>> "Except we know that the hockey team and others conspired to commit fraud"
Yeah, we do. Maybe some of YOU don't.
Here, we have Michael Mann "suggesting" that maybe Climate Research, a journal that it just happens was willing to print material that wasn't supportive of Mann, AND actually ran a good peer review process (versus Nature and Science):
Mann: March 11, 2003 - "I think we have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board . . ."
Later, Mann goes after Geophysical Research Letters, which also had dared to print questioning material:
Mann: April 23, 2003 - "While it was easy to make sure that the worst papers . . . didn't see the light of day at Journal of Climate, it was inevitable that such papers might slip through the cracks at GRL.
You could not have a more blatant statement that procedures were not be followed.
The dangerous part of all this is that it eliminates real science in favor of conjecture. Where the Scientific Method requires that we establish a hypothesis then set about to disprove it, we have people who have established a hypothesis and have set about to show they are right.
So, they create models that leave out data sets that should correlate if the hypothesis were true, but whose inclusion screws up the outcome. They bend and adjust and manipulate models in ways that are not statistically sound to get desired results. It is really pathetic.
And it has left you with nothing, people are starting to comprehend it is a steaming pile of bullshit, and it is over. All we have to do is to figure out how to get the money stopped. |
