Tropopause_Fold Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 does anyone know why IPCC is above FOIA requests? figure someone here probably knows the answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kylemacr Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 does anyone know why IPCC is above FOIA requests? figure someone here probably knows the answer. Probably because it's not federal government. Although the data they show come from peer reviewed papers, you can get all the FOIA you want by reading the references section. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 does anyone know why IPCC is above FOIA requests? figure someone here probably knows the answer. Because the IPCC is an international organization not subject to national laws (FOIA is a U.S. law, most countries have something similar). But all of the journal articles referenced by the IPCC require data and methods availability in order to publish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tropopause_Fold Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 Because the IPCC is an international organization not subject to national laws (FOIA is a U.S. law, most countries have something similar). But all of the journal articles referenced by the IPCC require data and methods availability in order to publish. does that include correspondence from federal agencies involved? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tropopause_Fold Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 Probably because it's not federal government. Although the data they show come from peer reviewed papers, you can get all the FOIA you want by reading the references section. yeah i know - i mean federal gov't involvement. or is U.S. fed involvement subject? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 Those involved in a disinformation campaign are by definition 'dirty'. That includes McIntyre. What type of "disinformation" has McIntyre been involved in? Sounds like witch hunting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 does that include correspondence from federal agencies involved? As far as IPCC authors communicated and used the work of U.S. govt scientists, that work would be FOIA actionable as I understand it. For example, the GISS temperature data used in the IPCC report has been made 100% public since its inception in the early 80s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 how is making sure the peer review system works a bad thing? a few months ago the EIC of Remote Sensing had to resign over the publication of a paper that was inadequately peer-reviewed. again, why can't those who disagree just post their science and let the science community do its normal rounds of rebuttals and discussions? And do you think he would have resigned if the paper wasn't from a prominent skeptic? I'm sure that had nothing to do with it, and only flawed skeptic papers make it through peer review. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 illusion? It's funny to me deniers still believe the hockeystick is fake even though it has been corroborated literally 100s of times within the last 5 years in peer-reviewed journals and there has never been a serious rebuttal of its findings punlished or otherwise. There have been some changes as much more data has become available which show slightly more variation prior to 1900.. but the essential point remains the same. Actually it really isn't funny.. it's just very sad and aggravating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 And do you think he would have resigned if the paper wasn't from a prominent skeptic? I'm sure that had nothing to do with it, and only flawed skeptic papers make it through peer review. I don't think it was so much the fact that it was written by a skeptic and made a skeptic point, I think that the resignation occurred because the ramification of the paper were so large. I'm sure minor irrelevant papers get through without adequate review all the time in minor journals. But if a paper with such massive ramifications as essentially disproving most of AGW theory make it into the peer-reviewed literature without adequate review (and containing gaping flaws), I believe that requires resignations to occur. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 Taking e-mails out of context does not prove a lack of scientific misconduct. If anyone thinks that the scientists fudged results or "tweaked" a model to work, then they can simply do the experiment themselves and see if the results match those published. That's the beauty of science. All this finger pointing though is absolutely useless. If you have beef with science - try it for yourself. Finger pointing never ends, because it's drivin by ideology, not fact. If you want a productive discussion of AGW, use science, not finger pointing. What is this even supposed to mean? What is the context that is missing, and how come so many of you are positive the emails are "out of context"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tropopause_Fold Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 As far as IPCC authors communicated and used the work of U.S. govt scientists, that work would be FOIA actionable as I understand it. For example, the GISS temperature data used in the IPCC report has been made 100% public since its inception in the early 80s. makes sense enough. i've just been poking around searching and there's lots of information on this and just curious what's true/false etc with respect to FOIA on this topic. anyone: if NASA or DOE or NOAA/NCDC is communicating via email with european colleagues, does anyone know if the entire conversation is subject to FOIA or just the U.S. portion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 I don't think it was so much the fact that it was written by a skeptic and made a skeptic point, I think that the resignation occurred because the ramification of the paper were so large. I'm sure minor irrelevant papers get through without adequate review all the time in minor journals. But if a paper with such massive ramifications as essentially disproving most of AGW theory make it into the peer-reviewed literature without adequate review (and containing gaping flaws), I believe that requires resignations to occur. Right...a paper that challenges the consensus is far more likely to be pounced on than a less notable paper. Doesn't prove anything great about peer review. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 I'm not sure what is being argued now...Mann's hockey stick has been torn to shreds in multiple peer reviewed papers. As for suppression, why do we see quotes like this: The skeptics seem to be building up a head of steam here! ... The IPCC comes in for a lot of stick. Leave it to you to delete as appropriate! Cheers PhilPS I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act ! I think the skeptics will use this paper to their own ends and it will set paleo back a number of years if it goes unchallenged. I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor, a well-known skeptic in NZ. A CRU person is on the board but papers get dealt with by the editor assigned by Hans von Storch. This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that — take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board… Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 the same McIntyre who tried to torpedo papers he didn't like? where is your hand-wringing about that? http://whatreallyhap.../1128000000.txt Wait...so it's ok for you to use emails to discredit skeptics, but not the other way around? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 Right...a paper that challenges the consensus is far more likely to be pounced on than a less notable paper. Doesn't prove anything great about peer review. You mean the peer review of particular minor journals. Major findings relevant to AGW published in major journals are heavily scrutinized both during review and upon publication. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 you didn't answer it and I showed that the deniers are being published. I also showed how at least one is gaming the peer review system to keep papers showing global warming from being published. but you didn't address either of those examples. curious. What "denier" is being published? Or are you one of those unable to differentiate between skeptics and deniers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 You mean the peer review of particular minor journals. Major findings relevant to AGW published in major journals are heavily scrutinized both during review and upon publication. That all sounds nice...but your point still stands. A paper that challenges the status quo is going to draw a lot more attention, regardless of the journal it is published in. And what good is peer review if it supposedly only works or is done correctly for certain journals? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 they are clearly excerpts as reproduced in this thread, many with ellipses indicating redacted sections prior to being leaked. I'm unsure how the lack of context isn't obvious. So what context makes what they are saying any better? In other words, what context would just excuse it as you want to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 I'm not sure what is being argued now...Mann's hockey stick has been torn to shreds in multiple peer reviewed papers. As for suppression, why do we see quotes like this: Alright, link me to these supposed multiple peer reviewed critiques of Mann's HS. Shouldn't be too difficult. There certainly have been revisions over the years as more data has become available, but that doesn't qualify as 'being torn to shreds.' As for the quotes you mention, none of them surprise me or concern me in the slightest. I am not in the least bit surprised or concerned that Jones would not want to share data with people who have no interest in actually publishing through the peer-reviewed journals and actually doing science. And I am not in the least bit surprised or concerned that they would not want skeptics (in this case more accurately deniers) subverting the peer-review process by creating an alternate journal which only receives review from like minded deniers and not from any of the other 99.9% of professionals in the field. That's not peer-review, that's crony-review. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 illusion? It's funny to me deniers still believe the hockeystick is fake even though it has been corroborated literally 100s of times within the last 5 years in peer-reviewed journals and there has never been a serious rebuttal of its findings punlished or otherwise. There have been some changes as much more data has become available which show slightly more variation prior to 1900.. but the essential point remains the same. Temperatures over the last 1-2k years have the essential appearance of a hockeystick. It's not just the appearance of some sort of hockey stick that matters, the issue was the selection of data, and the application thereof. That should matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 That all sounds nice...but your point still stands. A paper that challenges the status quo is going to draw a lot more attention, regardless of the journal it is published in. And what good is peer review if it supposedly only works or is done correctly for certain journals? In the case of the journals which don't do it correctly, it isn't worth much. Which is why I always take anything published in a minor journal I have never heard of with a grain of salt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 It's not just the appearance of some sort of hockey stick that matters, the issue was the selection of data, and the application thereof. That should matter. Mann did not select data, he used the data available to him at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 Because, most skeptics believe that the AGW hypothesis put forward (CAGW ...) is not testable.....so NO science will verify nor falsify a poorly constructed hypothesis. Sorry, as smart as the Team may be....the climate system is harder (than they lead you to believe) to decode than they think, no matter what side you're on. Claiming that mainstream AGW theories are untestable is just whining. Those theories are being tested every day, with every datum collected in a wide variety of sciences - climatology, radiative physics, solar physics, biology, phenology, paleoclimatology, and others. Most of this data is available to anyone for analysis. And if there is any question about the integrity of some data, then simply collect your own data. Don't like the Vostock ice cores - go to your nearest ice sheet and collect your own. Not satisfied with current tree ring series - there is no limit to you collecting your own tree rings. Sure, collecting data in the field means spending years in inhospitable places without a Starbucks in sight, and doing real research would mean leaving the comfort and safety of your keyboard, but think of the fame and glory achieved by being the one who overturned AGW. And please don't whine that it is too expensive to do skeptical science because those evil AGW folk control all of the grant money. All of the energy companies have large research budgets, and there are private foundations that underwrite research, such as the ones that funded the BEST project. If you can come up with a viable skeptic research proposal, there is funding available. The simplest, most direct way to falsify the set of theories in the spectrum of scientific disciplines that make up AGW is to come up with an alternative set of theories that better explains the mountain of data that has been collected. That's all it will take. But I think we all know, in our heart, that that is not going to happen. In fact, a true skeptic would understand instantly that if there were big holes in mainstream AGW science then the fossil fuel companies would only have to focus their efforts on one of them, show that the mainstream science is flat wrong, and that would eliminate any threat to their operations. But they haven't done that, have they? Are they too stupid to understand this or . . . maybe, just maybe . . . have their own scientists looked at the evidence and told them AGW is real? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 I'm asking why the handwringing over alleged suppression didn't extend in both directions. Ok, I see your point with that. I didn't know anyone was accusing McIntyre or other skeptics of being suppressed in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 Alright, link me to these supposed multiple peer reviewed critiques of Mann's HS. Shouldn't be too difficult. There certainly have been revisions over the years as more data has become available, but that doesn't qualify as 'being torn to shreds.' As for the quotes you mention, none of them surprise me or concern me in the slightest. I am not in the least bit surprised or concerned that Jones would not want to share data with people who have no interest in actually publishing through the peer-reviewed journals and actually doing science. And I am not in the least bit surprised or concerned that they would not want skeptics (in this case more accurately deniers) subverting the peer-review process by creating an alternate journal which only receives review from like minded deniers and not from any of the other 99.9% of professionals in the field. That's not peer-review, that's crony-review. McShane and Wyner tore his statistical method apart. McIntyre and McKitrick previously. Confirmation bias is always great for science...lets not use a journal that we have previously used because they now accept papers that try and oppose our findings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 the full emails would give a basis for making informed decisions. I can't believe I have to explain this stuff on a science forum. Ok. But since none of us have the full emails, don't you think it's just as silly to automatically assume the conversations are meaningless and say nothing about those involved? It's like some of you just want to quickly brush these comments under the rug and pretend they didn't exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 McShane and Wyner tore his statistical method apart. McIntyre and McKitrick previously. Confirmation bias is always great for science...lets not use a journal that we have previously used because they now accept papers that try and oppose our findings. Exactly. I'm not sure why skiier is still trying to defend Mann's hockey stick methods. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 because crappy peer review leads to crappy science and thus a low impact factor. But biased/human scientists don't lead to biased/human impacts on science? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted November 22, 2011 Author Share Posted November 22, 2011 the full emails would give a basis for making informed decisions. I can't believe I have to explain this stuff on a science forum. So just go read the emails that don't have any redactions! Then come back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.