Posted on 11/21/2009 11:13:47 PM PST by dila813
In the second report, I wrote
The process that produced the report was highly political, with the Editor taking the lead in suppressing my perspectives, most egregiously demonstrated by the last-minute substitution of a new Chapter 6 for the one I had carefully led preparation of and on which I was close to reaching a final consensus. Anyone interested in the production of comprehensive assessments of climate science should be troubled by the process which I document below in great detail that led to the replacement of the Chapter that I was serving as Convening Lead Author.
The Editor of this report is Thomas R. Karl, Director of the National Climate Data Center; the supervisor of Tom Peterson at NCDC.
The perspective that Tom Peterson illustrates in his communication to Phil Jones clearly illustrates that he is unable to present a balanced assessment of the climate science issues. Moreover, he does not even accurately understand that I am not a climate skeptic.
(Excerpt) Read more at pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com ...
This one seems to be indicating that this group shouldn't be the gate keeper for IPCC anymore.
Thanks for the tip, JMTs. ;^)
Lots of oxen being gored. The academic world can act like a woman scorned by several orders of magnitude. We are about to see some monumental hissy fits, I think. Should be fun to watch.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.