Translate


Sunday, February 7, 2010

Climate Gate-Another Day-Another Scandal

Kudos to the Telegraph (UK) for spearheading the Climate Gate scandal. Today, yet another story about how that Nobel-Prize-winning Climate Change report is chock-full-of errors.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7177230/New-errors-in-IPCC-climate-change-report.html


"Hello!"

Yes, indeed. While North America looks like one big ice cube, the IPCC scandal is heating up faster than...Global Warming.

You gotta hand it to Rajendra Pachauri and his band of "researchers". They left no stone unturned in their hunt for proof that the world is melting like a tube of butter in a hot skillet. They even consulted mountaineering magazines, called people on the telephone, read a few blogs and relied on a couple of masters theses to draw their conclusions.



And don't forget Sanjay, the over-sexed Indian research scientist.

Put all that together, and what you have is a Nobel prize.



In a side article, we learn that Phil Jones, the discredited chief of the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University has been considering taking the easy way out-suicide. Not so, Pachauri, who has refused calls for him to resign and told his critics they should apply asbestos to their faces. I guess that's Hindi for
"go %^*#@^ yourselves!"

I am not making this up, folks.

Of course, one wonders when the American media is going to pick up on this news coming out of Britain. Only Fox (God bless them) seems to be reporting this. It's especially puzzling since CNN has their ace correspondent Richard Quest over in London at CNN International.

But I guess he's all tied up (private joke).

15 comments:

Lance Christian Johnson said...

Isn't it the same scandal if it's the same report?

Gary Fouse said...

No because it is another part of the report that has been found to be in error.

Lance Christian Johnson said...

I'm sorry, but it's hardly a brand new scandal when the same paper, which was never peer-reviewed in the first place, has another error in it. I'm sure that there are even more in there.

I'm pretty sure that the entirety of global warming studies do not rest on that particular study. Did a lot of prominent people in the world rely on some lousy research? Yes. But it's hardly the smoking gun you deniers are looking for.

Gary Fouse said...

Lance,

96 bottles of beer on the wall,
96 bottles of beer
Pass one down,
pass it around,
95 bottles of beer on the wall

Lance Christian Johnson said...

You've been passing the same bottle for some time now.

Like I said before, find something peer-reviewed and challenge that. I'd be impressed.

Gary Fouse said...

Lance,

How about that Calif. Air Resources board study on diesel fuel? (According to John and Ken) half of the dozen or so guys that reviewed it actually participated in the research.

95 bottles of beer......

Lance Christian Johnson said...

I meant actual peer review, Gary - not your straw man version of it.

Gary Fouse said...

Lance,

To me, all this "peer review" stuff has as much credibility as the Golden Globe awards.

Or the Nobel Prize, for that matter.

Lance Christian Johnson said...

Ever rely on modern medicine, Gary? Shoot, even an aspirin for a headache?

You can thank the peer-review process for that.

Gary Fouse said...

Lance,

Big difference between aspiran and this global warming stuff.

Lance Christian Johnson said...

The thing is, all of your criticisms of the peer review process has been based on times when it wasn't used. When it is actually implemented, then any scientist can check the data and see if the conclusions fit. It isn't just open to a select group of scientists - it's open to all of them, including any deniers and/or skeptics.

Gary Fouse said...

Lance,

Except that those who disagreed were pressured to change their findings or they were ignored.

I'll betcha a Kitzmann this is all a giant hoax.

Lance Christian Johnson said...

Do you have an example of something that was actually peer reviewed where this happened? And I'm talking real peer-review here - not something where they had people who were part of the same study read it - something that was published in a scientific journal that was open to all members of the scientific community to check the facts and refute them?

Gary Fouse said...

Lance,

With all due respect, I have no time to delve into all this peer review stuff. Suffice to say, it is clear that the whole process has been corrupted and now cast into doubt.

And as you can see, we have bigger fish to fry right now at UCI.

Which means, I have to "move on." We can get back to this global warming thing when the next bottle of beer falls off the wall, as it most surely will.

Lance Christian Johnson said...

Insert smug comment from me here.