Here's an extract:
"The IPCC “peer review” process is not like the one academic journals use, in which reviewers actually have the authority to recommend rejection and require changes; instead it is more like a limited, voluntary public comment process. Since the IPCC gives Lead Authors the sole right to determine content and accept or dismiss comments, it is more like a weblog than an academic report."
Read more: http://opinion.financialpost.com/2010/08/27/fix-the-ipcc-process/#ixzz0y1qEL7sN
Update: ABC cover the release of the IAC report, the subject of McKitrick's comments, HERE
I note that in an effort to silence me, you've closed comments on the ABC bias post. Quite poor form considering the apparent aims of your website.ReplyDelete
You suggested that I should reread the ICRP report and if I continue to disagree with you, I should contact the ABC. This makes no sense – why would I contact the ABC about an error on your website? Wouldn't it make more sense for you to contact the ICRP and ask them to confirm your bizarre interpretation of their report? In the interests of your own accountability, I call on you to do this.
Before you refuse to publish this comment on the basis that it's unrelated to this post... this part is related to it. Are you seriously calling the ABC out for not republishing an opinion piece by a Canadian economist originally published in a Canadian newspaper? I didn't realise that was the purpose of The Drum. Perhaps you could point your readers to some examples of other newspaper opinion pieces which have been republished on The Drum? Don't bother mentioning the republished ShadowLands or Crikey pieces on ABC bias, they're not newspaper opinion pieces.
I also have two suggestions for all your 'missing news' posts. Firstly, they would be more persuasive if rather than only linking to the research itself, you also link to one or more mainstream news outlets which have covered the story. This would demonstrate that mainstream news outlets (rather than just the blogosphere) have found the research newsworthy, and the ABC is unjustifiably out of step. Secondly, you might want to extend the range of these missing news posts (plus this new 'missing voices' post) from just climate change; by continually harping on this from your narrow point of view, you just show your own bias rather than highlighting the ABC's.
P.S. Note to readers: an earlier version of this comment was first submitted for publication on the Missing News: Spencer and Braswell post but Marc refused to publish it.
russellgballard seems to beleive the ABC is not out of step.ReplyDelete
I disagree. I think the ABC is totally in step with CAGW and would do well to balance their reporting. I discount all ABC reporting as a result of this obvious bias. Ditto many other MSM of course, such as the NYT, Globe and Mail, Washington Post, etc.