Canada Withdraws from Kyoto Protocols

[earlycuyler]

Those Canuck sons of bitches. What the hell are they thinking ?

 

[westwall]

Pardon?????
Have you never heard of peer review?

Yes. Have you heard about the systemic corruption within the climatology peer review world? I suggest you look up the Steig et all fiasco for an example of the "pal" review process at work. Or how about that famous polar bear study that was peer reviewed by the mans wife? You talking about those peer reviewed studies?

That's the great thing about conspiracy theories in the age of the internet, you can find an example of any nefarious activity you care to look for.

You place no importance on concensus.
I consider myself a skeptic but when the preponderance of scientific opinion seems to agree I have to take notice - after all, they're the experts.

When the preponderance of scientific opinion is arrived at through corruption I think you have a problem. Don't you? As far as your conspiricy theory nonsense if you are truly interested in SCIENCE I suggest you look at what the CRU and the rest of the AGW supporters are doing, (please note, I call them supporters instead of some pejorative, unlike the opposing side).

 

[idb]

Yes. Have you heard about the systemic corruption within the climatology peer review world? I suggest you look up the Steig et all fiasco for an example of the "pal" review process at work. Or how about that famous polar bear study that was peer reviewed by the mans wife? You talking about those peer reviewed studies?

That's the great thing about conspiracy theories in the age of the internet, you can find an example of any nefarious activity you care to look for.

You place no importance on concensus.
I consider myself a skeptic but when the preponderance of scientific opinion seems to agree I have to take notice - after all, they're the experts.

When the preponderance of scientific opinion is arrived at through corruption I think you have a problem. Don't you? As far as your conspiricy theory nonsense if you are truly interested in SCIENCE I suggest you look at what the CRU and the rest of the AGW supporters are doing, (please note, I call them supporters instead of some pejorative, unlike the opposing side).

Don't get me wrong, I want the scientists to be wrong but...

As far as corruption...I just can't see where the gain might be for all of these scientists to participate in such a huge....conspiracy (that is the word for what you're claiming).

How could such a conspiracy be perpetrated for so long by so many without someone leaking the true details...I'm not talking about counter-theories but a true smoking gun to expose the scam?

 

[westwall]

That's the great thing about conspiracy theories in the age of the internet, you can find an example of any nefarious activity you care to look for.

You place no importance on concensus.
I consider myself a skeptic but when the preponderance of scientific opinion seems to agree I have to take notice - after all, they're the experts.

When the preponderance of scientific opinion is arrived at through corruption I think you have a problem. Don't you? As far as your conspiricy theory nonsense if you are truly interested in SCIENCE I suggest you look at what the CRU and the rest of the AGW supporters are doing, (please note, I call them supporters instead of some pejorative, unlike the opposing side).

Don't get me wrong, I want the scientists to be wrong but...

As far as corruption...I just can't see where the gain might be for all of these scientists to participate in such a huge....conspiracy (that is the word for what you're claiming).

How could such a conspiracy be perpetrated for so long by so many without someone leaking the true details...I'm not talking about counter-theories but a true smoking gun to expose the scam?

Scientists theories are either proven correct or they are not. When scientists promulgate theories that are non-falsifiable there is a problem. And it is not a huge conspiricy, it is a small one. I figure there are maybe 25 of them running the show with a few dozen politicians helping them along as it gives them far more power over the public.

And the facts have been leaked, along with ample evidence to show the MSM is actively participating in the fraud. After all, the Fourth Estate has long felt they should be the ultimate determiners of mans fate. Just look at the yellow journalism of old. I don't see much improvement from those dark ages. Do you?

 

[idb]

When the preponderance of scientific opinion is arrived at through corruption I think you have a problem. Don't you? As far as your conspiricy theory nonsense if you are truly interested in SCIENCE I suggest you look at what the CRU and the rest of the AGW supporters are doing, (please note, I call them supporters instead of some pejorative, unlike the opposing side).

Don't get me wrong, I want the scientists to be wrong but...

As far as corruption...I just can't see where the gain might be for all of these scientists to participate in such a huge....conspiracy (that is the word for what you're claiming).

How could such a conspiracy be perpetrated for so long by so many without someone leaking the true details...I'm not talking about counter-theories but a true smoking gun to expose the scam?

Scientists theories are either proven correct or they are not. When scientists promulgate theories that are non-falsifiable there is a problem. And it is not a huge conspiricy, it is a small one. I figure there are maybe 25 of them running the show with a few dozen politicians helping them along as it gives them far more power over the public.

And the facts have been leaked, along with ample evidence to show the MSM is actively participating in the fraud. After all, the Fourth Estate has long felt they should be the ultimate determiners of mans fate. Just look at the yellow journalism of old. I don't see much improvement from those dark ages. Do you?

Scientific theories are almost never proven, they are always open to new evidence.
It's through constant testing that they become more accepted - or rejected.

The fact is that AGW, presumably based on the preponderance of evidence, is accepted by the majority of the scientific community.

 

[westwall]

Don't get me wrong, I want the scientists to be wrong but...

As far as corruption...I just can't see where the gain might be for all of these scientists to participate in such a huge....conspiracy (that is the word for what you're claiming).

How could such a conspiracy be perpetrated for so long by so many without someone leaking the true details...I'm not talking about counter-theories but a true smoking gun to expose the scam?

Scientists theories are either proven correct or they are not. When scientists promulgate theories that are non-falsifiable there is a problem. And it is not a huge conspiricy, it is a small one. I figure there are maybe 25 of them running the show with a few dozen politicians helping them along as it gives them far more power over the public.

And the facts have been leaked, along with ample evidence to show the MSM is actively participating in the fraud. After all, the Fourth Estate has long felt they should be the ultimate determiners of mans fate. Just look at the yellow journalism of old. I don't see much improvement from those dark ages. Do you?

Scientific theories are almost never proven, they are always open to new evidence.
It's through constant testing that they become more accepted - or rejected.

The fact is that AGW, presumably based on the preponderance of evidence, is accepted by the majority of the scientific community.

The fact is, AGW is accepted by the majority of climatologists the other natural sciences are not nearly as invested in it. I know of very few geologists, for instance, that credit the theory. We study paleo climate and realise that this is actually a pretty nice time in the history of the Earth and should enjoy it while we can. We also realise that for the planet to be really miserable cold is the trick. Whenever it has been warm it has been nice and bountiful

At some point a thinking person should relaise that when they keep trying to scare you over and over and over again they probably don't have much. The Boy who cried Wolf and all that.

An for all the BS about consensus, I just think back to poor old Alfred Wegener who was denigrated by teh natural sciences for having the temeruty to say that their consensus opinion on how teh world functioned was wrong.

He was a astronomer and meteorologist don't you know and how could HE possibly know anything about geology. Sound familiar? Only he was correct and plate tectonics has been the result of his work.

So much for consensus science.

 

[idb]

Scientists theories are either proven correct or they are not. When scientists promulgate theories that are non-falsifiable there is a problem. And it is not a huge conspiricy, it is a small one. I figure there are maybe 25 of them running the show with a few dozen politicians helping them along as it gives them far more power over the public.

And the facts have been leaked, along with ample evidence to show the MSM is actively participating in the fraud. After all, the Fourth Estate has long felt they should be the ultimate determiners of mans fate. Just look at the yellow journalism of old. I don't see much improvement from those dark ages. Do you?

Scientific theories are almost never proven, they are always open to new evidence.
It's through constant testing that they become more accepted - or rejected.

The fact is that AGW, presumably based on the preponderance of evidence, is accepted by the majority of the scientific community.

The fact is, AGW is accepted by the majority of climatologists the other natural sciences are not nearly as invested in it. I know of very few geologists, for instance, that credit the theory. We study paleo climate and realise that this is actually a pretty nice time in the history of the Earth and should enjoy it while we can. We also realise that for the planet to be really miserable cold is the trick. Whenever it has been warm it has been nice and bountiful

At some point a thinking person should relaise that when they keep trying to scare you over and over and over again they probably don't have much. The Boy who cried Wolf and all that.

An for all the BS about consensus, I just think back to poor old Alfred Wegener who was denigrated by teh natural sciences for having the temeruty to say that their consensus opinion on how teh world functioned was wrong.

He was a astronomer and meteorologist don't you know and how could HE possibly know anything about geology. Sound familiar? Only he was correct and plate tectonics has been the result of his work.

So much for consensus science.

I would have thought that climatologists would have been the group most likely to know (no disrespect to you and your learned colleagues).

Sometimes there really is a wolf.

I thought that Herr Wegener's theories were rejected mainly because he couldn't propose a mechanism for them - in fact, the theories that he did propose were wrong, his hypothesis was based on the observation (also observed by many others in the past) that everything seemed to fit together.
In any case, to be honest, if I were around then I most likely would have accepted the consensus expert scientific opinion while assuming that they would have examined all the evidence.

I must say that it surprises me how you dismiss the importance of agreement among experts.
Surely this provides the impetus to develop robust evidence when presenting a theory.

 

[Old Rocks]

Yes. Have you heard about the systemic corruption within the climatology peer review world? I suggest you look up the Steig et all fiasco for an example of the "pal" review process at work. Or how about that famous polar bear study that was peer reviewed by the mans wife? You talking about those peer reviewed studies?

That's the great thing about conspiracy theories in the age of the internet, you can find an example of any nefarious activity you care to look for.

You place no importance on concensus.
I consider myself a skeptic but when the preponderance of scientific opinion seems to agree I have to take notice - after all, they're the experts.

When the preponderance of scientific opinion is arrived at through corruption I think you have a problem. Don't you? As far as your conspiricy theory nonsense if you are truly interested in SCIENCE I suggest you look at what the CRU and the rest of the AGW supporters are doing, (please note, I call them supporters instead of some pejorative, unlike the opposing side).

More yap-yap without the slightest evidence cited.

 

[Old Rocks]

Scientific theories are almost never proven, they are always open to new evidence.
It's through constant testing that they become more accepted - or rejected.

The fact is that AGW, presumably based on the preponderance of evidence, is accepted by the majority of the scientific community.

The fact is, AGW is accepted by the majority of climatologists the other natural sciences are not nearly as invested in it. I know of very few geologists, for instance, that credit the theory. We study paleo climate and realise that this is actually a pretty nice time in the history of the Earth and should enjoy it while we can. We also realise that for the planet to be really miserable cold is the trick. Whenever it has been warm it has been nice and bountiful

At some point a thinking person should relaise that when they keep trying to scare you over and over and over again they probably don't have much. The Boy who cried Wolf and all that.

An for all the BS about consensus, I just think back to poor old Alfred Wegener who was denigrated by teh natural sciences for having the temeruty to say that their consensus opinion on how teh world functioned was wrong.

He was a astronomer and meteorologist don't you know and how could HE possibly know anything about geology. Sound familiar? Only he was correct and plate tectonics has been the result of his work.

So much for consensus science.

I would have thought that climatologists would have been the group most likely to know (no disrespect to you and your learned colleagues).

Sometimes there really is a wolf.

I thought that Herr Wegener's theories were rejected mainly because he couldn't propose a mechanism for them - in fact, the theories that he did propose were wrong, his hypothesis was based on the observation (also observed by many others in the past) that everything seemed to fit together.
In any case, to be honest, if I were around then I most likely would have accepted the consensus expert scientific opinion while assuming that they would have examined all the evidence.

Actually, Wegener's hypothesis was mentioned in the first beginning Geology text that I read in 1956. The peices fit remarkebly well together, phyisically, and the geology, also. However, how does one drive fragile continental material through dense basaltic crust?

The answer had to wait for the Vine and Mathew paper on the magnetic stripes at the Juan de Fuca rift zone. Then it was clear to everyone, and suddenly things like ophiolite assembliges took on a whole new meaning.

 

[Old Rocks]

Scientists theories are either proven correct or they are not. When scientists promulgate theories that are non-falsifiable there is a problem. And it is not a huge conspiricy, it is a small one. I figure there are maybe 25 of them running the show with a few dozen politicians helping them along as it gives them far more power over the public.

And the facts have been leaked, along with ample evidence to show the MSM is actively participating in the fraud. After all, the Fourth Estate has long felt they should be the ultimate determiners of mans fate. Just look at the yellow journalism of old. I don't see much improvement from those dark ages. Do you?

Scientific theories are almost never proven, they are always open to new evidence.
It's through constant testing that they become more accepted - or rejected.

The fact is that AGW, presumably based on the preponderance of evidence, is accepted by the majority of the scientific community.

The fact is, AGW is accepted by the majority of climatologists the other natural sciences are not nearly as invested in it. I know of very few geologists, for instance, that credit the theory. We study paleo climate and realise that this is actually a pretty nice time in the history of the Earth and should enjoy it while we can. We also realise that for the planet to be really miserable cold is the trick. Whenever it has been warm it has been nice and bountiful

At some point a thinking person should relaise that when they keep trying to scare you over and over and over again they probably don't have much. The Boy who cried Wolf and all that.

An for all the BS about consensus, I just think back to poor old Alfred Wegener who was denigrated by teh natural sciences for having the temeruty to say that their consensus opinion on how teh world functioned was wrong.

He was a astronomer and meteorologist don't you know and how could HE possibly know anything about geology. Sound familiar? Only he was correct and plate tectonics has been the result of his work.

So much for consensus science.

Crock of shit, Walleyes. Both the American Geophisical Union, and the Geological Society of America state that AGW is a fact, that it is a clear and present danger, and that we are already feeling effects.

The recent AGU Convention had many lectures on AGW, as well as many other subjects of interest to those interested in Geology. You can access and listen to the lectures here;

Sessions On Demand | AGU Fall Meeting 2011

 

[JimBowie1958]

You could go on for pages, and most of what you state is totally wrong.

Really?

So what part of the scientific process does consensus come in? Is that part of peer review?

Maybe they all should have taken a vote on Keplers theory, or Einsteins.

And I know for a FACT that the temperature stations are not well maintained and a good portion of them no longer meet minimum standards AND NASA USES THEM ANYWAY.

And about the Hockey Stick graph Mann invented by selectively combining two different data sets, one proxy data largely taken from tree rings, but only up to 1950 or so and then he switches to the use of official temperature records because the tring ring data for the same period SHOWS A CONTINUED REDUCTION IN TEMPERATURE, the infamous problem of 'hiding the decline' in tree ring data that is contrary to AGW theory.

Which part of what I just stated is wrong?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Why does the scientific consensus matter? Since when did the scientific method call for a vote?

Pardon?????
Have you never heard of peer review?

Lol, peer review is not about a vote, lolololol.

IT is about REVIEWING THE DATA and showing why it is valid or not or the theories that tie the facts together.

Truth is not subject to a vote, Good Lord.

 

[westwall]

Scientific theories are almost never proven, they are always open to new evidence.
It's through constant testing that they become more accepted - or rejected.

The fact is that AGW, presumably based on the preponderance of evidence, is accepted by the majority of the scientific community.

The fact is, AGW is accepted by the majority of climatologists the other natural sciences are not nearly as invested in it. I know of very few geologists, for instance, that credit the theory. We study paleo climate and realise that this is actually a pretty nice time in the history of the Earth and should enjoy it while we can. We also realise that for the planet to be really miserable cold is the trick. Whenever it has been warm it has been nice and bountiful

At some point a thinking person should relaise that when they keep trying to scare you over and over and over again they probably don't have much. The Boy who cried Wolf and all that.

An for all the BS about consensus, I just think back to poor old Alfred Wegener who was denigrated by teh natural sciences for having the temeruty to say that their consensus opinion on how teh world functioned was wrong.

He was a astronomer and meteorologist don't you know and how could HE possibly know anything about geology. Sound familiar? Only he was correct and plate tectonics has been the result of his work.

So much for consensus science.

I would have thought that climatologists would have been the group most likely to know (no disrespect to you and your learned colleagues).

Sometimes there really is a wolf.

I thought that Herr Wegener's theories were rejected mainly because he couldn't propose a mechanism for them - in fact, the theories that he did propose were wrong, his hypothesis was based on the observation (also observed by many others in the past) that everything seemed to fit together.
In any case, to be honest, if I were around then I most likely would have accepted the consensus expert scientific opinion while assuming that they would have examined all the evidence.

I must say that it surprises me how you dismiss the importance of agreement among experts.
Surely this provides the impetus to develop robust evidence when presenting a theory.

Wegener produced fossil evidence of the fit of the continents among other pieces of evidence. And you are correct Sir Francis Bacon was the first to make note of the fit between Africa and South America. I defer to the climatologists themselves who are asking some very hard questions of the hockey team. That can't be answered.

In the long run it isn't going to matter. The thieves will steal what they can till they get put up against the wall. May that be many years in the future.

 

[JimBowie1958]

That's the great thing about conspiracy theories in the age of the internet, you can find an example of any nefarious activity you care to look for.

And the Mafia is not a conspiracy? Enron was not a conspiracy? Maddoff neither?

You are niave.

Yes, most conspiracy theories are bullshit, but not all of them and in the case of AGW there is plenty of documentation available now to see that the leaders of the AGW movement are engaging in absolute nonsense.

You place no importance on concensus.
I consider myself a skeptic but when the preponderance of scientific opinion seems to agree I have to take notice - after all, they're the experts.

Yeah so were the astronomers during Keplers day and the physicists of Einsteins early period.

 

[westwall]

The fact is, AGW is accepted by the majority of climatologists the other natural sciences are not nearly as invested in it. I know of very few geologists, for instance, that credit the theory. We study paleo climate and realise that this is actually a pretty nice time in the history of the Earth and should enjoy it while we can. We also realise that for the planet to be really miserable cold is the trick. Whenever it has been warm it has been nice and bountiful

At some point a thinking person should relaise that when they keep trying to scare you over and over and over again they probably don't have much. The Boy who cried Wolf and all that.

An for all the BS about consensus, I just think back to poor old Alfred Wegener who was denigrated by teh natural sciences for having the temeruty to say that their consensus opinion on how teh world functioned was wrong.

He was a astronomer and meteorologist don't you know and how could HE possibly know anything about geology. Sound familiar? Only he was correct and plate tectonics has been the result of his work.

So much for consensus science.

I would have thought that climatologists would have been the group most likely to know (no disrespect to you and your learned colleagues).

Sometimes there really is a wolf.

I thought that Herr Wegener's theories were rejected mainly because he couldn't propose a mechanism for them - in fact, the theories that he did propose were wrong, his hypothesis was based on the observation (also observed by many others in the past) that everything seemed to fit together.
In any case, to be honest, if I were around then I most likely would have accepted the consensus expert scientific opinion while assuming that they would have examined all the evidence.

Actually, Wegener's hypothesis was mentioned in the first beginning Geology text that I read in 1956. The peices fit remarkebly well together, phyisically, and the geology, also. However, how does one drive fragile continental material through dense basaltic crust?

The answer had to wait for the Vine and Mathew paper on the magnetic stripes at the Juan de Fuca rift zone. Then it was clear to everyone, and suddenly things like ophiolite assembliges took on a whole new meaning.

Allways you forget the true grandfather of plate tectonic theory. Come on now, what's his name?

 

[westwall]

Scientific theories are almost never proven, they are always open to new evidence.
It's through constant testing that they become more accepted - or rejected.

The fact is that AGW, presumably based on the preponderance of evidence, is accepted by the majority of the scientific community.

The fact is, AGW is accepted by the majority of climatologists the other natural sciences are not nearly as invested in it. I know of very few geologists, for instance, that credit the theory. We study paleo climate and realise that this is actually a pretty nice time in the history of the Earth and should enjoy it while we can. We also realise that for the planet to be really miserable cold is the trick. Whenever it has been warm it has been nice and bountiful

At some point a thinking person should relaise that when they keep trying to scare you over and over and over again they probably don't have much. The Boy who cried Wolf and all that.

An for all the BS about consensus, I just think back to poor old Alfred Wegener who was denigrated by teh natural sciences for having the temeruty to say that their consensus opinion on how teh world functioned was wrong.

He was a astronomer and meteorologist don't you know and how could HE possibly know anything about geology. Sound familiar? Only he was correct and plate tectonics has been the result of his work.

So much for consensus science.

Crock of shit, Walleyes. Both the American Geophisical Union, and the Geological Society of America state that AGW is a fact, that it is a clear and present danger, and that we are already feeling effects.

The recent AGU Convention had many lectures on AGW, as well as many other subjects of interest to those interested in Geology. You can access and listen to the lectures here;

Sessions On Demand | AGU Fall Meeting 2011

Yeah? So? They would have called Wegener a "denier". What does that tell you?

 

[idb]

Why does the scientific consensus matter? Since when did the scientific method call for a vote?

Pardon?????
Have you never heard of peer review?

Lol, peer review is not about a vote, lolololol.

IT is about REVIEWING THE DATA and showing why it is valid or not or the theories that tie the facts together.

Truth is not subject to a vote, Good Lord.

Fair enough, although I never said it was.
Peer review subjects a matter to critique - an examination of the methods and the conclusions.
A consensus should emerge from the review.
Indeed, the consensus might be that the whole study was full of shit, or that it's inconclusive or....

Lolololol

 

[westwall]

Pardon?????
Have you never heard of peer review?

Lol, peer review is not about a vote, lolololol.

IT is about REVIEWING THE DATA and showing why it is valid or not or the theories that tie the facts together.

Truth is not subject to a vote, Good Lord.

Fair enough, although I never said it was.
Peer review subjects a matter to critique - an examination of the methods and the conclusions.
A consensus should emerge from the review.
Indeed, the consensus might be that the whole study was full of shit, or that it's inconclusive or....

Lolololol

Here's a article from Delingpole showing just how corrupted the peer review process has become. Read it only if you care about science. This is the tip of the iceberg....



"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!"

Phil Jones to Michael Mann, Climategate emails, July 8th 2004.

If you can't spot what's wrong with this email, don't worry you're in great company. Among the numerous luminaries who can't are environmental activist and filmmaker Rupert Murray, celebrity mathematician Simon Singh, celebrity Nobel Prizewinner Sir Paul Nurse and celebrity Guardian doctor Ben Goldacre to name but four. To each one of them I have tried on occasion to explain why the corruption of "peer-review" is the issue that matters above all else in the Climategate emails. But none of them, sadly, was bright enough to get it.

Sigh.

Let me have one more stab. Here's how I explain "Peer review" in my forthcoming book Watermelons:


Peer review is the benchmark by which most new scientific research tends to be judged. If that research is to be taken seriously by the scientific community then it must be accepted for publication by one of a fairly small number of academic or quasi-academic journals, such as Nature, Science and Scientific American.

Peer review is not a perfect system. In the golden era of Twentieth century science it wasn't even thought necessary: neither Watson & Crick nor Einstein were peer reviewed. But in today's abstruse, fragmented world where the various branches of science have grown increasingly recondite and specialised, peer-review has become widely accepted as the least worst method by which quality science can be sifted from junk science.

And nowhere more so than within the climate science community. In the run-up to Climategate, one of the main weapons used by those within "the consensus" against dissenting scientists was that their various papers picking holes in AGW theory had not been "peer-reviewed" and were therefore invalid. As Phil Jones himself puts it in one of his emails:

"The peer review system is the safeguard science has adopted to stop bad science being published."

I think that's pretty clear, don't you? Now let us revisit that Jones/Mann exchange in the light of this knowledge. What we see happening is the deterioration of "peer review" into something more akin to "pal review." The "peer review" process – at least in the debased field of "climate science" – has been corrupted. No longer can it be relied on as a guide to what is true or untrue, correct or incorrect, plausible or implausible. That's because the scientists who control the "peer review" process – as revealed by the Climategate emails – are a self-serving claque, with rather less concern for the pursuit of objective truth than for their own vested interests.

With me so far? Good. Now we can move on to an incredibly complicated story which is causing much excitement at Watts Up With That?, Climate Audit and Bishop Hill at the moment. Some are saying its as damning of the "Consensus" as Climategate. It involves two people you've probably never heard of – Eric Steig and Ryan O'Donnell.

Eric Steig is a member of Michael Mann's "Hockey Team" – the group of Warmist scientists who established a website called Real Climate, initially to rebut claims by McIntyre and McKitrick that Mann's Hockey Stick wasn't quite up to scratch, later to stick up for the Warmist cause generally.

In 2009 Steig et al published a paper considered so important that it made the cover of Nature. (H/T Barry Woods). The paper purported to counter one of the main arguments used by sceptics to dispute "global warming", viz "if global warming really is as catastrophic and universal as some claim, then how come Antarctica remains as stubbornly cold as it was 30 years ago?" Steig's paper showed that contrary to earlier claims, Antarctica was in fact warming too.

Or was it? Among the sceptics who suspected the reliability of Steig's paper were Jeff Id (of the late-lamented Air Vent site) and Ryan O'Donnell. They pointed out that the statistical methods used to show this alleged warming were based on highly dubious extrapolations of data taken from small number of stations on the Arctic peninsula and coastline. (Something similar happened recently, you'll remember, with NASA's dramatic "warming" that took place in the Arctic – all of it, funnily enough, in places where there were no thermometers to check the reliability of NASA's claims).

Steig suggested that rather than argue it out on the blogs O'Donnell, Id at el should publish a paper under peer review. So that's what they tried. And guess which person it was who was selected to review O'Donnell et al's paper. And guess which person it was – under the pseudonym Reviewer A – who tried to thwart the paper's progression to publication with 88 pages of comments and obfuscation ten times longer than the original paper.

Yep. You got it. The mystery peer reviewer was none other than Eric Steig. Even in the monstrously corrupt world of "climate science" this was clearly a breach of protocol. Certainly, in no other scientific discipline would a reviewer with such a clear conflict of interest be invited to review a paper whose main purpose was to criticise one he'd written himself.

Now let us allow Iapogus (the commenter at Bishop Hill from whom I filched this summary: I'm an interpreter of interpretations, me) to continue the story:


Ryan guessed that Reviewer A was Stieg early on, but still remained patient and good natured. At one point in the review process, Steig suggested that Ryan and Jeff should use an alternative statistical technique, which they then did. But then later, Steig then criticised the paper, citing the example of the same statistical technique as an issue (the one he had suggested). So Steig has laid himself open to charges of unprofessional conduct, duplicity. And that was when Ryan decided to bring all this out in the open. Meanwhile Gavin and the other members of the Team at the Real Climate (RC) blog have gone into overdrive in moderating any commenter who ask any reasonable questions about all of this. Basically this was the evidence that peer review at least in climate science is broken.

Now you could argue that I shouldn't be reporting on stories like this. It's one of those "How many polar bears can dance on the head of the pin?" discussions of nuances of meaning which may be of tremendous interest to the "climate science" community – both sceptics and warmists alike – but which has little traction in the outside world.

Up to a point, I'd agree with this. The AGW debate – as I repeatedly argue in this blog – is essentially a political one not a scientific one.

Unfortunately, there are still lots of people out there – the Simon Singhs, the Sir Paul Nurses, the Ben Goldacres, the Robin Inces, and their Guardianista Twitter Posses, for example – who think otherwise.

And it's important that these people are made to realise that not only are there no sensible political or economic arguments to support their cause, but passing few scientific ones either. If the science supporting AGW theory is really as rock solid as Warmists claim, why on earth would they need to resort to the kind of corruption and dirty tricks we first saw in Climategate and are now witnessing again in RealClimategate?

Give up, guys. The game's over."


RealClimategate hits the final nail in the coffin of 'peer review' | Climate Depot

 

[idb]

That's the great thing about conspiracy theories in the age of the internet, you can find an example of any nefarious activity you care to look for.

And the Mafia is not a conspiracy? Enron was not a conspiracy? Maddoff neither?

You are niave.

Yes, most conspiracy theories are bullshit, but not all of them and in the case of AGW there is plenty of documentation available now to see that the leaders of the AGW movement are engaging in absolute nonsense.

You place no importance on concensus.
I consider myself a skeptic but when the preponderance of scientific opinion seems to agree I have to take notice - after all, they're the experts.

Yeah so were the astronomers during Keplers day and the physicists of Einsteins early period.

True, but again, how am I to judge?
I have no expertise in the field.
What's the point of having experts?

At the moment, the consensus is that AGW is real.
Science might, in time, prove them wrong.
What do we do in the meantime, hope for the best or plan for the worst?

Are you suggesting that the Mafia, Enron and Madoff are responsible for global warming?
Your point is lost on me.

 

[westwall]

That's the great thing about conspiracy theories in the age of the internet, you can find an example of any nefarious activity you care to look for.

And the Mafia is not a conspiracy? Enron was not a conspiracy? Maddoff neither?

You are niave.

Yes, most conspiracy theories are bullshit, but not all of them and in the case of AGW there is plenty of documentation available now to see that the leaders of the AGW movement are engaging in absolute nonsense.

You place no importance on concensus.
I consider myself a skeptic but when the preponderance of scientific opinion seems to agree I have to take notice - after all, they're the experts.

Yeah so were the astronomers during Keplers day and the physicists of Einsteins early period.

True, but again, how am I to judge?
I have no expertise in the field.
What's the point of having experts?

At the moment, the consensus is that AGW is real.
Science might, in time, prove them wrong.
What do we do in the meantime, hope for the best or plan for the worst?

Are you suggesting that the Mafia, Enron and Madoff are responsible for global warming?
Your point is lost on me.

Yes, only priests can tell you what God is thinking. Everyone knows that!

How pathetic. Educate yourself and THINK for yourself. That's why you have a brain.