The degradation of science in the 21st century

[Mornac]

• Tweet

End ‘authority’ on climate change
2009/11/23

Prof Bruce Hewitson (Uninformed vitriol, November 19) pontificates on Andrew Kenny’s assessment (Ideology and money drive global-warming religion, November 16). Unfortunately for him, there has been a reformation. The time for pontification is over. The critics must be answered. Instead Prof Hewitson stood in his pulpit and preached the gospel according to St IPCC.

He says he was a lead author for the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). That is not material — I was a co-ordinating l ead a uthor, but it gives me no mantle of infallibility. Instead, it gave me insight into the flaws behind the whole process.

The IPCC claims that it has thousands of scientists and almost as many reviewers of the scientists' work to produce their reports. There are two problems, however. In the scientific world I move in, “review” means that your work is scrutinised by several independent, anonymous reviewers chosen by the editor.

However, when I entered the IPCC world, the reviewers were there at the worktable, criticising our drafts, and finally meeting with all us c o-ordinators and many of the IPCC functionaries in a draftfest.

The product was not reviewed in the accepted sense of the word — there was no independence of review, and the reviewers were anything but anonymous. The result is not scientific.

The second problem is that the technical publication is not completed by the time the IPCC reports. Instead, it produces a Summary for Policy Makers. Writing the s ummary involves the co-ordinators, the reviewers and the IPCC functionaries as before, and also various chairmen.

The s ummary goes out in a blaze of publicity, but there is no means of checking whether it represents what the scientists actually said, because the scientific report isn’t published for another four months or more.

In the Fourth Assessment, the s ummary was quietly replaced several months after it was first published because some scientists who were involved complained of misrepresentation.

In the early years of the IPCC, there was a slightly different process. The Summary for Policy Makers and the scientific reports were issued at the same time. In those years, however, the Summary for Policy Makers bore a warning that it was the last current word on the subject, whereas the scientific reports were correctly identified as being subject to continuing development.

Someone smelled a rat about the “last word” story, so the process was changed, and now the s ummary is issued with no means of checking.

It isn’t necessary to list all the changes I have identified between what the scientists actually said and what the policy makers who wrote the Summary for Policy Makers said they said. The process is so flawed that the result is tantamount to fraud. As an authority, the IPCC should be consigned to the scrapheap without delay.


Dr Philip Lloyd Pr Eng

MD: Industrial and Petrochemical Consultants


http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=87726

[Velleity]

What's curiously missing from all of the denialism is actual alternative scientific thought. It is a fact that polar ice is melting. We have known that CO2 is a greenhouse gas--it is an undisputed fact for over 100 years. It defies common sense to suggest we don't have to do anything about the fact that our activities put a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere, especially since there are only 8,000 other compelling reasons to cut back dramatically.

It's most unfortunate that you and yours have to be so partisan about this.

[Mornac]

What's curiously missing from all of the denialism is actual alternative scientific thought.

--I agree. I’d suggest that you write to all mainstream media outlets and beg them to give airtime to fair debate so we could actually know what the alternative scientific thought is, but it’s pretty clear at this point that there is no way they are going to be party to anything that involves discerning the truth.

It is a fact that polar ice is melting. We have known that CO2 is a greenhouse gas--it is an undisputed fact for over 100 years. It defies common sense to suggest we don't have to do anything about the fact that our activities put a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere, especially since there are only 8,000 other compelling reasons to cut back dramatically.

--Thank you for once again exposing the liberal view of it, but what we really need to hear is the voice of the skeptics.

It's most unfortunate that you and yours have to be so partisan about this.

--I know. I always take the side of those who want to know the truth. It’s a life long habit and I’m afraid I’m just too old to change it.

[Velleity]

I’d suggest that you write to all mainstream media outlets and beg them to give airtime to fair debate so we could actually know what the alternative scientific thought is, but it’s pretty clear at this point that there is no way they are going to be party to anything that involves discerning the truth.

What a load of crap Mornac.

[Mornac]

What a load of crap Mornac.

--Should I take that to mean that you decline to do so?

[Velleity]

--Should I take that to mean that you decline to do so?

The reason your science isn't reported by the media is that your science doesn't exist. You don't have science. You have a third rate political point of view.

Isn't Faux Noise good enough for you?

[johnhp]

--I agree. I’d suggest that you write to all mainstream media outlets and beg them to give airtime to fair debate so we could actually know what the alternative scientific thought is, but it’s pretty clear at this point that there is no way they are going to be party to anything that involves discerning the truth.

Mornac

Where do these alternative scientific thinkers publish their original research?

[Mornac]

Mornac

Where do these alternative scientific thinkers publish their original research?

--Kind of broad question johnhp, but if you give me a moment I’ll teach you how to get the answers you want. Let’s look at the alternative thinker who wrote the above piece: Dr Philip Lloyd Pr Eng. You’ll notice that Dr Lloyd identifies himself as a co-ordinating lead author for the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). If he was an author of any sort for the IPCC than it isn’t out of the bounds of reason that the IPCC has some information on where you can locate his publications. Now if you cut the words “Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change” and paste them into a search engine, you’ll likely get a website that represents the IPCC. Next, look for a search feature on the site and paste the name “Dr Philip Lloyd” into it. If you don’t find anything, look for a tab or a hypertext that says “Contact us”. At that point you can write a brief inquiry stating that you’d like to know where to find Dr Lloyd’s publications. If you still get no satisfaction, try simply putting Dr Lloyd’s name directly into a search engine (I recommend Google or Yahoo for starters).

I hope this is of some help to you. It’s really very easy once you get the hang of it. If it works for you, I’d encourage you to pass it on to other liberals that you knbow. Who knows? We may be able to wipe out ignorance in our lifetime.

Now – here’s a freebie: http://www.newsrake.org/index.php/topic,1578.msg26859.html#msg26859

[Velleity]

--Kind of broad question johnhp, but if you give me a moment I’ll teach you how to get the answers you want. Let’s look at the alternative thinker who wrote the above piece: Dr Philip Lloyd Pr Eng. You’ll notice that Dr Lloyd identifies himself as a co-ordinating lead author for the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). If he was an author of any sort for the IPCC than it isn’t out of the bounds of reason that the IPCC has some information on where you can locate his publications. Now if you cut the words “Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change” and paste them into a search engine, you’ll likely get a website that represents the IPCC. Next, look for a search feature on the site and paste the name “Dr Philip Lloyd” into it. If you don’t find anything, look for a tab or a hypertext that says “Contact us”. At that point you can write a brief inquiry stating that you’d like to know where to find Dr Lloyd’s publications. If you still get no satisfaction, try simply putting Dr Lloyd’s name directly into a search engine (I recommend Google or Yahoo for starters).

I hope this is of some help to you. It’s really very easy once you get the hang of it. If it works for you, I’d encourage you to pass it on to other liberals that you knbow. Who knows? We may be able to wipe out ignorance in our lifetime.

Now – here’s a freebie: http://www.newsrake.org/index.php/topic,1578.msg26859.html#msg26859

There is all kinds of crap on the internet and I do not have time to wade through or research fringe sources. You should make your case if you actually have one. I have seen no good evidence that you do have a good case.

As for your "freebie," that's about what it's worth. So, you don't like Al Gore. What else is new?

[Mornac]

There is all kinds of crap on the internet and I do not have time to wade through or research fringe sources.

--Niether do I. That's why I'm trying to teach johnhp to do these things for himself. I have better things to do than go looking for things that he's looking for but can't seem to figure out how to get for himself.

[johnhp]

Mornac

Still waiting for you to document that original research that would give your sources some weight.  What are you so afraid of?

[Mornac]

My sources? The only source I cited here was BuisnessDay. I admit I’m not a regular reader but it seems to be a fairly prestigious newspaper in South Africa. I know that country has been crawling toward Communism for the past 15 years, but I don’t think they’ve got to the point yet where they’ve seized control of the media and turned them into propaganda organs. If you know different, please share.

[johnhp]

Mornac

Good for you.  You have nothing.

[Mornac]

Do I have to do everfything for you? Here: http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=87726

[Velleity]

Do I have to do everfything for you? Here: http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=87726

No, no. Nothing like that.

It would suffice if you could simply present a reasonably objective argument for a change.