IPCC Peer Review Process an Illusion, Finds SPPI Analysis
d....@hotmail.com
IPCC Peer Review Process an Illusion, Finds SPPI Analysis
WASHINGTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Published by the Science and Public
Policy Institute (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org), climate data
analyst John McLean has written an analysis of the reviewer comments
to the UN's most recent IPCC Assessment Report released in April.
In "Peer Review? What Peer Review?" McLean writes, "The IPCC would
have us believe that its reports are diligently reviewed by many
hundreds of scientists and that these reviewers endorse the contents
of the report. Analyses of reviewer comments show a very different and
disturbing story."
In Chapter 9, the key science chapter, the IPCC concludes that "it is
very highly likely that greenhouse gas forcing has been the dominant
cause of the observed global warming over the last 50 years". The IPCC
leads us to believe that this statement is very much supported by the
majority of reviewers. The reality is that there is surprisingly
little explicit support for this key notion. Among the 23 independent
reviewers just 4 explicitly endorsed the chapter with its hypothesis,
and one other endorsed only a specific section.
Moreover, only 62 of the IPCC's 308 reviewers commented on this
chapter at all. As with other chapters, simple corrections, requests
for clarifications or refinements to the text which did not challenge
the IPCC's conclusions are generally treated favourably, but comments
which dispute the IPCC's claims or their certainty are treated with
far less indulgence.
In a related finding, McLean observes, "The dominance of research
presupposing a human influence also means that the IPCC editing teams
are likely to consist of people predisposed to view the situation in
that light."
Adds McLean, "The problems continue into the authorship of these
reports. According to IPCC documents, scientists are nominated by
governments or explicitly invited by scientists already associated
with the IPCC. What a wonderful way to position scientists who support
a government agenda on climate and then fill out the IPCC with like-
minded individuals."
Concludes McLean, "The IPCC reports appear to be largely based on a
consensus of scientific papers, but those papers are the product of
research for which the funding is strongly influenced by previous IPCC
reports. This makes the claim of a human influence self-perpetuating
and for a corruption of the normal scientific process."
The full paper can be read at: (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/
sppi_originals/peerreview.html)
Contacts
SPPI
Bob Ferguson, 202-288-5699
bfer...@sppinstitute.org
Androcles
<d....@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1189550933.7...@e34g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
: September 10, 2007 03:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Well put, Bob, but there is nothing new under the sun.
--
'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO and you have to
agree because I'm the great genius, STOOOPID, don't you
dare question it. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/tAB=tBA.gif
'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B doesn't equal the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A in the stationary system, obviously.' --
Heretic Jan Bielawski, assistant light-bulb changer.
Ref: news:1188363019....@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com
"SR is GR with G=0." -- Uncle Stooopid.
The Uncle Stooopid doctrine:
http://sound.westhost.com/counterfeit.jpg
"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without
evidence." -- Uncle Stooopid.
"Counterfactual assumptions yield nonsense.
If such a thing were actually observed, reliably and reproducibly, then
relativity would immediately need a major overhaul if not a complete
replacement." -- Humpty Roberts.
Rabbi Albert Einstein in 1895 failed an examination that would
have allowed him to study for a diploma as an electrical engineer
at the Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule in Zurich
(couldn't even pass the SATs).
According to Phuckwit Duck it was geography and history that Einstein
failed on, as if Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule would give a
damn. That tells you the lengths these lying bastards will go to to
protect their tin god, but its always a laugh when they slip up.
Trolls, the lot of them.
"This is PHYSICS, not math or logic, and "proof" is completely
irrelevant." -- Humpty Roberts.
Rob
review at all. The IPCC reports are the most peer reviewed publication
the world has yet produced.
claudi...@sbcglobal.net
It seems they, the authors, agreed to agree. And they had all long ago
agreed not debate it beyond identification of the usual suspect western,
consumption of highly lucrative fossil fuels, specifically its waste product
CO2.
What I was most struck with when I read those IPCC reports was how they
managed to completely avoid any discussion of how, supposedly, CO2 actually
had a thermal effect on atmosphere. Did they think people wouldn't notice?
I noticed.
mrbawana2u
> The SPPI is one of those Exxon funded PR groups. They have not peer
> review at all.
They make a better case than you pathetic co2-cult-tards.
> The IPCC reports are the most peer reviewed publication
> the world has yet produced.
UN paid shills.
Everybody knows their agenda and it has nothing to do with climate.
Talk-n-Dog
--
http://OutSourcedNews.com
I suppose I could buy meteor insurance too, to help rebuild on that
impact crater, destined to be where my house is.
Our constitution protects criminals, sexual deviants and U.S. Senators.
Which at times are, one and the same...
The problem with the global warming theory, is that a theory is like a
bowl of ice-cream, it only takes a little dab of bullshit to ruin the
whole thing. - Gump That -
How to outsmart Global Warming -- Plant your corn when the oak leaves
are as big as a squirrels ear.
Insanity is only synapses deep.
It's not if, it's just when, No one gets out alive.
Lloyd
> September 10, 2007 03:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>
> IPCC Peer Review Process an Illusion, Finds SPPI Analysis
>
Yep, bought and paid for.
> WASHINGTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Published by the Science and Public
> Policy Institute (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org),
Who are paid to say this pack of lies.
>climate data
> analyst John McLean has written an analysis of the reviewer comments
> to the UN's most recent IPCC Assessment Report released in April.
>
> In "Peer Review? What Peer Review?" McLean writes, "The IPCC would
> have us believe that its reports are diligently reviewed by many
> hundreds of scientists and that these reviewers endorse the contents
> of the report. Analyses of reviewer comments show a very different and
> disturbing story."
Lie.
>
> In Chapter 9, the key science chapter, the IPCC concludes that "it is
> very highly likely that greenhouse gas forcing has been the dominant
> cause of the observed global warming over the last 50 years". The IPCC
> leads us to believe that this statement is very much supported by the
> majority of reviewers. The reality is that there is surprisingly
> little explicit support for this key notion.
Lie.
>Among the 23 independent
> reviewers just 4 explicitly endorsed the chapter with its hypothesis,
> and one other endorsed only a specific section.
>
Lie.
> Moreover, only 62 of the IPCC's 308 reviewers commented on this
> chapter at all.
Maybe they agreed.
>As with other chapters, simple corrections, requests
> for clarifications or refinements to the text which did not challenge
> the IPCC's conclusions are generally treated favourably, but comments
> which dispute the IPCC's claims or their certainty are treated with
> far less indulgence.
>
> In a related finding, McLean observes, "The dominance of research
> presupposing a human influence also means that the IPCC editing teams
> are likely to consist of people predisposed to view the situation in
> that light."
>
Lie.
> Adds McLean, "The problems continue into the authorship of these
> reports. According to IPCC documents, scientists are nominated by
> governments or explicitly invited by scientists already associated
> with the IPCC. What a wonderful way to position scientists who support
> a government agenda on climate and then fill out the IPCC with like-
> minded individuals."
>
> Concludes McLean, "The IPCC reports appear to be largely based on a
> consensus of scientific papers, but those papers are the product of
> research for which the funding is strongly influenced by previous IPCC
> reports. This makes the claim of a human influence self-perpetuating
> and for a corruption of the normal scientific process."
>
> The full paper can be read at: (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/
> sppi_originals/peerreview.html)
>
Yes, right next to the "smoking doesn't cause cancer" pack of lies.
> Contacts
> SPPI
> Bob Ferguson, 202-288-5699
HangEveryRepubliKKKan
<d....@hotmail.com> wrote
> IPCC Peer Review Process an Illusion, Finds SPPI Analysis
>
> WASHINGTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Published by the Science and Public
> Policy Institute (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org), climate data
> analyst John McLean has written an analysis of the reviewer comments
> to the UN's most recent IPCC Assessment Report released in April.
SPPI an Exxon funded illusion, investigation finds...
And once you start to look into the background of the Science and Public
Policy Institute, the term cozy appears to be too much an understatement.
The Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI) was founded by a long-time
Republican staffer named Robert Ferguson. According to the SPPI website,
Ferguson "has 26 years of Capitol Hill experience, having worked in both the
House and Senate. He served in the House Republican Study Committee, the
Senate Republican Policy Committee; as Chief of Staff to Congressman Jack
Fields (R-TX) from 1981-1997, Chief of Staff to Congressman John E. Peterson
(R-PA) from 1997-2002 and Chief of Staff to Congressman Rick Renzi (R-AZ) in
2002."
Until recently, Ferguson worked for an oil-industry funded think tank called
Frontiers of Freedom. The Frontiers of Freedom are one of the most active
groups in the attack on climate science and have received over $1 million in
grants from oil giant ExxonMobil.
Ferguson ran the "Center for Science and Public Policy."
According to ExxonSecrets, "Ferguson set up the Center for Science and
Public Policy in early 2003, after receiving a $100,000 grant from
ExxonMobil in 2002. Exxon has continued to fund the Center each year since
then, to the tune of at least $50,000 a year."
So what is the relationship between Ferguson, the Science and Public Policy
Institute and this new yet-to-be-published study by Mr. Shulte? Who paid for
Shulte's research? Anybody?
HangEveryRepubliKKKan
"Talk-n-Dog" <Watc...@talk-n-dog.com> wrote
> They do want to "soak" us.
Oh I intend to do far more than that.
Death to AmeriKKKa.
HangEveryRepubliKKKan
"mrbawana2u" <mrbaw...@gmail.com> wrote
> They make a better case than you pathetic co2-cult-tards.
And you will make a better bar of soap.
hanson
aka VD Scotty Scuttled his Nutts as he advocates to
"HangEveryRepubliKKKan" <Jus...@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com>
>
"Talk-n-Dog" <Watc...@talk-n-dog.com> wrote
They [IPCC] do want to "soak" us.
>
[VD Scotty]
> Oh I intend to do far more than that.
> Death to AmeriKKKa.
>
... ahahaha... , yeah, VD Scotty, by all means do "intend to do
far more than that"... like paying up the taxes that you owe to
the IRS since you deadbeat fled to Canada from the US, your
native country. BUT, you are so much fun when you get exited.
VD Scotty, I am sorry to hear you say that you have a "warped
tiny mind", but that sorry condition of yours will not make the
tax man do away. Ask for the mercy, admit to be destitute and
take a paupers vow instead of whining "Death to AmeriKKKa"
>
------ VD Scotty's past efforts of Scuttling his Nutts:
>
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/52c45e5726bad01e
>
----- IPCC chief calls himself "count of cunt" & "famous laud mouth":
>
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/5f7dfa9670d091d1
>
Does that Scuttle your Nutts, VD Scotty? Thanks for the laughs
ahahaha... ahahahanson
hanson
aka VD Scotty Scuttled his Nutts as he advocates to
"HangEveryRepubliKKKan" <Jus...@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com>
>
And you will make a better bar of soap.
>
... you, VD Scotty, should not hang out your own SS Nazi
character so blatantly & open when your work yourself up
in your daily lather of you dreamy delusions... ahahaha...
It's bad for your commie-pinko green agenda that rages
in your "warped and mind as we just have seen in the post
below: