Last in Class: Critics Give U.N. Climate Researchers an 'F'

[WatchManUSA]

I saw this on the Fox News web site. 

Full Article: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/19/united-nations-climate-global-warming-ipcc/

It may be time for the United Nations' climate-studies scientists to go back to school.

A group of 40 auditors -- including scientists and public policy experts from across the globe -- have released a shocking report card on the U.N.'s landmark climate-change research report.

And they gave 21 of the report's 44 chapters a grade of "F."

The team, recruited by the climate-change skeptics behind the website NoConsensus.org, found that 5,600 of the 18,500 sources in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) Nobel Prize-winning 2007 report were not peer reviewed.

[fightingquaker13]

I saw this on the Fox News web site. 

Full Article: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/19/united-nations-climate-global-warming-ipcc/

It may be time for the United Nations' climate-studies scientists to go back to school.

A group of 40 auditors -- including scientists and public policy experts from across the globe -- have released a shocking report card on the U.N.'s landmark climate-change research report.

And they gave 21 of the report's 44 chapters a grade of "F."

The team, recruited by the climate-change skeptics behind the website NoConsensus.org, found that 5,600 of the 18,500 sources in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) Nobel Prize-winning 2007 report were not peer reviewed.

By any normal academic standard (depending on how heavily they relied them, was it just to make a point or were they used as key evidence? It matters a lot.) that would be potentially game over. Thanks for applying, but you aren't getting our grant/we won't be hiring you. Again, if it was just filigree no problem, but if a third of their sources were un-peer reviewed and relied on for evidence, not just conversation points it moves from sloppy work to malfeasance. People have been fired for less.
FQ13 who is profesionally insulted by this. I work hard for that peer review and it means something, at least that folks who know what they are talking about found that you do too. Otherwise all the cite says is that someone could write a coherent sentence and manage to get published. Doesn't make it wong, but in the sciences especially, it means we have to take it with more than a pinch of salt.

[tombogan03884]

FQ, Where have you been ? The whole Climate change scam dates back to the Soviet KGB "Nuclear winter" operation they ran through Carl Sagan, His work was accepted as gospel by the media for years before Any one could make the point that it had not been reviewed, and others who had seen his work said it was sloppy and contained several inaccuracies.

I hear what you are saying about peer review though, don't much care what the boss thinks of you if you have the respect of other people doing the same work.

[crusader rabbit]

FQ, I don'tknow if you will agree with me on this, but I think so much of what now passes for peer review really isn't.  I think much of this problem stems from the liberal idea that "everyone has a valid opinion."  And that was an outgrowth of the "feel good" policies started in our school systems back in the '70s.  Don't mark the paper in red because little Johnny will feel bad.  No one should "fail" a grade because they would feel bad.  My opinion is just as valid as your opinion on any subject and to deny that might make me feel bad.  No one ever loses and everyone get an award.

So, a grad student in India postulating a contrived theory about Himalayan ice melting is taken as a "valid" opinion confirming the fact of global warming and then quoted by other supposed scientists in support of their own agenda.  Thus, it achieves some elevation to fact because it was quoted in scientific papers by people who should have known better.  If one actually went back and had a hard look at the data, one would find that it was all based on very unscientific observations in a poorly constructed experiment that completely ignored historical data. 

And this nonsense goes on and on.  Data contrary to what one "feels" is conveniently ignored in favor of data that tends to confirm the preconceived conclusion.  This idiocy takes place more in the soft sciences so we see stranges trends in psychology and sociology and the like.  Unfortunately, we are now seeing it in the hard sciences.

And FQ, it's good to have you back.

[mudman]

It's not about science it's about the theft & power.Mother earth just said fu in Iceland.

[Sponsor]

[Hazcat]

and yet.....

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N19159977.htm

the US State Department has just released a report stating: "Global warming is unequivocal and primarily human-induced ... Global temperature has increased over the past 50 years. This observed increase is due primarily to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases."

[Solus]

The State Dept., Hilary's staff, said that?

I guess the Clintons have bought into Al Gore's stock portfolio.

[JC5123]

and yet.....

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N19159977.htm

the US State Department has just released a report stating: "Global warming is unequivocal and primarily human-induced ... Global temperature has increased over the past 50 years. This observed increase is due primarily to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases."

But emissions have been steadily decreasing over the same period of time with advancements in technology and better efficiency.

[r_w]

PEER REVIEW SYSTEM IS CORRUPT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Been in it, know it, got out with some of my ethics intact.

It has regressed back to the dark ages--the research and results are tailored to those paying the bills.  Back then it was the kings and queens, now it is the federal/UN grants and large endowments (which tend towards socialist agendas).  If the research is funded by a corporation, the stuff is kept as trade secret if it gives them an advantage and buried if it doesn't. 

Even if the review process is blind, reviewers are afraid to judge harshly due to PC and potential backlash from the review committee (getting kicked out of a review pool is a kiss of death in academia). 

Back to the OP, If they couldn't even point to peer-reviewed material that is damn damning.  Peer review is a pretty low bar these days.