Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 19 Apr '10 22:16
    http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/19/united-nations-climate-global-warming-ipcc/

    Last in Class: Critics Give U.N. Climate Researchers an 'F'

    By Gene J. Koprowski

    - FOXNews.com

    A group of 40 auditors from across the globe have released a shocking report card that flunks the U.N.'s landmark climate-change research report.

    ---

    It may be time for the United Nations' climate-studies scientists to go back to school.

    A group of 40 auditors -- including scientists and public policy experts from across the globe -- have released a shocking report card on the U.N.'s landmark climate-change research report.

    And they gave 21 of the report's 44 chapters a grade of "F."

    The team, recruited by the climate-change skeptics behind the website NoConsensus.org, found that 5,600 of the 18,500 sources in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) Nobel Prize-winning 2007 report were not peer reviewed.

    "We've been told this report is the gold standard," said Canadian global-warming skeptic Donna Laframboise, who runs the NoConsensus.org site and who organized the online effort to examine the U.N.'s references in the report, commonly known as the AR4.

    The cover of the IPCC's fourth assessment report to the U.N., "Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report," more frequently referred to as AR4.

    "We've been told it's 100 percent peer-reviewed science. But thousands of sources cited by this report have been nowhere near a scientific journal."

    Based on the grading system used in American schools, 21 chapters in the IPCC report received an F for citing peer-reviewed sources less than 60 percent of the time. Four chapters received a D, and six received a C.

    The report also got eight A's and five B's from the auditors, who included Bob Ashworth, a member of the American Geophysical Union, and Dr. Darko Butina, a director of Chemomine Consultancy Ltd.

    According to Lafromboise, much of the scientific research published by the U.N. cited press releases, newspaper and magazine clippings, student theses, newsletters, discussion papers, and literature published by green advocacy groups. Such material is often called "gray literature," she said, and it stands in stark contrast to the U.N.'s claims about the study's sources.

    ...
  2. Standard member Palynka
    Upward Spiral
    19 Apr '10 22:43
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/19/united-nations-climate-global-warming-ipcc/

    Last in Class: Critics Give U.N. Climate Researchers an 'F'

    By Gene J. Koprowski

    - FOXNews.com

    A group of 40 auditors from across the globe have released a shocking report card that flunks the U.N.'s landmark climate-change research report.

    ---

    It may ...[text shortened]... stark contrast to the U.N.'s claims about the study's sources.

    ...
    "The team, recruited by the climate-change skeptics behind the website NoConsensus.org"

    Lulz.
  3. 19 Apr '10 23:08
    Originally posted by Palynka
    "The team, recruited by the climate-change skeptics behind the website NoConsensus.org"

    Lulz.
    they got to it before Palynka did, apparently.
  4. 20 Apr '10 12:50
    Originally posted by Palynka
    "The team, recruited by the climate-change skeptics behind the website NoConsensus.org"

    Lulz.
    It's easy to dismiss a message by shooting the messenger.

    Can you specifically and completely debunk what these skeptics are arguing?
  5. Standard member Palynka
    Upward Spiral
    20 Apr '10 12:55 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Melanerpes
    It's easy to dismiss a message by shooting the messenger.

    Can you specifically and completely debunk what these skeptics are arguing?
    The article consists of saying some "experts" picked by a crappy website gave bad school grades to the IPCC report.

    There's nothing substantial in that article, yet you ask ME to debunk while you accept these "grades" unflinchingly.

    Open your eyes, buddy, this is propaganda.
  6. Standard member Palynka
    Upward Spiral
    20 Apr '10 13:03
    Originally posted by Melanerpes
    It's easy to dismiss a message by shooting the messenger.

    Can you specifically and completely debunk what these skeptics are arguing?
    By the way, good luck finding here what they are "arguing".
    http://www.noconsensus.org/ipcc-audit/IPCC-report-card.php

    Is it just by comparing numbers of peer-reviewed vs non-peer-reviewed references that a good analysis is made?

    It's just another case of zeeblebot posting first and thinking later.
  7. 20 Apr '10 13:05
    Only a question:

    FoxNews, are they really trustworthy? If so, by whom?
    Do they have a political agenda? If so, whos aganda?

    I thought they were a tabloid with a low sensation journalism only. Was I wrong in this?
  8. Standard member Palynka
    Upward Spiral
    20 Apr '10 13:08
    Somebody give Fabian a cookie.

    Thanks.
  9. Subscriber Proper Knob
    Cornovii
    20 Apr '10 13:14
    Brilliant.

    The quoted person, Donna Laframboise, holds a degree in 'womens studies'.
  10. 20 Apr '10 13:40 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Palynka
    Somebody give Fabian a cookie.

    Thanks.
    No need for cookies. I just wanted to know.

    I don't know much about news papers in other countries. And I cannot send them a mail and ask, can I?

    So please, just answer the question, and we'll have a cookie later.
  11. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    20 Apr '10 14:16
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    Only a question:

    FoxNews, are they really trustworthy? If so, by whom?
    Do they have a political agenda? If so, whos aganda?

    I thought they were a tabloid with a low sensation journalism only. Was I wrong in this?
    1) Yes, they're trustworthy; or at least as trustworthy as any news organization; not any less so, than, say, CNN or NBC.

    2) By everyone but people who are anti-Fox for political reasons. Fox is obviously partisan in its commentary; but does that mean its news reporting is unreliable? I don't think so.

    3) Yes, they generally do have a political agenda.

    4) They, in general, support the conservative agenda.

    But what does Fox' credibility have to do with this story? Fox wasn't the one that gave out the "F"s. They're merely reporting that this group of people, hired by the partisan website, gave out these "F"s.

    Other outlets have reported the same story

    http://www.examiner.com/x-25061-Climate-Change-Examiner~y2010m4d14-UN-climate-panels-work-graded--Receives-failing-score

    http://times-news.com/columns/x993500650/Climate-change-must-be-handled-with-care

    http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/21994

    They're reporting... you decide.
  12. 20 Apr '10 14:18 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Palynka
    The article consists of saying some "experts" picked by a crappy website gave bad school grades to the IPCC report.

    There's nothing substantial in that article, yet you ask ME to debunk while you accept these "grades" unflinchingly.

    Open your eyes, buddy, this is propaganda.
    It does seem troubling that the IPCC would rely on so many sources that weren't peer-reviewed. If the IPCC eliminated the 5600 non-peer reviewed studies from their report, would it have significantly changed their arguments or conclusions?

    It may well be that most of those non-peer reviewed studies will eventually pass muster with the peers - but until then, it would seem prudent to avoid relying on such sources - perhaps the IPCC could have issued an official report based only on peer-reviewed work and then issued an additional supplementary report that considered interesting data from other work.
  13. Standard member Palynka
    Upward Spiral
    20 Apr '10 14:22 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Melanerpes
    It does seem troubling that the IPCC would rely on so many sources that weren't peer-reviewed. If the IPCC eliminated the 5600 non-peer reviewed studies from their report, would it have significantly changed their arguments or conclusions?

    It may well be that most of those non-peer reviewed studies will eventually pass muster with the peers - but unti ...[text shortened]... hen issued an additional supplementary report that considered interesting data from other work.
    But have you see the amount of peer-reviewed ones?


    http://www.noconsensus.org/ipcc-audit/findings-detailed.php
    It's also not uncommon to cite working papers or other reports. It's usually cited as more evidence, even if not as strong evidence as a peer-reviewed one. IF the report had relied vastly on non-peer-reviewed then definitely it would mean that the case is less strong (not necessarily useless). But the fact is that even this nonconsensus.org report counts a staggering 13000 peer-reviewed references.

    It just piles up the evidence. That's different from saying it's mostly based on non-peer-reviewed.
  14. 20 Apr '10 14:22
    Originally posted by sh76
    1) Yes, they're trustworthy; or at least as trustworthy as any news organization; not any less so, than, say, CNN or NBC.

    2) By everyone but people who are anti-Fox for political reasons. Fox is obviously partisan in its commentary; but does that mean its news reporting is unreliable? I don't think so.

    3) Yes, they generally do have a political agenda.
    ...[text shortened]... ://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/21994

    They're reporting... you decide.
    Thank you sh76.

    I thought FoxNews had a bad reputation. But of course everyone has to think by himself. Often that depends of what side you are on yourself.
  15. Standard member adam warlock
    Baby Gauss
    20 Apr '10 14:27 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    Thank you sh76.

    I thought FoxNews had a bad reputation. But of course everyone has to think by himself. Often that depends of what side you are on yourself.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rqdtZlec0s
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXJIV4f4ZQ0&feature=related
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVxDNJ6RZQw&feature=channel
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJKIoO3cXpM&feature=channel
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8U2O5bPI2Uo&feature=related