Comments on: How the IPCC works http://blog.greens.org.nz/2009/11/12/how-the-ipcc-works/ hopping along the corridors of power Fri, 10 Feb 2012 07:16:29 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3 By: bjchip http://blog.greens.org.nz/2009/11/12/how-the-ipcc-works/#comment-97020 bjchip Tue, 24 Nov 2009 23:11:48 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/?p=7620#comment-97020 BP The peer review process is not "the peer review process of the IPCC" and there is no reason to believe it excluded good papers. Jones may have exerted his influence to keep some marginal or bad ones out, but the fact is that some EXTREMELY bad ones went through... and some editors resigned behind that issue. The science from the denialsphere is just as sh!t as it has always been... because it is hard to write a good paper supporting a false premise. It is likely that we would have benefited from seeing some of the marginal papers published and publicly dismembered... in particular anything submitted by McIntyre. That would have strengthened the science. Even if it embarrassed some scientists. I think that is the principle issue here. Scientists cannot properly put themselves ahead of their service to science... which is something I believe Mann and Jones certainly did. The call for openness was never (by me) argued... go ahead and look. I know for a fact that I have a philosophical belief in complete openness, to the extent that some of my friends regard it as a personality defect. So be it. <b>Nothing in this however, indicates that there is anything wrong with the science. </b> Harry's readme: He's apparently trying to rebuild old datasets from previous machines, decades and operating systems. A nasty time was had by all. This is quite precisely the problem I was alluding to previously, that datasets must be actively maintained to remain valid. Letting Scientists write their own code, document it and make up their own names for things is a cr@p idea, and it always has been. I have on at least one occasion, after having had to prepare some of his work for publication, suggested to a chief scientist that he would be well advised to let his WIFE name his kids. :-) Scientists just don't usually get past the algorithm development. Data organization is bad and code management is worse. That isn't just climate science. respectfully BJ

BP

The peer review process is not “the peer review process of the IPCC” and there is no reason to believe it excluded good papers. Jones may have exerted his influence to keep some marginal or bad ones out, but the fact is that some EXTREMELY bad ones went through… and some editors resigned behind that issue.

The science from the denialsphere is just as sh!t as it has always been… because it is hard to write a good paper supporting a false premise. It is likely that we would have benefited from seeing some of the marginal papers published and publicly dismembered… in particular anything submitted by McIntyre. That would have strengthened the science. Even if it embarrassed some scientists. I think that is the principle issue here. Scientists cannot properly put themselves ahead of their service to science… which is something I believe Mann and Jones certainly did.

The call for openness was never (by me) argued… go ahead and look. I know for a fact that I have a philosophical belief in complete openness, to the extent that some of my friends regard it as a personality defect. So be it.

Nothing in this however, indicates that there is anything wrong with the science.

Harry’s readme: He’s apparently trying to rebuild old datasets from previous machines, decades and operating systems. A nasty time was had by all. This is quite precisely the problem I was alluding to previously, that datasets must be actively maintained to remain valid.

Letting Scientists write their own code, document it and make up their own names for things is a cr@p idea, and it always has been.

I have on at least one occasion, after having had to prepare some of his work for publication, suggested to a chief scientist that he would be well advised to let his WIFE name his kids. :-)

Scientists just don’t usually get past the algorithm development. Data organization is bad and code management is worse. That isn’t just climate science.

respectfully
BJ

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 (+2)

]]> By: bjchip http://blog.greens.org.nz/2009/11/12/how-the-ipcc-works/#comment-95867 bjchip Sat, 14 Nov 2009 16:45:46 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/?p=7620#comment-95867 Where is that conspiracy again? "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices." - Adam Smith

Where is that conspiracy again?

“People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.” – Adam Smith

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

]]> By: McTap http://blog.greens.org.nz/2009/11/12/how-the-ipcc-works/#comment-95722 McTap Thu, 12 Nov 2009 22:01:17 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/?p=7620#comment-95722 Shunda - if you really want to know what is really going on you could start by reading Heat by George Monbiot. You could also look up a swedish chemist called Svante Arrhenius who published a paper on the role of CO2 in warming the climate in 1896. His calculations show that the math, chem and physics around CO2 and the Greenhouse effect are very well known. The tricky bit is the effect interactions between all the different parts of the system, that can amplify or mute the response - including Humans.
Shunda – if you really want to know what is really going on you could start by reading Heat by George Monbiot.

You could also look up a swedish chemist called Svante Arrhenius who published a paper on the role of CO2 in warming the climate in 1896. His calculations show that the math, chem and physics around CO2 and the Greenhouse effect are very well known.

The tricky bit is the effect interactions between all the different parts of the system, that can amplify or mute the response – including Humans.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 (+3)

]]> By: phil u http://blog.greens.org.nz/2009/11/12/how-the-ipcc-works/#comment-95705 phil u Thu, 12 Nov 2009 19:34:56 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/?p=7620#comment-95705 "..Or how about a list of 450 peer-reviewed papers supporting scepticism?:." and you'd have to ask.. how many of those 'papers'..and those 'peer-reviewers'.. were funded by those oil company-funded climatechange-denial front-groups..? all of them...? phil(whoar.co.nz)

“..Or how about a list of 450 peer-reviewed papers supporting scepticism?:.”

and you’d have to ask..

how many of those ‘papers’..and those ‘peer-reviewers’..

were funded by those oil company-funded climatechange-denial front-groups..?

all of them…?

phil(whoar.co.nz)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 (+1)

]]> By: mjanderson http://blog.greens.org.nz/2009/11/12/how-the-ipcc-works/#comment-95675 mjanderson Thu, 12 Nov 2009 05:38:12 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/?p=7620#comment-95675 In the recent Select Committee review of the emissions trading scheme, IPCC reports have been recommended to be taken as consensus for action on climate change. "We recommend that the IPCC assessment, its projections, and the findings of the Fourth Assessment Report, which represent a consensus on the scientific evidence, underpin New Zealand’s future international policy negotiations. We note that there are some uncertainties in the science and these are not yet adequately included in the models. However, we do not consider that these uncertainties undermine the main conclusions of the IPCC, or that they should be a reason to delay action by the international community, particularly as recent scientific analysis of actual trends strongly suggests that the worst-case IPCC projections are already being realised. (Opposed by the ACT New Zealand Party)."
In the recent Select Committee review of the emissions trading scheme, IPCC reports have been recommended to be taken as consensus for action on climate change.

“We recommend that the IPCC assessment, its projections, and the findings of the Fourth Assessment Report, which represent a consensus on the scientific evidence, underpin New Zealand’s future international policy negotiations. We note that there are some uncertainties in the science and these are not yet adequately included in the models. However, we do not consider that these uncertainties undermine the main conclusions of the IPCC, or that they should be a reason to delay action by the international community, particularly as recent scientific analysis of actual trends strongly suggests that the worst-case IPCC projections are already being realised. (Opposed by the ACT New Zealand Party).”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2 (+6)

]]> By: georgedarroch http://blog.greens.org.nz/2009/11/12/how-the-ipcc-works/#comment-95671 georgedarroch Thu, 12 Nov 2009 05:04:53 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/?p=7620#comment-95671 You can lead the idiots to information, but you can't make them think. The idiots in the Beehive (stocked with closeted denialists) aren't likely to familiarise themselves with how the IPCC actually works any time soon.
You can lead the idiots to information, but you can’t make them think. The idiots in the Beehive (stocked with closeted denialists) aren’t likely to familiarise themselves with how the IPCC actually works any time soon.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 3 (+12)

]]>