ax_murderer
Active member
but what you hear is nothing close to the truth of global warming. happy thanksgiving.
this is from james taranto a new york times opinion columnist. yes he is drenched in right wing, but the italic quotes are verbatim and it says explicitly that they are trying to mislead our country. no liberal news bias? for anyone who says its good because its saving our environment. 1 that opens up the biggest slippery slope argument ever 2 why can't things like climate control come around naturally through public opinion with scare tactics being turned into lies? enjoy.
The massive University of East Anglia global-warmist archives are now searchable at this site,
and one particular email demonstrates the nexus between the scientific
shenanigans and the popular press, on which most people rely for their
information on global warming. This email,
dated Sept. 29, 2009, is from Michael Mann of the University of
Pennsylvania to New York Times warm correspondent Andrew Revkin. The
crucial exchange begins with this question from Revkin (quoting
verbatim):
I'm going to blog on this as it relates to the value of the
peer review process and not on the merits of the mcintyre et al attacks.
peer review, for all its imperfections, is where the herky-jerky process of knowledge building happens, would you agree?
And here is Mann's response:
Re, your point at the end--you've taken the words out of my
mouth. Skepticism is essential for the functioning of science. It
yields an erratic path towards eventual truth. But legitimate
scientific skepticism is exercised through formal scientific circles,
in particular the peer review process. A necessary though not in
general sufficient condition for taking a scientific criticism
seriously is that it has passed through the legitimate scientific peer
review process. those such as McIntyre who operate almost entirely
outside of this system are not to be trusted.
In principle, Revkin and Mann are quite right. But as we noted Monday, one of the most damning findings in the archives concerns the corruption of the peer-review process.
In one email,
under the subject line "HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL," Phil Jones of East Anglia
writes to Mann: "I can't see either of these papers being in the next
IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow--even if we have to
redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
In another, Mann--discussing a journal that has published a paper by skeptical scientists, puts forward a plan for such a redefinition:
This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for
not publishing in the "peer-reviewed literature". Obviously, they found
a solution to that--take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I
think we have to stop considering "Climate Research" as a legitimate
peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in
the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers
in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or
request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the
editorial board...
The scare quotes around "peer-reviewed literature" are
Mann's. And it hardly needs to be said that peer review is a sham if
papers that present alternative hypotheses are not even allowed into
the process.
So how does Revkin, who two months ago took the words
out of Mann's mouth, deal with this problem? Barely at all. In a Sunday
amendment to a Friday blog post, he mentions it and quickly changes the subject:
[UPDATE, 11/22: Juliet Eilperin of the Washington Post explores some email exchanges criticizing certain peer-reviewed papers and journals
and focused on excluding the papers from inclusion in the
Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change report. I'm running down tips
and assertions related to the theft and hackings. It remains
interesting that before they were placed on an ftp site and dispersed
across the Internet, someone tried to plant them on Realclimate.org and
publish a mock post linking to them. Needless to say, if anyone has
information or ideas, feel free to email dotearth AT nytimes.com.]
Yesterday, he had another post, titled "Report Aims to Clarify Climate Risk for Diplomats." Here's how it begins:
A team of climate scientists, seeking to remind the
negotiators who will hammer out a new climate treaty of what is at
stake, has produced The Copenhagen Diagnosis, a summary of the latest peer-reviewed science on the anticipated impacts of human-driven global warming.
Revkin reports that the "latest peer-reviewed science"
shows that "the case for climate change as a serious risk to human
affairs" is "clear, despite recent firestorms over some data sets and
scientists' actions."
What we now know about the "peer review" process in this
field indicates that this is a predetermined conclusion. Revkin
misleads his readers by describing it as if it were a real finding.
this is from james taranto a new york times opinion columnist. yes he is drenched in right wing, but the italic quotes are verbatim and it says explicitly that they are trying to mislead our country. no liberal news bias? for anyone who says its good because its saving our environment. 1 that opens up the biggest slippery slope argument ever 2 why can't things like climate control come around naturally through public opinion with scare tactics being turned into lies? enjoy.
The massive University of East Anglia global-warmist archives are now searchable at this site,
and one particular email demonstrates the nexus between the scientific
shenanigans and the popular press, on which most people rely for their
information on global warming. This email,
dated Sept. 29, 2009, is from Michael Mann of the University of
Pennsylvania to New York Times warm correspondent Andrew Revkin. The
crucial exchange begins with this question from Revkin (quoting
verbatim):
I'm going to blog on this as it relates to the value of the
peer review process and not on the merits of the mcintyre et al attacks.
peer review, for all its imperfections, is where the herky-jerky process of knowledge building happens, would you agree?
And here is Mann's response:
Re, your point at the end--you've taken the words out of my
mouth. Skepticism is essential for the functioning of science. It
yields an erratic path towards eventual truth. But legitimate
scientific skepticism is exercised through formal scientific circles,
in particular the peer review process. A necessary though not in
general sufficient condition for taking a scientific criticism
seriously is that it has passed through the legitimate scientific peer
review process. those such as McIntyre who operate almost entirely
outside of this system are not to be trusted.
In principle, Revkin and Mann are quite right. But as we noted Monday, one of the most damning findings in the archives concerns the corruption of the peer-review process.
In one email,
under the subject line "HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL," Phil Jones of East Anglia
writes to Mann: "I can't see either of these papers being in the next
IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow--even if we have to
redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
In another, Mann--discussing a journal that has published a paper by skeptical scientists, puts forward a plan for such a redefinition:
This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for
not publishing in the "peer-reviewed literature". Obviously, they found
a solution to that--take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I
think we have to stop considering "Climate Research" as a legitimate
peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in
the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers
in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or
request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the
editorial board...
The scare quotes around "peer-reviewed literature" are
Mann's. And it hardly needs to be said that peer review is a sham if
papers that present alternative hypotheses are not even allowed into
the process.
So how does Revkin, who two months ago took the words
out of Mann's mouth, deal with this problem? Barely at all. In a Sunday
amendment to a Friday blog post, he mentions it and quickly changes the subject:
[UPDATE, 11/22: Juliet Eilperin of the Washington Post explores some email exchanges criticizing certain peer-reviewed papers and journals
and focused on excluding the papers from inclusion in the
Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change report. I'm running down tips
and assertions related to the theft and hackings. It remains
interesting that before they were placed on an ftp site and dispersed
across the Internet, someone tried to plant them on Realclimate.org and
publish a mock post linking to them. Needless to say, if anyone has
information or ideas, feel free to email dotearth AT nytimes.com.]
Yesterday, he had another post, titled "Report Aims to Clarify Climate Risk for Diplomats." Here's how it begins:
A team of climate scientists, seeking to remind the
negotiators who will hammer out a new climate treaty of what is at
stake, has produced The Copenhagen Diagnosis, a summary of the latest peer-reviewed science on the anticipated impacts of human-driven global warming.
Revkin reports that the "latest peer-reviewed science"
shows that "the case for climate change as a serious risk to human
affairs" is "clear, despite recent firestorms over some data sets and
scientists' actions."
What we now know about the "peer review" process in this
field indicates that this is a predetermined conclusion. Revkin
misleads his readers by describing it as if it were a real finding.
