Alarmist Author Verifies That Climate Peer-Review Is Complete Crap

“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.”

http://www.ibtimes.com/

About Tony Heller

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Alarmist Author Verifies That Climate Peer-Review Is Complete Crap

  1. DERise says:

    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.

  2. Andy Weiss says:

    This was a break in the usual peer reviewed love fest among climate scientists. Some one must have injected truth serum!

  3. Paul H says:

    I thought at first Phil Jones was giving us an honest opinion of his own work.

  4. John Haythorn says:

    What is the point of this post? There is nothing about peer-review in the actual article.

    • suyts says:

      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.”

  5. Paul H says:

    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,”

  6. suyts says:

    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/

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *