Peer review? What is this mythical thing you talk about?

From the mouth of none other than Climate Change high priest Phil Jones, who really seems to have turned rat on the rest, we have now found out that many of his based on fiction “scientific” papers that were submitted to allegedly peer reviewed publication were actually never peer reviewed as they never even asked for the dodgy data that the articles were based upon.

Previously sympathetic MPs were beginning to be more hostile. One asked why it was so unusual for somebody to replicate Jones’ work from scratch. Jones said that during the peer review process, nobody had ever asked for raw data or methodology.

Day by day Phil Jones is slitting the wrists and cutting the throats of the whole Climate Change industry, and I don’t even use quote marks around industry anymore because that is what it is, it sure as hell isn’t science as it should be.

Phil Jones is also drowning any chance of of a recovery from ClimateGate, because almost every allegation about ClimateGate is being confirmed by him:

  • Destruction of Data;

?The simplest approach where the requirements generate a defensive attitude? is proactive disclosure in the first place. Where there is no good reason, why not disclose it and avoid the hassle??

Stewart again interrupted his answer. Thomas stood firm: ?I do not think hassle justifies the deliberate destruction of information.?

  • Manipulation of Data;

The ?hide the decline? statement, where the team had replaced wayward proxy temperature data with instrumented data, was immaterial

  • Refusal to comply with British law regarding disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act;

Jones initially stated that the methods were published in the scientific papers, ?there?s no rocket science in them?. He can?t have thanked his boss Acton for butting in to say that CRU was ?not a national archive? and had no obligation to preserve the raw temperature data.

and;

In the University?s written submission, Acton complained about bothersome sceptics making the work of his scientists more difficult ? and wanted the leaker found. (And presumably strung up.)

and;

The Information Commissioner for seven years until last summer ,Richard Thomas, was invited to put the FOIA requests in context. Several Jones emails show him vowing to ?hide behind? UK FOIA law, briefing University staff to refuse requests to sceptics, and asking colleagues to destroy email.

The University, in another PR blunder, had objected to a statement from the current IC office that the Climategate emails showed prima facie evidence of criminal activity. They hadn?t been found guilty, they complained. That?s because the IC couldn?t investigate, Thomas pointed out, and again renewed his call for the six month time limit on complaints to be closed.

  • Deliberate delaying of information seekers;

Stringer said scientists make their reputations by proving or disproving what other scientists have done. He forced Jones to admit that contrary to his initial statement, the code wasn?t available for independent scientists to test the work. So how can science progress, Stringer wondered.

Jones admitted he had ?obviously written some very awful emails?. Stringer said science ?shouldn?t have to rely on an individual request for other scientists to get the data?.

  • Deliberate hiding of source data;

?Why can?t independent people check your scientific papers?? asked Stringer.

?It isn?t traditionally done,? replied Jones. Stringer continued, quoting Jones’ email to Warwick Hughes, famous before Climategate broke, refusing to give data. Jones had said, “Why should I make the data available when your aim is to find something wrong with it?”

  • Collusion across countries by fellow travellers;
  • and now almost zero peer-review except that which was done by fellow travelers

Stringer said scientists make their reputations by proving or disproving what other scientists have done. He forced Jones to admit that contrary to his initial statement, the code wasn?t available for independent scientists to test the work. So how can science progress, Stringer wondered.

Jones admitted he had ?obviously written some very awful emails?. Stringer said science ?shouldn?t have to rely on an individual request for other scientists to get the data?.

Basically the leaking of the ClimateGate emails has revealed a vast conspiracy to commit fraud against the peoples of the Earth they were pretending needed saving.

Indictments will begin soon, I’d lay money on it.

Tagged:
40%
×