Peer Review – ROFLMAO

Americans are paying a lot of money for “scientific” research – except it is not peer-reviewed science, so therefor it is not good science. It is bad science. Still we pay.

The same “scientific” research is being milked by government to charge Americans for carbon dioxide (and other) abatement, while there is no measureable global warming.

The “Peer Review” process has been severely and blatantly abrogated – ONLY SCIENTISTS WHO AGREE (warmists) PERFORM THE “Review,” we now learn. And then, it is a thin review.

This fact could not be more obvious; raw data or algorithms are not released and mysteriously disappear, without a word or a peep of concern expressed by the correcting “scientists,” whose work is “peer reviewed” they lie.

This is not science we are paying for – it is fraud, and criminal fraud at that; since freedom of information act violations are prevalant, at least.

Hadley CRU, NASA GISS, New Zealand NIWA – we have a world-wide pandemic of bad, un-reviewed science. It’s not that there is no longer debate of the “science;” instead science has been made impossible by widespread abrogation of the key component, peer review. Debate has been utterly squelched.

Example of Climate Work That Needs to be Checked and Replicated

Danger - data is unscientific

Reverse Engineered Data - all the algorithms and raw data are not available.

The GISS data set, created by the Goddard Center of NASA, takes the USHCN data set and somehow uses nearby stations to correct for anomalous stations. I say somehow, because, incredibly, these government scientists, whose research is funded by taxpayers and is being used to make major policy decisions, refuse to release their algorithms or methodology details publicly. They keep it all secret! Their adjustments are a big black box that none of us are allowed to look into (and remember, these adjustments account for the vast majority of reported warming in the last century).


3 Responses

  1. OOPS – correction

    H/T should have been to Smokey (14:05:54) : (same link)

  2. Great point; yonason, I think the “progressive” side as always relies foolishly on circular reasoning.

    Hadn’t seen the graphic, thank you.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: