Originally Posted by MaxParrish
My goodness, another hysterical rant attacking a journal. How novel of you. Of course, if it were our thread topic it would be redundant, it was already settled by the essentials provided by me - it is among the thousands of boutique journals that is peer reviewed and citable in academic literature. What more needs be said that is not obsessively irrelevant? Hmm?
Of course, the topic is not the journal (no matter how much it vexes you) so once more you are trying to derail the discussion about the IPCC with Red Herrings. The question is, just how 'robust' is the IPCC process and how 'scientific
' is its product?
I understand 'you could care less about economists' - remind me to alert the press. In the meantime, note that the IPCC cares about environmental economists, which is why their province is WG3 which deals with the climate change's economic impacts and policy options, and provides feedbacks to climate change model scenarios. What many IPCC groupies often miss is that were several working groups, of which WG1 was one
. Beyond the question of global warming causing climate change, the report deals with the environment-ecology, technical options/solutions, forecasts of emissions, and economic impacts and strategies.
So FS may not give a hoot about any other issue than warming and climate, but the IPCC does. But then again, per FS - "What's the fixation with economists"...hmmm, why don't you write the IPCC and ask?
Why right here of course!
So you engage in a straw man fallacy
, in assuming that I'm unaware of WG2 and WG3, while WG1, is in fact, the base of the IPCC pyramid, without WG1 there would be no WG2 or WG3, there would in fact be no IPCC for that matter, without WG1 providing the scientific framework for the other working groups.
I have shown the bias inherent in E&E, that is a fact
. Is it convinient for you to ignore that fact
? Of course, because it undermines the very basis for establishing the credibility
of said "journal."
Credibility is the objective and subjective components of the believability of a source or message. Traditionally, credibility is composed of two primary dimensions: trustworthiness and expertise, which have both objective and subjective components. That is, trustworthiness is a receiver judgment based on subjective factors. Expertise can be similarly subjectively perceived but includes relatively objective characteristics of the source or message as well (e.g., source credentials or information quality).
Credibility online has become an important topic since the mid-1990s, as the web has increasingly become an information resource.
Oh, how convienient, that last half of that last sentence should read "as the web has increasingly become a disinformation resource"
with respect to the AGW contrarian point of view.
Now on to the E&E article by Tol. It reads like "cry me a river" or it brings to mind, on my part, mock sympathy via several people playing "air violins."
Tol's E&E "op-ed" hit piece is appropriately titled (from said BIASED
journal), "Biased Policy Advice from the IPCC." Funny thing is, any individual would have to consider the process biased, from their singular point of view, since no one individual would be 100% behind the decision making process, unless of course that one individual made all the decisions themselves in the absence of all other participants. D'oh! It's termed a non sequitur
, yet another logical fallacy on your part.
Hmm, that brings up the fact
that Tol is
the sole author of said "article" so apparently he did
make all the decisions as to the content of said "article." So Tol get's to be his own monopoly with respect to said "article" something he seems all too myopic about when defining the so called IPCC "monopoly." That is truly the definition of irony.
The Tol article is 9 pages in total, including a cover sheet. so that leaves 8 pages for the body of Tol's "rant-screed-manifesto" broken down as follows, ~1.5 pages for one table and one figure, ~ 3 pages of text, and ~3.5 pages of references. Hmm, interesting that there are more pages of references that there are pages of text.
There are a total of 50 references
, let me repeat that, there are a total of 50 references
Now of those 50 references, not a single one references the IPCC AR4 reports, now that's a clear indication of the inherent biases of both Tol and E&E, to not cite the IPCC reports, that Tol is criticizing, specifically the WG3 report.
And the citations are written out in the text body, so that if I were to substitute a numbered referencing system, I seriously doubt the text body would exceed two and a half pages.
The text itself reads more like one person's opinion (which, in fact it is), and focuses entirely
on WG3 in a very subjective single person's point of view. D'oh!
WG3 != WG2 != WG1, D'oh-D'oh.
In other words, you are attempting to lump in the entire IPCC process based on the association fallacy
, based on one person's subjective opinion on WG3. In fact, Tol appears to imply (by omission) that WG1 (the science) was less biased than WG3, so I don't see where this article undermines WG1 in any
substitutive way, unless one tries to invoke the association fallacy, as you are all too apparently trying to do.
The Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of Working Group 3 (WG3) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a case in point. Many things can be said about this. Having been involved in AR2 and AR3, and having watched AR4, I cannot escape the impression that WG3 has become more political and less academic, and that overall quality has declined. In some countries, political affiliation seemed to override academic standing as a selection criterion for authorship, while in WG3 the most influential positions went those who tend to support the environmentalists’ agenda. Such things are fiendishly hard to prove, and I will not attempt this here. The above is just a personal impression.
In fact, if you were to go to the IPCC website and look at the lists of reviewers and contributing authors, Tol is listed in WG2 as a contributing author and reviewer, and is listed as a reviewer only in WG3, and is nowhere to be seen in WG1, and is listed in the IPCC Synthesis Report under the List of Reviewers and Review Editors.
So it appears that Tol did not play any roll in WG1, had a role in WG2, and acted only as a reviewer in WG3. So it appears that Tol was mostly an "outsider" in the AR4 process. This kind of smacks of envy, or jealousy, or spite, or animus, or enmity, or some other subjective emotional character flaw associated with Tol himself.
The remainder of the text essentially goes on to espouse the sentiments that Tol claims he wants to avoid in the last sentence I outlined above. D'oh!
And as usual, in the subjective contrarian lexicon, the "article" offers only subjective opinionated destructive criticism, and offers up nary a shred of constructive criticism, which is to be expected, since after all, this is E&E we are talking about.