2 ms·

BS. Each of the 10 chapters in the IPCC 2007 report on the science basis for climate change contains something like 15 pages of references. If you bothered to c

by lutorm 18y ago

BS. Each of the 10 chapters in the IPCC 2007 report on the science basis for climate change contains something like 15 pages of references. If you bothered to check actually those peer-reviewed journals you might discover quite a few papers.

mseebach 18y ago
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.” http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/press/ipccprocessillusion.html http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/press/ipccprocessillusion.... Also, the 20-page "executive summary" is voted on, line by line, by politicians, who (as politicians do) have every other motive than actually objectively figuring out the truth. We have politicians deciding which science is right. If that's not BS, I don't know what is.
- lutorm 18y ago
  I never said the IPCC reports were peer reviewed, I said that report 1 on the science basis of climate change contains about 150 pages of references to peer-reviewed articles where the science is done, as a response to the comment about climate change researchers being in too much of a hurry to publish in peer-reviewed journals. While we can argue about the process behind the IPCC reports, your link smells of paranoia to me. For one, those politicians voting include reps from the oil-producing Gulf states and to think that they would be predisposed to wanting the finding to be that oil is bad seems far-fetched to me. I'm sure the representatives for the U.S. government wasn't exactly pushing to acknowledge global warming either. Besides, I must argue with the basic premise of your comment. The politicians are the ones who get things done, and in the end they, just like everyone else, will have to choose what conclusions to draw from the science. Given that the IPCC is at least made up by an assembly of scientists who are trying to synthesize and summarize a whole body of research for those politicians, I think that's about as good a process as one can imagine. It's certainly better than deciding, apparently on their own, that the science on global warming is inconclusive like a certain outgoing US administration appears to have done.
  - yters 18y ago
    The link he posted also talks about the referenced articles. McLean maintains that these peer-reviewed articles are primarily generated on the basis of funding from previous IPCC reports, and the majority of research referenced is done from the presupposition of human caused global warming. Both factors mean that dissenting voices are unlikely to be heard.

by lutorm 18y ago

mseebach 18y ago

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.” http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/press/ipccprocessillusion.html http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/press/ipccprocessillusion.... Also, the 20-page "executive summary" is voted on, line by line, by politicians, who (as politicians do) have every other motive than actually objectively figuring out the truth. We have politicians deciding which science is right. If that's not BS, I don't know what is.

lutorm 18y ago
I never said the IPCC reports were peer reviewed, I said that report 1 on the science basis of climate change contains about 150 pages of references to peer-reviewed articles where the science is done, as a response to the comment about climate change researchers being in too much of a hurry to publish in peer-reviewed journals. While we can argue about the process behind the IPCC reports, your link smells of paranoia to me. For one, those politicians voting include reps from the oil-producing Gulf states and to think that they would be predisposed to wanting the finding to be that oil is bad seems far-fetched to me. I'm sure the representatives for the U.S. government wasn't exactly pushing to acknowledge global warming either. Besides, I must argue with the basic premise of your comment. The politicians are the ones who get things done, and in the end they, just like everyone else, will have to choose what conclusions to draw from the science. Given that the IPCC is at least made up by an assembly of scientists who are trying to synthesize and summarize a whole body of research for those politicians, I think that's about as good a process as one can imagine. It's certainly better than deciding, apparently on their own, that the science on global warming is inconclusive like a certain outgoing US administration appears to have done.
- yters 18y ago
  The link he posted also talks about the referenced articles. McLean maintains that these peer-reviewed articles are primarily generated on the basis of funding from previous IPCC reports, and the majority of research referenced is done from the presupposition of human caused global warming. Both factors mean that dissenting voices are unlikely to be heard.