Jolly Hockey Sticks

[BlasterBates]

Of course there is peer reviewed research and err

a redefinition of it:

I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep
them
out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !
Cheers
Phil

[DodgyAgent]

Every man and his dog has an opinion.
And the reason why people use the scientific method is precisely to separate valid opinions from crap ones like yours.
Why do you think the West became rich in the first place?
Because it replaced superstitions and opinions with empiricism and science.
And now we're going backwards again.

Stick to pimping, you may be Ok at that.

I am crap at pimping but good at science. I have concluded :

1. there are several conflicting views about the causes of climate change,
2. that the climate is always changing and has always done so,
3. that climate change may or may not be desirable
4. that man may or may not be the cause of climate change.
5. That man can do anything about climate change even if he wants to.

I am afraid to me there is no clear scientific evidence to support anything.

So I make my conclusions based upon the people behind the various arguments.

The fact that you are a nasty "small man syndrome" loser leads me to believe that there is no problem whatsoever with burning anything, particularly prats like you.

[sasguru]

I am crap at pimping but good at science. I have concluded :

1. there are several conflicting views about the causes of climate change,
2. that the climate is always changing and has always done so,
3. that climate change may or may not be desirable
4. that man may or may not be the cause of climate change.
5. That man can do anything about climate change even if he wants to.

I am afraid to me there is no clear scientific evidence to support anything.

So I make my conclusions based upon the people behind the various arguments.

The fact that you are a nasty "small man syndrome" loser leads me to believe that there is no problem whatsoever with burning anything, particularly prats like you.

Shut it Dodgy, you're not bright enough.

PS I'm 5'11'' which is not terribly tall I grant you, but hardly small

[DodgyAgent]

Shut it Dodgy, you're not bright enough.

PS I'm 5'11'' which is not terribly tall I grant you, but hardly small

What happens if you kick the box away?

[Clippy]

What happens if you kick the box away?

Depends if it is an eco friendly box.

[Churchill]

What happens if you kick the box away?

With or without the rope around his scrawny little neck?

[shaunbhoy]

What happens if you kick the box away?

The air in his head affords him a gentle fall back to reality.

HTH

[pjclarke]

I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !

Hyperbole in a private mail is all that is - if he had said 'over my dead body' would you have taken that as a serious suicide threat?

Nobody gets to redefine peer-review - and for the record, both the papers being referred to were not actually kept out - they were cited and discussed in next IPCC report.

Also for the record, neither has stood the test of time (which is the second part of peer-review, expert scrutiny after publication).

[shaunbhoy]

An 'independent' review that was commissioned BY the University of East Anglia and headed by Lord Oxburgh who is the chairman of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association and the wind energy company Falck Renewables.

It totals a measly 5 pages, and no skeptic was ever spoken to (Steve McIntyre for instance). Is it really a wonder they found no wrongdoing? Or was it because they truly weren't searching.

Utter whitewash!!

And it seems they have been using inferior statisticians to collate results. Hey sasguru, looks like the game might be up for you with that juicy IPCC contract. Back to the Northern Rock Profit forecasting quango methinks!

[BlasterBates]

On peer review:

http://climateaudit.org/2010/04/11/overpecks-hammer/

Sounds like they did redefine very successfully what peer review is all about.

Just ignore what the reviewer said.

And while we're at it, lets reexamine that "harmless" hide the decline and the parliamentary enquiry.

http://www.thegwpf.org/opinion-pros-...the-trick.html

Mcintyre has interesting take on it, that sounds like a white wash to me.

What did Prof Hand say about McKintyre?

Hand said he was “impressed” by McIntyre’s statistical work.

So perhaps we shouldn't dismiss McKintyre.