The UN Climate Change Numbers Hoax

Ok.  I am currently going through the second order revision of "Understanding and Attributing Climate Change" (i.e. all 1157 comments).  Approximately 55% of them were rejected, of which around 90% belonged to one individual: Vincent Gray.  Thusly, the following phrase from the article, "Of the comments received from the 62 reviewers of this critical chapter, almost 60% of them were rejected by IPCC editors." is HIGHLY misleading.

Furthermore, the original authors make claims such as, "And of the 62 expert reviewers of this chapter, 55 had serious vested
interest, leaving only seven expert reviewers who appear impartial." without ANY corroborating evidence - this borderlines slander.

Dave

I encourage everyone to read the report and post your feelings on the subject. The more comments the better. Are the scientists right. Is Gore right or is it somewhere in the middle. How do scientists stack up?

‘Over 100 Prominent Scientists Challenge UN Move For Global Carbon
Tax’; ‘The UN has officially announced what the fearmongering about
man-made global warming has been designed to justify all along - a
global carbon tax which will do nothing to reduce carbon emissions but
everything to feed the trough of world government. Over one hundred
prominent scientists signed a letter dismissing the move as a futile
beauracratic scheme which will diminish prosperity and increase human
suffering.

Some 'Convenient Facts' and more: Disinformation Dangerous & Deadly

AtomCat, if you join the discussion on ScienceDave's thread,you'll see that he has offered to remove the flag if you  file this under Opinions.

As I said in that discussion, I think that would be a win-win for all of us.  

There are 2 sides to this argument. Al Gore made it political by calling those who disagree with him "deniers." Both sides are still in debate. Al Gore reminds me of my Sundays back in the day when I would have to listen to someone scare me half to death in the name of God. Gore does it in the name of Mother Earth. And he is getting richer with each $6 thousand dollar a minute speech. I do not think there should be a wrench on this story. It seems like a political act.

It seems to me that Dave has taken it upon himself to be a censor not an editor. If that's okay with NP, who am I to argue. I spent time in Calgary as a reporter and I'm getting ready to launch a magazine. News has been one sided for too long, with any dissenting voice being quashed. The whole basis of my magazine is to present both sides and let the readers decide.

If I'm wrong the magazine will fail, but then I still have faith that people can think for themselves given the opportunity. 

Pope Benedict XVI has launched a surprise attack on climate change
prophets of doom, warning them that any solutions to global warming
must be based on firm evidence and not on dubious ideology.The leader
of more than a billion Roman Catholics suggested that fears over
man-made emissions melting the ice caps and causing a wave of
unprecedented disasters were nothing more than scare-mongering.

continue reading 

Dave, is the Pope a 
heretic? 

Given much of the original article you are highlighting is of pure opinion, this article belongs under the "Opinions" category - if you change this, I will be happy to remove the flag.

Even though this story was wrenched, maybe because of it even, this story has received a lot of traffic. And I'm glad. Global warming skepticism is a tough stance to take because so many outlets (governments, businesses, the media) have taken the position that it is real and that we're causing it. It's absolutely necessary to get the other side of the argument out so it can at least temper any response we make to global warming.

Oh, by the way atomcat, the Pope is the alpha-heretic to most people; especially global warming boosters. 

Dave

We just had a hell of a snow storm here, the roads were closed, power outages, vehicles in the ditch.

We just had a wonderful snowfall, the ski hills are open and they are starting to groom the snowmobile trails.

Which one is news, which is opinion, are they both. Is it up to you to make the call? Maybe you like winter maybe you don't. Same storm, different views.

I feel I must pass on your offer, I'll let you decide. 

this is clearly an opinion piece and should be tagged as such. please make this change and I'll ensure that the flag is removed.

the issue here is not the facts of the matter but the way they are presented. this is not simply a report about a scientific theory but someone's opinion as to the significance of that theory. 

 I was asked once before to move a piece I had written to opinion which I did. This is different. Dave just up and flaged it. As an editor he didn't say, hey I read your post and maybe it would be better under another heading. Not Dave. He makes no bones about the fact he disagrees with the content of the post and that is why he flaged it. That is not good editing unless maybe you work for CNN or Fox news. An apology from Dave and I move the story. I think I have support on that request from the comments I have read from the other editors.   From dave needs improvement:

atomcat,
I think your story has potential but needs some improvement. I've got a
few suggestions, and if you give them a try, I'd be happy to remove
this flag.

An examination of reviewers’ comments on the last draft of the WG
I report before final report assembly (i.e. the ‘Second Order Revision’
or SOR) completely debunks the illusion of hundreds of experts
diligently poring over all the chapters of the report and providing
extensive feedback to the editing teams. Here’s the reality.

This claim is incredibly strong, and we have no reason to believe
its credibility.  As such, please provide sufficient evidence for your
claim, and I will be happy to remove this flag.

ScienceDave referred this matter to me. Perhaps the original flag should have been clearer in its instruction. There is consensus amongst the editorial staff that this should be in Opinion. Please make the change and the flag will be removed. This does not have to do with bias but rather transparency and accuracy.

I've removed the flag - but for the sake of transparency here is ScienceDave's original comment:needs improvement:

atomcat,
I think your story has potential but needs some improvement. I've got a
few suggestions, and if you give them a try, I'd be happy to remove
this flag.

An examination of reviewers’ comments on the last draft of the WG
I report before final report assembly (i.e. the ‘Second Order Revision’
or SOR) completely debunks the illusion of hundreds of experts
diligently poring over all the chapters of the report and providing
extensive feedback to the editing teams. Here’s the reality.

This claim is incredibly strong, and we have no reason to believe
its credibility.  As such, please provide sufficient evidence for your
claim, and I will be happy to remove this flag.

AtomCat, I truly feel that Dave and the rest of the editorial team have been transparent, and very fair. Please file this under Opinions. Pieces get flagged; that's part of the process.

 I don't believe Dave needs to apologize. He's changed his headline, changed where his piece is filed, and has asked you only to refile under Opinions. As Ryan Nadel notes, the editorial team has a consensus that this needs to be filed under Opinions. Why would you want to ignore the whole team? 

Right now we have a win-win situation. If you're making this into a personal thing about Dave, I'll ask you to step back and reconsider that. And to suddenly say that other editors have problems with Dave (I wouldn't count on that, actually because to my knowledge that is not true) because we're having open, transparent dialogue not only goes outside the topic, but it violates our "no flaming" policy.

Dialogue yes, personal attacks no.

Ryan Nadel is now managing this issue, and he has my full support. But if I were managing it, despite my earlier care to make sure that your viewpoint was heard, I'd wrench it again and ask that it be filed under Opinions and the personal attack be deleted.

Stick with win-win, OK?  

I did file it under opinions and Ryan pulled the flag. Thank you Ryan

Problem, it 
disappeared. I just reposted it, still under opinions and now it's in political. I will do again. 

Pep I just hit edit. It says the story is filed under opinions. When it reloads it shows poitics.

Hi AtomCat, thanks for working with us.

It sounds like you've hit one of our tagging snags, which happens every so often. Suggestion: in the pull-down menu, select Opinions. In your tags, add opinions, and for right now, try deleting politics from the tags.

See if that works. If it does, wait a little bit, give the system a chance to electro-chill out (heh heh) and later edit again and add tag politics and see what happens.  :)