“In supporting documents, the authors admit that the data used was of very low quality. This study is really an exercise in selective data and manipulated methodologies used to reach conclusions that deliberately contradict mainstream science,” Jones said.
Howarth, however, defended his work as meeting strict academic and scientific standards. “It’s being published in a highly respected journal and has been rigorously peer-reviewed,” a report from Reuters quoted Howarth as saying. “This is not advocacy. This is science.”
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- 100% Wind By 2030
- It Is A Nice Idea, But ….
- Climate Grifting Shutting Down
- Fundamental Pillars Of Democracy
- An Inconvenient Truth
- Antarctic Meltdown Update
- “Trump eyes major cuts to NOAA research”
- Data Made Simple II – Sneak Preview
- Attacks On Democracy
- Scientists Warn
- Upping The Ante
- Our New Leadership
- Grok Defines Fake News
- Arctic Meltdown Update
- The Savior Of Humanity
- President Trump Explains The Stock Market
- Net Zero In Europe
- The Canadian Hockey Stick
- Dogs Cause Hurricanes, Tornadoes And Droughts
- 50 Years Of Climate Devastation
- Climate Cycles
- Hiding The Decline
- Careful Research At BBC News
- New Video : Man Made Climate Emergency
- Geoengineering To Save The Planet
Recent Comments
- arn on 100% Wind By 2030
- gordon vigurs on 100% Wind By 2030
- arn on It Is A Nice Idea, But ….
- arn on It Is A Nice Idea, But ….
- dm on 100% Wind By 2030
- conrad ziefle on 100% Wind By 2030
- conrad ziefle on It Is A Nice Idea, But ….
- conrad ziefle on It Is A Nice Idea, But ….
- conrad ziefle on It Is A Nice Idea, But ….
- Jehzsa on It Is A Nice Idea, But ….
Nothing to see here, the Lead author of the CARB Diesel Study got his degree out of a Cracker Jacks box and it’s great research.
http://articles.ocregister.com/2009-12-03/opinion/24655247_1_carb-diesel-soot The scientist with a real degree that dimed him out gets fired from UCLA http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/08/31/pc-professors-firing-fueling-exhaustive-debate/.
It’s par for the Climate Warming course.
This was a break in the usual peer reviewed love fest among climate scientists. Some one must have injected truth serum!
I thought at first Phil Jones was giving us an honest opinion of his own work.
What is the point of this post? There is nothing about peer-review in the actual article.
Err, what’s this then?…… “Howarth, however, defended his work as meeting strict academic and scientific standards. “It’s being published in a highly respected journal and has been rigorously peer-reviewed,” a report from Reuters quoted Howarth as saying.”
I think Howarth’s comment might give you a slight clue.
Howarth, however, defended his work as meeting strict academic and scientific standards. “It’s being published in a highly respected journal and has been rigorously peer-reviewed,”
lol, I need to remember to refresh before posting…..
lol, Steve, the story is even more in showing that peer-review is entirely crap!!!!
Ingraffea:(One of the authors of the study) “We do not intend for you to accept what we have reported on today as the definitive scientific study in respect to this question, clearly it is not……”
Ingraffea: “I hope you don’t gather from this presentation that we think we’re right.”
Howarth:(the other author) “A lot of the data we used are really low quality, but…”
There’s a lot more golly gee-whiz stuff to dissect, but if this doesn’t show everybody what the peer-review process is, nothing will.
lmao!!!! And it got published.
http://www.energyindepth.org/2011/04/five-things-to-know-about-the-cornell-shale-study/
Here’s the video of their quotes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHg6Ueb2t-E&feature=player_embedded
hahaahahahahaha!!!!