Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The scandal deepens – IPCC AR4 riddled with non peer reviewe
#21
sunsettommy Wrote:Well BUZZ it is plain that you are too far gone since you insist that WWF produces "peer reviewed" climate reports.

Your first link makes that claim,but I did something you did not bother to do.I looked it up and discovered that it was never peer reviewed at all,since it is simply a report they produced on their own website.

It was not published in ANY of the usual science publications,thus it could not be INDEPENDENTLY "peer reviewed" at all.

Here is the link to the FULL report they THEMSELVES published,it is the EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

http://www.worldwildlife.org/what/wherew...m13542.pdf

Sorry Tommy but being published is not the only way a study can be peer reviewed. And you obviously didn't check the credits on that report where it lists the reviewers. And since the two scientist listed are from independent organizations then it has been independently peer reviewed.

sunsettommy Wrote:I skimmed over it and my gosh it is a terrible report!

They used GISS and NOAA for all the data.They harp on the climate models that has never been verified.

In your opinion. And considering your reputation for get your facts wrong and propensity to not understand the basics of science that opinion doesn't mean much.

sunsettommy Wrote:I followed Buzz's suggestion to use the search bar in the second link and came up with this:

http://highwire.stanford.edu/cgi/searchr...urcetype=1

Oh boy!! look at that... the first one is a peer review of a WWF study. Granted... the review looks bad but it is a peer review none the less.

sunsettommy Wrote:On to your next link claim is one that you failed to notice that WWF did not publish the report.It was published by the University of Bonn,while WWF made a contribution to the paper it is actually done by the Doctoral student Gerold Kier and colleagues at the University.

Here is the official credit as shown in the link, "CREDIT: KIER ET AL., JOURNAL OF BIOGEOGRAPHY, 10.1111/J 32 (2005)"

It is plain that WWF is not the publisher of the paper at all.

I never said that the WWF published it. And the WWF was more that a contributor. This was a joint study. You do know what 'joint' means don't you? What about 'et al'? Fact of the matter is that this is a peer reviewed study produced by the WWF and the University of Bonn.

sunsettommy Wrote:Then you amazingly shot yourself in the foot with this absurdity:

Quote:And secondly... the IPCC does not have any rule that says that they only use peer reviewed studies. Didn't any of you guys notice that your cut and paste doesn't say this? Obviously not. If you dig around on the IPCC web site you will find this description of their sources in a flow chart of the IPCC peer review procedure:

My quote was 100% posted and it was the ORGANIZATIONAL statement from the IPCC.

Cut and paste huh!

Now since you failed to keep reading in the IPCC website,I will have to resort to another "cut and paste" to make a fool of you once again.

The IPCC authors and the preparation of the IPCC reports

Authors, contributors, reviewers and other experts are selected by the Bureau of the Working Group from a list of nominations received from governments and participating organizations....

...http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization_procedures.htm

If any one looks like a fool it is you. This cut and paste is just about the IPCC's internal peer review process and doesn't back up Anthony Watts assertion that the IPCC has a rule saying that only peer reviewed studies can be used in their reports.

sunsettommy Wrote:Then the ultimate stupidity from dear Buzz:
Quote:So... not only is Anthony Watts getting his fact wrong AGAIN... but he is using this BS to try and discredit everything coming from the WWF and the IPCC. This is just stupid. You all do know what an ad-hominem attack is don't you? If Anthony wants to show that all the information gained from the WWF is bogus then he should actually debunk all of those studies instead of just making baseless assertions. Fact of the matter is that this is not any kind of deliberate scam.

No... this is not stupid. It is the truth and I stand behind it 100%. And until you can prove Anthony Watt's assertion that nothing the WWF produces is peer reviewed or that the IPCC has a rule stating that only peer reviewed studies can be used in their reports then I am going to continue to say this. And considering that I have shown that the IPCC does use non peer reviewed information and that the WWF has produced peer review studies you are just pissing into the wind with your stupid arguments.

Now just answer one question... How can you be so suddenly concerned with that pesky peer review process when almost nothing you denialist cite is ever peer reviewed?

Oh... and John L... the IPCC is made up of scientists. I debunked this lie many years ago back on IAP when I was fact checking that huge list of denialist BS you have collected over the years. But I am sure your failing memory will never remember that. And to say that all but one glacier is advancing is sheer lunacy.
The rightist motto: "Facts?... we don't need no stinkin facts."

[Image: Obama08_Logo150.gif]
Reply
#22
From reading Buzz's responses, his definition of "peer review" clearly is not the same as that which the magazine "Science" has:

Peer Review at Science Publications

This part is particularly interesting (as pertaining to the WWF "peer review" claims):

Quote: 1.Reviews should be objective evaluations of the research. If you cannot judge a paper impartially, you should not accept it for review or you should notify the editor as soon as you appreciate the situation. If you have any professional or financial affiliations that may be perceived as a conflict of interest in reviewing the manuscript, or a history of personal differences with the author(s), you should describe them in your confidential comments.


Having a "scientist" at some other environmental activist organization "peer review' a paper wouldn't, or shouldn't, fly under this requirement.


One of the reason's "Science" magazine is so esteemed is the integrity of their peer review system. One can only hope they have not violated it in the same manner as "Nature" magazine appears to have in the "Global Warming" arena as suggested in the Climategate revelations.
I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!
Reply
#23
JohnWho Wrote:From reading Buzz's responses, his definition of "peer review" clearly is not the same as that which the magazine "Science" has:

Peer Review at Science Publications

This part is particularly interesting (as pertaining to the WWF "peer review" claims):

Quote: 1.Reviews should be objective evaluations of the research. If you cannot judge a paper impartially, you should not accept it for review or you should notify the editor as soon as you appreciate the situation. If you have any professional or financial affiliations that may be perceived as a conflict of interest in reviewing the manuscript, or a history of personal differences with the author(s), you should describe them in your confidential comments.


Having a "scientist" at some other environmental activist organization "peer review' a paper wouldn't, or shouldn't, fly under this requirement.


One of the reason's "Science" magazine is so esteemed is the integrity of their peer review system. One can only hope they have not violated it in the same manner as "Nature" magazine appears to have in the "Global Warming" arena as suggested in the Climategate revelations.

He is hopeless since he does not even realize that his very defense of a political environmentalist organization,shows that he has no idea what a valid "peer review" paper is.

Neither does he seem to notice that the IPCC is NOT a science body,but a POLITICAL one,with a built in invested interest.

I am glad he keeps responding because he is showing how weak their arguments really are in defending the indefensible.


It is not a pretty sight.
Reply
#24
The proven errors of WWF:

The corruption of science


EU Referendum

Tuesday, January 26, 2010

by DR. North

SELECTED EXCERPT:

Quote:Answering our own question as to why the IPCC authors did not use the peer-reviewed Nature reference rather than the secondary source, the reason now becomes clear. The paper simply did not support the assertion they wished to make.

Here, context is everything. In the Nature paper, the authors are writing about the effects of logging on the rain forest. They describe how selective harvesting (as for mahogany, which is specifically identified) damages the forests so harvested, rendering the remaining trees more prone to effects of drought. Thus, increased sensitivity to reduced precipitation – should it occur – is a secondary effect, applicable only to already damaged forests.

In that context, the 40 percent on which Rowell & Moore and then the IPCC rely relates not to an area of the Amazon rain forests but to the proportion of trees damaged in individual forest tracts, which have been harvested (and the top range of the estimate at that). It cannot be taken to refer to the totality of the Amazonian forest area.

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/01...ience.html
=========================================

Reading in the link makes it clear that the WWF AND the IPCC screwed up big time.The published Nature paper (which they did NOT write) does not support their assertions at all.

Came back to post this comment made by a scientist,for the purpose of making it clear how big the error WWF had made,specifically for BUZZ to make sure he understands the scope of the error:

Quote:Steve Keohane (10:31:15) :

Thank you, Dr. North. From your article “Firstly, these combined areas relate to a total forest area of between 4-6 million square kilometres, and thus represent perhaps as little as ten percent of the total area.”
So what we’re really looking at is 40% of 10%, or 4% of the area, from logging. To translate that into 40% of the forest at risk due to climate change is buffoonery, apparently good enough for the IPCC.

and,

Quote:Leon Brozyna (11:01:02) :

So, the Amazon rain forest totals 4-6 mil km² and of this the original real study looked at 270,000 km² plus 360,000 km² or a total area impacted by drought in logged areas of 630,000 km². In other words, the study looked at 15% to 10% of the total rain forest. And of that area, the original study found that 10% to 40% were impacted by an extreme El Niño.

So, the real percentage figure of the Amazon rain forest impacted by logging and a strong El Niño is from 1% to 7.5%. [10% of 10% = 1% and 40% of 15% = 7.5%].

The IPCC thrives on creative writing and lying with statistics.

:lol:
Reply
#25
I have a suggestion here. I have been on to Buzz, for months, trying to get him to settle down, and act more civil, not hurling 'buzz bombs' all over the place. In all honesty, he has begun to clean up his act, and has actually put forth the effort to follow my encouragement.

So, keeping this in mind, let's all follow suit here. If he is going ot meet us half way, we owe it to him, and the forum, to follow suit. If we disagree with his assessment of things, let's be more courteous, when pointing out our disagreements, ok?

It's only fair, and does not help our own cause, if we are going to be overly combative, and condescending.

Remember, if we do not agree with his assessment of the AGW issue, and believe me I certainly do, then let's be willing to go the extra mile and try to inform in a positive manner.

Also, I really wish to thank Buzz for having made the necessary modifications lately. It has certainly not gone unnoticed, on my part. Again thanks for the positive change. S2
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
All men are frauds. The only difference between them is that some admit it. I myself deny it.
H. L. Mencken
Reply
#26
Another proven WWF error:

Glacier scientist: I knew data hadn't been verified

By David Rose
Last updated at 12:54 AM on 24th January 2010

EXCERPT:

Quote:Dr Lal’s admission will only add to the mounting furore over the melting glaciers assertion, which the IPCC was last week forced to withdraw because it has no scientific foundation.

According to the IPCC’s statement of principles, its role is ‘to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis, scientific, technical and socio-economic information – IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy’.

The claim that Himalayan glaciers are set to disappear by 2035 rests on two 1999 magazine interviews with glaciologist Syed Hasnain, which were then recycled without any further investigation in a 2005 report by the environmental campaign group WWF.

It was this report that Dr Lal and his team cited as their source.

The WWF article also contained a basic error in its arithmetic. A claim that one glacier was retreating at the alarming rate of 134 metres a year should in fact have said 23 metres – the authors had divided the total loss measured over 121 years by 21, not 121.

Last Friday, the WWF website posted a humiliating statement recognising the claim as ‘unsound’, and saying it ‘regrets any confusion caused’.

Dr Lal said: ‘We knew the WWF report with the 2035 date was “grey literature” [material not published in a peer-reviewed journal]. But it was never picked up by any of the authors in our working group, nor by any of the more than 500 external reviewers, by the governments to which it was sent, or by the final IPCC review editors.’

In fact, the 2035 melting date seems to have been plucked from thin air.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...z0eCwYcYG0

BUZZ are you,

Still going to stand by the NON "peer reviewed" WWF REPORTS?


:lol:
Reply
#27
John L Wrote:Remember, if we do not agree with his assessment of the AGW issue, and believe me I certainly do, then let's be willing to go the extra mile and try to inform in a positive manner.

I'm positive I've done exactly that in my above post regarding peer review.
I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  A recent peer reviewed published science paper sunsettommy 36 6,512 01-06-2010, 09:27 PM
Last Post: sunsettommy
  Dark matter mystery deepens in cosmic 'train wreck' scpg02 14 4,379 08-24-2007, 09:18 AM
Last Post: John L

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)