Science and the fight against mainstream media bias

4 thoughts on “Science and the fight against mainstream media bias”

  1. hello , hello, hello…here’s something to help fix the echo in this little chamber:interview with Prof Judith Curry.

    Judith states:
    Corruptions to the IPCC process that I have seen discussed include:
    • lead/contributing authors assessing their own work – (e.g. von Storch criticism in 2005), in some cases resulting in an overemphasis on their own papers written by themselves and their collaborators;
    • tailoring graphics and not adequately describing uncertainties ostensibly to simplify and not to “dilute the message” that IPCC wanted to send;
    • violations of publication (in press) deadlines for inclusions of papers in the IPCC report;
    • inadequacies in the review process whereby lead/contributing authors don’t respond fairly to adverse criticism; this inadequacy arises in part to the authors themselves having ultimate authority and in part to cursory performance by the Review Editors;
    • evasiveness and unresponsiveness by the IPCC regarding efforts to investigate alleged violations occurring in the review process;
    • IPCC Review Editors and authors using the IPCC to avoid accountability under national FOI legislation.

    Any comments? Ove, JB?


  2. The idea that the IPCC with a small group of authors that have shoddy practice or an agenda that isn’t to find the truth about climate change, is simply not true. The process is there for everyone to see on the IPCC web site – in all its anally retentive glory. There is no similar rigorous process anywhere that goes so meticulously through the science of climate change and assembles the consensus.

    No process is perfect but the IPCC comes very close. the fact that there are only two errors in over 3000 pages of text is simply remarkable and is testimony to how good the process is. If only the denialist side could point to a better process. They can’t, and they haven’t.

    The recent suggestions that we should have a Wikipedia like process are absolutely laughable. Just imagine, a whole bunch of non-experts with agendas coming up with a consensus driven by gut feelings, baksheesh, and special-interest. That would be a frightening world with fraudulent people like Bob Carter as king! At that point, I would be trying to get a seat on the Obama’s rocket to Mars!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s