Quote:
Originally Posted by Occasionally6
No, peer review doesn't mean that a paper is necessarily accurate. It does weed out the obviously bad methods.
Peer review is conducted anonymously...
|
Agreed on what Peer Review actually does but that is not the public impression. The phrase "peer review" is rolled all the time to try and signify some kind of gold standard. I think we both agree that it is a requirement of science but under the surface it is more imperfect and less certain.
The Anonymous aspect of peer review is sometimes abritarily implemented - quite a bit of the climategate leaks covered this and I'm sure it extends into other science equally too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Occasionally6
Don't confuse the IPCC reports with the research papers...
|
I don't. The IPCC doesn't do science itself it is meant to assess it and present some kind of summary.
The process it uses is flawed. Non peer reviewed material is often included even from groups like Greenpeace or WWF, student thesis etc. The scientists in charge of working groups are often reviewing their own work, and the SPM (the bit politicians are supposed to read) is written and revised by the politicians.
And yes it does include certainty levels - it is worth noting that they have changed between AR4 and AR5 resulting in some conclusions now having a level of "Very High" as opposed to just "High" previously even though the actual value being assessed hasn't changed.
The IPCC is a waste of money and time which could be better spent trying to find the missing heat allegedly hidden in the sea and/or why the models are wide of their mark instead of hand waving and showing shiny things to the public in a hope to distract them.
$tns depends on this, it needs to be correct.