IPCC Peer Review Process an Illusion, analysis finds
The UN's IPCC reports have been the final 'argument' closing off debate for all GW alarmists. Those of us who know who and how it was put together, including the despicable reality of the 'beefing up' of various phrases by administrators after the scientists went home and the inclusion of names of those who did not agree with its findings on the final reports et al, know only too well they represent the epitome of politicization of science. And here's further proof in the form of a new peer review of the reports themselves:
Excerpt: 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.”
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/press/ipccprocessillusion.html
Peter C Glover
6 Comments
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (6)
GLOBAL WARMING (g.w.) a few questions and comments:
1. Who would you believe? a worldwide, overwhelming consensus of unrelated, unaffiliated, mostly apolitical scientists diverse as to many different scientific specialists, diverse as to nationality, diverse as to political leanings, diverse as to color, diverse as to ethnicity, diverse as to geographical locations, diverse as to color, diverse, diverse, diverse? Or
2. or a small minority of scientist and politicians, many with an 'agenda', i.e. something to gain (like selling oil, coal, etc., being even a small part of the gigantic vested interests in the fossil fuels industry, unrestrained use of fossil fuels to continue producing and profiting from consumerism, that are afraid that China and India, and other developing nations are overtaking our fossil-fuel based, capitalistic juggernaut that they are riding to riches?
3. Who stands to profit from 'going green'? accepting the possibility that there may be something to the theory that man is just contributing, maybe significantly, to global warming?
a. Not democrats for they do not own 'green' or any exclusive franchises based on 'going green' ! Are there any identifiable, significant companies that are controlled by Democrats that control or own any green industries, etc???
b. Not the specialized, diverse scientists in an amazingly diverse number of scientific disciplines (specialties), each special type of scientists totally unrelated to any of the other types, with no 'agenda' in their fields of expertise that comprise the great majority of such scientist from around the entire planet that agree there is a real possibility that we are significantly contributing to our ultimate destruction...very few of these diverse scientists are 'politically active', (i.e. 'political activists,', political ideologues, hacks, functionaries, etc.,) democrats, socialists, communists, fascists, etc.
Is there is something about being moderate or to the left of center that indicates a willingness to accept possibilities and deal with them appropriately, in most cases.
You can trace 'liberalism' back through history by asking where have most, if not all, advances, scientific, political, economic, technological, etc. been produced and by what kind (say ultra conservative or ultra liberal, then moderately conservative and moderately liberal, etc.) type people.
You will find that the vast majority, if not all, 'new' ideas have come from 'free' thinkers, 'radical' thinkers, 'leftists', progressives, etc. ! In fact, you can apply this same test to nations, civilizations and cultures.
The pattern is clear and has been all through history: yesterdays' i.e. new, radical, preposterous, heretical, liberal, progressive, outrageous, totally unacceptable, traitorous, unconscionable ideas, theories, statements, etc., have, in many cases, become today's accepted realities, scientific facts, 'conventional wisdom' or just unquestioned reality: some examples:
a. The world is round!
b. The world revolves around the sun!
c. All matter is made up of atoms!
d. Women should be allowed to vote!
e. All men are created equal under the law!
f. All men should be free!
Few, if any ideas, etc., that have advanced mankind have come from anyone who would be considered to be: ultra conservative, even, perhaps, conservative, un-imaginative, negativists, contras, paranoids, etc.
4. If scientists who are supposed to know, (because they are 'scientists' that subscribe to and practice something not many of us are aware of anymore, called the 'scientific method', that is the technique, the only accepted manner for proving whether a scientific 'theory' is valid) say, independently, diversely and in overwhelming numbers, without any known or suspected political agendas, each in their own, hardly related, highly specialized field of science, that the facts they are finding indicate that there is global warming, everyone on earth should, until those scientists and all their factual findings are conclusively proven wrong, accept the possibility that the IGCC is right and act to GO GREEN with ALL DELIBERATE SPEED ! In other words, CAN WE AFFORD TO GAMBLE ON THE FUTURE OF THE PLANET???
5. By GOING GREEN, we can: 1. possibly save the earth for our kids, grandkids, etc... 2. Create new ideas, inventions, industries, jobs, a cleaner environment, less pollution, less toxic diseases, less medical expenses for the treatment of such diseases and other diseases such as cancer, etc. 3. Create new profit centers for new, Green products, technology, etc.! WHAT IS SO BAD/SCARY ABOUT ALL THIS??? One must be paranoid to a dangerous level to think that there is some vast, unidentifiable conspiracy that is attempting to take over the world, including every tiny hamlet, employing this FACT of GLOBAL WARMING.
The only identifiable group accepting the possibility of g.w. are OPEN-MINDED PEOPLE who: believe in science and the 'scientific method', believe that most scientists are intellectually honest, dedicated, honorable, decent but very well educated, trained and specialized fact finders that can be trusted individually and in various and diverse groups.
6. Assume, just for the sake of argument, that we are not even contributing to global warming. Are we so damn sure that we are not even contributing that we can blithely continue with the virtual insanity of more and more production and waste using fossil fuels that we can continue and the devil be damned ...and 'take the hindmost'? …spending like drunken sailors just in from a year ‘on board’.
7. WHY EVEN WASTE TIME DISCUSSING THE POSSIBILITY THAT WE ARE NOT CONTRIBUTING TO G.W. until a vast number of certified, conservative scientists can debunk the current state of knowledge?
The only reason must be: political. But, even then, Why? What political advantage can be had by challenging an overwhelming number of dedicated, unaffiliated, apolitical scientists? Damned if I know. But then why is a mule stubborn.?
To be continued, I guess, as there has to be SOME POLITICIAN that brings reason and analysis to this discussion….feel free to disseminate this tome…
Hmmm... there is lots of info on curezone about it. thanks for posting. alternative viagara
Don, you're argument on thousands of scientists not having an agenda is seriously flawed. They have an agenda. So, does the media, and sadly, so do a lot of politicians. And, sadly, the scientists have EVERYTHING to profit. They can either report that the sky is falling or they can lose their grants, jobs, and livelihood. Open your eyes...
if the issues and concern on global warming is politicised, we might as well get politicised information which is usually inaccurate. i hope politicians would not use these issues for their personal agenda.
its better for them to take the initiative to protect the environment just like following some tips on saving our earth in this blog.
"WHY EVEN WASTE TIME DISCUSSING THE POSSIBILITY THAT WE ARE NOT CONTRIBUTING TO G.W?"
Why even waste time discussing the possibility that the earth isn't the center of the universe? After all, the foremost experts in the church have declared the debate over.
Global Warming has gone from theory to religion. Just look at a couple of headlines on my website, GlobalWarmingInsanity.com:
* BISHOP: WARMING IS GOD’S VENGEANCE
* ECO-REPORTER:DOUBTERS SPEAKING ON EARTH DAY LIKE NAZIS CELEBRATING VE DAY
Legitimate scientists should welcome honest debate, not try to shut it down.
"WHY EVEN WASTE TIME DISCUSSING THE POSSIBILITY THAT WE ARE NOT CONTRIBUTING TO G.W?"
Why? Let's see... while proponents of AGW are proposing new ways to restrict energy and somehow reduce CO2, the following things are not being discussed or are being exacerbated by people advocating the precautionary principle;
1. 30,000 people starve to death every day on a planet where obesity is an epidemic. This has nothing to do with GW, its been going on for decades. In the past 30 years as warming occurred, crop yields increased but now we are faced with biofuels cutting into food production and demanded increases in "carbon taxation" making transportation of food to those in need prohibitively expensive. Biofuels and higher fuel prices were demanded by the green lobby.
2. 4,000,000 children die every year from lung disease secondary to inhaling smoke from indoor cooking fires in 3rd World countries where energy is scarce. Conventional electrical generation using oil or natural gas would alleviate most if not all of these deaths. Solar power costs 3 times as much and is unaffordable in developing nations. The precautionary principle increases the plight of these people.
3. Over 408,388,000 people suffer from Malaria world-wide. It kills 3,000 children every day and more than one million each year. It is estimated that $1.5 to $2.0 billion/year would be needed to eradicate the problem. AGW proponents would rather spend that money on carbon offsets.
4. An estimated 42 million people worldwide are now infected with HIV. More than 20 million have already died, and as many as 68 million more deaths are forecast by 2020. In Africa, only 50,000 AIDS victims receive treatment, there are over 4,000,000 people there with HIV-AIDS. The cost of anti-retroviral drugs has dropped from $12,000 a year to under $300 a year. The U.N. has estimated that $7 billion to $10 billion a year will be required to fight AIDS in Africa. Again, AGW proponents would rather see that money be dedicated to fighting CO2.
5. Poverty and third world debt has been shown to result in resource stripping just to survive or pay off debts. Day to day survival for millions of people means gathering fuel from wherever it can be acquired. In many places, this means destruction of habitat which threatens species with local or wide-spread extinction. Again, the solution is available, inexpensive, reliable energy, not carbon taxes.
6. Kyoto will cost the world $14,000,000,000,000 before 2100… just to reduce the predicted global temperature increase by 0.08 degrees Celsius.
Why do we "waste time" discussing it? Because what is being proposed as solutions to AGW are immoral at best and totally useless in all probability. The current mania about global warming and our "certainty" that we are to blame is leading us to increase the cost of energy, thereby making it less likely that we will be able to address real, immediate problems. Is it a waste of time to get people to stop and look at reality so they can see what is happening today while they worry about what could, might, happen in 100 or 500 or 1,000 years?