Quote:
Originally Posted by Retrograde
Huh? Peer review a foundation of modern scientific discovery and has worked well since the 18th century.
The IPCC does not conduct peer review itself.
It summarises the existing scientific knowledge. Despite many many thousands of pages, few (if any) significant errors have been found in Working Group 1 (wg I) which deals with the physical science of global warming.
The other working groups deal with less certain research areas such as regional and local impacts of global warming (wg II). Because peer reviewed science is thin on the ground when it comes to some areas, other wgs specifically allow for submissions by NGOs and other organisations that have demonstrated expertise in a particular area.
The IPCC is probably one of the most misrepresented organisations in the world and the subject of repeated and often dishonest attacks.
Of course sceptics can't explain the reduced rate of temperature increases (there is no actual hiatus - satellites measure the Earth's radiation budget and show the earth is still accumulating energy) nor can they explain anything else - their only motivation is to sow the seeds of doubt in order to rationalise their desire to do nothing.
|
all good if you trust those doing the review. They have been caught fiddling numbers. Publishing NON peer reviewed as and student papers as scientific evidence.
If all those doing the review are of the same ideal how is that unbiased?
There has been no warming in 15 years. "scientists" now trying to explain why instead of accepting the fact. I guess for some it's just hard after wasting so many years chasing unicorns.
IPCC notorious for fiddling numbers when the data does not match their ideals. Good old hockey stick graph.
Still waiting on Tuvalu and Maldives to take a dive.
by all means lets clean up our air. Doesn't take a tax to do that. We stopped putting CFC's into the atmosphere with legislation.