of references in Working Group II and 36 percent of references in
Working Group III (Bjurström and Polk, 2010).

Non-peer-reviewed sources are to be listed in the reference sections of
IPCC reports, followed by a statement that they are not peer-reviewed. The
objectives are to ensure that all information used in IPCC reports receives
some sort of critical evaluation and its use is open and transparent, and
that all references used in the reports are easily accessible.
Although the Committee finds that IPCC’s procedures in this respect
are adequate, it is clear that these procedures are not always followed.
Some of the errors discovered in the Fourth Assessment Report had been
attributed to poor handling of unpublished or non-peer-reviewed sources
(Ravindranath, 2010). Moreover, a search through the Working Group
reports of the fourth assessment found few instances of information
flagged as unpublished or non-peer-reviewed

Handling the full range of views

An assessment is intended to arrive at a judgment of a topic, such as the
best estimate of changes in average global surface temperature over a specified
time frame and its impacts on the water cycle. Although all reasonable
points of view should be considered, they need not be given equal
weight or even described fully in an assessment report. Which alternativeviewpoints warrant mention is a matter of professional judgment

Equally important is combating confirmation bias—the tendency of
authors to place too much weight on their own views relative to other
views (Jonas et al., 2001). As pointed out to the Committee by a presenter10
and some questionnaire respondents, alternative views are not always
cited in a chapter if the Lead Authors do not agree with them. Getting the
balance right is an ongoing struggle. However, concrete steps could also be
taken. For example, chapters could include references to all papers that
were considered by the authoring team and describe the authors’ rationale
for arriving at their conclusions.

Basically -- an admonishment to be more objective and honest.. UN folks don't use words like fraudulent or shoddy -- but the report basically took the IPCC process to the woodshed and shed the light on the POLITICAL PRESSURE to reach certain conclusions by showing that the majority of "review responses" came from NON-TECHNICAL members of the Committee -- ie the political apparachik of the IPCC.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

ATTN:

FIRST LINE of the report in question:

The process used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to produce its periodic assessment reports has been successful overallhttp://www.interacademycouncil.net/24770/27696.aspx

REALLY?? Did you read the actual IAC report??

http://reviewipcc.interacademycounc...tion of IPCC’s Assessment Processes.pdf

Recommendation
The IPCC should make the process and criteria for selecting participants for scoping
meetings more transparent.

The IPCC has no formal process or
criteria for selecting authors, although some Working Group Co-chairs established their own for the fourth assessment, considering factors such as scientific expertise and excellence, geography, gender, age, viewpoint,and the ability to work in teams.9 Establishing such criteria and applying
them in a transparent manner to all Working Groups would alleviate some of the frustrations voiced.

An analysis of the 14,000 references cited in the Third
Assessment Report found that peer-reviewed journal articles comprised 84
percent of references in Working Group I, but comprised only 59 percent
of references in Working Group II and 36 percent of references in
Working Group III (Bjurström and Polk, 2010).

Non-peer-reviewed sources are to be listed in the reference sections of
IPCC reports, followed by a statement that they are not peer-reviewed. The
objectives are to ensure that all information used in IPCC reports receives
some sort of critical evaluation and its use is open and transparent, and
that all references used in the reports are easily accessible.
Although the Committee finds that IPCC’s procedures in this respect
are adequate, it is clear that these procedures are not always followed.
Some of the errors discovered in the Fourth Assessment Report had been
attributed to poor handling of unpublished or non-peer-reviewed sources
(Ravindranath, 2010). Moreover, a search through the Working Group
reports of the fourth assessment found few instances of information
flagged as unpublished or non-peer-reviewed

Handling the full range of views

An assessment is intended to arrive at a judgment of a topic, such as the
best estimate of changes in average global surface temperature over a specified
time frame and its impacts on the water cycle. Although all reasonable
points of view should be considered, they need not be given equal
weight or even described fully in an assessment report. Which alternativeviewpoints warrant mention is a matter of professional judgment

Equally important is combating confirmation bias—the tendency of
authors to place too much weight on their own views relative to other
views (Jonas et al., 2001). As pointed out to the Committee by a presenter10
and some questionnaire respondents, alternative views are not always
cited in a chapter if the Lead Authors do not agree with them. Getting the
balance right is an ongoing struggle. However, concrete steps could also be
taken. For example, chapters could include references to all papers that
were considered by the authoring team and describe the authors’ rationale
for arriving at their conclusions.

Basically -- an admonishment to be more objective and honest.. UN folks don't use words like fraudulent or shoddy -- but the report basically took the IPCC process to the woodshed and shed the light on the POLITICAL PRESSURE to reach certain conclusions by showing that the majority of "review responses" came from NON-TECHNICAL members of the Committee -- ie the political apparachik of the IPCC.

They didn't take it to the woodshed. You deliberately exagerrate and falsely imply they are saying the report is fraudulent or shoddy when they have not in fact said that.


Not to mention you quite obviously only listen to what national academies of science have to say when it sounds good to you.

 

[flacaltenn]

ATTN:

FIRST LINE of the report in question:

The process used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to produce its periodic assessment reports has been successful overallhttp://www.interacademycouncil.net/24770/27696.aspx

REALLY?? Did you read the actual IAC report??

http://reviewipcc.interacademycounc...Evaluation of IPCC’s Assessment Processes.pdf

Recommendation
The IPCC should make the process and criteria for selecting participants for scoping
meetings more transparent.

The IPCC has no formal process or
criteria for selecting authors, although some Working Group Co-chairs established their own for the fourth assessment, considering factors such as scientific expertise and excellence, geography, gender, age, viewpoint,and the ability to work in teams.9 Establishing such criteria and applying
them in a transparent manner to all Working Groups would alleviate some of the frustrations voiced.

An analysis of the 14,000 references cited in the Third
Assessment Report found that peer-reviewed journal articles comprised 84
percent of references in Working Group I, but comprised only 59 percent
of references in Working Group II and 36 percent of references in
Working Group III (Bjurström and Polk, 2010).

Non-peer-reviewed sources are to be listed in the reference sections of
IPCC reports, followed by a statement that they are not peer-reviewed. The
objectives are to ensure that all information used in IPCC reports receives
some sort of critical evaluation and its use is open and transparent, and
that all references used in the reports are easily accessible.
Although the Committee finds that IPCC’s procedures in this respect
are adequate, it is clear that these procedures are not always followed.
Some of the errors discovered in the Fourth Assessment Report had been
attributed to poor handling of unpublished or non-peer-reviewed sources
(Ravindranath, 2010). Moreover, a search through the Working Group
reports of the fourth assessment found few instances of information
flagged as unpublished or non-peer-reviewed

Handling the full range of views

An assessment is intended to arrive at a judgment of a topic, such as the
best estimate of changes in average global surface temperature over a specified
time frame and its impacts on the water cycle. Although all reasonable
points of view should be considered, they need not be given equal
weight or even described fully in an assessment report. Which alternativeviewpoints warrant mention is a matter of professional judgment

Equally important is combating confirmation bias—the tendency of
authors to place too much weight on their own views relative to other
views (Jonas et al., 2001). As pointed out to the Committee by a presenter10
and some questionnaire respondents, alternative views are not always
cited in a chapter if the Lead Authors do not agree with them. Getting the
balance right is an ongoing struggle. However, concrete steps could also be
taken. For example, chapters could include references to all papers that
were considered by the authoring team and describe the authors’ rationale
for arriving at their conclusions.

Basically -- an admonishment to be more objective and honest.. UN folks don't use words like fraudulent or shoddy -- but the report basically took the IPCC process to the woodshed and shed the light on the POLITICAL PRESSURE to reach certain conclusions by showing that the majority of "review responses" came from NON-TECHNICAL members of the Committee -- ie the political apparachik of the IPCC.

They didn't take it to the woodshed. You deliberately exagerrate and falsely imply they are saying the report is fraudulent or shoddy when they have not in fact said that.


Not to mention you quite obviously only listen to what national academies of science have to say when it sounds good to you.

You replied within 2 minutes of my post -- guess reading the link didn't interest you. You just want to spew. These folks are not reviewing pencil jockey papers for astrophysics. These folks are in charge of a technical evaluation that affects every person on the planet.

Shoddy is when you don't follow your own guidelines.

Although the Committee finds that IPCC’s procedures in this respect
are adequate, it is clear that these procedures are not always followed.

That's not debateable in scientific communities is it honey?

I'll stick with SHODDY.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

REALLY?? Did you read the actual IAC report??



Basically -- an admonishment to be more objective and honest.. UN folks don't use words like fraudulent or shoddy -- but the report basically took the IPCC process to the woodshed and shed the light on the POLITICAL PRESSURE to reach certain conclusions by showing that the majority of "review responses" came from NON-TECHNICAL members of the Committee -- ie the political apparachik of the IPCC.

They didn't take it to the woodshed. You deliberately exagerrate and falsely imply they are saying the report is fraudulent or shoddy when they have not in fact said that.


Not to mention you quite obviously only listen to what national academies of science have to say when it sounds good to you.

You replied within 2 minutes of my post -- guess reading the link didn't interest you. You just want to spew. These folks are not reviewing pencil jockey papers for astrophysics. These folks are in charge of a technical evaluation that affects every person on the planet.

Shoddy is when you don't follow your own guidelines.

Although the Committee finds that IPCC’s procedures in this respect
are adequate, it is clear that these procedures are not always followed.

That's not debateable in scientific communities is it honey?

I'll stick with SHODDY.

I actually read the entire quoted section. Do you find it amazing I could read all that in 2 minutes?

 

[flacaltenn]

They didn't take it to the woodshed. You deliberately exagerrate and falsely imply they are saying the report is fraudulent or shoddy when they have not in fact said that.


Not to mention you quite obviously only listen to what national academies of science have to say when it sounds good to you.

You replied within 2 minutes of my post -- guess reading the link didn't interest you. You just want to spew. These folks are not reviewing pencil jockey papers for astrophysics. These folks are in charge of a technical evaluation that affects every person on the planet.

Shoddy is when you don't follow your own guidelines.

Although the Committee finds that IPCC’s procedures in this respect
are adequate, it is clear that these procedures are not always followed.

That's not debateable in scientific communities is it honey?

I'll stick with SHODDY.

I actually read the entire quoted section. Do you find it amazing I could read all that in 2 minutes?

Not really -- speed without comprehension isnt' amazing at all. What's amazing is that I gave you a link to the IAC Chapter that I read IN TOTAL and which obviously you haven't because you'd rather use 36 point to outline the 5 words you found in the OP to support your assertions.. THAT'S amazing..

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

You replied within 2 minutes of my post -- guess reading the link didn't interest you. You just want to spew. These folks are not reviewing pencil jockey papers for astrophysics. These folks are in charge of a technical evaluation that affects every person on the planet.

Shoddy is when you don't follow your own guidelines.



That's not debateable in scientific communities is it honey?

I'll stick with SHODDY.

I actually read the entire quoted section. Do you find it amazing I could read all that in 2 minutes?

Not really -- speed without comprehension isnt' amazing at all. What's amazing is that I gave you a link to the IAC Chapter that I read IN TOTAL and which obviously you haven't because you'd rather use 36 point to outline the 5 words you found in the OP to support your assertions.. THAT'S amazing..

I assumed you quoted the relevant portions. Did you not?

 

[flacaltenn]

I actually read the entire quoted section. Do you find it amazing I could read all that in 2 minutes?

Not really -- speed without comprehension isnt' amazing at all. What's amazing is that I gave you a link to the IAC Chapter that I read IN TOTAL and which obviously you haven't because you'd rather use 36 point to outline the 5 words you found in the OP to support your assertions.. THAT'S amazing..

I assumed you quoted the relevant portions. Did you not?

Now that's funny.. You're relying ON ME to summarize it for you? I don't know, i took some notes while I was reading it.. Ever occur to you that reading original source is usually best?

You got me laughing there. Because it's so absurb when normally bright people get a political bug up their rear to defend something as irrevelent as the UN..

 

[Trakar]

Not really -- speed without comprehension isnt' amazing at all. What's amazing is that I gave you a link to the IAC Chapter that I read IN TOTAL and which obviously you haven't because you'd rather use 36 point to outline the 5 words you found in the OP to support your assertions.. THAT'S amazing..

I assumed you quoted the relevant portions. Did you not?

Now that's funny.. You're relying ON ME to summarize it for you? I don't know, i took some notes while I was reading it.. Ever occur to you that reading original source is usually best?...

Funny you should mention that,...or should I have said "ironic"?