- Reaction score
They rely on Mann's data. They are not independent.couchcommander said:What part of that quote says anything about what I said? Exactly what part is wrong?
No, the logic is that the "peer" reviewers are his co-authors, and therefore are not independent (by definition).Not to mention the logic is a wee bit funny... Mann has co-authored 43 papers, thus there is no indepedant review.
How about a more appropriate metaphor: ask a Habs fan for a critical review of the Habs official website's prediction for how well they will do this season ...How about Bunnies are pretty, thus the world is going to explode?
This is exactly what they are doing, but it satisifies the political agenda, so no-one seems to care about their veracity.Geeze, if a climatologist did that it wouldn't even get past the universities own internal review system!
Why are you talking about "bloggers or angry conservatives"? Actually, both Eugenics and Ether were the product of "scientific consensus": which is (almost) exactly where we stand WRT climate change. The process I am trashing is using spurious methodology and misrepresented findings to 'prove' something that is already assumed to be true: this was exactly the problem with Eugenics and Ether and is now with Global Warming. And moreover, for the record, Eugenics has not been scientifically disproven; it has fallen out of disfavour (I'm not advocating it, just pointing-out your apparent confusion about what "scientific" means).And by the by, it wasn't bloggers or angry consevatives that debunked "Eugenics" or the "Ether", it was this same process you're trashing.