| QUOTE (fridaygolfer @ Sep 30 2009, 07:26 AM) |
| let me ask you this. i've asked oak and others before and not only can't they answer, they ignore it. and it doesn't even require any knowledge of science. if the facts and data against the agw are so compelling, why does your side, forgive me for putting it like that, constantly feel the need to produce "documents" and "petitions" containing false articles, like the one in the oregon petition project, claiming to be fro the national academy of sciences, and signed by ballerinas, dermatologists, dead actors and scientists, people who have done nothing on the subject but write letters to the editor in their local paper, and a handful of actual climate scientists who almost all of which contacted the source of said petition demanding their names be removed saying they never have or would endorse such a claim? explain. |
| QUOTE (fridaygolfer @ Sep 30 2009, 09:26 AM) |
| let me ask you this. i've asked oak and others before and not only can't they answer, they ignore it. and it doesn't even require any knowledge of science. if the facts and data against the agw are so compelling, why does your side, forgive me for putting it like that, constantly feel the need to produce "documents" and "petitions" containing false articles, like the one in the oregon petition project, claiming to be fro the national academy of sciences, and signed by ballerinas, dermatologists, dead actors and scientists, people who have done nothing on the subject but write letters to the editor in their local paper, and a handful of actual climate scientists who almost all of which contacted the source of said petition demanding their names be removed saying they never have or would endorse such a claim? explain. |
| QUOTE |
| constantly feel the need to produce "documents" and "petitions" containing false articles, like the one in the oregon petition project, claiming to be fro the national academy of sciences, and signed by ballerinas, dermatologists, dead actors and scientists, people who have done nothing on the subject but write letters to the editor in their local paper, and a handful of actual climate scientists who almost all of which contacted the source of said petition demanding their names be removed saying they never have or would endorse such a claim? explain. |
| QUOTE |
| - Author and reviewer numbers are wrong by John McLean 18 Jan 2009 (email: mcleanjoh at mail.com) UPDATE SPECIAL NOTE: After the original version of this document was published a reader pointed out that authors and reviewers of the IPCC 4AR Synthesis Report had not been included. This updated version now includes those people, identifies further duplication of names, examines the credentials of some of the authors and raises questions about the credibility of reviewers. How many times have you heard or read words to the effect that 4000 scientists from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change (IPCC) supported the claims about a significant human influence on climate? I think I've seen it on television, radio and the Internet and I know that politicians at national levels have quoted such figures. There's no question whatsoever. It's utterly wrong. In fact, once the duplicated names are removed that number falls below 2,900 and if we only want those who explicitly supported the claims it falls to only about 60. So how does 4,000 become 60 and were they all qualified and credible scientists? Let's take a closer look at the real numbers. Consider the statement "The IPCC report concluded that there is a human influence on climate. This was supported by almost 4,000 authors and reviewers." The popular mythology - and one that IPCC never tries to correct - is that those 4,000 supported the findings but this is an exaggeration on a massive scale because all they really supported, by virtue of their work, was the creation of the report. The IPCC is allowing, or perhaps even encouraging, an ambiguity to be misinterpreted, and it's not for the first time either, but I digress. But how many individuals were involved? Was it 4,000 or some other number? The IPCC said in its flyer for its Fourth Assessment Report (4AR) 2500+ Scientific Expert Reviewers 800+ Contributing Authors 450+ Lead Authors...[note 1] so immediately the figure drops from 4,000 to 3,750. But look a little closer and that figure is not correct either. Each of the three IPCC Working Groups (WGs) assembles its own lists of authors and reviewers, making six lists in all. Based on those lists of reviewers and on a previous list of authors that I had already extracted from the start of each chapter of the report (and each "Summary for Policy makers" and "Technical Summary") the total number of authors and reviewers for each working group is as follows: WG I - 595 authors, 624 reviewers WG II - 400 authors, 1169 reviewers WG III - 251 authors, 469 reviewers Based on these figures the total number of reviewers was 2262 and the number of authors is 1246. The former is well short of the IPCC's 2500 but the latter is near enough to the claimed 1250. Working Group I - (303 from the USA or UK) 215 climate science (assumption for all authors associated with 2 key climate institutes in each country) 24 atmospheric physics 27 geophysics or geology 4 statistics 8 mathematics/physics 8 engineering 2 biology/ecology 1 history of science 1 computer science 1 economy 1 agronomy 1 lawyer who claims to also be skilled in oceanography 8 unknown Working Group II - (121) 10 geophysics, climate science, hydrology or climate modelling 17 earth/atmospheric sciences 2 modelling/statistics 7 geography 6 epidemiology 10 biology/ecology 5 zoology, entomology or biology 5 public health and policy 10 engineers or in insurance and risk management 12 economics 28 social science 1 full-time activist (and 1 part time) 1 website-design 1 network administration 2 administrative assistant 5 unknown Working Group III - (66) 14 physics, chemistry or engineering 2 biochemisty or geochemistry 5 forestry ecology, or soil science 4 engineering disciplines 2 law 7 social science 20 economics 12 unknown Climate Resistance also points out that various of the above people appear to be graduates, PhD candidates or recent recipients of PhDs, so it's drawing a long bow to claim that they are world experts in their fields. According to Climate Resistance "... across WGI, II and III, we have a very generous 314 contributors among the 510 we sampled who can reasonably be described as scientific experts." ......................... The evidence shows that the claim of "4000 scientific experts supported the IPCC's claims" is dishonest in almost every word. There were not 4000 people, but just under 2900; they were not all scientists; and it seems that they were not all experts. There is only evidence that about 60 people explicitly supported the claim, although that might not mean much given the vested interests and lack of impartiality of many authors and reviewers. As mentioned at the start of this document the "support" can only be said to apply to the document as a whole and is by virtue of the input of authors and reviewers. |
| QUOTE (disinterested_observer @ Sep 30 2009, 09:27 AM) | ||||||
I'm not johnny, but I will respond. Friday seems to infer that since, in his words, AGW deniers
The petitions are invalid because of the above mentioned reasons. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that, (according to friday), the petitions are invalid because they include fraudulent, or unqualified signers. Following that logic, the whole IPCC report is invalid because of the same reasons. Following are some excerpts from an anlysis of the signatories on the IPCC statement. Since it is 5 pages long, I will not post the entire paper, but you can read it at the posted link.
Based on the signatories higlighted in red, who do not have degrees in climatology, or anything close to climatology, they are unqualified to offer an opinon on AGW (using friday's logic) Therefore, since these unqualified people signed the IPCC report, the entire report is invalid(based on friday's "logic"). I realize that friday will continue to show what a hypocritical hack he is by dismissing this, but there ya go. And, of course, friday will attack the source, the poster, anything but actually address the factual data, which he is unable to argue with. link to the entire report: http://mclean.ch/climate/docs/IPCC_numbers.pdf |
| QUOTE (disinterested_observer @ Sep 30 2009, 04:27 PM) | ||||||
I'm not johnny, but I will respond. Friday seems to infer that since, in his words, AGW deniers
The petitions are invalid because of the above mentioned reasons. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that, (according to friday), the petitions are invalid because they include fraudulent, or unqualified signers. Following that logic, the whole IPCC report is invalid because of the same reasons. Following are some excerpts from an anlysis of the signatories on the IPCC statement. Since it is 5 pages long, I will not post the entire paper, but you can read it at the posted link.
Based on the signatories higlighted in red, who do not have degrees in climatology, or anything close to climatology, they are unqualified to offer an opinon on AGW (using friday's logic) Therefore, since these unqualified people signed the IPCC report, the entire report is invalid(based on friday's "logic"). I realize that friday will continue to show what a hypocritical hack he is by dismissing this, but there ya go. And, of course, friday will attack the source, the poster, anything but actually address the factual data, which he is unable to argue with. link to the entire report: http://mclean.ch/climate/docs/IPCC_numbers.pdf |
| QUOTE (fridaygolfer @ Sep 30 2009, 12:54 PM) | ||||||||
that's what is known as "a stretch". |
| QUOTE (fridaygolfer @ Sep 30 2009, 10:54 AM) | ||||||||
that's what is known as "a stretch". |
| QUOTE (fridaygolfer @ Sep 30 2009, 11:18 AM) |
| your comparison is ludicrous, but maybe if you explain it to me again. but i do appreciate your responding, and i'm not being sarcastic. |