|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
 Posted - 05/13/2007 : 08:10:25 [Permalink]
|
www.ipcc.ch/about/faq/IPCC%20Procedures.pdf
steps outline in ipcc documents
1.ipcc outline
2.government chooses experts
3.experts prepare 1st draft
4.peer review
5.experts prepare 2nd draft
6.experts and government review
7.experts prepare final draft
8.governmnet review
9.approval of report by ipcc
10.publication of report
Half of the steps involve govermental involment; including two of the three reviews, prior to publication of the data.
Notice the word review, no distintion is made in step 4, 6, and 8 other than who is doing the reviewing.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
 |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 05/13/2007 : 08:20:44 [Permalink]
|
JEROME DA GNOME:
The current ipcc prediction shows a decrease in the increase of temperature. Meaning that the warming trend is slowing. |
No. It means that the projections have been refined based on a better understanding of the science and more data. That's how science works.
JEROME DA GNOME:
None has yet to explain how mans "production" of co2 has caused volcanoes and the sun to become minor factors in climate change in the last 60 years. |
Natural cycles occur. No one here said that volcanoes and the sun are minor factors in climate change. What is being factored in, along with the natural cycles, is the increase in greenhouse gases to a degree that they exist now, which has not been seen before, and are not a part of the natural cycle. That suggests, and with data to support it, that we are altering the natural cycle. We have become active contributors to the warming of our planet…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 05/13/2007 : 08:24:11 [Permalink]
|
First it is claimed that government involvement in the review process does not alter the conclutions.
Now you admit that the science does not always agree with the goverments conclutions. Hence the disagreements between the science and govermnetal agents.
Please you can not have it both ways.
How can one hold both these statments true?
Maybe you contend that the science always wins the arguement with the governments that are funding the science? |
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 05/13/2007 : 08:25:08 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
www.ipcc.ch/about/faq/IPCC%20Procedures.pdf
steps outline in ipcc documents
1.ipcc outline
2.government chooses experts
3.experts prepare 1st draft
4.peer review
5.experts prepare 2nd draft
6.experts and government review
7.experts prepare final draft
8.governmnet review
9.approval of report by ipcc
10.publication of report
Half of the steps involve govermental involment; including two of the three reviews, prior to publication of the data.
Notice the word review, no distintion is made in step 4, 6, and 8 other than who is doing the reviewing.
|
Okay, you're right. It's a conpiracy to make you pay more taxes... Thanks for seeing trough these goverments, representing many countries involvment in making every tax payer on the planet pay through the nose based on this obvious hoax. I have seen the light. Thank goodness there is at least one clear thinker out there...
 |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 05/13/2007 : 08:27:47 [Permalink]
|
Kil--if current real temp increase is .2c
and future predicted temp increase is .1c
than the rate of increase is predicted to be lower.
How can you deny this?
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 05/13/2007 : 08:31:03 [Permalink]
|
Kil said:"Okay, you're right"
yeaaa--- do i get a cookie or gold star or something?
This is fun, i hope you all are having as much fun as I during our talk. |
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 05/13/2007 : 08:36:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
.
.
.
Half of the steps involve govermental involment; including two of the three reviews, prior to publication of the data.
Notice the word review, no distintion is made in step 4, 6, and 8 other than who is doing the reviewing. |
What you are doing here is called equivocation. It's disingenuous at best. The phrase "peer review" has a very specific meaning in science. A review by government personnel is completely different, and you should know that. | First it is claimed that government involvement in the review process does not alter the conclutions. |
Boron's translation: Scientists will say whatever they think is true, regardless of governmental pressure. | Now you admit that the science does not always agree with the goverments conclutions. Hence the disagreements between the science and govermnetal agents. |
Boron's translation: Scientists will say whatever they think is true, regardless of governmental pressure. Please you can not have it both ways.
How can one hold both these statments true? |
Perhaps you should re-read what you wrote above. I see no logical basis for your question. | Maybe you contend that the science always wins the arguement with the governments that are funding the science? |
Well, yes. Those scientists who yield to governmental pressure get blacklisted, and have a very difficult time finding work. Also, part of the "peer-review" process. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 05/13/2007 : 08:44:49 [Permalink]
|
JEROME DA GNOME:
First it is claimed that government involvement in the review process does not alter the conclutions.
Now you admit that the science does not always agree with the goverments conclutions. Hence the disagreements between the science and govermnetal agents.
|
Okay, that's it. You are a liar. I never said that governments get to change the conclusions it doesn't agree with. I talked about clarification and making the report understandable to lay persons.
The Union of Concerned Scientists is all over our government for trying to alter the language and the conclusions of scientists in many disciplines, including the climatologists report on global warming. That is a problem with our government and not a problem with the data that the scientists have presented. Our government's spin on the report was done after the final report was submitted.
And it seems that you bought our governments spin, hook line and sinker. Interesting...
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 05/13/2007 : 08:54:51 [Permalink]
|
"Well, yes. Those scientists who yield to governmental pressure get blacklisted, and have a very difficult time finding work. Also, part of the "peer-review" process."
Boron- The governments are the funders of this research.
By your statemnet the scientist who yields to the governmental pressure will be "blacklisted" by the government which provides the funds.
Why would group A punish group B which has compromised its position for group A? |
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 05/13/2007 : 09:07:57 [Permalink]
|
Kil--sorry that was a reply to HalfMooner.
To all: Why all the name calling and insults directed at those with which you disagee?
"The Union of Concerned Scientists is all over our government for trying to alter the language and the conclusions of scientists in many disciplines, including the climatologists report on global warming."
Therfore the "final report" can be spun to draw conclusions from the data which support a political idea.
You just stated that you and The Union of Concerned Scientists agree with me in that conclusions can be altered by government.
Unless you content that the scientist have always won the argument with their funders.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 05/13/2007 : 09:09:43 [Permalink]
|
JEROME DA GNOME:
By your statemnet the scientist who yields to the governmental pressure will be "blacklisted" by the government which provides the funds. |
Again you misrepresent what was said. A blacklisting would be by the scientific community regardless of who is doing the funding…
I am starting to smell Troll…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 05/13/2007 : 09:25:31 [Permalink]
|
JEROME DA GNOME:
Therfore the "final report" can be spun to draw conclusions from the data which support a political idea. |
Spinning is done all the time and says nothing about the veracity original report. Remember, we are talking about governments, not just ours, which has been downplaying the data on global warming from the get-go. Since, for example, the Swedish government accepts the report and is in total disagreement with our government over its implications, how can you conclude that the report was influenced, beyond clarification, by governments who don't agree with each other? There is a consensus among scientists. There is no such consensus among the governments who looked over and commented on the wording. The final wording was done by the scientists…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 05/13/2007 : 09:36:34 [Permalink]
|
8.governmnet review
9.approval of report by ipcc
10.publication of report
Kil--according to the ipcc the final wording was not done by the experts but by government.
So your statement "The final wording was done by the scientists…" is baseless.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 05/13/2007 : 09:44:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
8.governmnet review
9.approval of report by ipcc
10.publication of report
Kil--according to the ipcc the final wording was not done by the experts but by government. |
Only if "review" means "change," which it doesn't. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 05/13/2007 : 09:48:27 [Permalink]
|
Dave are you implying that the "final wording"(which is what we are talking of)did not "change" from step 4 (peer review) untill step 10 publication?
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
 |
|
IS GLOBAL WARMING A SCAM TO TAX?
Topic Locked
