Views
Graph
Explorer
Focus
Down
Load 1 level
Load 2 levels
Load 3 levels
Load 4 levels
Load all levels
All
Dagre
Focus
Down
Load 1 level
Load 2 levels
Load 3 levels
Load 4 level
Load all levels
All
Tree
SpaceTree
Focus
Expanding
Load 1 level
Load 2 levels
Load 3 levels
Down
All
Down
Radial
Focus
Expanding
Load 1 level
Load 2 levels
Load 3 levels
Down
All
Down
Box
Focus
Expanding
Down
Up
All
Down
Page ✓
Article
Outline
Document
Down
All
Canvas
Time
Timeline
Calendar
Request email digest
Past 24 hours
Past 2 days
Past 3 days
Past week
Add
Add page
Add comment
Add citation
Edit
Edit page
Delete page
Share
Link
Bookmark
Embed
Social media
Login
Member login
Register now for a free account
🔎
Discussed keeping papers out of IPCC report
VoorArgument
1
#41435
PAGE NAVIGATOR
(Help)
-
Anthropogenic Climate Change »
Anthropogenic Climate Change
Anthropogenic Climate Change☜Mapping the causes, consequences and potential responses to climate change.☜F1CEB7
▲
Human impact on the Earth's climate? »
Human impact on the Earth's climate?
Human impact on the Earth's climate?☜Is human activity changing the Earths climate? To what extent are changes in the Earths climate being driving by human behavior?☜FFB597
▲
Case for significant anthropogenic forcing remains unclear »
Case for significant anthropogenic forcing remains unclear
Case for significant anthropogenic forcing remains unclear☜The case for significant anthropogenic forcing of the climate remains unclear.☜59C6EF
▲
IPCC process, science and modelling are flawed »
IPCC process, science and modelling are flawed
IPCC process, science and modelling are flawed☜☜98CE71
▲
IPCC process isn't wholly reliable »
IPCC process isn't wholly reliable
IPCC process isn't wholly reliable☜The proccess behind the IPCC reports, on which much of the case for dangerous anthropengenic climate change rests, is not wholly reliable.☜98CE71
▲
Hacked emails raise questions about flaws in the scientific process »
Hacked emails raise questions about flaws in the scientific process
Hacked emails raise questions about flaws in the scientific process☜☜98CE71
▲
Hacked email suggests desire to suppress papers challenging orthodoxy »
Hacked email suggests desire to suppress papers challenging orthodoxy
Hacked email suggests desire to suppress papers challenging orthodoxy☜☜FF97FF
▲
Individuals/small groups can't exclude peer-reviewed papers from IPCC »
Individuals/small groups can't exclude peer-reviewed papers from IPCC
Individuals/small groups can't exclude peer-reviewed papers from IPCC☜No individual or small group of scientists is in a position to exclude a peer-reviewed paper from an I.P.C.C. assessment.☜EF597B
▲
Peer-review process has been corrupted »
Peer-review process has been corrupted
Peer-review process has been corrupted☜☜EF597B
■
Discussed keeping papers out of IPCC report
Discussed keeping papers out of IPCC report☜☜98CE71
●
Papers referred to in the email were cited in IPCC AR4 report »
Papers referred to in the email were cited in IPCC AR4 report
Papers referred to in the email were cited in IPCC AR4 report☜Both papers discussed in the email - by McKitrick and Michaels (2004) and Kalnay and Cai (2003) - were cited and discussed in Chapter 2 of the IPCC AR4 report.☜EF597B
●
Even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is »
Even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is
Even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is☜Phil Jones to Michael Mann: I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”☜FF97FF
Heading
Summary
Click the button to enter task scheduling information
Open
Details
Enter task details
Message text
Select assignee(s)
Due date (click calendar)
RadDatePicker
RadDatePicker
Open the calendar popup.
Calendar
Title and navigation
Title and navigation
<<
<
November 2024
>
<<
November 2024
S
M
T
W
T
F
S
44
27
28
29
30
31
1
2
45
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
46
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
47
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
48
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Reminder
No reminder
1 day before due
2 days before due
3 days before due
1 week before due
Ready to post
Copy to text
Enter
Cancel
Task assignment(s) have been emailed and cannot now be altered
Lock
Cancel
Save
Comment graphing options
Choose comments:
Comment only
Whole thread
All comments
Choose location:
To a new map
To this map
New map options
Select map ontology
Options
Standard (default) ontology
College debate ontology
Hypothesis ontology
Influence diagram ontology
Story ontology
Graph to private map
Cancel
Proceed
+Commentaar (
0
)
- Commentaar
Voeg commentaar toe
Newest first
Oldest first
Show threads
+Citaten (
1
)
- Citaten
Voeg citaat toe
List by:
Citerank
Map
Link
[1]
Citerend uit:
Mark Steyn
Geciteerd door:
David Price
5:13 PM 28 November 2009 GMT
Citerank:
(6)
41424
Peer-review process has been corrupted
13
EF597B
,
41426
Response to publication by Climate Research of a dissenting paper
11
98CE71
,
41432
Response to Geographical Research Letters
11
98CE71
,
41433
Tom Wigley suggested getting the goods on editor Jim Saiers
22
FF97FF
,
41434
Tom Wigley suggested going to Jim Saiers's boss to get him ousted
22
FF97FF
,
41437
Who peer-reviews the peer-reviewers?
8
FFB597
URL:
http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=YjAxYzA3NmI0N2Y1MDVhYzdmM2JkZGIyMjE5ZWU2OTI=
+About
- About
Gemaakt door:
David Price
NodeID:
#41435
Node type:
SupportiveArgument
Gemaakt op (GMT):
11/28/2009 5:11:00 PM
Laatste bewerking (GMT):
11/28/2009 5:11:00 PM
Show other editors
Inkomende kruisrelatie
0
Uitgaande kruisrelatie
0
Gemiddelde waardering:
0
by
0
gebruikers
x
Select file to upload