Comments on: The IPCC makes "statements that would never pass peer review" - agree? http://hurricanequestions.com/the-ipcc-makes-statements-that-would-never-pass-peer-review-agree.htm Thu, 24 May 2012 00:51:21 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7.1 hourly 1 By: Bob http://hurricanequestions.com/the-ipcc-makes-statements-that-would-never-pass-peer-review-agree.htm/comment-page-1#comment-8805 Bob Thu, 04 Mar 2010 02:25:39 +0000 http://hurricanequestions.com/the-ipcc-makes-statements-that-would-never-pass-peer-review-agree.htm#comment-8805 Depends on which "working group". WG1 covers the nature and cause of global warming. It's work is extremely solid, backed by thousands of scientific journal articles, and would EASILY pass peer review (and has). It's accepted by courts as authoritative. WG2 covers possible future impacts. It's sources include both scientific journal articles, and other sources. Natural enough for a group whose output admittedly involves future speculations. ALL of the recent controversies involve WG2, NOT WG1. The fact that global warming is real, and mostly caused by us, IS NOT AFFECTED. Speculations about the nature of future impacts are just that. Depends on which "working group".

WG1 covers the nature and cause of global warming. It’s work is extremely solid, backed by thousands of scientific journal articles, and would EASILY pass peer review (and has). It’s accepted by courts as authoritative.

WG2 covers possible future impacts. It’s sources include both scientific journal articles, and other sources. Natural enough for a group whose output admittedly involves future speculations.

ALL of the recent controversies involve WG2, NOT WG1.

The fact that global warming is real, and mostly caused by us, IS NOT AFFECTED. Speculations about the nature of future impacts are just that.

]]> By: Conservative Agenda http://hurricanequestions.com/the-ipcc-makes-statements-that-would-never-pass-peer-review-agree.htm/comment-page-1#comment-8806 Conservative Agenda Thu, 04 Mar 2010 02:25:39 +0000 http://hurricanequestions.com/the-ipcc-makes-statements-that-would-never-pass-peer-review-agree.htm#comment-8806 Peer review means nothing. Peer review means nothing.

]]> By: N - Lothringer Bur http://hurricanequestions.com/the-ipcc-makes-statements-that-would-never-pass-peer-review-agree.htm/comment-page-1#comment-8807 N - Lothringer Bur Thu, 04 Mar 2010 02:25:39 +0000 http://hurricanequestions.com/the-ipcc-makes-statements-that-would-never-pass-peer-review-agree.htm#comment-8807 It looks like comparing apples and pears. We should distinguish between and increase in hurricane intensity and hurricane occurence and hurricane activity as a proeduct of both. Unfortunatel the newspaper does not quote properly the IPCC so that it is possible to go back to the precise chapter and see if it has been properly taken in its context. I can therefore not make any statement. It looks like comparing apples and pears.

We should distinguish between and increase in hurricane intensity and hurricane occurence and hurricane activity as a proeduct of both.

Unfortunatel the newspaper does not quote properly the IPCC so that it is possible to go back to the precise chapter and see if it has been properly taken in its context.

I can therefore not make any statement.

]]> By: James E http://hurricanequestions.com/the-ipcc-makes-statements-that-would-never-pass-peer-review-agree.htm/comment-page-1#comment-8804 James E Thu, 04 Mar 2010 02:25:39 +0000 http://hurricanequestions.com/the-ipcc-makes-statements-that-would-never-pass-peer-review-agree.htm#comment-8804 Sorry but peer review is a religious argument not science! To get science you need to use the scientific method instead which was specifically developed by real scientists to prevent the Roman churches peer review system from suppressing real scientific discovery. But the religious left will not ever give up their corrupt peer review system that keeps them employed at high wages doing religious propaganda instead of science. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method http://www.examiner.com/x-4648-Atlanta-Weather-Examiner~y2009m6d21-Sun-spot-cycle-impacting-global-warming-and-cooling http://docinthemachine.com/2007/02/15/flawedpeers/ http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message307338/pg1 http://m.climaterealists.com/index.php?id=2516 http://minnesotansforglobalwarming.com/m4gw/2009/01/earth-on-the-brink-of-an-ice-age.html http://swampie.wordpress.com/2009/01/11/what-the-vostok-ice-core-data-says-about-global-warming-and-more-importantly-cooling/ Sorry but peer review is a religious argument not science! To get science you need to use the scientific method instead which was specifically developed by real scientists to prevent the Roman churches peer review system from suppressing real scientific discovery. But the religious left will not ever give up their corrupt peer review system that keeps them employed at high wages doing religious propaganda instead of science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
http://www.examiner.com/x-4648-Atlanta-Weather-Examiner~y2009m6d21-Sun-spot-cycle-impacting-global-warming-and-cooling

http://docinthemachine.com/2007/02/15/flawedpeers/
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message307338/pg1
http://m.climaterealists.com/index.php?id=2516
http://minnesotansforglobalwarming.com/m4gw/2009/01/earth-on-the-brink-of-an-ice-age.html
http://swampie.wordpress.com/2009/01/11/what-the-vostok-ice-core-data-says-about-global-warming-and-more-importantly-cooling/

]]>