Death knell for AGW

[petros]

I never said IPCC is perfect...far from it. But, it does have a more thorough
review process than submitting a paper to a journal

The reason why they made that statement is because they cited WWF who cited a magazine interview which was all speculative content without any review at all. It was taken verbatum and put into their 2007 report as fact even after a review member spotted and made note of the huge mistake.

Citing WWF or Greenpeace or magazine articles in any way shape or form without thorough review is more than just a mistake in the opinions of many.

That is just far too sloppy to even be considered science. If a review this sloppy were conducted by members of a resource doctrine they be locked up in the hoosegow and never published again.

 

[Tonington]

The reason why they made that statement is because they cited WWF who cited a magazine interview which was all speculative content without any review at all.

Right, don't even bother to quote that I said it was a failure of the review process.

A human process that is not infallible *shock* :roll:

Unfortunately, now any mention of the fact that Himalayan glaciers are not doing well, will inevitably bring this IPCC failure out in the talking points, clouding the reality of the issue even further.

 

[petros]

Yeah it was/is a big failure of the review process but was it really a mistake if it was known to be wrong prior to publishing?

 

[petros]

Could another Bre-X occur?

Yes. This time the commodity is CO2 and IPCC doesn't have to follow the same stringent review process as resources do.

Nobody goes to jail and they can still raise funds for knowingly publishing false data as fact.

Step up to the same plate and lets play ball.

 

[Tonington]

Could another Bre-X occur?

Yes. This time the commodity is CO2 and IPCC doesn't have to follow the same stringent review process as resources do.

Comparing the IPCC to a commercial mining company? The IPCC makes no revenue from any commodity. You're lame.

Poor durpy Petros.

 

[petros]

Not a mining company. A doctrine of science. Are you saying one doctrine of science should have lesser standards than another?

 

[mentalfloss]

Not a mining company. A doctrine of science. Are you saying one doctrine of science should have lesser standards than another?

Are you saying your armchair psychology is science?

 

[Tonington]

Not a mining company.

Bre-X, mining company. The goal posts are back here durpy pete.

 

[petros]

Climate science is a mining company? So it's not a science like geo-physics or chemistry?

 

[Tonington]

Climate science is a mining company?

No, that would be why I called you lame. You're trying to conflate a mining scandal with a scientific review. Lame.

Try to keep up pete.

 

[mentalfloss]

No, that would be why I called you lame. You're trying to conflate a mining scandal with a scientific review. Lame.

Try to keep up pete.

Pete's too nice. I prefer petrol.

 

[petros]

No no no. It's the review process having double standards of responsibilty and liabilty. Why are there two standards?

 

[mentalfloss]

This just in - scientific review process is extremely flawed according to petrol.

All scientists please report for execution.

 

[petros]

This just in - scientific review process is extremely flawed according to petrol.

All scientists please report for execution.

Is the standard the same flossy? Yes or no? Chairman Meow (aka Anus of Green Gables) tends to think it's fine for "climate scientists" to knowingly **** up and publish false data that impacts the lives of billions of people.

 

[Tonington]

No no no. It's the review process having double standards of responsibilty and liabilty. Why are there two standards?

What two standards? You haven't successfully made the case that are two standards.

 

[mentalfloss]

Is the standard the same flossy? Yes or no? Chairman Meow (aka Anus of Green Gables) tends to think it's fine for "climate scientists" to knowingly **** up and publish false data that impacts the lives of billions of people.

Maybe you should stop posting crap like this and people would actually take you seriously.

 

[petros]

Standards were set years ago. Look them up.

Maybe you should stop posting crap like this and people would actually take you seriously.

Yes or no flossy? is the standard the same?

 

[mentalfloss]

Yes or no flossy?

The world will explode right now or you have just jizzed your pants.

Yes or no?

(Do you see why this kind of assumptive questioning is misleading now?)

 

[petros]

LMFAO! You know it's not the same and you refuse to answer. That is cute.

 

[mentalfloss]