Gee, isn't it funny then that after McIntyre and McKitrick were being stonewalled by the East Anglia climate fraudsters on their request for the climate data, the hockey-stick-hoaxsters (as revealed by the whistle blown e-mails) were in a panic that FOIA laws would require them to release the data due to the fact they were government funded?
And to perpetrate this fraud, is it believable that the left would stop at merely hiring some scientists to whore their data without also corrupting the peer review process as well?
Os course not. In fact, the AGW peer review process has been as
corrupted as anything the left gets its tentacles into, not limited to academia, the MSM, and election stealing. Articles abound on the subject.
Gee, isn't it funny then that after McIntyre and McKitrick were being stonewalled by the East Anglia climate fraudsters on their request for the climate data, the hockey-stick-hoaxsters (as revealed by the whistle blown e-mails) were in a panic that FOIA laws would require them to release the data due to the fact they were government funded?
I remember ClimateGate very well and I don't recall
American researchers being in a panic at all. Can't speak for England. Mann at the time was completely unworried, as Mann's solution, the "Nature trick" was to augment the tree ring proxy data with real and reliable instrumental data in order to reconstruct the end series of the time averaging. There was no manipulation of actual recorded temperature data, only how the reconstructed proxy data was processed to more closely match the accurate data. This is a perfectly valid method of statistics and is accurately pointed out not only in the data link I gave above, but also in Chapter 6 of the IPCC AR4. Now, East Anglia had withheld about
5% of the data, but that was long after the Mann paper. Which is the only thing I'm talking about here.
And to perpetrate this fraud, is it believable that the left would stop at merely hiring some scientists to whore their data without also corrupting the peer review process as well?
Yes, I've heard that theory, just as I've also heard it's a plot by the UN, the Bilderbergers, the Jews, the Muslims, the Communists, and a bunch of other groups to use climate change to take over the world. But I require more than supposition to believe in a conspiracy that would require the connivance of a few hundred thousand people to make good.
In fact, the AGW peer review process has been as corrupted as anything the left gets its tentacles into, not limited to academia, the MSM, and election stealing. Articles abound on the subject.
Well, since it's Evolution News & Views, I really can't truck with what they say. Being Catholic and a scientific skeptic, I don't follow YEC, though I'll leave my usual commentary on it by the wayside for the sake of our more inclined FR members. I prefer people like
this fellow who are a bit more...even-tempered on the subject. I'm not saying I believe that climate change is the big hoopla all the doomsters make it out to be. I am saying that no, I do not believe the peer review process has been corrupted, primarily because I have not received what I consider sufficient proof that would stand up in a court of law. Lot of speculation. Not much solidity.