“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
- “even within the lifetime of our children”
- 60 Years Of Progress in London
- The Anti-Greta
- “a persistent concern”
- Deadliest US Tornado Days
- The Other Side Of The Pond
- “HEMI V8 Roars Back”
- Big Pharma Sales Tool
- Your Tax Dollars At Work
- 622 billion tons of new ice
- Fossil Fuels To Turn The UK Tropical
- 100% Tariffs On Chinese EV’s
- Fossil Fuels Cause Fungus
- Prophets Of Doom
- The Green New Deal Lives On
- Mission Accomplished!
- 45 Years Ago Today
- Solution To Denver Homelessness
- Crime In Colorado
- Everything Looks Like A Nail
- The End Of NetZero
- UK Officially Sucks
- Crime In Washington DC
- Apparently People Like Warm Weather
- 100% Wind By 2030
Recent Comments
- Francis Barnett on 60 Years Of Progress in London
- dearieme on “even within the lifetime of our children”
- John Francis on The Anti-Greta
- John Francis on The Anti-Greta
- conrad ziefle on 60 Years Of Progress in London
- arn on 60 Years Of Progress in London
- Luigi on 60 Years Of Progress in London
- arn on 60 Years Of Progress in London
- arn on 60 Years Of Progress in London
- Bob G on The Anti-Greta
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!!!!