• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Second hottest March on record, following the second hottest Feb on record.

bubbabgone said:
This might be of interest to you and some others ...

EXPERT REVIEWER REVEALS HOW ALL FIVE IPCC ASSESSMENT REPORTS HAVE BEEN MANIPULATED
"Attempts of the IPCC to impose rigid discipline on a large group of scientists to persuade them to claim that human emissions of so-called greenhouse gases harm the climate, without being able to supply convincing evidence, has been a failure. Even their opinions on the supposed reliability of their 'projections' always leave an increasingly small escape route for the day when their approach is proved wrong."
- Dr. Vincent Gray

He goes though a very brief history of the IPCC and their Assessment Reports and ends with his thoughts on AR5.
Much of what he says reinforces what we know although we know others will stubbornly cling to their IPCC fantasies.
I expect I know what their reaction is going to be to his first hand analysis.






nzclimatescience.net - EXPERT REVIEWER REVEALS HOW ALL FIVE IPCC ASSESSMENT REPORTS HAVE BEEN MANIPULATED

I have something I've been waiting to post on it's own thread ... I sense the time might be right.
It details the internals of how AR4 came to be.
Pretty interesting stuff.
Governments & theScientists that participate in the IPCC have made it a closed shop so we have to rely on heretical whistleblowers for the truth.
Click to expand...

LOL. Vincent Gray. a 'retired coal industry researcher'.

Vincent Gray | DeSmogBlog

A search of 22,000 academic journals shows that Gray has never been published in a peer-reviewed journal on the subject of climate change. Gray has published peer-reviewed scientific work on coal, his most recent article having been published 17 years ago.
Click to expand...


All you need to do to be an 'expert reviewer' is to ask to see the draft report and not publicly comment on it. That includes the ridiculous Lord Monckton, and virtually anyone else who requests a draft.

You, too, can be a leading climate scientist – Deltoid

Another dramatic scandal, brought to you by Bubba.
 
longview said:
Actually it is your lack of understanding of what constitutes peer reviewed literature in the context of modern Science.
The IPCC reports are not peer reviewed Science!
Please stop avoiding the simple original question.
How much the top of the atmosphere energy imbalance will there be, if we double the CO2 level?
Put it in your own words if you want, but back it up with a cited peer reviewed paper.
Click to expand...

heh heh. I was right.
I knew an attack on Dr. Vincent Gray, author and expert IPCC reviwer, had to follow.
It's easier for them than actually getting informed.
Oh yes, I do know alarmists and leftists.
They are too often one and the same.
 
longview said:
Actually it is your lack of understanding of what constitutes peer reviewed literature in the context of modern Science.
The IPCC reports are not peer reviewed Science!
Please stop avoiding the simple original question.
How much the top of the atmosphere energy imbalance will there be, if we double the CO2 level?
Put it in your own words if you want, but back it up with a cited peer reviewed paper.
Click to expand...

Maybe you would like this and work from there.
How Much Will The Planet Warm If We Double CO2? - Dan's Wild Wild Science Journal - AGU Blogosphere

;)
 
Threegoofs said:
Its not in a journal, silly.

You'd understand that peer reviewed publications are not always in journals if you actually took some time to read the IPCC report and educate yourself. To suggest that the IPCC is not peer reviewed because it isnt published in a peer reviewed journal is, to put it bluntly, stupid beyond belief.

Maybe this link might help you.

Heres a short excerpt:

I guess I should be shocked at this breathtaking example of utter vapidity, but its starting to seem routine these days in this section.
Click to expand...


Peer reviewing yourself is not peer review no matter how exhaustive you think you are being.
 
longview said:
No, I want Goofs to actually cite a paper that shows the Top of Atmosphere energy imbalance they think will occur
if we double the CO2 level.
Click to expand...

Yes, I understand that you want to reduce everything to one two page paper you read once.

If you're jonesing to read your second paper on the topic, I might suggest one that was published just last week.

Energy budget constraints on climate sensitivity in light of inconstant climate feedbacks : Nature Climate Change

But it looks like an ECS around 2.9 degrees is predicted, so since you don't like the number, I'd expect you'll dismiss the paper.

Tell me though, didja figure out the IPCC was peer reviewed, or are you going to dismiss that since you don't like their findings either?
 
Threegoofs said:
Yes, I understand that you want to reduce everything to one two page paper you read once.

If you're jonesing to read your second paper on the topic, I might suggest one that was published just last week.

Energy budget constraints on climate sensitivity in light of inconstant climate feedbacks : Nature Climate Change

But it looks like an ECS around 2.9 degrees is predicted, so since you don't like the number, I'd expect you'll dismiss the paper.

Tell me though, didja figure out the IPCC was peer reviewed, or are you going to dismiss that since you don't like their findings either?
Click to expand...
Actually you are still missing the point and the data.
In you cited paper, they use a term "(assuming F2×= 3.44 W m−2 as above)"
The energy imbalance from doubling the concentration of CO2 is stated as an assumption as 3.44 W m−2.
(The ever declining 2 X CO2 forcing number, 4 Wm-2 in 2001, 3.71 Wm-2 in 2016, and now 3.44 Wm-2, in 2017.)
The question was cite a paper that shows the Top of Atmosphere energy imbalance they think will occur
the CO2 level?
 
longview said:
Actually you are still missing the point and the data.
In you cited paper, they use a term "(assuming F2×= 3.44 W m−2 as above)"
The energy imbalance from doubling the concentration of CO2 is stated as an assumption as 3.44 W m−2.
(The ever declining 2 X CO2 forcing number, 4 Wm-2 in 2001, 3.71 Wm-2 in 2016, and now 3.44 Wm-2, in 2017.)
The question was cite a paper that shows the Top of Atmosphere energy imbalance they think will occur
the CO2 level?
Click to expand...

I guess you'll just continue to perseverate and never actually address the issue you raised.
 
Threegoofs said:
I guess you'll just continue to perseverate and never actually address the issue you raised.
Click to expand...
Since the question was put to you way back in post #125, it is you who are avoiding the question!
Once again can you cite a peer reviewed source that shows the Top of Atmosphere energy imbalance they think will occur
if we double the CO2 level?
 
longview said:
Since the question was put to you way back in post #125, it is you who are avoiding the question!
Once again can you cite a peer reviewed source that shows the Top of Atmosphere energy imbalance they think will occur
if we double the CO2 level?
Click to expand...

I probably could if I cared about your latest obsession, but I see no reason to feed the perseveration, since it seems like a random question not really related to anything I've said.
 
Threegoofs said:
I probably could if I cared about your latest obsession, but I see no reason to feed the perseveration, since it seems like a random question not really related to anything I've said.
Click to expand...
I say the Science is weak, and cite the lack of empirical data supporting even the most fundamental
portion of the AGW concept, you are unable to produce a peer reviewed paper showing the basis of the
basic Top of the Atmosphere energy imbalance that they think would result from doubling the CO2 level.
You one citation only showed what the assumed it would be, not where they got the number from.
but let's look at that comment, because it contains something interesting.
Energy budget constraints on climate sensitivity in light of inconstant climate feedbacks : Nature Climate Change
To examine the EBM behaviour over a wide range of plausible climate sensitivities, ECS is draw n randomly from a uniform distribution
between 1 and 15◦C; this corresponds to values of λ eq between 3.44 and 0.23 W m−2 K−1 (assuming F2×= 3.44 W m−2 as above).
So they assumed the energy imbalance from their maximum energy imbalance number, wow.
In addition, If Armour is correct (Large IF), then the entire range of the IPCC's ECS predictions of temperature
would have to decrease from 1.5 - 4.5 C, to 1.29 - 3.87 C, assuming the ratio of .3 Wm-2 per degree C still holds.
But way beside the most fundamental portion of the Science being weak, the predicted warming from the amplified feedbacks,
is much more speculative.
 
Threegoofs said:
Your input, as usual, is noted.
Click to expand...

If you want to present yourself as a champion of science you should start by realizing that there is no such thing as a scientific organization, much less a political organization, peer reviewing itself. The fact that the IPCC claims that it has internal peer review that is far more exhaustive than a scientific journal should set off warning flares for anyone who knows the first thing about the scientific method.

Journals, in theory, and blind peer review operate as an independent arbiter of good science in a way that the IPCC simply can't do on its own no matter how many IPCC staff they have look at their results.
 
Last edited:
longview said:
I say the Science is weak, and cite the lack of empirical data supporting even the most fundamental
portion of the AGW concept, you are unable to produce a peer reviewed paper showing the basis of the
basic Top of the Atmosphere energy imbalance that they think would result from doubling the CO2 level.
You one citation only showed what the assumed it would be, not where they got the number from.
but let's look at that comment, because it contains something interesting.
Energy budget constraints on climate sensitivity in light of inconstant climate feedbacks : Nature Climate Change
To examine the EBM behaviour over a wide range of plausible climate sensitivities, ECS is draw n randomly from a uniform distribution
between 1 and 15◦C; this corresponds to values of λ eq between 3.44 and 0.23 W m−2 K−1 (assuming F2×= 3.44 W m−2 as above).
So they assumed the energy imbalance from their maximum energy imbalance number, wow.
In addition, If Armour is correct (Large IF), then the entire range of the IPCC's ECS predictions of temperature
would have to decrease from 1.5 - 4.5 C, to 1.29 - 3.87 C, assuming the ratio of .3 Wm-2 per degree C still holds.
But way beside the most fundamental portion of the Science being weak, the predicted warming from the amplified feedbacks,
is much more speculative.
Click to expand...

Here is another link to that:

Energy budget constraints on climate sensitivity in light of inconstant climate feedbacks : Nature Climate Change : Nature Research
 
jmotivator said:
If you want to present yourself as a champion of science you should start by realizing that there is no such thing as a scientific organization, much less a political organization, peer reviewing itself. The fact that the IPCC claims that it has internal peer review that is far more exhaustive than a scientific journal should set off warning flares for anyone who knows the first thing about the scientific method.

Journals, in theory, and blind peer review operate as an independent arbiter of good science in a way that the IPCC simply can't do on its own no matter how many IPCC staff they have look at their results.
Click to expand...

It's not reviewed by staff.

Once again, your contribution is noted.
 
longview said:
I say the Science is weak, and cite the lack of empirical data supporting even the most fundamental
portion of the AGW concept, you are unable to produce a peer reviewed paper showing the basis of the
basic Top of the Atmosphere energy imbalance that they think would result from doubling the CO2 level.
You one citation only showed what the assumed it would be, not where they got the number from.
but let's look at that comment, because it contains something interesting.
Energy budget constraints on climate sensitivity in light of inconstant climate feedbacks : Nature Climate Change
To examine the EBM behaviour over a wide range of plausible climate sensitivities, ECS is draw n randomly from a uniform distribution
between 1 and 15◦C; this corresponds to values of λ eq between 3.44 and 0.23 W m−2 K−1 (assuming F2×= 3.44 W m−2 as above).
So they assumed the energy imbalance from their maximum energy imbalance number, wow.
In addition, If Armour is correct (Large IF), then the entire range of the IPCC's ECS predictions of temperature
would have to decrease from 1.5 - 4.5 C, to 1.29 - 3.87 C, assuming the ratio of .3 Wm-2 per degree C still holds.
But way beside the most fundamental portion of the Science being weak, the predicted warming from the amplified feedbacks,
is much more speculative.
Click to expand...

In other words, the effect might be greater than 2-3 degrees.

But you know it won't be because you do calculations in your armchair between bites of cream of wheat.
 
Threegoofs said:
In other words, the effect might be greater than 2-3 degrees.

But you know it won't be because you do calculations in your armchair between bites of cream of wheat.
Click to expand...
NO! those are your words, not mine!
The Studies based on the empirical data, and not on theoretical modeled data, come in at the low end of the range,
what I am saying is that the entire range of the IPCC would have to slip down if the input energy imbalance
is only 3.44 Wm-2 for a doubling of CO2.
But you still have not cited a peer reviewed paper describing how they arrived at a top of atmosphere energy imbalance number.
Your last citation, said,
Following previous methods 15, ECS and F2× within the CMIP5 models are
estimated from the relationship between 1Q and 1T within the abrupt CO2 quadrupling simulations
Click to expand...
So the value for F2X of CO2 is estimated and not derived from empirical measurements.
They go on to say,
However, the values of ECS and F2× tend to be higher than those estimated from linear regression
over years 1–150, which does not account for the effects of time-varying feedbacks.
Values of λ eq for each model are calculated via equation (3).
Click to expand...
So while they estimated the amount of forcing, they thought the estimate was too low,
so used the top range number.
They describe this here,
To examine the EBM behaviour over a wide range of plausible climate sensitivities, ECS is draw n randomly from a uniform distribution
between 1 and 15◦C; this corresponds to values of λ eq between 3.44 and 0.23 W m−2 K−1 (assuming F2×= 3.44 W m−2 as above).
Click to expand...
The estimated range was between .23 Wm-2 and 3.44 Wm-2, so they selected the 3.44 Wm-2!
Why not pick the middle of the range?
 
Threegoofs said:
It's not reviewed by staff.

Once again, your contribution is noted.
Click to expand...

Who said anything about "staff"? The IPCC has contributors who provide internal review. What is even worse is that they actually allow NGOs into the review process... but then that should be no surprise since they include propaganda from NGOs in their reports and reference them like they are journal articles.

When their explanation of their process claims that the first line of review begins with their "choice of lead authors" they have already lost the scientific method.

They then go on to state that when differences arise between lead authors they are "encouraged to organize a meeting with both the contributing authors and review editors to discuss and resolve the differences" ... again, this isn't science, it's politics. The correct answer isn't arrived at through negotiation.

How can anyone read that passage of the IPCC review process and come away thinking that it amounts to rigorous peer review? It's politics. :roll:
 
jmotivator said:
Who said anything about "staff"? The IPCC has contributors who provide internal review. What is even worse is that they actually allow NGOs into the review process... but then that should be no surprise since they include propaganda from NGOs in their reports and reference them like they are journal articles.

When their explanation of their process claims that the first line of review begins with their "choice of lead authors" they have already lost the scientific method.

They then go on to state that when differences arise between lead authors they are "encouraged to organize a meeting with both the contributing authors and review editors to discuss and resolve the differences" ... again, this isn't science, it's politics. The correct answer isn't arrived at through negotiation.

How can anyone read that passage of the IPCC review process and come away thinking that it amounts to rigorous peer review? It's politics. :roll:
Click to expand...

When you type 'staff', I apparently concluded you meant 'staff'.

They have internal review, external review, and it's a whole lot more extensive than any journal.

Your dismissal of the process shows that you have little grasp on the process or peer review in general.
 
Threegoofs said:
When you type 'staff', I apparently concluded you meant 'staff'.
Click to expand...

Point taken. Contributors to the report providing review is not peer review.

They have internal review, external review, and it's a whole lot more extensive than any journal.
Click to expand...

They don't have any true external review. Everyone reviewing their work is determined by the IPCC or those designated by the IPCC, and most are contributors to one of the IPCC work groups.

Again, the simple inclusion of NGOs in the process alone disqualify the process. Having NGOs peer review the ARs is like having Philip Morris peer review smoking studies.

But then the IPCC system fails on many more levels than that.


Your dismissal of the process shows that you have little grasp on the process or peer review in general.
Click to expand...

My dismissal of the process means I know the difference between a political collaboration and a rigorous scientific process. The IPCC is the former.
 
jmotivator said:
Point taken. Contributors to the report providing review is not peer review.



They don't have any true external review. Everyone reviewing their work is determined by the IPCC or those designated by the IPCC, and most are contributors to one of the IPCC work groups.

Again, the simple inclusion of NGOs in the process alone disqualify the process. Having NGOs peer review the ARs is like having Philip Morris peer review smoking studies.

But then the IPCC system fails on many more levels than that.




My dismissal of the process means I know the difference between a political collaboration and a rigorous scientific process. The IPCC is the former.
Click to expand...

Given that external reviewers review the work extensively, the reviewers are basically anyone who applies to be a reviewer, meaning most experts in the field are involved, and those comments are all considered, means that this is a true external review.

Not sure what you think a 'true' external review would acdtually be, then external reviewers giving comments to the authors and having those comments incorporated. Do you want some external editor to approve all the changes independently? (the answer to that is, of course, no.... then you'd be whining about how one guy controls the whole process).

Allowing NGOs to participate in the review and give comments is completely appropriate, since they have expertise in specific areas that are relevant to the report, especially in the area of impacts and mitigation, rather than the physical sciences.
 
Threegoofs said:
Given that external reviewers review the work extensively, the reviewers are basically anyone who applies to be a reviewer, meaning most experts in the field are involved, and those comments are all considered, means that this is a true external review.
Click to expand...

"Anyone who applies", eh? I'm less concerned about how IPCC selects reviewers and more concerned with the fact that they are not anonymous. But then it is also a concern that the selection process is presented as all inclusive, but what is the result of the process? Do they provide a list of rejected applicants? Is there an appeals process? That they play a role in selecting their own reviewers means the process in not independent no matter what you care to believe from their propaganda.

Not sure what you think a 'true' external review would acdtually be, then external reviewers giving comments to the authors and having those comments incorporated. Do you want some external editor to approve all the changes independently? (the answer to that is, of course, no.... then you'd be whining about how one guy controls the whole process).
Click to expand...

A true external review is one where the author has no input into who the publishing journal chooses to review, and, as best practice, never know the identity of the reviewers. The IPCC has control over who reviews their work, so it is not an external review. Moreover, when two authors conclusions are at odds they are "encouraged" to meet and work through their differences, which is also not a sound scientific process. Agreement between two disparate findings in science should be arrived at independently rather than as a compromise.

Allowing NGOs to participate in the review and give comments is completely appropriate, since they have expertise in specific areas that are relevant to the report, especially in the area of impacts and mitigation, rather than the physical sciences.
Click to expand...

That you believe that NGOs should be allowed to take part in peer review is amazing, though not necessarily unexpected. NGOs are political, and do nothing but play cheerleader keeper to their own reason for being. An NGO is not likely to correct errors that play in to their desired narrative, and are entirely likely to simply attack findings that hurt their narrative. they have no place in peer review.
 
jmotivator said:
"Anyone who applies", eh? I'm less concerned about how IPCC selects reviewers and more concerned with the fact that they are not anonymous. But then it is also a concern that the selection process is presented as all inclusive, but what is the result of the process? Do they provide a list of rejected applicants? Is there an appeals process? That they play a role in selecting their own reviewers means the process in not independent no matter what you care to believe from their propaganda.



A true external review is one where the author has no input into who the publishing journal chooses to review, and, as best practice, never know the identity of the reviewers. The IPCC has control over who reviews their work, so it is not an external review. Moreover, when two authors conclusions are at odds they are "encouraged" to meet and work through their differences, which is also not a sound scientific process. Agreement between two disparate findings in science should be arrived at independently rather than as a compromise.



That you believe that NGOs should be allowed to take part in peer review is amazing, though not necessarily unexpected. NGOs are political, and do nothing but play cheerleader keeper to their own reason for being. An NGO is not likely to correct errors that play in to their desired narrative, and are entirely likely to simply attack findings that hurt their narrative. they have no place in peer review.
Click to expand...

NGOs are frequently the organizations who understand details of practical issues better than anyone else. If you want a good assessment of medical concerns, Doctors Without Borders is a nice source, especially when balanced with other sources.

I'm not sure what you think peer review is. Do you think an anonymous reviewer comments on a paper and then the author is mandated to incorporate those comments? Do you not understand that an editor is in the process who determines the appropriateness and importance of the comment and then reaches a compromise with the author? Is that the behind the scenes review you;d rather have for the IPCC?
 
Threegoofs said:
NGOs are frequently the organizations who understand details of practical issues better than anyone else. If you want a good assessment of medical concerns, Doctors Without Borders is a nice source, especially when balanced with other sources.
Click to expand...

That isn't peer review. That isn't reviewing the science. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

I'm not sure what you think peer review is. Do you think an anonymous reviewer comments on a paper and then the author is mandated to incorporate those comments?
Click to expand...

No, why would you think that? I think it is you who are amazingly confused as to the function of peer review, and the reason it is anonymous. It is not a requirement that all comments be incorporated, but, and here is another part of the process missing from the IPCC system, the journal ultimately has the final independent decision on whether the author adequately addressed the concerns of the reviewers. Often the journal will choose not to publish a paper that they believe hasn't addressed the peer review concerns properly. There is no such function within the IPCC.

Furthermore, the reason a peer review is anonymous is that it removes the tendency to ignore the concerns of those you have a bias towards. It forces the author to address the concerns at face value, without any preconceived notions about the intent or the competence of the reviewer.

Do you not understand that an editor is in the process who determines the appropriateness and importance of the comment and then reaches a compromise with the author? Is that the behind the scenes review you;d rather have for the IPCC?
Click to expand...

Yes, I do realize that there are journal editors that act as the arbiter between an author and a reviewer. Do you realize that the author doesn't choose their editor, or their reviewers, or often even know who they are in the process? I don't think it is possible to fix the IPCC process to the point where it would actually generate valid, scientific papers. It's not in the DNA of such an organization to give up ultimate control over what does and doesn't get published from their efforts.

Which brings me to the final point I will make on the lack of scientific gravitas of an IPCC report: If it was an actual scientific paper there would be a chance that it would not be published... there is no such threat for an IPCC-AR because they self-publish.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom