23 Replies to “Y2Kyoto: We Don’t Need No Stinking Peer Review”

  1. If they can’t find real science to back up their propoganda… maybe it’s because the propaganda isn’t backed up by science!
    I have to give up my good light bulbs for this???

  2. How is this a change given the use of non-peer reviewed information in previous iterations? Even when you look at the peer reviewed stuff, the process was so prejudiced that the fact it was “peer reviewed” was a joke.

  3. It seems a bit curious that only pro-AGW non peer reviewed papers were accepted from the gold standard of climate science, the IPCC. Meanwhile, the excuse for dismissing opposing science was because they were not peer-reviewed.
    This new directive must mean that all the research done by skeptics will now be objectively considered for the next IPCC report. Ha, Ha, Ha…more likely, just a few token skeptical papers will be accepted after being thoroughly criticized and heavily altered.

  6. When the science runs out, make it up. It’s easier to just take the grant money.

  8. Seems he has now changed song sheets to sing from, which means he was lying like a skanky progressive ego-grifting warmonger before.
    Listen up Dr. Fruit Fly . . your time driving the ponzi scheme bus are numbered.
    This whole scam is toast . . . when the Euros and Americans are surveying the smoking ruins of their economies, nuked by the greenie progressives, they’ll be hard pressed to focus on green politics when they are out of green cash.

  9. Sounds like the CBC to me!
    Posted by: capt_bob
    What, you mean no sensitive government papers just mysteriously show up at CBC offices when the LPC was in power (Environment Canada database, 2008).
    or
    CBC reporters didn’t mangle the message via creative editing to make a LPC PM appear to be unconcerned about civilian deaths in the Middle East (Lawand, 2006)
    Yep, progressives are as predictable at the UN as they are at the CBC.

  10. Dr. Pachauri (Phd-railroad design), UN-IPCC mover and shaker, seems to have an affinity for the “research” available from the WWF, one of the world’s wealthiest pressure groups. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

  11. You know this is not the first or thirty first time I’ve said that the Un is as filthy as a lepers loin cloth..
    Hey, maybe the laid off Ceeb workers could get jobs there, when it moves its headquarters to Iran.

  12. I wonder whether any one will be able to connect all the green dots. FOX is trying. It is frightening how many highly influential, and now very wealthy, people worldwide have a vested interest in advancing climate fraud.

  13. We have to keep the incandescent kitchen light shining on these cockroaches.
    They are starting to press the urgency imperative again because they’ve been exposed on the peer review process.
    They can win.
    If we let them.
    Climategate was great but it was just a step.
    They are regrouping.
    Seems to me the only thing we have on our side is the Greek contagion.
    People care less about the environment when they worry about paying the mortgage or feeding their kids.

  14. Harper deserves credit for his distancing himself from the CO2 scam, and he badly needs as many emails and letters of support to go farther. All politicians care most about their own neck so if enough anti AGW messages get to him (and not the green shrill enviroment minister) he will react.

  15. Magazine articles from interest groups is as peer reviewed as comic books and as believable.

  16. Any debate regarding disbanding the IPCC and excluding R.K. Pachauri from any further involvement in the UN, at any level, is long past due.

  17. Harper deserves credit for his distancing himself from the CO2 scam, and he badly needs as many emails and letters of support to go farther. All politicians care most about their own neck so if enough anti AGW messages get to him (and not the green shrill enviroment minister) he will react.

  18. further to “dance”, Cockroaches exist in human form. Like they say, after a nuclear blast the only things surviving are cockroaches in guise of pomo enviros.

  19. IPCC is named after ipecac, the old school emetic – you know, makes you barf.

  20. Can anyone explain the last line that ends with this “but had to be closely examined to make sure it was robust.” Is the guy still thinking of his fleshy novels?

  21. chris Edwards @ 9:31, I have done that…twice in the last six months. Unless I missed it, the distancing that is, it appears that plans for a cap and trade or carbon trading scheme appear to be still going ahead. Maybe it is time to dump Prentice also or at least have him wash his mouth with soap until he stops mouthing the Al Gore, David Suzuki baloney.
    Still can’t get over the photo shopped polar bear thread.

  22. But as we have seen in the past, “peer-review” in climate science has been fraudulent and was more of a gate-keeper process than anything to do with science.

  23. “Giving it back to Ban Ki-moon
    Rex Murphy, National Post
    His Eminence, Ban Ki-moon, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, seems like a nice guy. This week, he was in Ottawa, and apparently chastised the Canadian government, more particularly Stephen Harper, for Canada’s shameless failure to meet its carbon-reduction obligations under the Kyoto protocol.
    Then again, this is what we expect Mr. Ban to do. He is, after all, the highest functionary of the world’s most useless transnational organization, and sermonizing is mainly what its Secretary-General does. But I surely hope–within the bounds of diplomatic courtesy, of course– that Mr. Harper paid no attention to him. Or rather, since an air of candour seems to have prevailed at their tete-a-tete, Mr. Harper, as it were, returned serve.
    For example, did Mr. Harper press him on the matter of Climategate and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)? Did he call to the Secretary-General’s attention the serial distortions, errors, non-peer-reviewed citations, the wholesale liftings from WWF and Greenpeace propaganda that made their way into the most recent IPCC report?
    Little matters such as false claims on the melting of the Himalayan glaciers?
    Did he bring up the serial mischiefs of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, as revealed by their leaked emails? The CRU is the very Nicene Council of the Church of Global Warming, where the high priests of dendrology meld graphs with the cardinals of atmospheric physics. What a knotty tale their intramural communications revealed — of jealousy that “their” science was being confuted and challenged by annoying outsiders; and, most of all, of attempts to keep the Holy of Holies — the process of peer review–within the closed circuit of their colleagues and admirers.
    Did he take Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to task for the bristling ardency — so alien to any genuine scientific project — that now pervades the “global warming community”? Or, for the spiteful defiance of Dr. R.K. Pachauri, the UN’s IPCC chairman, toward those who reported errors in his venerated report, or to the hints of potential conflicts of interest between Mr. Pachauri’s business enterprises and his position as the voice of the “international community” on the “greatest moral issue of our time”?
    For if Mr. Ban chastised Stephen Harper for Canada’s failings on Kyoto, it is but cricket for Mr. Harper to chastise Ban Ki-moon for the sloppiness, evasion and propagandistic aggressiveness of his functionaries on their most beloved file.
    Did the conversation ever get round, I wonder, to our Prime Minister telling the UN’s Secretary-General that perhaps, since Kyoto, confidence in the UN’s version of the science, and in the ferocious, nay apocalyptic, projections from that science, has considerably declined? I would surely hope so.
    For Canada signed Kyoto in a more innocent day, when few, or none, had either occasion or evidence to question the impartiality of those who were pushing a carbon Doomsday on the rest of us. Since that innocent day, much has changed. Advocacy has seduced science, and the loud voices of all-too-interested parties are crying up cap-and-trade schemes and “reparations” to developing countries from “climate criminals.” Western governments are being harried to vest vast sums into “alternate technologies” of little proven efficacy but of prodigiously proven cost. The West is being asked to handcuff its own growth and development, in the midst of a global recession, all under the banner of global warming.” (more)
    http://www.nationalpost.com/todays-paper/story.html?id=3030855
    http://www.bluelikeyou.com/2010/05/13/ill-co-sign-that/#comment-81709

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation