Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 11/25/2009 9:53:42 PM PST by Shellybenoit
The Climate change scandal deepened today as the BBC Climate Expert/ Weatherman Paul Hudson made a shocking claim that he recieved the damning 'cover-up' emails a more than month before they were leaked over the internet,adding to the speculation that this wasn't a case of hacking into the University's computers from the outside but an internal whistle-blower:
Paul Hudson, weather presenter and climate change expert, claims the documents allegedly sent between some of the world's leading scientists are of a direct result of an article he wrote.
In his BBC blog two days ago, Hudson said: 'I was forwarded the chain of emails on the 12th October, which are comments from some of the world's leading climate scientists written as a direct result of my article "Whatever Happened To Global Warming".'
(Excerpt) Read more at yidwithlid.blogspot.com ...
The article and the headline are almost incoherent. The reporter “sent” the emails. The reporter “received” the emails. And the reporter thinks that CRU emails revealing the fraud were a response to an article he wrote long after the emails were composed.
I’m sure there’s a kernel that is interesting here but you cannot tell it from the article.
It’s a curious thing....almost a month prior to this release....it was the BBC coming out and questioning several aspects of global warming. They knew that the mess would appear shortly within the mass media.
At the time, the BBC was condemned by several environmental groups over their sudden change in perception. Now, we can look back and see that they basically discovered the same issues and figured the entire scheme out.
The key to fixing this entire mess...for all sides...is peer review. This is something that the environmentalists do not want. The minute you involve math and statistics experts in to analyze your data...they will note every single mistake or “game”. But it’s the only way to be honest. Face it....Einstein has been peer-reviewed a million times...and will continue to be peer-reviewed for another 1,000 years. There’s nothing wrong with that.
If the global warmers, are working themselves up into a lather now, wait until they realize every liberal thought in their heads is as wrong as the global warming religion they bow to.
Really? There was plenty of peer review going on in climatology: the AGW types reviewed papers that came to different conclusions and saw to it they were rejected, they reviewed each others' papers and accepted them for publication, fuzzy methodology, fudged data, etc. all overlooked so long as AGW was supported.
Peer review is broken: it creates herd-mentalities even when it isn't supporting actual corruption. Look at string theory--40 years w/o a testable prediction, 40 years of fudging to explain away the not-observed-in-nature dilaton field, but the sting theorist review each others' papers and grant proposals while competing ideas mostly get published in mathematics journals rather than physics journals.
The same thing happens in the social sciences. There was an experimental study done on social work journals: two fake research papers both with glaring methodological flaws were prepared, identical except that one purported to show a social work intervention worked, the other purported to show that it didn't. They were submitted to randomly chosen social work journals. Peer review accepted the social-work-works version more often than not, and rejected the social-work-didn't-work version more often than not. Of course, the deception was revealed and the submissions withdrawn, but the point was made.
Peer review depends on having a sufficient proportion of a discipline be committed to objectivity, and ideally not so committed to their own ideas that they can't see the merit in other, even competing, ideas. The 'big science' funding model used in most developed countries now militates against this, since money going to competing ideas isn't going to one's own ideas.
No! These fraudulent papers WERE peer-reviewed!
The key to honesty in science is rigorously enforced Data Availability so that experiments/models can be reproduced.
All the journals technically impose DA agreements on their contributors, but - in the case of AGW ‘science’ - they didn’t enforce them.
Is ANY of this stuff showing up ANYWHERE in the Stalinist Media (ABC, CBS, NBC, etc)?
Indeed the credibility and integrity of science across the world is at stake, its time to find out what is really going on.Are there really no journalists left in the Big Media? Are they all nothing but a bunch of ideological slaves?
*Almost everything depends on the editor of the journal and his/her prejudices. He/she determines WHO "peer reviews" the study. So if, say, "Nature," has a pro-GW editor, there is no way that study gets out, no matter how valuable or legitimate its research and findings are.
*Peers have their own axes to grind. I once sent in a paper (eventually published by the editor who overrode the reviewer) that was sent to the very guy I criticized. OF COURSE he found my conclusions "unconvincing." More often than not, even "blind" reviews can be figured out pretty easily: you know who is working in what fields, and from conferences, you know who thinks what.
*There is funding on the line. I don't think this is nearly as powerful a motivator as #1 and #2 above, but it is a motivator. If you're getting your $$ from the government, and a new study will threaten that, you're not likely to find much value in that study. As with lawyers and "expert witnesses," the expert witness NEVER comes to a conclusion that is antithetical to the lawyer's position (the guy who is paying him).
I might add that in 25 years in universities, I've never once seen a "pilot" program that resulted in the administration or department concluding, "You know what? That was a waste of time and we're not going to implement it." If it even GETS to "pilot" status, they will always conclude that "it works," if for no other reason than to justify the pilot funding!
Finally---and I'd like other academics to chime in here---there has been SOME evidence that scholarly studies/scientific studies can say one thing, and that the ABSTRACTS, occasionally written by editors, makes it sound like the study says something else. (Michael Crichton pointed this out in his book, "State of Fear"). Well, the idiot news media NEVER reads the studies, only the abstracts!
You may have heard about the huge blow up at the American Chemical Society journal. The editor was rejecting articles that questioned AGW. The ACS members raised quite a bit of hell.
Oh, and with regard to your comments about abstracts; as you know, the word count for submitted abstracts is restricted and some are fairly low. Even if the author attempts to accurately reflect the article content in the abstract, word-count limitations can result in a less complete understanding of the work.
So, even well written abstracts may not tell the whole story.
Not enough that you would notice.
I had NOT heard this. Thank you.
Good point. See, we don’t have that problem in history. I’ve done a couple of abstracts for Journal of Ec. History.
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.
