Sunday, 4 September 2011
|The Dawn of AGW? Not yet.|
When trying to suppress Lord Monckton she said that Lord Monckton stands for the kind of ignorance that universities have a duty to counter." I challenge Ms Latter to debate Lord Monckton and we would find where the true ignorance lies.
TCS blog then asked Ms Latter: "if the "science is settled" and there is consensus, why more money is being granted for "Climate research." Ms Latter continues this contradiction in this latest diatribe. "...we have spent so much time now debating the science, there is a false impression that we just need to gather more information and then we will know what to do about climate change." If there is no need to gather further information, we should immediately do away with scientific grants for "Climate change research" and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change should be discontinued.
In her latest blast on her "Conversation" she says: "Distorted media coverage is a serious problem..." and "Accurate reporting is an ethical responsibility, particularly when the stakes are so high."
Why then does she not follow her own advice?
Just to challenge one of her statements as to inaccuracy.
Climate change “sceptics” have repeatedly shown their inability to challenge climate science in the peer-reviewed literature because their claims do not have scientific merit.
The first inaccuracy is the first three words. Climate change “sceptics." If she would care to ask any of the scientists that she labels Climate change “sceptics” she would find that not a single scientist was sceptical about climate change. Climate has changed since the beginning of time, a scientific "fact."
So, to correct this part of her sentence:
She means Scientists sceptical of the falsified hypothesis of anthropogenic CO2 emissions causing runaway Global Warming (AGW).
AGW sceptics have repeatedly shown their inability to challenge climate science in the peer-reviewed literature because their claims do not have scientific merit.Looking at Peer-review then. Richard Horton, editor of the British medical journal The Lancet, has said that
"The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability — not the validity — of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong."Peer review: A quasi-sacred process, biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong.
The ClimateGate CRU tried to control the peer review process by seeking the employment termination of peer review journal editors who published sceptical scientists papers. (That's right! Sceptical Scientists peer-reviewed papers. Ms Latter incorrectly intimated there are none. There are more than 900.)
Post ClimateGate we learn that the MPs in Britain want true peer review not Pal Review.
The House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee has called for greater integrity and data disclosure in peer-reviewed literature. It recommends that all UK research institutions should have "a specific member of staff leading on research integrity".Accurate reporting IS a responsibility, Ms Latter.
The inquiry into peer review came after the release of the Climategate files, which revealed academics at the University of East Anglia selectively disclosing data needed to replicate their results, hiding from Freedom of Information Act requests, recommending destruction of email trails, and vowing to "redefine" the peer-review process to keep papers they disagreed with out of the publication system.