The "Bolshoi Ballet" performed by the IPCC
(Hat tip to Maggie's Notebook)
For my Global Warming friends and other assorted "peer reviewers", here is the latest on that disappearing Himalayan hoax from the Daily Mail (UK).
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html
No peer review???
Rajendra Pachauri- IPCC head, Nobel prize winner, friend of Al Gore and all-around fraud
I should point out that in some cultures, Mr Pachauri is stating in the photo, "I am an A-Hole", which is currently under "peer review".
What's the old adage about putting lipstick on a pig? In this case, you can put lipstick on a bull, and what you have is still "bolshoi".
10 comments:
Thanks Gary.
Gary,
This isn't new. It's what the original article stated - this one just emphasizes that. I pointed out to you that it wasn't peer reviewed. And what did you do? You mocked the peer review process - the process that's responsible for every single scientific advancement the human race has ever known.
Lance,
I noted that it wasn't peer reviewed, but it at least illustrates that the peer review process has been circumvented. In the California case, apparently, half of the reviewing peers were reviewing their own study.
BTW, two of my three books were
"reviewed" (excepting the one on Erlangen.) Each book was reviewed by several "peers". Some said they were good books, some said the opposite. So what is the standard-100% favorable?
Gary,
Book reviews and scientific peer review are different. Wikipedia seems to have a good, but lengthy, article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review
Lance,
Can we agree that the peer review process doesn't always work? When some yokel says in a report that the Himalayan glaciers will disappear in 25 years and it goes all the way to a Nobel prize, where was the peer review? How does that get a Nobel prize if a significant part of it wasn't "peer reviewed".
Don't answer that last question. I know.
Peer review means nothing when it comes to global warming. Look at Phil Jones, Michael Mann, Tom Wigley, Mick Kelly and James Hansen. They are at the top of the pyramid and they have all been discredited.
This is all about putting money in the hands of the UN, and those entrepreneurs who have been industrious enough to cash in.
Until the warmists take a serious look and serious attitude toward the date provided by scientist skeptics, rather than calling it voodoo science, then not a penny should go to global warming, which "isn't," and so the change of name to the laughably ubiquitous "climate change."
Gary, I posted a comment a minute ago. Maybe it's in moderation. If so, just delete one of them.
Thanks Maggie,
I didn't see the other comment.
Ummm...I posted one too, and it didn't go through. I wasn't insulting or anything like that.
Just in case it was an accident, basically what I was saying is that it makes no sense when you say that the peer review process doesn't work when the research wasn't even submitted to the peer review process in the first place.
It must have been an accident.
Darned internet and its inability to properly convey sarcasm...
Post a Comment