Wanted for questioning
Hat tip to Hot Air
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/02/15/ipcc-warnings-about-african-crops-also-bogus/
Hot Air has a great post about the on-going revelations of the IPCC and its head, Rajendra Pachauri. This one centers around the report of African crops being damaged by Global Warming. It seems the IPCC not only prefers their own selected studies over those peer-reviewed studies, but the Climate Research Center apparently has sought ways to "redefine" peer review itself.
Not only that, but it seems that some of the central players have conflicts of interest including involvement in those "carbon credit" schemes. (Remember Al Gore?)
And what's this about Pachauri and his cronies getting big bucks (or pounds) to write their drivel?
Speaking of peer review, could it be that the "peers" are being selectively...selected depending on their point of view, or ignored. Or is the peer review concept being redefined in order to come to the "right conclusions"?
Can peer review still be trusted here.?
What sayeth Thou, Lance?
4 comments:
I don't know how many ways I can explain the same thing. As of this point, I can only conclude that you just plain old refuse to understand what the process is.
Lance,
You are right. I don't understand the process. Do you? Does anybody?
Apparently, the process isn't being followed anyway, so what the hell does it matter?
Actually, yes, I do. I tried explaining it, but that didn't seem to work out so well.
Well, you might as well stop going to the doctor and taking medicine when you're sick, Gary. All science is dependent upon the peer review process - no matter how much you hem and haw and say "Oh, no, that's different!"
Post a Comment