Editing and reviewing the canon of scientific knowledge is a critical function that should involve checks and balances, distribution among multiple groups, clear objective standards and the disclosure and/or elimination of conflicts of interests. These factors are especially critical when the stakes are high and governments look to the product of scientific endeavor to set [...]
You'll want to consider this article by the American Thinker (carefully):
The CRU emails have revealed how the normal conventions of the peer review process appear to have been compromised by a team* of global warming scientists, with the willing cooperation of the editor of the International Journal of Climatology (IJC), Glenn McGregor. The team spent [...]
Continue reading about Misrepresentation, misstatement and conspiracy?
Georg Will sums it up nicely:
The Washington Post learns an odd lesson from the CRU materials: “Climate scientists should not let themselves be goaded by the irresponsibility of the deniers into overstating the certainties of complex science or, worse, censoring discussion of them.”
These scientists overstated and censored because they were “goaded” by skepticism?
Were their science [...]
Continue reading about Scientists overstated and censored because they were “goaded” by skepticism?
I find this disturbing:
In the latest IPCC study, there was only a single chapter (Chapter 9 — Understanding and Attributing Climate Change) that specifically dealt with the hypothesis that human CO2 was the cause of global warming. The authors of that chapter concluded that human CO2 was the cause.This key, critical IPCC chapter had only [...]
Continue reading about How did the 2,500 drop to 25 overnight?
Recent Comments