"Peer Review" now a Dead Letter

[Old Rocks]

Really?

 

[Oddball]

Seems I made a small error.

It wasn't the IPCC that admitted any wrongdoing (the notion of which was in fact shocking), it's the people who are charged with overseeing and auditing their practices, The InterAcademy Council.

About the IAC

In May 2000 all of the world's science academies created the IAC to mobilize the best scientists and engineers worldwide to provide high quality advice to international bodies - such as the United Nations and the World Bank - as well as to other institutions.

In a world where science and technology are fundamental to many critical issues - ranging from climate change and genetically modified organisms to the crucial challenge of achieving sustainability - making wise policy decisions has become increasingly dependent on good scientific advice.

The IAC is client-driven and works on a project-by-project basis. It has developed mechanisms and procedures to guarantee the scientific quality of its reports, the policy-relevance of its recommendations and the absence of regional or national bias. The IAC collaborates closely with the IAP - the global network of science academies, the InterAcademy Medical Panel, the International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences, and the International Council for Science. The IAC Secretariat is hosted by the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW) in Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

InterAcademy Council - About the IAC

So, it was the people that the UN/ IPCC hired to do their quality control who outed them as the frauds that they are.

That I stand corrected in this small matter is notwithstanding that the IPCC is a complete sham, as evidenced by the IAC audit and report.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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 In plain English: the IPCC reports are not peer-reviewed.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

Rules/FAQ - American Thinker

lol, no wonder odd-dude is so odd.

Because he reads things like this?

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/IAC_report/IAC_PR_Completion.pdf

 

[saveliberty]

Years of peer review retorts all down the drain huh Old Rocks? lol

Manipulated data in models which can't predict anything. Now the shame of politics within the community of faithers. Pretty much what we have said since day one here.

 

[Old Rocks]

Years of peer review retorts all down the drain huh Old Rocks? lol

Manipulated data in models which can't predict anything. Now the shame of politics within the community of faithers. Pretty much what we have said since day one here.

What on earth are you blathering about?

Here you can find reams of peer reviewed articles concerning AGW;

AGW Observer

 

[Annie]

Articles: IPCC Admits Its Past Reports Were Junk

What this is saying is that there was a systemic and controlled policy to prevent opposition testing results from being reported, though carrying the parameters of scientific method applications. The denial of being published, and subsequently 'peer reviewed' was unscientific by definition.

This not only speaks to the ''skeptics' it also speaks to those that are just plain arguing for science to prevail. Not money and not accolades.

 

[Old Rocks]

Really? So post us some links to what this oppositions evidence is that undermines the conclusions of the IPCC report. But make sure they are reports from real scientists, not on the tobacco and big energy companys payroll. As pointed out before, you can read reports in scientific journals from all over the world concerning the warming and it's affects.

Are you claiming that there is a conspiracy that is worldwide, involving most of the scientists in the world? For the information is being published in scientific journals in every nation in the world, and virtually all of it confirms the existance of AGW and the affects that we are seeing right now.

 

[Dr Grump]

The American Thinker piece was written by Joseph Bast, president of the heartland institute. What is the Heartland institute? Looks like a conservative think tank. Here's a list of people who support it.. including whackjob Mark Levin and GW denier Lord Monckton...

Move on, no agenda here...

http://heartland.org/media-library/pdfs/Endorsements.pdf

Odd, you sources suck..

 

[bripat9643]

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.

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.

Sorry, turd, but the IPCC keeps revising its predictions downward. In other words, even they admit their predictions have been far to extreme.

 

[Annie]

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.

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.

Sorry, turd, but the IPCC keeps revising its predictions downward. In other words, even they admit their predictions have been far to extreme.

Yep. They've failed, it's yet to catch up with them. Science may prove them right or wrong, but it won't be the way they thought. The $$$ are not going to come their way.

 

[skookerasbil]

The radical environmentalists think there are only special interests and money chasers on the denier side!!!


Does it get any gayer?


The radicals continue to think that this bomb throwing based upon slight flutctuations from the mean are going to result in a gigantic groundswell of support for the end of fossil fuels!!! Been doing the same shit for 20 years and to what effect? DICK. The impact is like a fly landing on the ass of a giant hog. Meanwhile, the money chasers ride all their passions straight to the Cayman Islands on thier 80 foot yacts!!!

 

[daveman]

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.

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.

You're utterly delusional.

 

[daveman]

I'm sure in your mind everything in the OP checks out. I suspect your didn't research the issue as long as everything in the OP confirmed what you wanted to hear.

Yes, because that's SO much worse than ignoring what you don't want to hear.

You know -- like you and Roxy are doing.

 

[Si modo]

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.

 

[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 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.

It's semantics you idiot, it's the emotional impact of the words used by you and the AT which mislead the reader. You know most of those who read your posts won't follow the link. I did, you lied and that along with sending me a neg rep telling me to "eat shit and die" demonstrates what a punk you really are.

 

[Oddball]

There's nothing misleading about it...The IAC determined that the IPCC conducted shoddy, worthless, fake "science" in favor of playing politics.

That is a fact and you cannot deny it...Well, you can deny it, but you look like an utter fool in doing so.....Par for the course.

 

[saveliberty]

The fall back position is they still have the mainstream media fooled.

 

[flacaltenn]

Years of peer review retorts all down the drain huh Old Rocks? lol

Manipulated data in models which can't predict anything. Now the shame of politics within the community of faithers. Pretty much what we have said since day one here.

What on earth are you blathering about?

Here you can find reams of peer reviewed articles concerning AGW;

AGW Observer

I actually READ the IAC report that this OP is all about.. OF COURSE the UN doesn't ever use the word FRAUD.. Not EVEN when it's STEALING from the widows and orphans in Iraq under the Oil for Food program. That was just "administrative irregularities"..

Or having a food riot in the cafeteria with UN employees stealing the silverware and the booze. That was just "an unauthorized food service".

But contrary to what Old Rocks is claiming here -- one of the BEEFs that the IAC had was that there were increasing amounts of NON-Peer-Reviewed content in the annual reports (i think approaching 40% in the latest) and that the review process often violated their own guidelines which were "incomplete" and "inconsistent" as the IAC put it.

Essentially, the IAC took the opportunity to DEMAND reorganization of the entire process.
And the UN complied without excuses or argument.

That's more than enough of a validation for what the dissenters have been saying for years.

 

[Bigfoot]

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.

 

[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.

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.

Sorry, turd, but the IPCC keeps revising its predictions downward. In other words, even they admit their predictions have been far to extreme.

Lordy, lordy, here we go again. Pattycake spouting ignorance for all to see.

The Copenhagen Diagnosis