Comments on: IPCC Rejects Anonymous Review

By: AntonyIndia

AntonyIndia — Fri, 27 Jul 2012 15:52:20 +0000

In the latest (09/07/2012) IPCC WG1 AR5 “Coordinating Lead Authors[CLA] , Lead Authors and Review Editors” listing I see only two of the old hard core Team members: Tim Osborn in Ch5. as one of 15 lead authors for “Information from Paleoclimate Archives” and Kevin Trentberth as one of 4 review editor for Chapter 14: “Climate Phenomena and their Relevance for Future Regional Climate Change”. Who are the new Team representatives?

The USA has 69 scientists in, the UK 29, France and China 17, Germany and Australia 13, India 9 (amazing knowing the miserable level of government climate science here) and Russia just 5.

By: Tom Kennedy

Tom Kennedy — Sat, 25 Feb 2012 01:20:18 +0000

Some in the press are pointing out that the Pacific institute is a “non profit” suggesting that only profit based organizations lie etc. See:

http://blogs.kqed.org/climatewatch/2012/02/24/pacific-institutes-work-rises-above-the-gleick-fiasco/

Hiding behind the non profit label (The Pacific Institute is a registered 501(c)3 non-profit ) suggesting that this provides some immunity or more integrity is ludicrous. Non profit per above is a “Tax Status” also given to others orgs. like churches. Many of these organizations are well thought of others are mediocre and some are basically ideologues who say whatever fits with their ideology.

From Dr. Judith Curry’s website:

“There are five attributes of ideologues:
1. Absence of doubt
2. Intolerance of debate
3. Appeal to authority
4. A desire to convince others of the ideological “truth”
5. A willingness to punish those that don’t concur

Note that each of these characteristics is anathema to science.”

This institute under Gleick’s leadership has become ideologically driven. He has faked a memo as Steve Mosher and Steve McIntyre have clearly pointed out. He has ruined his career and destroyed whatever reputation this institute had. I feel sad for the man but the facts are damning!

By: tckev

tckev — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 20:25:03 +0000

Why should a body that is mostly funded by public money have to go through some sort of audit process of its people, methods, ideals? Its ultimate aim is only to change the very basics of the way we use our economies to live, trade, and interact both nationally and internationally.

It is, of course, a settled fact that the IPCC is only staffed by the very best hard working scientific professionals of the highest morals and ethics, above the normal standards that mire everyday scientific bodies in controversy. This in itself puts them beyond the ordinary strata of scientific probity and therefore requires that they can only be self regulating.
.

.
/sarcoff
Believe any of that and I got a computer model to sell you!

By: Dennis Wingo

Dennis Wingo — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 06:36:50 +0000

Steve, this is unrelated, but pertinent.

http://www.eva.mpg.de/denisova/

Complete openness and production of all raw data, no passwords, free of charge in researching human anthropology.

By: Richard Betts

Richard Betts — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 00:04:36 +0000

On the other hand, anonymity could be counterproductive in allowing reviewers to relax and not be as thorough as they might be. Some people seem to like to treat the status of “IPCC expert reviewer” as something to put on their CV, but do they all do a thorough job in reviewing the areas relevant to their expertise? If someone is an expert in a particular field and they know they’re going to have their name at the end of the report as an expert reviewer, then I think for most people this is an incentive to try to make sure there are no errors related to their area of expertise. Anonymous reviewers, however, can feel free from such pressures as errors in the final report will not reflect badly on them.

Also, if the authors reject the reviewer’s comments, it then becomes a matter of record that the reviewer suggested changes but in vain. Then if the suggested change turns out to be a genuine error that was not fixed, the reviewer can clearly show they tried to do the right thing.

By: ianl8888

ianl8888 — Sun, 05 Feb 2012 04:21:07 +0000

I think most of us wish to see that

Such a public process is precisely what the IPCC will avoid

The best I can hope for is that the various drafts are leaked (as happened with ZOD and, so far, some of FOD Chapter 5), allowing us to assess the evolution of AR5

By: EdeF

EdeF — Sun, 05 Feb 2012 03:45:46 +0000

If the lead author needs some clarification from Anon13 say, all they have to do is
send their query blindly to Anon13, who then responds and answers the question. What I
really want to see is the rough draft A, then the expert Anon reviews to that, then the
next draft that takes into account comments from the reviewers. It may be possible to see where the author totally ignores some key comment from a reviewer. This process is repeated to the final document.

By: Mark T

Mark T — Sat, 04 Feb 2012 17:27:32 +0000

While I think anonymous review would be good, I don’t believe it is enough. Until authors are forced to address review concerns, it doesn’t matter how bad the work is.

Quite frankly, the goal of the IPCC was never about understanding the science. From that standpoint, they cannot ever allow a legitimate process to take hold. They need to have absolute control over the message, and anonymous review – with legitimate consequences, will deteriorate that control.

Mark

By: Tony Mach

Tony Mach — Sat, 04 Feb 2012 13:46:09 +0000

There is much that Karl Popper would have had to say about this, so I leave it at one quote:

There are all kinds of sources of our knowledge; but none has authority … The fundamental mistake made by the philosophical theory of the ultimate sources of our knowledge is that it does not distinguish clearly enough between questions of origin and questions of validity.

By: Bob B

Bob B — Sat, 04 Feb 2012 13:00:32 +0000

Steve, this is off topic, but did you know the fate of the whole world is in your hands?
email form climategate II

http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2012/02/email-2378-oct-2009-desmogblog-warmist.html

I happen to think though that you actually may have helped save mankind’s use of the ‘evil’ carbon based energy