On Dec 12, 2007 12:55 AM, Dana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Link one in the article follows this statement and appears to be > intended to bolster it. It is a press release by this very same > gentleman, who is essentially whining that the IPCC has not > acknowledged his role in allegedly pointing out certain errors in its > report. How this squares with his contention that the IPCC is not > worth troubling with is left to the imagination of the reader.
Actually it says: Since Lord Monckton alerted the UN about its errors, the UN substantially rewrote and corrected the report, Monckton claims in his new analysis. (see http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20070226_monckton.pdf ) I guess you missed that part. > This press release is posted on a website called Frontiers of Freedom, > a think tank based in Fairfax VA funded by Exxon-Mobil and founded by > one Sen. Malcolm Wallop, a Heritage Foundation fellow who was on the > board of directors of El Paso Energy. > > http://www.secinfo.com/dRa2f.3v.d.htm > > A long-time aide is now an executive with GE. > > http://www.wyomingbusinessreport.com/article.asp?id=89821 > > Shall we say -- peer-reviewed: not. Lord Monckton's article doesn't claim to be peer-reviewed but I'm sure it is. Try to focus on the message not the messenger. > But let us Google Lord Monkton. We find many of the same quotes on the > usual right-wing rags (Canada Freee Press, CNS et al) and a > tantalizing mention of the gentleman's belief that "persons with HIV > should be locked away for life." > > http://www.georgetownnews.com/articles/2007/11/22/opinion/opinion01.txt Disqualify him because of an unrelated comment? > This would generally be more than enough for me right there, but > onwards. Lord Monkton is offended that the committee "refused (his) > credentials." This mind you from someone who has apparently dismissed > all credentials as socialism. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton%2C_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley#_note-brown I'm not reading that, he read the report, corrected it and they made changes based on his recommendations, yet without the proper paperwork (degree) they claim he's not qualified to question them > Back to the allegedly peer-reviewed links: > > Link 2 is to Bloomberg, a respectable publication but not > peer-reviewed, and no doubt looking for a skeptical spin in view of > its business readership. Note that the skepticism about carbon credits > is expressed by a trader. Bottom line -- some attendees tried to buy > carbon offsets. That is a tangent pointing out the irony of people trying to save the world at the cost of 20,000 cars in a years worth of pollution. It says nothing about peer-reviewing. > Link 3 is to an article on the same Inhofe blog. It's a list of scientist that supported GW and after researching are now skeptics. Do you dispute the list or just the compiler? > Link 4 is to a David Evans paper.on icecap.us. Let's just say that it > shows no sign of peer review. David Evans is a C++ programmer working > on a word processor. It says: Evans, a mathematician who did carbon accounting for the Australian government, recently converted to a skeptical scientist about man-made global warming after reviewing the new scientific studies. http://www.sciencespeak.com/ Our last scientific modeling job was to do carbon accounting for the Australian Government, from 1999 to 2005. We helped develop FullCAM (http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/ncas/activities/modelling.html), a leading carbon accounting model that estimates carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and agricultural products. FullCAM is used to calculate the land-use portion of Australia's Kyoto Protocol compliance, calculating carbon emissions and fixations from each 25 meter by 25 meter plot across Australia, using geographical maps of climate and soils data and maps of land cover changes derived from NASA satellite imagery. Incidentally, when we started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty conclusive, but since then new evidence has made us skeptical that carbon emissions are the main cause. Sounds qualified to me. > Link 5 is to a press release on blogspot. It does not link to the > article it refers to, perhaps because the cited Dec 2007 issue appears > to contain nothing of the kind. > > http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/116844649/issue It's there: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/4735/home A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions (p n/a) David H. Douglass, John R. Christy, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer Published Online: Dec 5 2007 8:29AM DOI: 10.1002/joc.1651 > Link 6 is to a personal blog, > http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002586.htm. The pdf it About this peer-reviewed report: http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/2007JD008437.pdf > links to appears genuine, except it claims to be an aricle in the 2007 > issue of a magazine which Wikipedia says has not existed by that name > since 1980. This mag? http://www.agu.org/journals/jd/ > Hmm. If anyone wants to pay $9 to investigate further, I > am curious about that. Could be wikipedia. It's worth noting though > that even if the article's genuine, it's written by a physicist and a > mathematician. Looks good to me http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/ > Link 7 is to the same personal bog, which links to the icecap site > noted above. The article it links to does claim to be from a journal > which exists; however the table of contents for that month from that > journal does not contain that title. I also can't find any mention of > peer review in the information for authors on the website. > http://www.agu.org/journals/jd/ http://www.agu.org/contents/journals/ViewJournalContents.do;jsessionid=1466133091159F76AB9D0A46E63945ED?journalCode=JD&viewBy=date&year=2007&month=Dec&sortBy=pubDate It states "In Press" > Note that even if genuine, the article is written by an economist and > a Cato Institute shill who was admitted receiving funding from Western > Fuels. > > But why stop there. Link 8 is to a different blog. The article it > links to is on a site whose about us says it "funded primarily by > annual dues from its member companies , which collectively produce > more than 90 percent of the pulp and paper and a sizeable fraction of > the wood products manufactured in the United States." Peer-review -- > not. Agenda -- yes. Isn't their purpose to help those companies protect the environment? Seems his peers are reviewing his work: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2389 > The next link is also to the Inhofe blog, which also cites the Journal > of Geophysical research which has not existed as such since 1980. You linked to it yourself yet you claim it doesn't exist? http://www.agu.org/journals/jd/ > At this point I think I have more than done my due diligence, and > conclude that this Senator is either disingenuous -- I wonder how many > campaign contributions he received from interested parts? -- or he > needs new fact checkers. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;160198600;22374440;w Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:248320 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
