JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

Australian Environment Conference Oct 20 2012


micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



The IPCC: 5,600 small white lies

It’s a case of Big-Spin and Bluster. It’s what they do: aggressively push a simple message, a theme, a piece of marketing, and like all the rest of their audacious PR, it’s at best a half-truth, and in this case, a lie.

Image: IPCC AR4 Synthesis Report not peer reviewed

Rajendra Pachauri states:

IPCC studies only peer-review science. Let someone publish the data in a decent credible publication. I am sure IPCC would then accept it, otherwise we can just throw it into the dustbin.

As usual, it’s honest volunteers who have conscientiously tested the IPCC by going through 18,500 references. And the final total? Fully 5,600, or 30% of their references are not peer reviewed.

Donna LaFramboise at NoConsensus has coordinated the dedicated team (that is a lot of references to go through).

How many times do we need to show they are incompetent and dishonest?

Why this matters

Make no mistake, this “number” of papers tells us nothing about the climate either way. And we skeptics are not so fussy about “peer review” vs non-peer review in any case, what matters to us is good logic, transparent data and methods, and top-notch design. We know that the haloed “peer review” is a human politico-social process which was never that stringent, and has been corrupted of late. We also know that even at it’s best, peer review is just a few unpaid, anonymous authors–it’s hardly rigorous, and plenty of uninspiring stuff gets published in peer reviewed journals, stuff that turns out to be wrong.

So why bother tallying them up? It’s the IPCC that made this point matter. They are the ones who market themselves as being holier than thou, as being superior experts, who only use peer reviewed evidence. Peer-review has been their gate-keeper: on the one hand they “own” the journals and simply reject contrary viewpoints, and on the other they convinced much of the less science-savvy world that peer-review matters and is a mark of quality. Their bluster is almost totally based on the fallacious argument from authority and backed up by a few half-truths.

Every time the IPCC have spat on a scientist with “that’s not peer reviewed”, they have set themselves up to look like duplicitous fools when caught relying on student theses, magazine articles and boot cleaning guides.

What matters here is not that the IPCC only have 70% of their references “peer reviewed”, what matters is that they have been exposed as fakers. They lied. They poured scorn on anyone who put forward arguments, that no matter how strong, had not jumped through the rigged, bureaucratic hurdle known as peer review.

They are all bluff, bluster and spin. They can’t name and explain any empirical evidence that supports the feedback effects they claim cause anything from 2 – 11 degrees of warming (especially from the major ones, water vapor and cloud cover). Remember, deception with financial implications is fraud.

The whole report is available from NoConsensus. Thanks to Donna and the team of helpers who did the mammoth undertaking of sorting so diligently through that list.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.0/10 (3 votes cast)
The IPCC: 5,600 small white lies, 9.0 out of 10 based on 3 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/2ek77hs

173 comments to The IPCC: 5,600 small white lies

  • #

    I’m quite proud to say I was samll part of this project, as an auditor. I audited 7 chapters.
    Each chapter was checked over independently by three different auditors. You can check the results of each auditor a, b or c under each chapter listed here (scroll down):
    http://www.noconsensus.org/ipcc-audit/findings-detailed.php

    All auditors were instructed to give references the benefit of the doubt if we weren’t sure whether it was or wan’t peer-reviewed.
    Of course there will be disagrement as to the definition of “peer-reviewed”. But the IPCC defined it themselves…to bad they didn’t stick by it.
    If you click on a, b, c under each chapter, you will see there were no huge disparities between the auditors; they all pretty much ended up with the same counts.

    This was a great team effort and Donna needs to be congratulated for running this. It was a real pleasure to work for her.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    papertiger

    Hey Goss. You’re the man!

    (I was wondering what happened – what he was up to lately. Now I know.)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Very very nicely done! Lets see what the Warmists have to say about this………


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Wait for it guys… they’ll find a dozen non-peer reviewed refs that legitimately have a reason for being there, claim they never said every reference was “peer reviewed”, they’ll complain that we’re just sour-pusses ‘cos we can’t name 12,000 peer reviewed references (give me $5 million and five years) and then they’ll call us proven dishonest liars who must’ve been paid…
    All I can say is Rajendra Pachauri said “Voo Doo science” – let his arrogant bluff bite him back.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    papertiger

    I have a quibble.
    Under the heading “OUR METHODOLOGY” Donna says;

    Most chapters in the IPCC report contain hundreds of references. Not every reference is adequately documented, and classifying some as peer-reviewed or gray literature involves a measure of discretion. Our How-To Guide advised auditors to: “Give the IPCC the benefit of the doubt.”

    Each chapter was examined by three citizen auditors working independently of each other (often on different continents). On those occasions in which the auditors arrived at slightly different results, the span between the highest and lowest result does not exceed five percent. We used the result most favorable to the IPCC to calculate our findings.

    Look here at a google search of RealClimate for “Pat Michaels”(124 separate smears).
    And another for “Richard Lindzen”(207 separate smears).
    And my good friend “Lubos Motl” (85 smears).

    When has the IPCC or their press agency ever given climate realists, and by extention the entire human race, a fair shake, or the benefit of a doubt?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Grant

    Dr Pachauri – I recommend the beef, bacon and mushroom from the bakery in my town. Though it is hardly a humble pie – it has won awards.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Joe Veragio

    4Jo:
    April 15th, 2010 at 3:23 am

    Wait for it guys… they’ll find a dozen non-peer reviewed refs that legitimately have a reason for being there, claim they never said every referen…..

    True. Perhaps better then to focus on the individual fantastic claims they’ve been used to justify. Of the 5600, study how each one’s been used , to see how fantastic are theclaims they’ve been used to justify. Should be quite a few more “gates”, out of 5600.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Joe Veragio

    For what it’s worth, then how many of the remaining ~60 % were reviewed by a closed cabal of co-conspirators. Does the hallowed peer review process allow us to verify that ?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Should we now call this: PEER GATE? REVIEW GATE?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tony

    Those of us who have studied this subject for several years and have not accepted the “concensus” will not be surprised by the outcome of this analysis. What this mammoth work does do is to give further credence to the paucity of truth of AGW proponents and supports the sceptical stance of the growing numbers, even the majority, of people who do not accept Government positions. We should not be surprised but we shall need to continue to press the sceptical position because politicians don’t listen to things that don’t agree with their theories.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Joe Veragio

    Realise how the dedicated revieweres have just enhanced it’s credibility.

    Reviewed by 40 skeptics from 12 countries who couldn’t find anything wrong…

    (in the way they say these things – Porkies notwithstanding).


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #

    Phil Jones will just redefine what constitutes Peer Review, as in…

    “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep
    them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !
    Cheers
    Phil”
    http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=419&filename=1089318616.txt


    Report this

    00

  • #

    On the one hand they “own” the journals and simply reject contrary viewpoints, and on the other, they’ve convinced much of the less science-savvy world that peer-review matters and is a mark of quality.

    Something we need to remember, and emphasise, is that the IPCC is actually a three-tier organisation (or four-tier, depending on how you count).

    At the lowest level are the “humble” scientists who are the foot-soldiers and cannon-fodder for the AGW campaign. They consist of the lead authors and chapter authors, and also the technical editors (the extra level, if you are counting).

    The next highest level is the bureaucracy that direct operations to achieve a set of unstated (and perhaps secret) objectives. This group lives and dies by the rules. If you question any of them on the quality of the material in the reports they will point to the peer review process (as Pachauri has done, on numerous occasions). But peer review is not, and never has been, a measure or assessment of quality.[1] But who cares, quality does not really matter to them anyway. They are measured by achieving their objectives.

    At the highest level are the politicians (some of whom are indistinguishable from, or interchangeable with, the senior bureaucrats). These are the folks who are setting the agenda. They are not advised by the bureaucrats. They set the parameters that the bureaucrats need to work within. It is a symbiotic relationship. This is why none of the revelations that have flowed from ClimateGate, and none of the excellent work done by Donna and her team (who I have tremendous respect for) will make a jot of difference to the political or bureaucratic mind. Quality (and truth) are meaningless abstract concepts at this level of society.

    The best we can hope for is to see the deck-chairs shuffled yet again, perhaps with a few being thrown over the side if better replacements are available.

    If this gets into the MSM I will be a lot more optimistic, but on previous records ….. ?

    [1] Measuring or assessing quality requires an established and agreed measure of what “quality” means – I don’t recall seeing one, has anybody?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    P Gosselin: #1

    I agree with papertiger – “You is the man, bro.”

    Being number one on the comments list for this post says it all.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MadJak

    What I don’t understand is this:

    Why are our governments acting on such a fraudulent set of documents?

    Are all our government decisions based on similarly fraudulent documents?

    Why are our tax dollars paying to fund said fraudulent documents?

    Why are our tax dollars being burnt in a pathetic attempt to defend said fraudulent documents?

    Why have none of the worlds governments picked up on what is essentially a basic check?

    Why was this left for 3 years?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rod Smith

    Rereke Whaakaro: The best we can hope for is to see the deck-chairs shuffled yet again, perhaps with a few being thrown over the side if better replacements are available.

    Unfortunately, I suspect you are very, very close to the mark, and I imagine the U.S. will again fund a huge proportion of this “more of the same” funny business with large gobs of borrowed money.

    As I look back on the early doings of the UN, one of the earliest was the creation of Israel, which has been a tinderbox in the mideast ever since. In short, it created as many or more problems than it solved. Then there was the UN sponsored Korean War, which was never properly terminated and is to this day a large problem. As a mater of fact, I really can’t think of much they can claim as real accomplishments over the past half century.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Joe Veragio

    “… Peer-review has been their gate-keeper: …”

    LOL :-)

    The fig leaf, behind which were hiding all those gates.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Joe Spencer

    It’s All Peer Reviewed Science, Jim
    – just not as we know it…


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Doodman

    In the end, isn’t it pretty undeniable that humans are having an impact on the earth? I mean, you’ve seen garbage by the side of the road and you know plastics aren’t biodegradable. You know that pesticides are harmful to more than just the insects they’re meant for. As far as CO2, its pretty well accepted in fields ranging from paleontology to climatology that it does act as a “green house” gas. There is evidence for this throughout the earth’s history. The bottom line is pretty obvious, humans are having a negative affect on the earth. Why can’t we all just agree on that obvious point instead of proposing massive conspiracy theories? I mean sure, Al Gore does stand to gain if global warming is true. So what? Its common sense that keeping the earth livable is good for everyone and everything. So some of this report might be BS. EVERYTHING that involves a bunch of organizations and bureaucracy has BS.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Dave N

    papertiger:

    Since skeptics tend to lean towards the side of caution, they’re less inclined to stoop to the level of alarmists.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Before folks get too carried away with this theme, remember that the IPCC’s guidelines clearly call for non-peer-reviewed material to be considered as well. Anyone caught stating that the IPCC considers only peer-reviewed marterial is simply wrong. I am not defending the IPCC, simply stating facts. Have a look at the IPCC site and browse through the procedures links if you doubt this.

    Having sdaid that… 30% non-peer-reviewed material seems extremely high for a publication seeking to profer itself as the bible on climate change science. I imagine there are a lot of skeptical references in the 30% … not.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Doodman:

    No one debates that there are man-made environmental disasters out there. Just look at some of the USA’s Superfund sites for examples. Ironically, had Yellowstone Park’s geysers been man made they would be one of the biggest environmental disasters man ever made… but I digress…

    The point is that the skeptics are not proposing multi-trillion dollar international policies & taxes. Herein lies the slight difference between the sides of the debate, no?

    As the more astute environmentalists say, like David Bellamy and Bjorn Lomborg for instance, we need to look at environmental issues that face the planet now, not a possible, and very unlikely, doomsday scenarios conjured by scientifically unsubstantiated computer models. The latter is simply Club of Rome garbage all over again. In fact, some of the same players are behind it. The Club of Rome was very wrong in “Limits to Growth” just as the IPCC is very wrong about some of it’s projections based on assumptions. The computer models are more sophisticated now… that doesn’t make them any less sensitive to variiations in paramaters based on assumptions (not science).

    Boiled down to a simple formula:

    Computer models =/= proven science


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] Jo Nova comment – 5600 lies ; Airvent comment ; [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Someone stop me if I’m wrong but isn’t peer review worthless as far as proving anything? Perhaps we should put it before the public just how worthless it is. Come to think about it, we should shove the worthlessness of the whole thing back at the IPCC as well.

    Peer review and $3.50 in your pocket will get you a cup of coffee in any good restaurant around here. These people are getting away with murder by implying that it proves them right. It’s a fraud to imply that you’re right because of peer review, even if it’s done right.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    RealClimate had this post only a matter of weeks ago:
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/02/ipcc-errors-facts-and-spin/
    Including the following, which quite openly discusses that non-peer reviewed articles were assessed, especially for WG2 and WG3 that do not specifically deal with the core science:
    The three working groups are:

    Working Group 1 (WG1), which deals with the physical climate science basis, as assessed by the climatologists, including several of the Realclimate authors.

    Working Group 2 (WG2), which deals with impacts of climate change on society and ecosystems, as assessed by social scientists, ecologists, etc.

    Working Group 3 (WG3) , which deals with mitigation options for limiting global warming, as assessed by energy experts, economists, etc.

    The quote from the realclimate blog:

    “Gray literature: The IPCC cites 18,000 references in the AR4; the vast majority of these are peer-reviewed scientific journal papers. The IPCC maintains a clear guideline on the responsible use of so-called “gray” literature, which are typically reports by other organizations or governments. Especially for Working Groups 2 and 3 (but in some cases also for 1) it is indispensable to use gray sources, since many valuable data are published in them: reports by government statistics offices, the International Energy Agency, World Bank, UNEP and so on. This is particularly true when it comes to regional impacts in the least developed countries, where knowledgeable local experts exist who have little chance, or impetus, to publish in international science journals.

    Reports by non-governmental organizations like the WWF can be used (as in the Himalaya glacier and Amazon forest cases) but any information from them needs to be carefully checked (this guideline was not followed in the former case). After all, the role of the IPCC is to assess information, not just compile anything it finds. Assessment involves a level of critical judgment, double-checking, weighing supporting and conflicting pieces of evidence, and a critical appreciation of the methodology used to obtain the results. That is why leading researchers need to write the assessment reports – rather than say, hiring graduate students to compile a comprehensive literature review.”

    So this NoConsensus report, to me, is a typical smoke and mirrors set up to attack a strawman.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Roy Hogue:
    Peer review is as good as the system and participants allow it to be. Clearly some systems are likely to provide more “robust” results than others. Numerous improvements have been suggested, but it is essentially up to the periodicals that run them.

    Things that might improve the system:

    1) Double blind reviews – neither the author knows who the reviewers are or vice versa. This could easily be circumnavigated… people recognise each others’ writing styles.

    2) Freedom of information – provide all data and methodology associated with a paper so that it can be reviewed by anyone (not all journals insist on this).

    3) Ensuring reviewers from unrelated but relevant fields. Classic example would be to have a statistician review a climate science paper if there is heavy use of statistics. Too many “climate scientists” have shown themselves to be wanting in this field despite heavy reliance on statistics in many papers.

    The list goes on… peer reviews ain’t peer reviews. Often it is just a small group of scientists revieweing each others’ work. This is particularly prevalent in small fields of research. I know from personal experience – not many people specilise in Mineral Economics, for example. I recognise many of the names in the field even 2 decades after graduating.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Upon further investigation at: http://www.noconsensus.org/ipcc-audit/IPCC-report-card.php

    it is clear that of the 11 Chapters in WG1, the core science, 8 received an A, and 3 received a B, from this supposedly damning report!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Grant

    MattB @ #28 …”8 received an A, and 3 received a B”
    …while ONLY 21 were rated an F.

    And no one has characterised it as a “supposedly damning report”. It has been pointed out that the auditors gave the IPCC the benefit of the doubt in cases where the status of the material was unclear.

    Accentuate the positive. Eliminate the negative.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bernd Felsche

    The next stage of post-mortem is to analyse which and to what extent, the peer-reviewed literature supports the IPCC Report(s).

    Reading some of the 4AR reviewers’ comments (e.g. Vince Gray’s), I gather that a lot of what is actually in the reports cannot be supported by the “evidence”. Some contributors have publically stated that what they have written was mis-appropriated or mis-interpreted to support something unrelated.

    The IPCC Reports are, more than anything else, political documents because they provide predominately supporting evidence and dismiss without rigour, those things which contradict.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Grant in 29. No, no chapters in WG1 report received anything less than a B. There were only 11 chapters. 8As and 3 Bs. There were no 21 WG1 chapters that received an F sorry.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Also – I’m not sure you know what supposedly damning report means.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Jo

    And Phil Jones admits that none of the peer reviewers ever asked for his raw data anyway! So a fair to very high proportion of the AGW papers may well have been peer reviewed in name alone.

    I agree – the peer review system is more one of muzzling the opposition and creating a verisilimitude of scientific truth.

    Cheers,

    Speedy


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Madjak @ #16

    “Why are our governments acting on such a fraudulent set of documents?”

    This is easy to answer – our governments are actually running the AGW agenda, not as disinterested third parties. Most of the EU governments are socialist, as is the US, Australia, NZ, Canada etc.

    AGW is a socialist agenda , although they prefer to be called progressives, with one goal in mind – a world-wide quasi-socialist system with the bureaucracies determing what we can and cannot do.

    It was never about the science from the start.

    Why have none of the worlds governments picked up on what is essentially a basic check?

    Why should they run a check? They’re the ones doing the science to support their agenda.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    MattB: #26
    April 15th, 2010 at 11:54 am

    Matt your hypocrasy is breathtaking. Don’t you recall your lengthy debate with Richard S Courtney in February?
    You disparaged Richard because he referred to one of his papers published in the Energy and Environment journal. Here is what you said (to your shame)

    MattB:
    February 13th, 2010 at 1:05 am

    Also – do you have that in a peer reviewed scientific journal? Or just E&E?

    But when a bunch of volunteers expose thousands of IPCC references to non-peer reviewed papers, magazine articles, newspaper clippings, discussion papers etc, you defend the IPCC.

    And how do you do that? By your own reading and understanding of the Citizens Audit process? NO, you immediately jump across to realclimate so that you can get some comments to meme back here.
    Real original Matt, well done. Some would say that’s a Lemming behaviour.

    You’ve also totally misunderstood the purpose of the Citizens Audit, go back and read it. Here is the relevant section

    PEER-REVIEWED LITERATURE CLAIM
    The chairman of the IPCC has declared repeatedly that the report is based solely on peer-reviewed literature. (This means research papers that have been submitted to an academic journal, scrutinized by anonymous referees, and frequently altered in order to qualify for publication. Although the peer-review process does not guarantee accuracy, the fact that research findings have undergone this process promotes a feeling of confidence.)

    This Citizen Audit focused its attention on the peer-reviewed literature claim.

    And if you don’t believe the claim that the IPCC chairman repeatedly declared that his report is based solely on peer reviewed literature, then read at this link.
    It even includes a video of Pachauri stating his claim.
    The most relevant one being the one Jo listed at the very first quote of this thread

    IPCC studies only peer-review science. Let someone publish the data in a decent credible publication. I am sure IPCC would then accept it, otherwise we can just throw it into the dustbin.

    So if we are to “throw into the dustbin” even a quarter of the listed grey literature referred to by the IPCC, it leaves the report like a swiss cheese.

    Your claim that the main part of the report, (WG1 the science basis) passes is irrelevant.
    You and I know that what policymakers are interested in is what consequences are there if the globe warms as much as WG1 says. Those consequences, their costs of mitigation etc are spelled out in WG2 and WG3. These 2 working groups are the MOST IMPORTANT as far as policy makers and citizens are concerned.
    Afterall, what if a rise of 2 or 3 degC made very little difference to our lives? WG1 would then be irrelevant wouldn’t it?

    So therefore, the fact that WG2 and WG3 failed miserably is of immense interest.

    Can you see that Matt or are you so blinkered?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Anne-Kit Littler

    The price of freedom is indeed eternal vigilance: This item on p. 10 of yesterday’s West Australian Newspaper caught my eye. The Australian didn’t feature it and the original article as referenced by the West Australian was in the Sydney Morning Herald but under a much smaller headline.

    I can’t find a link to it online so quoting in its entirety:

    Carbon tax plan aims to break ETS deadlock

    Key supporters of the Federal Government’s climate change policies are backing an alternative proposal for a two-year carbon tax to break a deadlock on the proposed emissions trading scheme.

    The Climate Institute, WWF and the Australian Council of Social Services, who have long endorsed the stalled trading scheme, yesterday joined abroad coalition of green groups, unions and welfare bodies urging the Rudd Government to adopt the tax proposal from the Greens.

    The Greens proposal, which was lifted from the Government’s Garnaut Review into climate change, would tax greenhouse gases at $23/tonne for two years.

    Part of the money raised would be used to compensate households and trade exposed industries for cost increases.

    The tax would be a precursor to an emissions trading scheme that caps the amount of greenhouse gases emitted by industry and requires companies to buy permits for each tonne of carbon they want to emit.

    In a letter to Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, the coalition – which includes the Australia Conservation Foundation, Greenpeace and the Victorian National Tertiary Education Union – urged the Government to act on climate change before the next Federal election. “While separately our organisations support a range of actions, we all support, at the least, an immediate two-year levy on carbon pollution from Australia’s biggest emitters,” the letter says.

    Climate Change Minister Penny Wong and Greens Senator Christine Milne have been in negotiations about the tax proposal, though Senator Milne said yesterday those talks had now stalled.

    Both the Government and Greens have contacted dissident Liberal Senators Judith Troeth and Sue Boyce and independent Senator Nick Xenophon about their potential support for the tax – which none have given – that would be needed to pass the proposal in the Senate.

    At a news conference yesterday to announce the support of the key environment groups, Greens leader Bob Brown said he was “in a mood to do a deal”, indicating preparedness to compromise on elements of the proposal, including compensation to industry and the cost per tonne of carbon.

    A spokeswoman for Senator Wong said the Government shared the frustration of the environmental groups that “action on climate change is being stalled in Australia by (Opposition Leader) Tony Abbott”.

    Another Senate vote on the emissions trading scheme has been put off until late next month.”

    A few things stand out:

    That the tax would be a PRECURSOR for an emissions trading scheme.

    That a TERTIARY EDUCATION UNION throws its hat in the ring.

    That JUDITH TROETH, SUE BOYCE and NICK XENOPHON have been targeted by both the Government and the Greens.

    Guys, this thing is far from dead. There are termites burrowing under our feet and before we know it we may find ourselves with a stealth tax that can’t be shifted, leading into a full-blown ETS. Frogs, pots, water and stovetops come to mind.

    It is time to call for another email/letter/phone campaign targeting the three MPs above. Alert other blogs and all your contacts and let’s get the ball rolling …

    Sue Boyce: (02) 6277 3188, senator.sue.boyce@aph.gov.au
    Judith Troeth: (02) 6277 3785, senator.troeth@aph.gov.au
    Nick Xenophone: (02) 6277 3552, senator.xenophon@aph.gov.au


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    The hypocrisy is indeed breathtaking. Demanding perfection on one side while ignoring your own sides imperfections……Mattb I was starting to like you…..


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Humbug, the 2007 IPCC report has been in the public domain for 3 years with the references plain for all to see – so I guess if Pachauri said that then he is wrong. How does that impact on the validity of the IPCC reports in any way? However, the IPCC review itself is a peer review process so very little that did not stand up to scientific scrutiny made it through. Which could be Pachuari’s emphasis – I don’t know I’m not him.

    And fine you can base you entire assessment of my opinion on E&E on a blog post aimed at winding Richard up a bit. Feel free.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    So how do you guys work against this quote from my above paras from RC?

    “Especially for Working Groups 2 and 3 (but in some cases also for 1) it is indispensable to use gray sources, since many valuable data are published in them: reports by government statistics offices, the International Energy Agency, World Bank, UNEP and so on.”

    Is there any chance we can ask the people of NoConsensus to refine their analysis so that it explains how many references would be from such sources? i.e. entirely credible but not technically “peer reviewed”.

    I’d like to know how many actual scientific statements or conclusions or whatever were sourced from non-peer reviewed science. That is what we are arguing here no? The science?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    MattB: $39

    Wrong, it’s not about the science but about the dishonesty of the IPCC Chair stating the AR4 was based purely on peer-reviewed papers.

    And science is not argued either, though you might believe it is. But I do accept that pseudosciene is arguable, and in that case your statement is correct.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Peter of Sydney

    Of course the IPCC is dishonest. However, this will not alter the fact that the AGW alarmists will win the day eventually, thanks to the lack of honesty by the media and cover-ups by the governments. They have time on their side so all they have to do is wait. The public will lose interest and the AGW alarmists will succeed, thanks to the large proportion of apathetic and brain dead voters of this and other western countries.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    So ok I’ll audit the auditors – just a mini one. I’m starting from the top of their list at: http://www.noconsensus.org/ipcc-audit/findings-detailed.php

    1st one is Working Group 3, Chapter 1 of which the claim is made that of 50 references, a shocking 24% are peer-reviewed with 38 not reviewed.

    In the order they appear in the text. So you don’t have to read on the findings are that the 1st 4 references in WG3Ch1 are not from the peer reviewed literature – but clearly they are entirely valid references and it is absurd to suggest otherwise. This is a witch hunt nothing more nothing less.

    Reference 49: UN, 1992: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, United Nations, New York.

    The reference is simply say what the Article 2 of the UNFCCC says. Would you expect that in a science peer reviewed journal?

    Reference 29: IPCC, 2007a: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B.M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 996 pp.

    Here they are referencing the WG1 report, which of course NoConsensus gives an A for the most part as being based on peer reviewed science.

    Reference 30: IPCC, 2007b: Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Parry, M.L., O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden, C.E. Hanson (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

    So they are referencing WGII report. Can you see this is a bit ludicrous to be saying this is not a valid reference? It is a very general quote.

    REf 43. Rijsberman, F.J., and R.J. Swart (eds.), 1990: Targets and Indicators of Climate Change. Stockholm Environment Institute, 1666 pp.

    Bejebus this is the “World Meteorological Organization (WMO)/International Council of Scientific Unions (ICSU)/UN Environment Programme (UNEP) Advisory Group on Greenhouse Gases (AGGG)” Which is based on what science had to offer in 1998


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Louis please spare me your science is not debated bullcrap.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    MattB: #38
    April 15th, 2010 at 3:20 pm
    Now your obfuscating Matt. I SPELLED OUT THE PURPOSE OF THE AUDIT FOR YOU in my post #35. So your comment below is irrelevant.

    so I guess if Pachauri said that then he is wrong. How does that impact on the validity of the IPCC reports in any way?

    And what do you mean IF? IF? How many cited quotes do you need? Wasn’t a VIDEO of Pacha stating with his own mouth that the IPCC report is all PR enough for you? IF my ar#e

    How does it impact the validity of the IPCC reports in any way?
    Are you blind man? Making claims based on student dissertations, newspaper clippings and magazine articles doesn’t impact on the validity of this so called gold standard report for you? Amazing.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Paul Z.

    Dear Americans, Harry Reid is laying the groundwork to push through a new cap-and-trade bill in the US:
    http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/91761-reid-pushing-very-hard-for-climate-bill

    We all know this is not about saving the environment, but rather to provide a financial windfall to Obama’s administration to fund their BIG GOVERNMENT agenda. There is already a precedent for this: In Australia, the prime minister Kevin Rudd’s attempt to ram through an emissions trading scheme in parliament last year to create a $120 billion gov slush fund ended in abject failure and humiliation.

    Let’s get real for one second. The US government doesn’t give a shit about you. They let you buy guns and cancer-causing cigarettes at Walmart–think about it. Why would they be so concerned about saving you from global warming?

    Is it because global warming is Obama’s ticket to guilt middle-class taxpayers into willingly paying for huge increase in taxes? Note that Obama promised “no new taxes” during his campaign for president. Unfortunately, the only certainties in life are death, taxes, and lying politicians.

    Here’s my challenge to Obama: if global warming is real as you say, then quit smoking RIGHT FUCKING NOW because YOU are adding more co2 to the atmosphere that MY taxpayer money will end up being used to pay for.

    Further note how Obama is attempting to circumvent the democratic electoral process by forcing through carbon taxes via EPA rulings.

    I’m sorry to say that England and The Brits are fucked. Their government is so deeply involved in carbon emissions trading that there is no way back for them, short of a citizen revolution. I would not be surprised to see an uprising similar to the recent one in Kyrgyzstan (caused by high energy prices and cronyism) take place in the UK in the next 5 to 10 years.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    And then to spare me trolling each reference from the WGIII report,lets just look at the list of references as per no-consensus, the ones they say are not peer reviewed.

    Ref 1: An economic assessment of avoiding 2degrees warming. Not a science paper, there of course not a science peer review.
    Ref3: A European Commission report on progress to Kyoto goals. Why would that be in a science peer reviewed journal?
    Ref 4: A reference from the Council of the Euro Union presidency conclusions.
    Ref 5: A report about what some developing nations are doing by the Pew Centre. How is this controversial?
    Ref 6: Comments on the Stern Review – non science = non science review.
    Ref 7: ref to WG1 which Noconsensus gives an A
    Ref 9: paper on energy policy effectiveness.
    Ref 10: The frigging US DEpartment of Energy
    Ref 11: The frigging US Dept of Energy

    Do I have to go on? That is more than 25% of the supposedly suspect references in that chapter? And they ALL stack up!!!

    Do you ever think that Pachauri means, when questioned in IPCC science, that he refers to the science as being peer reviewed? None of the above are even science papers!

    I call bullshit.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Humbug I can see you are personally and emotionally attached to the no consensus report, so I can understand you aggressive and emotional posts. But sorry you’ve been boxing with shadows mate. It has been a complete waste of time.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    HUmbug :”Making claims based on student dissertations, newspaper clippings and magazine articles doesn’t impact on the validity of this so called gold standard report for you?”

    Hmm those 1st 10 or so off the rank are not exactly newspaper clippings now.

    Show me an audit of the NPR that identifies what are from solid sources, and what are from newspaper clipping or other crap sources, and then in the context of the reference. Eg “the topic of AGW is a popular source of media content (Guardian, 2003)” would not count as a dubious reference would it?

    It is about the SCIENCE!!!! don;t bluster about with this rubbish “audit”.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    How many times do I have to refer you to THE PURPOSE OF THE AUDIT?
    The fact that you continually refuse to acknowledge that, tells me that you are just trying to stir me up. Is that what you’re doing Matt?

    Once again, here is the purpose of the Audit, as stated by the convener of the audit. What you think might have been the purpose is irrelevant.

    The IPCC chairman has declared that non-peer-reviewed research sources belong in the dustbin (see the last lines of this newspaper article) but this project does not necessarily take that position. Its primary goal was to determine whether the chairman’s claim (frequently repeated by journalists) that this report is based only and solely on peer-reviewed literature is accurate.

    So NO NO and again NO, this has nothing whatsoever to do with the science or it’s accuracy in the IPCC report.

    yet again you’ve been offensive towards me Matt. I initially typed out an angry reply full of tirades but have decided to tone it way back in the hope that you will play ball.

    But hey, if you prefer the offensive stuff, just say so. I can be as offensive as you are, and then some.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    “The IPCC chairman has declared that non-peer-reviewed research sources belong in the dustbin”

    Well how many non-peer reviewed “research sources” are in the IPCC report Humbug?

    Do you consider a reference to Article 2 of the UNFCCC to be a reference to a non-peer reviewed “research source”.

    I don’t.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Again I repeat – this audit is a false witch hunt based upon the false premise that Pachauri has ever stated that every single reference in the IPCC 2007 report is peer reviewed science. He may well have said that the science is all peer reviewed, taking in to account that any non-peer reviewed is effectively peer-reviewed in the IPCC process.

    It is quite clear that the IPCC does allow grey-literature.

    If you can show me an audit that shows where in the IPCC reports that science based conclusions are drawn from erroneous non-peer-reviewed science, then I’m all ears. What have you got, an incorrect claim about the % of the Netherlands that is below seal level? And some glaciers? irrelevent.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    “ts primary goal was to determine whether the chairman’s claim (frequently repeated by journalists) that this report is based only and solely on peer-reviewed literature is accurate.”

    Oh ok I get it now – you mean the goal is a witch hunt to shoot down a claim he never made?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    An interview with the man from this week: http://ibnlive.in.com/news/glacier-fiasco-a-case-of-human-error-pachauri/113127-3.html?from=tn

    “Karan Thapar: I am afraid that there wasn’t that right expertise available within the author team because, let me quote the sentence: ‘the likelihood of their disappearing by 2035 and perhaps sooner.’ most people forget those words, ‘…and perhaps sooner is very high.’ And the journalists say that the phrase ‘..very high’ us a probability of 90 percent or more. Now this is said by a man who accepts that he is not an expert on glaciers.

    R K Pachauri: Let me say this was an error and we have accepted that, we have mentioned that in our website. We take full responsibility for that error but let me also clarify that it was an error that crept in largely because of the procedures that are required of the IPCC and I will clearly tell you what these procedures are: when we use grey literature, the non peer reviewed literature, and that is inevitable. In several parts of the world, you don’t have published literature which is peer review. In such cases, whatever information we use has to be checked, cross checked and authenticated and this, unfortunately, was a failure.

    Karan Thapar: Dr Pachauri, you are making my points to me when you bring up the issue of grey literature. You have taken words out of my mouth. In fact, what makes this problem of a non-expert writing the chapter on glaciers even worse is that now you have changed your rules couple of years ago to permit the use of grey literature. And what you then have is a situation where are man who is not an expert is relying on a material that is not verified or peer reviewed. That is a recipe for disaster which is why this ludicrous claim crept into the report because the man in-charge did not have the expertise to spot how silly it was.

    R K Pachauri: This is not a question of expertise. It is a question of following certain procedures. You are supposed to pick any piece of information that you get from a non peer reviewed literature – and let me clarify non peer reviewed literature has been used by the IPCC right from the beginning. When you take a country like that is Africa, where there is no peer reviewed literature, and you want to find out what the impacts of climate change are, you obviously have to rely on government reports, you have to rely on other such reports and, how are going to find out about knowledge in those areas.”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    MattB: #43

    The only bullcrap comes from you, I am afraid and I see it’s become a veritable torrent as well – we must have hit a raw nerve in your goodself?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    MattB: #43

    If science is debated, could you inform all of us the latest state of debate about gravity? And are Maxwell’s laws still being debated? Were they ever debated in the first place?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MadJak

    Louis@34,

    Thanks for the clarification. It’s always a pleasure.

    Mattb – you must admit that the ipcc, the watermelons and all the other fruits have been incessantly insisting and deliberately propogating the impression to Joe blow 6 pack that the ipcc views are above reproach and that it’s all based on peer reviewed science. You must also admit that team watermelon have been more than happy for that impression to be left on said joe blow six pack.

    So why not, just this once tip your hat and say fair call?

    Btw: cntrl c and v keys are only rated for a few million uses.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    MadJak – the NoConsensus review gives an A to most of the WG1 chapters, which is the bit about the science of AGW.

    I’ll start at the other end… Chapter 1 of the WG1 report http://www.noconsensus.org/ipcc-audit/2007/WG1chapter1-A.html

    As you will see of the supposedly 54 dubious sources, maybe 5 “could” be valid issues which would need more investigation, and the rest are rock solid sources… many from pre 1900!!!!

    I give WG1 Chapter 1 a score of 259/264 references = 95% score go to the top of the class WG1 Ch1.

    Assclowns arguing over Agassiz, L., 1837, Abbot, C.G., 1910, Aßmann, R., 1902, Buys Ballot, C.H.D., 1872, Croll, J., 1890,

    These are the non-peer-previewed ones.
    Ref 1) a 1910 reference to the Smithsonian.
    Ref 4) an 1837 reference from the greek society of natural sciences
    Ref 8) a 1902 reference to a german paper
    So far I;ve not looked at the context but clearly this is a historical overview?

    Ref 26) Hmm that looks peer reviewed to me? maybe not
    Ref 38) a paper from 1872
    ref 45) National Acadamey of Sciences 1972
    ref 49) from 1890
    Ref 51) ref to IPCC 1990
    ref 59) Atomic Energy Research Establishment
    ref 71) a 1998 book on historical perspectives of climate change
    ref 78) is that IPCC again?
    ref 82) again that looks like a journal paper 1982
    ref 84) a casual reference to the 1970s global cooling farce.
    ref 91) again that looks like a science journal
    ref 101) from 1897
    ref 102) looks like a fairly reputable source “Holton, J.R., 1992: An Introduction to Dynamic Meteorology, 3rd ed. Volume 48 of International Geophysics Series. Academic Press, San Diego, 511 pp. ”
    ref 104) an Oxford Uni Press book 1992… and one that I assume is well referenced.
    ref 107) A harvard Uni text book
    109 – 115) are all just previous IPCC reports
    ref 127) US meteorological society
    ref 130) about weather in 1780s over Europe again most likely based on serious literature given it is published by Cambridge Uni Press in 1970ish
    ref 134) Kuhn, T.S., 1996: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,
    does not appear to be a science piece so how could it be science peer reviewed?
    141) Data from Australia’s BOM and CSIRO
    143) 1884 paper
    144) this looks like a journal?
    152) a 1952 study from Uni of New York
    154) a 1967 study – world meteorological association
    166) again I think this is an IPCC report
    170) this is Milankovich’s good work.
    173) a non science reference to what looks like a “How to read IPCC reports” type thing
    175) 2005: World Meteorological Organization, World Weather Records, 1991-2000, Volumes I-VI. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, NC, CD-ROM format.
    looks damn reasonable to me
    178) a quote from Isaac Newton!!! Oh the humanity!
    182) NASA satelite observations from early 1970s
    187) this is a review of europead weather over a few centuries… looks peer reviewed maybe not
    189) LOL!!! Karl Popper and logic.
    192) a WMO report
    204) a paper on heat in fluids from 1800
    206) reference to IPCC
    210) a book from MIT press
    219) I can;t tell if PR or not
    221) BOM/CSIRO data
    234) a climate modelling text by Trenberth
    248-251) I urge anyone to find fault here
    257) centenary proceedings from the 1950 Royal Meteorology Society


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Summary – you would have to take an absurd interpretation the IPCC chair’s comments to think that the NoConsensus audit was worth the bandwidth it is transmitted over.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MadJak

    Mattb,

    in pucharis book did he have sexual relations with that woman – Monica lewinsky?

    You’ve missed the point dude. This report has been the cornerstone for all those cranks, crooks and failed diplomats who want to find another way to Rory the common man.

    Including this crap and then prancing around about peer reviewed literature is stupid even an a manbearpig scale


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #

    MattB:
    April 15th, 2010 at 5:12 pm

    An interview with the man from this week:

    You see this is what you just don’t get Matt, either you’re incapable or you’re obtuse.

    He said those things THIS WEEK. You think he (or realclimate for that matter) didn’t know the audit was being done?

    And what of consistency? After 3 years of saying the IPCC relies only on peer reviewed literature, now that he has been cornered, he is saying WHAT HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG.

    By the way, the Citizens Audit project didn’t get underway to please your highness MattB. I couldn’t give a toss about what you think through your tamino shaded glasses.

    p.s. You insulted me yet again with the “Assclown” remark at #57 Keep it up you jerk


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Baa Humbug:

    Thankyou for your comment at #35 which says;

    MattB: #26
    April 15th, 2010 at 11:54 am

    Matt your hypocrasy is breathtaking. Don’t you recall your lengthy debate with Richard S Courtney in February?
    You disparaged Richard because he referred to one of his papers published in the Energy and Environment journal. Here is what you said (to your shame)

    MattB:
    February 13th, 2010 at 1:05 am

    “Also – do you have that in a peer reviewed scientific journal? Or just E&E?”

    Just to be absolutely clear about the facts of E&E peer review that MattB disputed while claiming peer review was important (but he now hypocritically disputes), I cite this
    http://www.populartechnology.net/2010/04/correcting-misinformation-about-journal.html

    It is a full and complete assessment of the matter – including investigation of common misrepresentations by warmers – conducted and reported by ‘Popular Technology.net’, and it is titled
    ‘Correcting misinformation about the journal Energy & Environment’.

    The fact that an independent organisation would want to conduct such an investigation is – itself – a demonstration of the campaign of lies, smears and insults that ‘warmers’ have mounted against ‘E&E’ because it publishes papers on the basis of their scientific merit (and not on the basis of their support for any viewpoint on any issue).

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    papertiger

    What section of the AR4 are the briffa and mann treering hockeystick graphs located in?

    How about the truncated bore hole reconstructions?

    How about the GISSTemp and HADCRut series?

    What about the ocean temps, you know the ones I mean? The ones measured from buckets in sea lanes by sailors who might have missed one or two or twenty measures, rather then the Argo array or ca/carbonate seashell reconstructions.

    Tell me these famous rip offs weren’t in the WG1.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Assclowns was in reference to the whole NoConsensus audit. Not a personal comment to you Humbug.

    It would take 30 seconds to check the references list of IPCC reports to see that it is not all peer reviewed stuff Humbug. How could a quote form a letter from Newton be peer reviewed? Journal articles from 1800? What was no consensus strategy dealing with those?

    And no I’m well aware that the citizens audit process started up to whip rabid skeptics in to a brainwashed frenzy. In that it will succeed no doubt.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Lol Richard – that independent website, if you look at global warming posts, is astoundingly skeptical along all the usual rants for an independent organisation:)


    Report this

    00

  • #

    MattB: #64
    April 15th, 2010 at 7:01 pm

    Assclowns was in reference to the whole NoConsensus audit. Not a personal comment to you Humbug.

    But earlier you said the following..

    Humbug I can see you are personally and emotionally attached to the no consensus report,

    So what you’re implying is that you aren’t always aware of the implications of what you’re saying. There is a term for that, it’s called shooting off at the mouth, or engaging your mouth before engaging your brain.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    MattB:

    Your comment at #65 says all that anybody needs to know about you. In it you say;

    “that independent website, if you look at global warming posts, is astoundingly skeptical along all the usual rants for an independent organisation”

    So, according to you, an organisation is not “independent” of a journal it investigates unless the organisation agrees with you about AGW.

    The independent organisation made an independent investigation and provides a factual report of its findings at
    http://www.populartechnology.net/2010/04/correcting-misinformation-about-journal.html

    And you dismiss that because the organisation does not share your belief concerning something else. Are you mad, prejudiced to the degree of blindness, stupid, or all three?

    Just do the honest thing and admit you were wrong, behaved badly, and either lied or repeated a falsehood because you were gulled.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Hi Richard

    Whilst you’re here, I need to learn something about “working papers”

    May I e-mail you if you have time?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Baa Humbug:

    You ask me:

    Whilst you’re here, I need to learn something about “working papers”

    May I e-mail you if you have time?

    Of course you can, but I do not know what you mean by “working papers”. Perhaps your email could explain. When I know what they are then I may be able to say if I have any knowledge of them.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tel

    Should we now call this: PEER GATE? REVIEW GATE?

    BOOTWASH GATE.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] Posted by Velo Vol "Progress" toward what? The IPCC: 5,600 small white lies [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Following on from Richard Courtney’s explanation about E&E (Post 62 above), I was asked to write an article for E&E last year on the solar plasma connection etc.

    The topic itself was difficult to class into a particular area of science as it was basically a multidisciplinary focussed one in which the science from plasma physics was applied to weather and some aspects of geology.

    It went through “peer” review but it could not have been, sensu strictu, since in that topic I had not peers. The article went to a physicist and another anonymous assessor. The physicist suggested I make a couple of changes, the other didn’t think it should be published.

    The corrects and adjustments were done as requested, and the final draft submitted; it was accepted and published.

    The reviewer who advised the editor not to publish my article went, as far as I was concerned, beyond the scope of his/her task in assessing the article in terms of the brief assigned to peer reviews. If the article, (it wasn’t a scientific paper), was technically correct, then that is the end of the role of the peer reviewer.

    It is telling that the former editor of Nature, John Maddox, categorically stated that he never sent any paper submitted by Tommy Gold or Fred Hoyle for peer review because he knew, from experience I assume, that their papers would be rejected.

    Peer review then is nothing other than a measure of whether a particular paper fits into the ruling paradigm, and if it does, is allowed to be published. If not, it is recommended for rejection.

    Peer Review does has one important role – to identify plagiarism.

    The problem is when the stupid invade science, all sorts of “intellectual” issues arise, this thread being one, of many.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mervyn Sullivan

    I have always claimed that if the IPCC, in issuing its 2007 4th Assessment Report, had had to meet the same reporting standards as a board of directors of a listed public company, then the committee members by now would be facing criminal charges for gross misrepresentation and deceitful conduct.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    I am intrigued by the negative vote to my reply to Baa Humbug that I posted at #69.

    I would be interested to know why somebody thinks my reply deserved a negative vote when it said I would be willing to try to answer a question if I knew the answer but not if I new nothing about the subject.

    This voting thing sometimes provides more questions than information.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Guys, lets all be clear, as I said in the post, this has nothing to do with scientific correctness, and for skeptics it never has. The only reason it’s an issue is because of the noxious bully boy behaviour of alarmists who use “peer review” as an excuse not to discuss real scientific points. It’s a weapon… said with a sneer: “Is that peer reviewed, or just written by an amateur. Go publish it, and I’ll talk about it then.”

    This is not in the spirit of scientific enquiry. It’s a lazy excuse, and weapon.

    Prove me wrong, find a scientist who believes in AGW and is a lead author of the IPCC productions and also says: “Peer review is useful but not crucial. The reasoning and the evidence are what matter.”


    Report this

    00

  • #

    A few more thoughts… I think it very unlikely that this audit will make it into the mainstream press, except as an extra note inside bigger stories. But it’s still very useful. It will arm bloggers, writers and skeptics with ammo to fight back against the baseless bluster and fake PR message. For the Big Scare Campaign, it will take the gusto out of the bumper-sticker catch phrases which use “peer review” (and there are many).

    Next time Obama, or Pachauri, or Mann, or Jones try on the PR line, someone will giggle, or heckle or scoff. They will pause and go on, but they will note that the hallowed ring of “peer review” is weaker.

    In the end, with all the arguments over the necessity for grey literature “blah blah blah”, remember that the entirety of WG II and WG III is predicated on a false assumption. If carbon doesn’t cause 3 degrees of warming or more, almost all the other predictions, projections and costs will be worthless.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Keith H

    Matt B.

    In “The Summary For Policymakers” from the 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report it stated – quote:

    “The observed patterns of warming, including greater warming over land than the ocean, and their changes over time, are only simulated by models that include anthropogenic forcing.” unquote

    This is tantamount to claiming that the IPCC or some other “peer-reviewed” scientists:-
    (1) have analysed and accounted for the many hundreds of known natural factors affecting climate;
    (2) examined all statistical combinations and possible interdependence of some or all of them;
    (3) have modelled all such possible combinations;

    Matt B: Do you believe his has been done? If not, just what do you believe, because this is “the science” put forward as proof of AGW and on which it is claimed there is “overwhelming consensus”.

    these As I see it, this is the “settled science” we are asked to believe and on which it is said, there is “overwhelming consensus”.

    The first problem for some of these same “experts” is, that during those 50 years in the early 1970’s, they were warning of an impending Ice Age due, some said, to increasing levels of CO2.

    The whole premise of AGW is that the “experts” believe that what they say is currently observed global warming is not only unprecedented, but cannot be explained by natural variability.

    This view ignores, or to a large extent discounts, the climate history of the world documented by many scientists and observers over the centuries. There have even been unsuccessful attempts to rewrite “inconvenient” climate history. The “experts” rely instead on a series of computer-generated simulation models offering various “what if” scenarios.

    It presupposes that these “experts” have not only analysed and accounted for the many hundreds of known natural factors affecting climate, but have also examined all statistical combinations of the possible interdependence of some or all of them. Not only that impossible task, but further, have incorporated all that information into computer modelling which has evidently failed to “explain” their observed global warming.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Joe Spencer

    Doodman: @ #20
    April 15th, 2010 at 8:47 am
    You say:-

    In the end, isn’t it pretty undeniable that humans are having an impact on the earth? …… As far as CO2, its pretty well accepted in fields ranging from paleontology to climatology that it does act as a “green house” gas. ……The bottom line is pretty obvious, humans are having a negative affect on the earth. Why can’t we all just agree on that obvious point instead of proposing massive conspiracy theories?

    Doodman,
    There you go, conflating humans damaging the earth with CO2.

    Your heart’s perhaps in the right place, but your head’s in the clouds.

    You have to get such details right, before blowing multiple-trillions of dollars on a futile exercise to Stop CO2 emmissions, that will have negligible impact.

    Most of us have no time to dwell on such details ‘though and that, along with our good intentions, is what makes us so ripe for the picking.

    Of course it doesn’t really matter that CO2 doesn’t matter, if it’s really all about harvesting dollars for something else.

    What else could possibly explain the lack of concern about the missing signature for man-made CO2 induced warming – The Missing Hotspot ?

    CO2 in the paleoclimate follows temperature, as amply evidenced, time & again, by the Vostok ice cores.

    It’s greenhouse effect doesn’t act in isolation, is limited and and saturates.
    Try to spent a little time understanding these effects before being swept along with the crowd.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Bulldust @27,

    I see that Jo has said more or less what I would say here. Suffice to ask this question — even if peer review was done as you outline would it say anything worthwhile about the correctness of an author’s conclusions? I’m a skeptic on that point.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Totally agree Roy and I always have… I don’t care if it is the garbo that explains something to me or a PhD in complex sciency stuffs… if they are right they are right. End of story.

    But in the meanwhile it is useful to have a system that sorts some of the wheat from the chaff so that you get journals worth reading. The problem, in the case of climate science, is that it appears that the peer-review system has been perverted, but there are ways to try and make it more perversion-resistant. It’s the best we have for now I guess…

    One of the major problems is the “publish or perish” mentality in academia these days where quantity is valued over quality. Perhaps we need a system that is based on the latter, but how would you measure it? number of references to your paper? That could easily be perverted too (like fake clicking of web ads to promote revenues).

    If there was a perfect system for measuring academic paper quality I am sure we would already be using it.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bryn

    I think Matlab has a point, quoting a number of references that appear to have authoritative sources. I studied the list, particularly for WGI and was troubled by the same problem, which largely stems from the too simple definitions of what is peer reviewed. Some books, for example, may be summaries of facts and thinking up to a certain point and be perfectly valid references. Books are summarily dismissed because “books generally are not peer reviewed” (or some such words).

    Also the question of context is not considered; how is the reference actually used in the text?

    As Jo says, the survey is good ammunition, but it must be used with care; it may well ricochet and hurt the shooter, not the target.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    janama

    At least this has finally put to bed the damn hockey stick!! It IS exaggerated!! i.e it’s false!!

    I find this conclusion similar to the National Academy of Sciences report . They state all the things that are wrong with it then conclude everything is fine. Nowhere did they fault MMs work yet they still conclude everything is fine. Wegman and North have defended their work and no one has adequately proven them wrong yet the conclusions continue to clear these fraudsters.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    ginckgo

    WG1, which deals with the science of climate change, has 93% peer revied references according to this. If you disagree with the causes of current climate change then this is the chapter to focus on.

    WG2 deals with effects and has 66% peer reviewed. WG3 deals with mitigation and has 43% peer reviewed. As been mentioned this simply reflects the fact that scientific peer review is less relevant (or available) in the last topic.

    Oh, and student theses are peer reviewd all right. Mine copped a very detailed hammering by the reviewers, even though they said it was good work.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    WillR

    For those who wish to audit the auditors and re-do the work… Please! Feel free to do so. The checks would be most welcome.

    For those who noted that some articles were re-printed as chapters of a book — Indeed it was noted by some auditors. The issue then was to read the book, read the paper and see if any conclusions or data had been changed. This would be an onerous task. Would it not be simpler for the author(s) or editors(s) to state that the article was included in an unchanged fashion? Indeed in some cases an article re-published in book form was included, however the task of verification proved quite onerous. Again, feel free to re-audit and question the work. Is this not the very basis of the scientific method? Why would an auditor complain that you rechecked the work? Simply do as Donna did and state your methods, assumptions and resolution processes. We look forward to your articles and notes. You will get your work peer-reviewed — right?

    I will say that to me it proved the point that not even the IPCC and its spokespeople truly understood the nature of their own work. Certainly consumer laws protect us when companies misrepresent and over-sell their work. Perhaps the same mechanism can be used here. Should Pachouri be prosecuted for overselling his “product”? You tell us!

    So many people have tried to shut down any debate with the “Is it peer reviewed?” line that it was well worth the time spent. There were many other issues spotted as well — self citing, (“academic check kiting” is a term I have heard), circular citing, etc. There are lots of issues, but the first one to resolve is the “throw it in the dustbin” line. Now that’s done. Now we can move on to something important!

    For those who want more — I say “Go for it!” start up a new project. You could also audit horrible things like the Ontario (Canada) “Climate Change” literature which is based on IPCC literature — and uses many of the same (non)mathematical techniques to arrive at suspect conclusions. The point is that it can be done.

    Now we don’t have to accept “It isn’t peer reviewed.” Why? We now have agreement here at least that peer review is not necessary. So grab your crayons, sharpen them up, and draw a graph — then “Get Published” (non peer-reviewed of course!).

    I think that this topic points out how the process was manipulated. As I recall it was stated many times that if you wanted to present a “negative point of view” regarding AGW all one need do was write a paper, get it peer reviewed and it could (might?) be included in the IPCC assessment.

    The work by Donna Laframboise and her team of volunteers was worthwhile for one point alone: Clearly the “science” and “policy” work commissioned or reviewed for the IPCC reports need not be peer reviewed if it was “on message”, i.e. it supported the “so-called consensus view”. I really do think that the point is quite clear now. In other words — “get your work peer reviewed for inclusion” was just so much balderdash and a smoke screen. You gained inclusion and became part of the “in crowd” by going along to get along.

    If you can’t draw any other conclusion from the work it should be clear that the work need not be peer reviewed — it need only provide the right message.

    Clearly people did “pick up newspapers”, clearly they did include magazine articles…

    Did people attempt to track articles through books back to the original papers? Yes — but it is very time consuming, and there is no assurance that it is the same paper, same wording and same data without a close comparison. However, feel free to do your own audit. I don’t think any of the auditors will disparage any additional efforts.

    There I have consolidated my postings elsewhere so MattB can have a bit to think about…


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    WillR – can’t you read? I just re-audited the 1st chapter and have clearly demonstrated that the Audit is a con-job.

    They are for example using a reference to a letter by Newton in 1700 and claiming it is a “non-peer-reviewed source” therefore the IPCC is a fraud.

    Laughable.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    And ahh yes Humbug – fair point. Indeed I must reassess my comments and clarify that indeed if you think that claiming Agassiz, L., 1837, Abbot, C.G., 1910, Aßmann, R., 1902, Buys Ballot, C.H.D., 1872, Croll, J., 1890, should not have been referenced by the IPCC is valid criticism, and that the inclusion shows the IPCC to be frauds, then indeed yes you are an Assclown.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    I really don’t see what the fuss is all about.

    1) The IPCC clearly states in their procedural guidelines that they consider non-peer-reviewed sources as well as peer-reviewed ones.
    2) A group did an audit and found this to be the case.

    Therefore there is no debate on the facts, right?

    The only debate should be about people making statements or arguments based on misrepresentation of the facts. If they say the IPCC documents strictly represent peer-reviewed literature they are wrong – point of fact.

    If someone from the IPCC side of the debate (i.e. AGW-supporters) argue that only peer-reviewed literature should be considered in the debate then they are hypocrits, because the IPCC uses grey sources too, and advocates it in their guidelines.

    Where’s the debate? Really??? Arguing pedantic points based on interpretation of the English language is… well… tedious.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Bulldust et al

    I get the impression is that the IPCC don’t actually care whether an article is peer reviewed or not – as long as it toes the party line! But when an article doesn’t toe the party line, then peer review is essential – and the IPCC needs to define who the “peers” are. Not Lord Monckton, I can assure you!!!!

    In other words, the IPCC has just used the “peer review” process to censor the literature and smear the opposition. (Refer Climategate.)

    Which smacks of politics, not science.

    Cheers,

    Speedy


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    MattB: #86
    April 16th, 2010 at 1:26 pm

    Firstly your tone and choice of terms is reprehensible. Even in your response to WillR you start with “can’t you read”.
    Seen as you can’t be civil, this is the last time I will respond to you in a civil manner. Jerks deserve to be treated as jerks, wouldn’t you agree?

    Now, for the umpteenth time, YOU HAVE DELIBERATELY AVOIDED THE PURPOSE OF THIS AUDIT.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Reprehensible? I’ll have you know that the online slang dictionary only gives assclown a 37% vulgarity rating.

    http://onlineslangdictionary.com/definition+of/ass+clown


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Jerks deserve to be treated as jerks, just as assclowns deserve to be treated as assclowns. And yet you claim my treatment of you is reprehensible?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    MattB: #86
    April 16th, 2010 at 1:26 pm

    Indeed I must reassess my comments and clarify that indeed if you think that claiming Agassiz, L., 1837, Abbot, C.G., 1910, Aßmann, R., 1902, Buys Ballot, C.H.D., 1872, Croll, J., 1890, should not have been referenced by the IPCC is valid criticism, and that the inclusion shows the IPCC to be frauds, then indeed yes you are an Assclown.

    If you had bothered to read all the articles of the Citizens Audit, you would have read the following in the Fairness, Quality Assurance & Minor Data Adjustments section…I quote..

    The IPCC chairman has declared that non-peer-reviewed research sources belong in the dustbin (see the last lines of this newspaper article) but this project does not necessarily take that position. Its primary goal was to determine whether the chairman’s claim (frequently repeated by journalists) that this report is based only and solely on peer-reviewed literature is accurate.

    Can you comprehend the above? But ofcourse you can.
    Even though you can comprehend the above, you still persist in posting this tripe..

    indeed if you think that claiming Agassiz, L., 1837, Abbot, C.G., 1910, Aßmann, R., 1902, Buys Ballot, C.H.D., 1872, Croll, J., 1890, should not have been referenced by the IPCC is valid criticism

    What I just pointed out is proof that you are just posting to be troublesome, a TROLL in other words. I say you are a mouth piece for realclimate and tamino, from where you get most of your memes from.

    Now, how about we take out 1000, no wait, 2000, no stuff it take out 4000 of the 5587 non-peer reviewed references cited by the Audit.
    That still leaves 1587 references to non-peer reviewed literature.
    I’m guessing that that’s OK with you, but it’s NOT ok with me and many others.

    Knowing that you are a lazy jerk who just isn’t going to read anything for himself, (still waiting for you to read and comment on Richard S Courtneys paper you coward) I’ll cut n paste Pachauris statements, then leave it to the readers of this thread to decide whether the audit made the point it was meant to make.

    “People can have confidence in the IPCC’s conclusions…Given that it is all on the basis of peer-reviewed literature.” – Rajendra Pachauri, IPCC chairman, June 2008

    “The IPCC doesn’t do any research itself. We only develop our assessments on the basis of peer-reviewed literature.” – Rajendra Pachauri, IPCC chairman, June 2007

    “This is based on peer-reviewed literature. That’s the manner in which the IPCC functions. We don’t pick up a newspaper article and, based on that, come up with our findings.” – Rajendra Pachauri, IPCC chairman, June 2008 (click quote to go to YouTube video. Remarks begin at 1 minute, 15 seconds)

    “When asked if the discussion paper could be taken into consideration...[Pachauri] said, ‘IPCC studies only peer-review science. Let someone publish the data in a decent credible publication. I am sure IPCC would then accept it, otherwise we can just throw it into the dustbin.’” – Times of India, November 2007

    p.s. I personally listed all the discussion papers referred to by the IPCC along with the relevant paragraphs they refer to HERE Should all these be “thrown into the dustbin”?
    Like I said you little TROLL. This is the last time I’ll respond to you in a civil manner.
    Now go and find out what realclimate and tamino has to say about this and report back. JERK


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Also Humbug sorry but all this is 100% original Mattb thought. Have Tamino and RC posted on this fraudit – I was not aware?

    Now go back to your cohort and suggest they come up with an audit that indicates which non-peer reviewed science references in the IPCC report have been used to form the base of the science in the reports. Furthermore please indicate which of those non-peer reviewed references appear to be erroneous. Then you may have something.

    Now as you know you only need a single piece of evidence to debunk a claim.. so lets use the 1700 and something letter from Newton that is referenced in WG1 Ch1… why not just stop there? What was the point of the audit? It takes 5 minutes to debunk a literal interpretation of the IPCC chair’s claims does it not?

    From an outsiders perspective if the IPCC had a paragraph that said “The UK’s climate change policy recieved widespread media coverage (Times, 2007, Guardian, 2007, Wall St Journal, 2007), then your fraudit would have chalked up 3 non-peer reviewed references. True?

    I’ll answer for you – yes it is true => the basic methodology is flawed and it is back to the drawing board.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    JekB: #93
    April 16th, 2010 at 3:41 pm

    Now go back to your cohort and suggest they come up with an audit that indicates which non-peer reviewed science references in the IPCC report have been used to form the base of the science in the reports.

    Why? Show me where the auditors claim the science base is wrong. Go ahead, show me.

    Yet again you evade the purpose of the audit. You’re a troll


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    “p.s. I personally listed all the discussion papers referred to by the IPCC along with the relevant paragraphs they refer to HERE Should all these be “thrown into the dustbin”?”

    At a glance not many of those have anything to do with science, thus could not be published in a peer reviewed science journal? could they?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Milankovitch

    Wow – someone could have saved themselves a lot of work by reading this first
    ANNEX 2
    PROCEDURE FOR USING NON-PUBLISHED/NON-PEER-REVIEWED SOURCES IN IPCC
    REPORTS

    ThHe IPCC specifically allow for non peer-reviewed literature:

    Because it is increasingly apparent that materials relevant to IPCC Reports, in particular, information about the experience and practice of the private sector in mitigation and adaptation activities, are found in sources that have not been published or peer-reviewed (e.g., industry journals, internal organisational publications, non-peer reviewed reports or working papers of research institutions, proceedings of workshops etc) the following additional procedures are provided….

    No doubt your quote from Pauchuri was taken completely out of context.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Humbug in #94 – so you are saying seriously that all that time and effort went in to simply debunking an absurdly literal interpretation of Pachauri’s comments, with no further spin intended, when I managed to achieve the exact same outcome just by pointing out that the letter from Newton was not peer reviewed????

    Wow what a waste of time, but apparently not brainpower.

    p.s. what is a JekB.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Hey Milankovich… did you know that some of your own work forms part of the non peer reviewed outrage:)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    papertiger

    Well it proves one thing, Mr. Hooper. It proves that you wealthy college boys don’t have the education enough to admit when you’re wrong.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Don’t know why I bother really … some of you are simply going to argue for the sake of arguing. Completely pointless. Might I suggest you direct those energies to something constructive? Go out and do a couple hours of charity work or something… nah, more point in debating pedantic points in English no doubt…

    Much ado about nothing.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Friends:

    AGW-advocates always ‘move the goal posts’ when there has been a ‘score’ against their case. In this debate they are again ‘moving the goal posts’: we have a clear demonstration of the range of ‘warmer’ responses to the audit.

    It is a fact beyond doubt that the ‘only peer reviewed’ claim for IPCC reports has been made repeatedly by IPCC representatives and their supporters. Furthermore, they have repeatedly used the ‘ignore it because it is not peer reviewed’ claim, too. And they have ‘gamed’ the peer reviewed process to enable them to say what information was (or was not) ‘peer reviewed’ so could (or could not) be cited as evidence. Indeed, they have lied about the peer review policies of journals that refused to use the self-titled ‘Team’ as reviewers who would block publication of papers they did not like.

    Now, the Audit has shown all this list of assertions to be false.
    1.
    The IPCC does not only use peer reviewed sources but has a sigificant (in terms of both percentage and policy effect) not-reviewed sources.
    2.
    If ‘not peer reviewed’ sources must be disregarded then the IPCC reports must be disregarded because they use not-reviewed sources.
    3.
    The claim that ‘only peer reviewed information is in IPCC reports’ has been shown to be a lie so there is no longer any purpose in ‘gaming’ the peer review process as a method to excuse the failure of IPCC reports to consider important information.
    4.
    And there is no longer any purpose in spreading lies and smears about the peer review procedures of journals as a method to avoid consideration of papers published in those journals.

    What do we see in response from MattB and Bulldust?
    We see the same as from other AGW-advocates elsewhere: i.e. a series of daft excuses and evasions.

    Bulldust at #87 says what ‘warmers’ elsewhere are saying, too: i.e.

    1) The IPCC clearly states in their procedural guidelines that they consider non-peer-reviewed sources as well as peer-reviewed ones.
    2) A group did an audit and found this to be the case.

    Well, that is not what they were proclaiming last week.
    Then they were saying the IPCC only considers peer reviewed literature and when, for example, Glaciergate was revealed then, they said, such things were only a few “mistakes”.

    Furthermore, the IPCC Guidelines say any reference to a non-reviewed document must be flagged as such but only a handful of the thousands in the IPCC reports were. So, the IPCC broke its own Guidelines whatever Bulldust et al. want to pretend.

    And, in the same post, Bulldust tries to ‘play down’ the issue saying:

    If someone from the IPCC side of the debate (i.e. AGW-supporters) argue that only peer-reviewed literature should be considered in the debate then they are hypocrits, because the IPCC uses grey sources too, and advocates it in their guidelines.

    IF?!!! How dare he suggest that there was not a concerted effort to proclaim the ‘ignore it because it is not peer reviewed’ mantra. That has been the main claim in support of IPCC documents for years!

    MattB does the typical response of himself and other AGW advocates: he ignores all the substantive issues and tries to side-track debate to other things.

    Did he respond to any of Baa Humbug’s points? No.

    Did he apologise to me for falsely denigrating some of my work by claiming it was not worthy of consideration because it was not ‘peer reviewed’ (although it was)? No.

    Did he …?

    Instead, he tries to pretend it was not an issue because much important work pre-dates the peer review process. Now, that is ‘moving the goal posts’ to another planet!

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Richard – you have me confused as a warmist? I could not be more of a skeptic if I tried. IMHO the CAGW is a crock… anywho… I am simply stating that the IPCC guidelines allow for non-peer-reviewed articles to be included in their publications. Anyone who pretends that their documents are solely based on peer-reviewed work is factually wrong. It’s hardly support for the IPCC. I am just stating the facts as I have read them.

    To me the fact that they include works from advocacy groups like Greenpeace, WWF, mountaineering publications etc is damning… at least where it can be demonstrated that the sources are wrong in scientific terms. If a WWF article, for the sake of argument, were to be scientifically accurate I would have no problem with it, but let’s face it, the majority are dubious at best and more about advocacy than science.

    So yes, if some group last week was stating the IPCC documents are purely based on peer-reviewed work then they are simply wrong. I did say that if you read through my posts.

    I have not said anything in this thread to indicate otherwise… people seem to be getting very worked up over nothing here ATM (not referring to most of the posts or the OP, just some of the responses).

    BTW the word “If” just indicates I was talking in hypotheticals… I have no doubt this has been done at times, but I do not currently have the time to chase down references. I try to avoid making factual statements if I don’t have links to back them up. Once again, you seem to have mistaken me for something I am not.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    On the contrary Richard, I think that Bulldust has shown very appropriate scepticism that this no-consensus report brings anything useful to assist the genuine non-AGW type.

    But Bulldust – you can’t spare the OP;)

    “What matters here is not that the IPCC only have 70% of their references “peer reviewed”. What matters is that they have been exposed as fakers. They lied. They poured scorn on anyone who put forward arguments, no matter how strong, that had not jumped through the rigged, bureaucratic hurdle known as peer review.”

    What a load of twaddle.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Grant

    MattB @ #93 “Furthermore please indicate which of those non-peer reviewed references appear to be erroneous. Then you may have something.”

    Now we’re talking. Instead of dismissing those who present a position that is not in line with the IPCC because the paper theu cite has not been peer reviewed maybe you should apply the principle you yourself espouse.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    No Grant – the IPCC process, in my opinion, is a rigorous assessment (as is peer-review). Just as with peer review for sure the IPCC may have made errors. (For error in IPCC see the Netherlands % or the glaciergate issue, for errors in Peer-Review see the recent MacLean et al shambles).

    But as far as I can tell the actual science papers that the IPCC has used to make an assessment of the science of climate change are all* peer reviewed – and where they are not the IPCC should have made damn sure they are accurate, and if they have not then it is a serious error.

    However, the fact they cite a letter from Newton from 1700odd does not mean they should pay attention to a letter that Maclean sent to Watts for example, or Monckton to Jo, or me to my mum.

    Genuinely, I am all for any audit that genuinely tries to find out any conclusions that the IPCC has made that are based on newspaper clippings or soft-romance novels, or in fact on peer-reviewed articles that are wrong. Fine by me.

    But it is clear to me that literally thousands of these supposedly non-peer reviewed sources are good, solid, and reputable sources in the context in which they are used. eg references to the Stern Review, to World Bank Stats, to US Dept of Energy analysis, to CSIRO data etc etc etc.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    * = pretty much give or take a few.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Graeme Bird

    “No Grant – the IPCC process, in my opinion, is a rigorous assessment (as is peer-review). Just as with peer review for sure the IPCC may have made errors.”

    You opinion doesn’t count Matt. You are either lying or making it up. You know about UN scandals right? Blue hats persistently raping African girls they are meant to be protecting? Food-for-Oil? Money for Kim? Rampant and fevered anti-semitism? None of these are okay. You might think they are okay but they are not.

    This is just another UN scandal. More dangerous then all the others put together.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    papertiger

    Remember long ago in that faraway land when Tim Lambert, John Cook, Josh Halpirn and Grant Foster, were overcome with vapors that Bob Carter’s paper showing Enso controlled the global average temperature had made it past peer review?
    Foster, Annan, Jones, Mann, Mullan, Renwick, Salinger, Schmidt, and Trenberth, sprang into action, cobbling up a paper proving that the weather has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the oceans. GOT IT DONE IN A WEEK using email, and you can follow the inner workings of how climate science sausage is really made – thanks to climategate.

    The tears are still fresh on their cheeks that Tamino’s bloG rant Foster et al hasn’t cleared the peer review.

    I’m kind of hoping it does someday – so we can point at them and make rude noises.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Keith H

    Matt B @ dozens of posts !

    “The observed patterns of warming, including greater warming over land than the ocean, and their changes over time, are only simulated by models that include anthropogenic forcing.”

    That may be the case in the only models the IPCC have tried, but clearly, there is no possible way they could have modelled every conceivable scenario using all the forcing factors affecting climate. As such, that statement in the Fourth Report is blatantly misleading to the gullible, but represents the summation of all their vaunted “science” in support of the hypothesis of AGW.

    As for peer and/or non-peer reviewed work, can anyone name just one that provides empirical evidence that human-induced greenhouse gases have caused allegedly unprecedented global warming.

    To fellow posters, it is clear Matt B just loves to argue and wind you up and is therefore almost a complete time-waster supplying endless links to various sites and literature which still do not prove a thing ! I don’t think anyone will ever know what he really thinks or believes. I’m not sure he even knows himself. However, he does seem to enjoy it. Good luck to him, but I’m over it and have better things to do.

    I did learn one valuable lesson last night which I’ll put down to tiredness and relatively advanced years. Don’t post at 2-45am without first having a look at the preview !!! Cheers.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    A C Osborn

    Mattb, is a typical warmist Troll, deliberately ignoring the stated point of this thread and the Census.
    He would swear black was white if it was written in the IPCC report or on RC.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    The audit accomplished what it set out to do. It appears that, typical of a propaganda campaign, double speak has been used by the IPCC and it’s supporters. A hypocrisy suggesting only MY non peer reviewed material is valid. YOUR non peer reviewed material is worthless. Obviously poor science that tends to support skeptical allegations.

    Mattb has many times proven that he can irritate, obfuscate and agitate. True to form he has accomplished this again here. I don’t know why he derives pleasure from doing so and further I don’t know why others don’t recognize this trait in him and cut off the source of his pleasure. Now he has successfully set two competent skeptics against each other.

    Bulldust has a clear untarnished pedigree as a skeptic.

    Mr. Courtney, With a great deal of respect, I suggest that while you may be technically correct as to your view of this conversation, you could have made your point without offending Bulldust. It does no good for the “team skeptic” to be cutting down each other when the warmists deserve the effort. We skeptics have still got an uphill fight. We need to keep cool and spend the effort where it does the most good.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Yes Mark D the fraudit has set out to create the illusion you refer to in your 1st paragraph. It has indeed made it appear that, typical of a propaganda campaign, double speak has been used by the IPCC and it’s supporters.

    Like Bulldust, from time to time I get accused of being a skeptic by warmer-types because of my tendency to not get dragged down by propaganda. Bulldust no different here.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    That is to say, let’s call a spade a spade – this so called audit is a pile of crap and an embarrassment to the skeptical cause. I’d go so far as to say that it crosses the boundary between skepticism and denial.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    J.Hansford

    Good stuff!…. They tell so many lies now, that it is impossible for them to keep track of it all….. The IPCC and the AGW proponents discredit themselves almost on a daily basis. They are in effect their own worst enemies:-)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Bulldust @80 et al,

    You have stated the problem right down to its foundation.

    But in the meanwhile it is useful to have a system that sorts some of the wheat from the chaff so that you get journals worth reading. The problem, in the case of climate science, is that it appears that the peer-review system has been perverted, but there are ways to try and make it more perversion-resistant. It’s the best we have for now I guess…

    One of the major problems is the “publish or perish” mentality in academia these days where quantity is valued over quality. Perhaps we need a system that is based on the latter, but how would you measure it? number of references to your paper? That could easily be perverted too (like fake clicking of web ads to promote revenues).

    If there was a perfect system for measuring academic paper quality I am sure we would already be using it.

    And I agree with you wholeheartedly!

    But I have your, “…tempest in a teapot,” feeling after all 110 postings so far. What are we left with? The IPCC has, from its beginning, worked tirelessly to force a single preconceived outcome; that humans are trashing the planet with their CO2. And let’s read CO2 correctly. It’s a proxy for modern industrial society. And when challenged over something, as Richard Courtney so aptly said, they just move the goalposts and keep on going.

    As I see it, all this debate is just agitating people over a non issue. The IPCC is wrong, peer review notwithstanding. They accepted nothing that didn’t support AGW, peer reviewed or not. They have lied so blatantly a fencepost could see it. We already knew from the climategate emails that peer review was rigged and worthless. An audit now confirms that their claim of all peer reviewed sources was a lie. Good! That’s confirmation of what we have all already believed. But folks, I don’t care! We should not care! Their peer review was a farce and that’s the end of what you can say about it.

    I have great respect for all the regulars and serious, sensible contributors here. So don’t think too harshly of me. But I could wish that this much debate had gone into the question of how we can better get our message in front of the public.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    That is to say, let’s call a spade a spade – this so called audit is a pile of crap and an embarrassment to the skeptical cause. I’d go so far as to say that it crosses the boundary between skepticism and denial.

    MattB,

    If you have the brass nerve to say that, so be it. But shame on you!

    You really need to decide which side of the fence you’re going to stand on and then stand on that side. Straddling the fence is what’s causing the “pain” you feel. The top of the fence is sharp, Matt!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Off topic but this is the thread with all the attention so I thought you would like to know that the U.S. Navy is blocking access to Fox News. I found this a few minutes ago.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/16/navy-access-fox-news-web-site-blocked/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    MattB:
    April 16th, 2010 at 6:37 pm

    good, solid, and reputable sources in the context in which they are used. eg references to the Stern Review,

    Lets have a look at this Stern Review. (Yet another “authority” Matt seems to be enamoured with)

    Stern says

    This independent Review was commissioned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, reporting to both the Chancellor and to the Prime Minister, as a contribution to assessing the evidence and building understanding of the economics of climate change.

    The operative word here is “INDEPENDENT”. Matt, being a lemming, will refuse to see the irony in Stern being commissioned by the two most senior politicians of UK, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer.
    But lets leave that aside for a minute.
    Stern didn’t do science. He got his science from another source. The easiest thing to do would have been to cut & paste from the IPCC report. But remember, Stern is INDEPENDENT, he couldn’t be seen just copying the IPCC, so he got INDEPENDENT scientists from the WALKER INSTITUTE at the University of Reading. (But he did cite the IPCC on numerous occasions).

    Here is what the Walker Institute says about their work for Stern.

    Walker Institute contribution to the Review

    Walker Institute scientists (from the Departments of Meteorology and Agriculture, along with the National Centre for Atmospheric Science – Climate at the University of Reading) have made significant contributions to this Review and have supported the team in charge of the Review in different ways.

    * Workshop – The Department of Meteorology hosted a workshop for the Stern Review Team on the science of climate change and its impacts. Many scientists from the University provided essential input to the Team during that Workshop.

    * Advice – Prof Brian Hoskins advised the Stern Review team on the scientific aspects to consider in the report and Julia Slingo has been involved in several meetings in London with Sir Nicholas and his team to discuss how to present the science case.

    * Report – Dr Andrew Challinor and others at the Walker Institute produced a solicited report on potential changes in the Indian Summer Monsoon and impacts on food production. Prof Keith Shine and Dr Laila Gohar provided data to the Stern Report on the “effective” amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere – i.e. the amount taking into account greenhouse gases other than carbon dioxide.

    * Reviews -Prof Julia Slingo, Prof. Brian Hoskins, Dr Andrew Challinor and Dr Tim Wheeler have provided detailed expert reviews of the chapter on Climate Science and Climate Impacts of the Stern Review

    Seems fair enough. But who are those people listed as science contributors to Stern?

    From the IPCC AR4…

    Proff J. Slingo: Contributing author WG1 Chp 8
    He was cited 15 times by the IPCC in WG1 chapters 1,3,5,7,8 and 9.

    Proff Brian Hoskins: Drafting author of WG1 SPM.
    He was cited 12 times in WG1 chps 3,8 and 9. A further 4 times in WG2 chps 5,9,10 and 19 plus once in WG3 chp 2 for a total of 17 times.

    Proff Andrew Challinan: A reviewer of WG2 and was cited 8 times in WG2 in chps 5,9 and 10. (wow, he reviewed himself)

    Dr Tim Wheeler: Cited 3 times in WG2 chp 5

    Dr Laila Gohar: Cited once in WG1 chp 2

    Proff Keith Shone: Cited a total of 40 times in WG1 chps 1,3,6,7,8,9 and 10. Plus once in WG2 chp 19.

    So, is there a problem with the IPCC referring to the INDEPENDANT Stern report? Not according to MattB.
    IPCC only refers to Stern 29 times. Oh, and also 5 authors who either reported for, or researched for, the Stern review. That’s a total of 34 times.

    So what do we have here? Dyed in the wool IPCC scientists used as INDEPENDENT researchers for INDEPENDENT Stern, who also refers back to the IPCC report, which returns the favour and refers to the INDEPENDENT APOLITICAL Stern review. (stop sniggering you lot)

    For those who say the Citizens Auditors wasted their time, what about the Stern report? Stern could have saved much more time and money by just changing the cover of the IPCC report to read Stern Report and handing that in. Any 5th grader could have done that.

    Solid science? Independent?

    So this is the problem with our MattB, who has continually presented himself as a lukewarmer, (who nonetheless habitually offends, insults and makes poor choices of words) but has put all his money on the IPCC as the best science available. So whenever the IPCC is discredited, he has no choice but to defend it (even it’s self serving chairman) because to accept that the IPCC is nothing but a political, agenda serving sham of an organization would mean his very own position on AGW crumbles like a house of cards.

    The evasion, avoidance, obtuseness and the on and off sarcasm, offensiveness and insolence towards the likes of Richard S Courtney, Eddie Aruda and others is a product of this.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    MattB:….from time to time I get accused of being a skeptic by warmer-types because of my tendency to not get dragged down by propaganda…..

    By the way, it should be obvious that you have admitted to the use of propaganda by the holy IPCC and other warmists. In light of this Audit which is an attempt to disarm the propaganda suggesting “peer reviewed” “settled science” it seems you are contradicting your own principles? Your self declared “tendency to not get dragged down by propaganda” is applied by you with biased discretion. Good that you’d stand up for that……

    MattB: That is to say, let’s call a spade a spade…. –

    You mean you are getting pissed that the skeptics might be using propaganda as well as warmists? Hey if that is what it takes to reform the thinking of the lemming masses so be it. Your warmist ilk threw that gauntlet years ago.

    …this so called audit is a pile of crap and an embarrassment to the skeptical cause. I’d go so far as to say that it crosses the boundary between skepticism and denial.

    I can’t disagree vigorously enough! The Audit was a huge undertaking. The fact that the IPCC now knows that an ad-hoc group of volunteers will time to do it will have a very desirable effect. The liar will always be caught by the additional lies necessary to cover the first.

    Finally, denial is a word that cuts both ways. How deep is the wound you have showing?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Bulldust:

    I draw attention to your rebuttal of me that you provide at #102.

    Please accept my apology for any misunderstanding and/or misrepresentation of you that I have made. It was not intentional.

    I strongly agree with you that all information should be assessed on its merits and its origen and/or whether it has been published in peer reviewed form is not relevant to that.

    However, I have to disagree with you when you say:

    people seem to be getting very worked up over nothing here ATM (not referring to most of the posts or the OP, just some of the responses).

    This is not “nothing”: it is complete disproof of the major pro-AGW argument. Of course, and as you say, that argument is based on a falsehood, but aall pro-AGW arguments are either falsehoods or exagerations.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    MarkD:

    You say to me at #111 you say to me:

    Mr. Courtney, With a great deal of respect, I suggest that while you may be technically correct as to your view of this conversation, you could have made your point without offending Bulldust. It does no good for the “team skeptic” to be cutting down each other when the warmists deserve the effort.

    I accept the admonishment. I apologised to Bulldust at #120 and do so again here.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    WillR

    @MattB:

    We are flattered. The effort you are putting into “debunking” the “fraudit” is telling. Clearly you consider the work to be of great importance.

    However, I think we now stand on the same side. If I understand you correctly nobody need wave the “silver cross” of peer review at the “werewolves” no more. Clearly any rational opinion is worth a a sober, considerate, thoughtful discussion — whether the ideas are peer reviewed or no!. I think that is all that people wished to achieve with this effort.

    Hopefully everyone will put the “peer review” war of the 2000′s behind them and concentrate on developing a clear rational view of climate science. I think that would be a wonderful achievement and people who participated in the audit will feel vindicated by that simple accomplishment.

    In closing thank you for your opinion and support of the ideas presented in the report.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    EARLIER WARMER PERIODS IN THE ALPS:
    The Alps were once greener than they are today.
    My English summary essay here:
    http://pgosselin.wordpress.com/2010/04/16/swiss-glaciers-expose-earlier-warm-periods/

    The complete story appreared in German in the Swiss news journal Die Weltwoche, by Alex Reichmuth.
    http://www.weltwoche.ch/ausgaben/2010-15/artikel-2010-15-gletscherforschung-die-zeugen-frueheren-klimawandels.html
    I recommend it if you can read German. I found it so interesting that I summarised it (see link above).


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bernd Felsche

    Perhaps I’m too cynical, but I see this exposë, like all the others including the CRU data leakage as having much impact.

    Societal standards have been so badly corroded by politicall “correctness” that one can no longer call incompetent people incompetent for fear of litigation because it hurts their feelings. Incompetents can’t even be sacked for being incompetent. They can only be promoted because the people who hired them don’t want to look like they made a mistake; or are even more incompetent.

    Then, when incompetents try to (incompetently) hide their incompetence having misappropriated income as they knew quite well that they weren’t up to the job; they plead victimhood. They say that they’re only doing what all the other incompetents are doing, are very regretful, depressed and possibly suicidal.

    The one who really aren’t depressed/suicidal are the dangerous psychopaths amongst the incompetent. They won’t let their incompetence or anything else get in their way.

    Post-normal society appoints a committee to “investigate”, usually dominated by incompetents; gives them meaningless scope and far too little time and other resources to come to a competent conclusion.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bernd Felsche

    P Gosselin @123

    Now; if only we could get the “climate scientists” to take a walk outdoors with their eyes open!

    Perhaps even try to survive for 10 days on what they can carry on their backs.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    @121 Richard, I had no doubt that, as a gentleman, you would. Thank you.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mia Nony

    CLIMATE TERRORISM: THE DEMONIZATION OF ALL THINGS NATURAL

    CANADA’S FREEDOMS ARE ABOUT TO BITE THE DUST

    HAS ANYONE READ THIS BILL?

    Do they talk about global governance, incorporate laws of foreign governments by defining “government as foreign government”?

    This is sneaking right through!!!
    CANADIAN must find a breakdown somewhere conducted by a lawyer, unless someone has the time to break this down asap.

    - – - – - – - – - – - –
    >From the David Suzuki Foundation:

    “Your action helped pass Bill C-311″

    Thanks to your efforts, Bill C311, the Climate Change Accountability Act

    http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=3662654&Language=e&Mode=1

    passed another hurdle in Canada’s Parliament yesterday, with the support of the NDP, Liberals, and Bloc Québécois.
    The Act will face another vote in the House of Commons in mid-May and the three opposition parties have all said they will vote for it.
    Among other things, the Act will set a national greenhouse gas target for Canada based on the science(???) ; require the government to publish a plan and implement regulations to meet that target; and mandate transparency and accountability measures to make sure that the government is on track to cut greenhouse gas “pollution”.

    Not only that, but the Liberal Party also decided to introduce its own strong motion

    http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=40&Ses=3&DocId=4415197&File=11

    calling on the government to implement a number of measures to step up its efforts in the fight against climate change.
    This motion calls on the government of Canada to implement a domestic legally binding long-term emissions-reduction target; implement a national climate change plan with economy-wide regulations; put strategic investments into renewable and clean technology; reverse its decision to cancel the ecoENERGY program that supported Canadians in making their homes more energy efficient; and convene a First Ministers’ Meeting within 90 days of the motion’s passage to start moving Canada forward on a plan. This motion also passed with support from the three opposition parties.
    Your messages to politicians led to these significant victories and have brought about positive change for all Canadians. Thanks again.

    - – - – — – - – —- – - -

    TO VIEW THE RECORD OF THE VOTE ON BILL C-311, click on:
    http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HouseChamberBusiness/ChamberVoteDetail.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=40&Ses=3&FltrParl=40&FltrSes=3&Vote=23

    Every one of the Conservative MP’s voted against the Climate Accountability Legislation. 141 of their votes are accounted for, out of a total of 145.

    The other parties supported the Bill.

    Both Ignatieff and Goodale were on hand for the vote.

    The vote was 155 Yay and 137 Nay.

    Over and out!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    P Gosselin, good link! @ 123

    I suppose it was warming caused by campfires 10,600 years ago that caused those forests right?

    By the way what were the tree ring temperatures from those trees? Anyone? IPCC? CRU? Hello, Anyone?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bernd Felsche

    P Gosselin @ 123

    I’ve been reading your summary of the article. I suggest that you modify “glacial fluctuation zone” etc to represent more closely what “Gleichgewichtslinie, die die Grenze zwischen Nähr- und Zehrgebiet eines Gletschers bildet,” says: e.g. “the equilibrium line that is the boundary between the feed and depletion zones of the glacier”.

    Being a “native speaker” of both languages makes me appreciate how much work it is to do a translation effectively. And one never gets it right. Not the first time, not the tenth time. One has to second-guess many nuances and get into the mind of the author, then express those ideas in the other language; which is often not possible and can sometimes call for a lot of “homework” to study the subject matter in order to understand it sufficiently to express in both languages.

    Count yourself lucky though. Most people have a great deal of trouble expressing their ideas to others speaking the same language.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bernd Felsche

    Mark D @128:

    As I understand it, one needs to have a definite time datum for the cross-section to establish an absolute chronology. Otherwise, you can push it back and forth through history until it confirms whatever you want. ;-)

    A datum can be taken from the “bark” or green wood line that grew last when the tree was known to have been felled; fairly accurately; preferably better than a year. This is why e.g. European half-timbered houses are important to dendochronologists. The houses usually show which year they were built on the lintel above the main door. Building timber would have been less than a decade old at the time of construction. One then finds beams which came from outer part of the trunk and takes a core sample.

    The other way to establish a datum; though not necessarily the correct one; is to compare tree ring widths against those with a known datum; from nearby. A good correlation in width patterns can be confirmed by e.g. isotope dating.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Bernd,
    Danke! I have to admit I wasn’t really sure how to call that one. That was one time I wish I had been a glaciologist.
    I’ll change it right away.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Lukewarmer?????? Outrageous slur!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    PhilJourdan

    Joanne is right about the meaning of this revelation. Anyone not believing it just has to look at MattB’s desperation. after behaving himself for months, he is posting scared (and not making many points). Apparently knocking the leg out of the AGW proponents contention about peer review (and the fact the IPCC is worthless as far as a reputable source) seems to be a major blow to the propaganda effort of AGW.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Keith H

    Well said Richard S Courtney @ 120/121.

    Re peer review, Dr.Vincent Gray said this in his NZCLIMATE Truth Newsletter No.212 on 26 June 2009.

    “IMPOSITION OF DOGMA.

    The IPCC Reports make no attempt to consider seriously all comments made on their various drafts. They make this plain in Appendix 1 of the First Report, where they say:
    “While every attempt was made by the Lead Authors to incorporate their comments, in some cases these formed a minority opinion which could not be reconciled with the larger consensus.”

    This “consensus” is what is collectively decided by the anonymous Government representatives who approve the entire reports and who dictate to the “Drafting Editors” of the “Summary For Policymakers” what they are permitted to write. The “consensus” is actually a dogma, foreshadowed by the FCCC concept of “climate change”, that all changes in the climate are caused by human-induced changes in the minor greenhouse gases. All contributions and comments that challenge this dogma are treated as a “minority opinion” which they ruthlessly suppress. Reasons for rejecting comments were never given. The only way I could find out whether they had been considered was to read through the final Report. For the latest, Fourth Report, access to the comments on the “Science” Report was obtained through the British Official Information Act. I discovered that I had made 1,878 comments, and that most of these had been rejected out of hand and the others usually had a trivial reason such as “insufficient information” even when this information had been repeatedly supplied.”

    What an extraordinary situation where a reviewer has to resort to such measures to obtain feedback on his comments ! On other sites visited I have found examples of other IPPC reviewers similarly affronted.

    Though numbers are not important as such, (although the IPCC seems to set great store in them), I wonder do you have any idea of just how many such scientists there are and if there is much contact between them?

    There are so many people all over the world individually doing great work to refute the AGW nonsense but everything seems to be so fragmented. What a force they would be if their efforts could only be co-ordinated ! How can we achieve this?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bernd Felsche

    Meanwhile Kevin Trenberth is looking for “Dark Heat” to explain the lack of warming ;-)


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Bernd Felsche

    papertiger @136:
    You are so unkind: Mr Magoo can tell the difference between butter and bulltish.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Peter of Sydney

    If it’s true that the new IPCC report is full of lies, then why doesn’t someone take them to court and prover it? It should be easy enough. Time will tell if someone with the resources, such as Lord Monckton does it. If it doesn’t happen then it’s all over – the AGW alarmists will win if the IPCC report is not contested in a court of law.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Bernd Felsche: 135
    April 17th, 2010 at 2:44 pm

    Hi bernd

    This isn’t new for Trenberth. he made the same claims in 1989. He has been looking for 21 years. Looking looking looking.

    “Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), Boulder, Colorado, stated in 1989, that the heat storage capacity of the oceans was so enormous, that the stored heat of the whole atmosphere could be contained in the top one to two metres of the oceans. In other words, if a +1 deg temperature increase in atmospheric temperature was put into the sea, it would only warm the top metre or so of ocean. The oceans therefore have an almost unlimited `heat sink’ capacity, being deeper than 4 kilometres in many places.”

    and

    “The modellers claim that the accumulated heat generated by greenhouse warming is being stored in the deep oceans, and that it will eventually come back out and haunt us at a later time. In other words, the warming has been merely deferred, but not cancelled.”

    Surface temps CANNOT warm the oceans. Ocean temps are remarkably uniform in the deep, from the tropics to the poles.
    ocean T's

    So there is NO MISSING HEAT. Yet another goose chase by the alarmists.

    Read the details HERE


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Phil in 133 – keep on dreamin’ buddy.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Peter of Sydney:

    You assert at @138:

    If it’s true that the new IPCC report is full of lies, then why doesn’t someone take them to court and prover it? It should be easy enough. Time will tell if someone with the resources, such as Lord Monckton does it. If it doesn’t happen then it’s all over – the AGW alarmists will win if the IPCC report is not contested in a court of law.

    Oh dear, No! That really would be playing into their hands. To understand why please read the Section titled ‘THE MANNER OF THE ENQUIRY’S CONSIDERATION OF ‘EVIDENCE’’ at
    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/comments_uk_p.pdf

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    Bernd Felsche: 135
    April 17th, 2010 at 2:44 pm
    Hey Bernd look, it’s not just the warming the alarmists have lost, they’ve misplaced the CO2 as well wouldn’t you know.

    “A decade after the first carbon observatory was designed, there is still a need for something that can measure where carbon dioxide is being absorbed – and the need may be even greater, David Crisp said.

    “There are these processes we know about, but we do an account and we can’t figure out where the CO2 is going,” Crisp said. “We don’t know where it’s going. We don’t know what parts of the ocean are absorbing it.”

    Read more: JPL officials are on the case of the missing CO2 – Whittier Daily News http://www.whittierdailynews.com/news/ci_14414323?source=rss#ixzz0lN3ZPaua

    C3 Headlines
    summarises the dilemma..

    Now for the disturbing analysis (after billions have been spent on AGW-dependent climate research): First, these same climate alarmist scientists have no clue where their predicted global warming heat is going; second, these scientists also have no clue where the known growth in CO2 emissions is going. These are major “consensus” unknowns, acknowledged by the alarmist scientists.

    Sooo, let’s summarize: The AGW hypothesis major input, CO2 emissions, is missing; the AGW hypothesis major output, warming/heat, is missing.

    I’ll offer a slab of beer to the first person who finds the missing CO2 and Heat.

    Clue…sshhhhhh look inside the climate models :)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Oh dear, No! That really would be playing into their hands. To understand why please read the Section titled ‘THE MANNER OF THE ENQUIRY’S CONSIDERATION OF ‘EVIDENCE’’ at

    Richard,

    I know you’ve made this argument before because you made it to me specifically. And you were right.

    COMMENTS:

    Let’s put aside all this stuff we have no control over.

    Let’s start paying attention to how we can better get our case in front of the public. If you, or anyone, can shed some additional light on this problem then that’s what we need to see.

    With all due respect to you and all the others who contribute here (you can run circles around me on the science), talking is a lot easier than acting. But we need action! An aware and aroused public is the only thing that can stop this AGW fraud.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Baa @142,

    Hey Bernd look, it’s not just the warming the alarmists have lost

    They haven’t yet lost. They’re feeling the heat (pun intended) and are getting desperate. But they are still pushing full speed ahead to implement their takeover of the world.

    They haven’t lost until they’re dead and buried in history’s garbage dump.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bernd Felsche

    Baa H @142:
    I found it!

    It’s being squeezed into cheap Chinese “microwave” ovens. If you look at market penetration of the devices; compare it to Trenberth’s amount of Dark Heat, and read all the warnings on the devices, it’s quite clear that they can only be electric devices to release compressed, dark heat. Obviously the pressure tank is quite robust because they’re very heavy indeed. With the amount of cooking that the “ovens” can do over the warranty period, imagine the dark heat release if the pressure vessel bursts! It also explains why they seldom work for much longer than the warranty period.

    I reckon I’ve sussed why Maurice Strong moved to China. He figured out how to turn the heat into dark heat and bottle it.

    Which leaves us at an impasse in terms of preventing climate change. If we keep buying cheap Chinese “microwave” ovens, they’ll keep bottling up the heat. But they also need the raw materials, which Australia (and others) provide; along with a hungry customer base. If we stop producing Gaia-poisoning CO2, then it removes a critical raw material of dark heat for those devices. Their manufacturing base could collapse or return to packaging toxic waste as cosmetics; for that special glow.. Same thing happens if we simply stop buying the cheap boxes.

    Perhaps there’s a solution in buying excess production and stockpiling the devices; perchance using the stored dark heat to release in a controlled manner at the onset of the next ice age.

    P.S.: Unlike Trenberth, I can tell when I’m talking bulltish.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Roy Hogue:

    At #143 you say to me:

    Let’s start paying attention to how we can better get our case in front of the public. If you, or anyone, can shed some additional light on this problem then that’s what we need to see.

    But if I knew how to do that then I would be doing it and proclaiming that others do it, too.

    I have been doing everything I could for decades (and at some personal cost). But, against the money and media supporting the AGW-myth, the efforts of myself and others to stop the spread of the myth has had as much effect as midge bites on a tank.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Richard,

    I know how you feel. I’ve written letters to the editor, email to politicians, even politicians friendly to opposing our cap-and-trade-tax measure now in the Senate and I don’t get back so much as a, “Kiss my anatomy,” from them. But I have to believe we can somehow get heard, even if it only starts locally. There’s a lot of conservative talk radio in the states and some of the hosts are opposing the cap-and-tax but only on the basis of cost and economic damage which doesn’t reach those who think AGW may well be real. I’m beginning to formulate a plan to see if I can get at least one of them to give an airing to the science involved – nothing heavy, but on the order of what Jo did on GlobalCoolingRadio. I need to come up with an approach that will get me some attention and not turn off the particular guy I’m thinking about.

    When I have to work full time and have other responsibilities to take care of I don’t get much time to work on it. But this is the kind of thing I’m thinking about.

    I maybe forget that in the UK and Australia you don’t have independent media. Or do you? Anyone with a conservative bent might be worth a try. The worst answer we can get is no.

    And I do appreciate all the work you particularly have done. I’ve followed what you’ve posted here on joannenova. But I wonder if working through government will pay off. What I’ve seen since I started following this site tends to tell me no.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tel

    I have been doing everything I could for decades (and at some personal cost). But, against the money and media supporting the AGW-myth, the efforts of myself and others to stop the spread of the myth has had as much effect as midge bites on a tank.

    The Russians twice found themselves in a similar predicament. A lot of dead Russians later, they were rescued at the last minute by General Winter.

    In another 10 years, comedians will be doing shtick about people who believe CO2 and the end of the world, while heating oil prices continue to rise.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bernd Felsche

    Anthony Watts shows that recent global Warming is caused by typos.

    Interestingly, the METAR coding error has its greatest magnitude at the poles, becuase the differences in the missing minus sign become larger as the temperature grows colder. Eureka, NWT is a great example, going from -43°C to +43°C with one missing “M”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bernd Felsche

    I should add that. when writing software to do structural engineering analysis, that I always checked input data for sanity.

    That is in part because I know that I make keyboard errors, but also because I recognized that experienced people seldom pay attention to what they are doing at a computer screen, merrily typing away what they think the computer is asking for. They don’t read the prompts. They seldom see the warnings unless you “entertain” them in doing so.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Bernd Felsche,

    I guess we all knew that their ground station data wasn’t so good (I started to type, “…so hot.” But that would be an oxymoron). What boils me is the refusal to correct data errors when they’re pointed out. These are the same people who want to be seen as the reliable authority on what the temperature has been. Go figure!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rod Smith

    Roy Hogue: What boils me is the refusal to correct data errors when they’re pointed out.

    Well, all errors are not easily correctable in real-time, and some maybe not even later. For example, take a temperature that is obviously wrong at some airfield. Many users looking at the ob will recognize the temperature is wrong and will still use the visibility, ceiling, winds, altimeter, etc., to insure safe operations. Notice that errors in these other areas may not be at all obvious, and may possibly be much more dangerous to tinker with.

    And how does a later batch operation “correct” an observed temperature without (for example) access to a thermograph record or equivalent? Temperatures can change rapidly with frontal activity, winds, cloud cover, precip, etc. I used to be in the business of collecting, editing and relaying world-wide observations. I would have rather left many suspected errors than to attempt to guess how to correct it. Or, suppose you as a scientist are interested only in cloud heights for your research. Wouldn’t you want to see the whole ob, error and all? And as an “editor,” how would you handle a serious aircraft accident caused by your change? Does WMO sanction real-time corrections made by a third party?

    There are several observation archives around the world. How do we ever get them all in-sync with a later batch correction “assumed” and made by one at some later date?

    The only solution is real-time QC at the source, not QA minutes, hours, days, weeks, or months after the fact. WMO is toothless to enforce much of anything, and whatever is done will likely cost money. Some (many?) third-world countries may not be able to support real-time QC.

    The best part is that these sorts of errors, at least in my day, were not very common. The best solution may be to try to automate some/most of the QC at the source. Perfect may be impossible, but better is a good target, and computers are cheap and reliable today.

    And by the way, there are more than 13,000 stations reporting surface obs around the world today. I would suspect that upwards of 90% are handled in real/near time. Add to that forecasts, upper-air reports, weather warnings, etc., and job of handling all that seems less trivial.

    Are there any old AWN editors out there that would venture an opinion?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    On February 1st, a British newspaper reported that the UK government had declined to express confidence in the IPCC’s embattled chairman, Rajendra Pachauri. This is one of those news clippings about which we should be abundantly cautious. It quotes an anonymous “senior government official” rather than an identifiable individual. And because it appears in The Guardian, a paper aggressively sympathetic to the green movement, the motives of everyone involved are murky.

    Nevertheless, this article is illuminating because of one paragraph in particular:

    The government has told the IPCC through official channels that it must ensure review standards are robust and its communication effective. “They need to communicate that 99% of the science on which they base [their work] is peer reviewed,” the official said. [bold added, first set of parenthesis in original]

    As the citizen audit results I released four days ago reveal, the 18,531 references cited by the IPCC are so far from being 99 percent peer-reviewed it’s laughable. A full 30 percent of them (5,587) were not published in peer-reviewed academic journals.

    More at nofrakkingconsensus


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Well, all errors are not easily correctable in real-time, and some maybe not even later.

    Rod,

    OK, I understand your position. But this same erroneous data goes into the temperature database and the errors Anthony Watts points out show up as warming that isn’t there.

    I argued on wattsupwiththat that the fully automated satellite data should be used to avoid the problem of human error. It won’t pinpoint one airport or one particular spot and that’s what we want. On most days I can drive from, say 5 to 8 miles east and find the temperature as much as 10 degrees F warmer than I have here. Which temperature is the “right” one? Which one measures the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere?

    Well, I’m sure you understand my point and I’m preaching to the choir. It just demonstrates the futility of trying to do what the IPCC, NASA and the rest are doing.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    “A full 30 percent of them (5,587) were not published in peer-reviewed academic journals.”

    Lol keep on making things up Humbug. Your audit goes nowhere near showing how much of the science the IPCC uses is peer reviewed, and I look forward to noconsensus 2.0 that presents a more accurate picture. You’ve got the basis of it already, it shouldn’t be too hard.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    And the troll who is a jerk, (or is that the jerk who is a troll?) continues to not understand the gist of the exercise.

    Lol keep on making things up Humbug. Your audit goes nowhere near showing how much of the science the IPCC uses is peer reviewed,

    His pea-brain won’t comprehend that IT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN UP TO A BUNCH OF VOLUNTEERS to point out the non-peer reviewed references. The IPCC should have done that as a matter of course, especially in view of the amply documented comments by it’s chairman.

    I also noticed you haven’t responded to any of my offensive posts. What’s the matter, RealClimate not got back to you with cut n paste answers yet? “hey guys, they’re saying this and that about me at Novas, what should I say?”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    “I also noticed you haven’t responded to any of my offensive posts”

    Shame on me. We can all say things in the heat of debate. Continuing to say them a day or two later… hmm.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Look humbug – can you show me where anyone has said that every reference in the IPCC reports is to a peer-reviewed science journal? If not the audit is flawed.

    If you can show me where science based discussions/conclusions rely on non-peer reviewed sources I’m all ears. And then show me which are based on unreliable non-peer reviewed sources I’m even more interested.

    You could then quite legitimately ask the IPCC for a response regarding use of those sources, and you’d certainly have the political ammunition to ensure that in the future the IPCC is a bit clearer in the public real about the peer-reviewed criteria.

    So if you can do that then the audit may have merit. The current audit is just throwing a dead chook in a piranha pond.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    JerkB: # 158
    April 19th, 2010 at 3:47 pm

    Look humbug – can you show me where anyone has said that every reference in the IPCC reports is to a peer-reviewed science journal? If not the audit is flawed.

    This is the type of troll behaviour that condemns you, you jerk. READ THE WHOLE POST, then FOLLOW THE LINKS and read ALL THAT’S THERE before opining your rude offensive comments.

    HOW MANY TIMES DO YOU HAVE TO BE LED BY THE NOSE you pea brained troll.

    “People can have confidence in the IPCC’s conclusions…Given that it is all on the basis of peer-reviewed literature.” – Rajendra Pachauri, IPCC chairman, June 2008

    The operative word is ALL, gettit? comprehendo? He doesn’t say “all of the science bits” or “most” or “all of the important bits”, he plainly says ALL referring to the whole AR4.

    “As IPCC Chairman Rajendra K. Pachauri recently stated: ‘IPCC relies entirely on peer reviewed literature in carrying out its assessment…’” – US Environmental Protection Agency, December 2009 (bottom of PDF’s page 7)

    Operative word, ENTIRELY. Gettit? kapisch? It’s ASSESSMENT. Not just it’s scientific basis, IT’S ASSESSMENT. IPCC assesses “impacts, adaptation and vulnerability” in WG2 and “mitigation” in WG3.
    That’s why it is called THE FRAKKING 4TH ASSESSMENT REPORT you dumbassed troll. “And the IPCC relies ENfriggingTIRELY on peer reviewed literature for it’s ASSESSMENT”

    Now to your stupid conjecture that ONLY the SCIENTIFIC bits matter. NO you idiot, it’s the EXACT OPPOSITE. The scientific bit says (x)DegC of warming. That means NOTHING until the “IMPACTS” section of the AR4 (that’s chapter 2 lame brain) says what consequences there will be in that amount of warming.
    If chapter 2 said no problem with that warmth folks, only good can come out of it, there’d be no problem, no debate. THE FACT THAT IT’S CHAPTER 2 THAT ANNOUNCES ALL THE DOOM MAKES CHP2 MORE IMPORTANT.

    Wholly 2489 of 8272 references in chp 2 are to non-pr works. That’s 34%. Assuming us auditors made huge mistakes, and 1000 of the 2489 are also cosher, that’s still a stunning 1489 or 18% in a report tauted to be of “Gold standard” a report that the WMO (the convenors of the IPCC) says should be 99% peer reviewed.

    WG3 is as important as it covers the question of “mitigation” This is the bit where the IPCC bullchits it’s way through by pretending that mitigation is NOT too costly. Richard Tol (he was referred to on dozens of occasions by the AR4) was scathing in his report on the figure fudging by the IPCC. This particular chapter was non-pr on 2307 of 4033 references, or 57% The bit where they lied the most is the bit that’s LEAST PEER REVIEWED.
    But again, assume we made mistakes in 1000 of the references, that still leaves 1307 of 4033 or a stunning 32.4% a far cry from the WMO standard of 99%

    This is the last time I will spoon feed your sorry a*s. Next time, take the time to read THE WHOLE THING before shooting your offensive mouth off you jerk.

    p.s It’s been months now since you said you would read Richard S Courtneys paper and get back to him with your opinion. Still waiting. Your original excuse of no money (paper is behind a paywall of about $20) doesn’t wash. A six year old could have saved enough by now.
    (I bring this up because you habitually post disparaging comments before you read the entirety of an article).
    Just be honest and say you bit off more than you could chew by criticising Richards honest work and that you most certainly don’t have brains enough to understand the mans paper let alone critique it. Then say sorry for being an offensive troll, Richard is magnanimous, (as proven by his apologies to other bloggers) I’m sure he’ll accept your apology.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Keith H

    Look Matt B @158

    Can you show me where the IPCC has modelled every conceivable scenario using all the forcing factors affecting climate? If not, their claim in the Fourth Report that:- “the observed patterns of warming, including greater warming over land than the ocean, and their changes over time, are only simulated by models that include anthropogenic forcing”, is flawed.

    People who believe that IPCC statement would also be gullible enough to believe that governments of the world could control world temperature by legislation imposing a new tax!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    yes humbug I can see you are selectively quoting bits in isolation while not applying any intelligence. I’ve asked why go past Newton 1700ish to prove those 100% statements wrong? would have taken this 6 year old brain about 30 seconds not a team of 40+ “auditors”. It is 100% clear to me that it is peer reviewed “SCIENCE” leading to “SCIENCE CONCLUSIONS”. You simply cannot seriously claim references that are quoted simply in a background fashion and not adding to the science of the document should be “peer reviewed”.

    AND LASTLY even if he (Paurauchi sp?) is a moron and thick and thinks it is 100% PR then he should be sacked and it doesn’t change the science one iota. it is CLEARLY not a fact that ever reference is PR, and only a, what was that word, would think it is intended.

    1) all the core science is PR
    2) nearly all the Ch2 and 3 science is PR
    3) That which isn’t has been through a PR process to be included by the chapter editors and reviewers.

    Sorry but it is good enough for me.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    No Keith I can’t.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Baa Humbug

    MattB: #161
    April 19th, 2010 at 11:33 pm

    You really don’t know what you’re saying do you? And if you don’t know, how do you expect others to know what it is you’re trying to say. Add to that dillemma your poor choice of words makes you an impossible person to have a cogent debate with.

    Demonstration…

    AND LASTLY even if he (Paurauchi sp?) is a moron and thick and thinks it is 100% PR then he should be sacked…..

    Pachauri SAYS it’s 100% PR. We didn’t even say he should be sacked, but I’m glad you think he should be.
    Pachauris claims IS THE WHOLE POINT. If you understood that, then why this debate? Why the offensive quips and remarks and the disparagement of the people who did the audit?

    But then you add..

    and it doesn’t change the science one iota. it is CLEARLY not a fact that ever reference is PR, and only a, what was that word, would think it is intended.

    This is the part I’ve explained to you over and over and over again
    There is nothing, nowhere in the Citizens Audit report which says or infers that the science has changed OR THAT THE SCIENCE IS WRONG. There simply is no reference to the science by the audit.
    Show me where it says that. I’ve asked you to do this before, but you evaded it.

    You simply cannot seriously claim references that are quoted simply in a background fashion and not adding to the science of the document should be “peer reviewed”.

    There is nothing, nowhere in the Citizens Audit report which says any particular reference should or shouldn’t be included in the IPCC report. The audit actually goes as far saying we don’t necessarily believe any grey literature referenced by the IPCC should be tossed in the dustbin as the chairman Pachauri has said the Indian Govt discussion paper should be so tossed. It’s in the video and the link provided with Pachauris statement.
    Show me where in the report we say a reference should be excluded or included.
    I’ve also asked you to do this twice before but again you evade it.

    1) all the core science is PR
    2) nearly all the Ch2 and 3 science is PR
    3) That which isn’t has been through a PR process to be included by the chapter editors and reviewers.

    1-) Show me where we refer to the “core science”
    So your 1-) is irrelevant

    2-) Show me where we refer to ch2 or 3 science.
    So your 2-) is irrelevant.

    3-) Show me where we refer to any paper that should or should not have gone thru the review and editing process.
    So your 3-) is irrelevant

    Do you have anything relevant to say?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rod Smith

    @Roy Hogue #154

    I have ABSOLUTELY no argument with your post. I’m not sure however that satellite obs could replace aerodrome reports just yet. For example consider runway visibility, ceiling height of an obscuration, altimeter settings, surface crosswinds, runway snow depth, braking action, or maybe SPECI reports.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Rod @165,

    I never thought you had any real disagreement. Probably I should have drawn a distinction between weather info needed by pilots and the temperature data needed by someone trying to determine if temperatures are changing either over a smaller area or globally.

    As Anthony Watts points out, pilots have little interest in the temperature unless they have a marginal situation and need to worry about density altitude. But a global temperature database is made a mess of when temperatures below zero are instead recorded as above zero in cold northern latitudes.

    Roy


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bernd Felsche

    [copy-paste-monkey mode]

    Economist Richard Tol has prepared a statement for a committee of the Dutch parliament examining climate-related controversies this week.

    Translated on Donna Laframboise’s blog.

    Salient points.

    Over the years, the IPCC has changed from a scientific institution that tries to be policy relevant to a political institution that pretends to be scientific. I regret that. There are already more than enough climate activists, while there are too few solid and neutral bodies that make down-to-earth and well-founded statements about climate change and climate policy.

    The most important problem of the IPCC is the nomination and selection of authors and bureau members. This is not based on academic quality (as it should be) but rather on political colour.

    Working Groups 2 and 3 of the AR4 violated all IPCC procedures. The conclusions are partly scientifically unfounded, and even partly copied from the environmental movement. The AR4 was substantially changed after the final review, also in parts that had already been accepted by the referees. Valid comments were ignored.

    The errors are not random. Working Group 2 systematically portrays climate change as a bigger problem than is scientifically acceptable. Working Group 3 systematically portrays climate policy as easier and cheaper than can be responsibly concluded based on academic research.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rod Smith

    Roy #166

    Thank you. I never thought for a moment you were “the enemy.” I apologize if I came across that way.

    Looking at the “problem” again, I suddenly recognized something about METAR obs – I don’t routinely look at them these days!!

    For those who may still be interested, I remembered that U.S. stations use a slightly different form of METAR code – a regional variation – and appends a temperature group beginning with a “T” at the end of each ob. This “T” is followed by a sign indicator (0 for positive and 1 for negative), then the temperature to tenths of degrees C. The dew-point is then appended to this group in a similar fashion.

    The appended T-group for the M04/M07 illustrated (if from a U.S. station) might look something like T10431076.

    So it is possible to cross-check more things in a U.S. ob, but if they are different, which one is correct may still not be obvious in all cases.

    If you are holding in a racetrack pattern waiting for fog to clear, it would be nice to be a bit better informed. I remember my whole Bomb Wing doing just that one time for nearly eight hours over our “staging base,” Eilson AFB, (near Fairbanks) AK, on a SAC exercise called, as I remember, “Tough Nut.” It was well named! We got off again, on-time(!) four hours later and flew another 30 hours. Fortunately I was young and “full of it” in those days.

    Hang in there.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Rod,

    Eight hours in a holding pattern would drive anyone nuts. Time to head for the alternate I would think, good weather data or not!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    IPCC and the Stern review Scandal.

    Yet more forensic work by Donna Laframboise.

    The much vaunted Stern review, established by the UK Govt. was not published until the end of 2006.
    The IPCC fourth assessment report deadline for citing and referencing papers was months earlier.
    But it seems that didn’t stop the IPCC from referring to the Stern report dozens of times LONG AFTER THE 2 ROUNDS OF EXPERT REVIEWS WERE COMPLETED.

    Read MORE HERE then follow the link provided to Donnas Forensics


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ronnell

    The website REALCLIMATE has NO CREDIBILITY!

    It is simply a mouthpiece for the Fanatical Followers Of The Church Of Climatology!

    Anybody who quotes from them also has NO CREDIBILITY also!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ronnell

    For everybody’s information the poster named “Milankovitch” IS ALSO A TROLL that posts DRIVEL on Andrew Bolt’s Blog……

    It demonstrates it’s STUPIDITY through every single post.

    Al gore, Goldman Sachs et al…..
    “We’re looking for some USEFUL IDIOTS to help make us BILLIONAIRES”

    Obviously this “MattB” and “Milankovitch” ARE TWO OF THE USEFUL IDIOTS!!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    BLouis79

    The IAC’s report on IPCC identifies in nice words all the problems:
    http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/report.html

    Nontransparent processes of scoping and selection of authors.
    Early finalization of document outlines which prevent incorporation of emerging scientific knowledge.
    Procedures for critically assessing unpublished and non-peer reviewed sources not followed.
    Alternative scientific views not cited if lead authors disagreed with them.
    Lack of scientific independence – working group co-chairs select review editors.
    Differences in content between the Summary for Policymakers and underlying report.
    Synthesis Report redundant and too political.
    Inconsistent use of uncertainty guidance and inappropriate characterization of scientific uncertainty – assigning probabilities to imprecise statements.
    Lack of transparency in formation of subjective judgements not based on evidence.
    IPCC Chair term too long for a dynamic and contested field as climate change.
    Lack of conflict of interest or disclosure policy for: IPCC senior leadership (i.e.,
    IPCC Chair and Vice Chairs), Working Group Co-chairs and authors, and the staff of the
    Technical Support Units.
    Poor communication on errors and perception of policy advocacy by IPCC leaders.


    Report this

    00