3 ms·
Taking this error, in which the peer-review process was circumvented, together with last year's revelations of Hadley scientists discussing the wholesale subver
by CWuestefeld 17y ago
Taking this error, in which the peer-review process was circumvented, together with last year's revelations of Hadley scientists discussing the wholesale subversion of peer review, is very troubling.
I'm not sure how to express this to show disgust with the putative "scientists" while only casting skepticism on their work (rather than outright rejection). But it would seem that they are so caught up in their agenda that they believe that the end justifies the means, and are willing to compromise their work and mislead the rest of the world in order to realize their goals.
But I have to note that impeaching the source doesn't necessarily invalidate the conclusions. Still, it means that we must subject their claims to increasing levels of scrutiny.
- chrisb 17y agoNote that this claim was not in the "Summary for Policy Makers" nor the "Overall Synthesis Report", which is what the vast majority of people read (myself included, I haven't even tried to read the entire report). Therefore very few people will ever have seen the claim until now. I'm not trying to excuse the mistake, but its consequences may have been overstated.
- waterlesscloud 17y agoThat's simply not the case. The claim got widespread media coverage.
- lutorm 17y agoI think his point is that it was not significant to the bottom-line conclusions of the report.