There is a theme going on today. Talking to town drunks. Where climate science gets all its spin.

Unpaid students to review AR5. This is rigorous expert science right?

The Risk Monger (David Zaruk) was astonished to receive an advertisement from the Dutch government looking for 60 young PhD students to help with the next Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report.

The salary is “none”. But they are not just looking for any old student. You don’t need experience, but to qualify you need “an affinity with climate change”. I guess they are not looking for skeptical students who feel an affinity with logic, reason, and empirical evidence?

The reasons for asking the unpaid students is actually described as an “ambitious plan” to do a “thorough review” because there were “errors in the fourth assessment report…”. O.K.

The Risk Monger:

Quote:

Maybe I am jumping to conclusions, but with all of the mess of the last IPCC Assessment Report (including a non-scientific WWF campaign document predicting the disappearance of Himalayan glaciers getting through the review process and becoming one of the IPCC’s main conclusions), shouldn’t they try to do a more rigorous review process this time around? Students, working for free, are not perhaps the ideal choice of reviewers needed to challenge the experts What troubles the Risk-Monger more here is that many environmental activists are working on their PhDs and would jump at the opportunity of shaping the IPCC’s subjective conclusions to match their personal political biases. I suppose Greenpeace or WWF will pay their time-sheets to help shape the IPCC’s most socially important chapters. Strangely, in that month when the entire review process will be done, students will also be taught about what the IPCC is, and how to review a document (I really wish I was making this up). The review process starts with a drink on April 12 and ends with a dinner on May 13. One lucky reviewer will receive € 250; the rest go home with nothing. I am going to go out on a limb here and predict that the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report will be loaded with more than just spelling mistakes.

Much more at site
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/03/unpaid-students-to-review-ar5-this-is-rigorous-expert-science-right/

Joanne Nova is another paid activitist. I couldn't think of anybody better qualified to carry out an initial  proof read than a young PhD student. Young eyes tend to find mistakes well.

muso wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 9:42am:

Joanne Nova is another paid activitist. I couldn't think of anybody better qualified to carry out an initial  proof read than a young PhD student. Young eyes tend to find mistakes well.

...that's only because they don't always know and understand what they are looking for and so treat everything they read on an equal footing

Yes its absolutely appalling!!!!

What is needed is for Andrew Bolt or Lord Monckton to look over the data and release their considered opinions in the non-peer reviewed mass media.

Yes that's it - get EXXON to push its vast resources behind a Climate Change study.

Its the least that they can do

muso wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 9:42am:

Joanne Nova is another paid activitist. I couldn't think of anybody better qualified to carry out an initial  proof read than a young PhD student. Young eyes tend to find mistakes well.

Everyone is a paid activist, unless they dont like getting paid.

Your point is mute.

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 12:43pm:

muso wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 9:42am: Joanne Nova is another paid activitist. I couldn't think of anybody better qualified to carry out an initial  proof read than a young PhD student. Young eyes tend to find mistakes well. Everyone is a paid activist, unless they dont like getting paid. Your point is mute.

some activists are correct though which makes their income stream source totally irrelevant

Yes we are all activists

So if the Devil pays you money to slaughter children indiscriminately its morally equivalent to being an activist on a Greenpeace ship collecting water and sea life samples off the coast of Fukushima

Yes we can all HIDe behind being activists with equal standing - after all we are being paid.

And even if we are not being paid, we are still activists of equal footing.

Yes ladies and gentlemen - we are all morally equivalent. There is not difference!

Chimp_Logic wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 12:44pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 12:43pm: muso wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 9:42am: Joanne Nova is another paid activitist. I couldn't think of anybody better qualified to carry out an initial  proof read than a young PhD student. Young eyes tend to find mistakes well. Everyone is a paid activist, unless they dont like getting paid. Your point is mute. some activists are correct though which makes their income stream source totally irrelevant

Oh wouldnt we love to believe that.  ;D ;D ;D ;D

Chimp_Logic wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 12:48pm:

Yes we are all activists So if the Devil pays you money to slaughter children indiscriminately its morally equivalent to being an activist on a Greenpeace ship collecting water and sea life samples off the coast of Fukushima Yes we can all HIDe behind being activists with equal standing - after all we are being paid. And even if we are not being paid, we are still activists of equal footing. Yes ladies and gentlemen - we are all morally equivalent. There is not difference!

Getting warmer.

muso wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 9:42am:

Joanne Nova is another paid activitist. I couldn't think of anybody better qualified to carry out an initial  proof read than a young PhD student. Young eyes tend to find mistakes well.

Just to add, you would be correct but for this

Quote:

You don’t need experience, but to qualify you need “an affinity with climate change”

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 3:08pm:

muso wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 9:42am: Joanne Nova is another paid activitist. I couldn't think of anybody better qualified to carry out an initial  proof read than a young PhD student. Young eyes tend to find mistakes well. Just to add, you would be correct but for this Quote: You don’t need experience, but to qualify you need “an affinity with climate change”

How is your lunatic mentor Mr Bolt going these days?

Is he still fighting racial vilification law suits in the courts?

Chimp_Logic wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 4:47pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 3:08pm: muso wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 9:42am: Joanne Nova is another paid activitist. I couldn't think of anybody better qualified to carry out an initial  proof read than a young PhD student. Young eyes tend to find mistakes well. Just to add, you would be correct but for this Quote: You don’t need experience, but to qualify you need “an affinity with climate change” How is your lunatic mentor Mr Bolt going these days? Is he still fighting racial vilification law suits in the courts?

Better than skeptical science Cook it would seem.

What is it precisely that deludes the typical AGW denialist flat eather clown puppet?

Jo Nova.  Thats the one on the left?  Yeah - I'd shag her.

But I would probably seek better sources of information than kiddies TV presenters

http://s3-downloads.s3.amazonaws.com/photos/y/Ygroup72dpi.jpg