"I have good news, mein Fuehrer. None of this is affecting the environment."
Well, it looks like that UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) crowd and their climate change followers have taken another hit from a group of auditors who have come out with a damning critique on the IPCC report that garnered a Nobel Prize. Fox News, as usual, has the story that the other news networks will bury.
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/19/united-nations-climate-global-warming-ipcc/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+foxnews%2Flatest+%28Text+-+Latest+Headlines%29
So let's see; almost 1/3 of the information that went into the IPCC report was not peer-reviewed? That's the magic word here (peer review). My co-respondent, Lance, always points out that you have to look for the "peer reviewed" stamp to know that it's authentic Swiss cheese. The IPCC told us 100% of their information was "peer reviewed".
"Review this."
In the interest of full disclosure, I note in the article (as did Fox) that the audit was commissioned by an anti-climate change group.
Is Al Gore available for comment? I guess not. I wonder if he and Rajendra Pachauri, that other fraud, are going to return their Nobel prizes.
"Hey Al. I'll review you, and you review me."
The IPCC told us 100% of their information was "peer reviewed".
ReplyDeleteThis means they lied. Which means that it wasn't peer reviewed. Holy Christ, do you REALLY not get this?
I'll try another metaphor that you surely will not get: It's like if I said that chewing rocks was dentist recommended, and then when you found out that I was lying, you criticized the dentists.
Ugh.
I do get it Lance. You are right. They lied. This whole thing is a fraud.
ReplyDeleteEven if it is, it still doesn't change the fact that you absolutely refuse to understand what peer review even means.
ReplyDeleteLance,
ReplyDeleteWe're talking past each other. I get it. The IPCC report was based on stuff that lacked a ton of peer review. What's the issue?
Why are you still mocking the peer review process then?
ReplyDelete