Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Recent Comments
John on The Price Of Telling The Truth… Don Gaddes on Seven Year Drought Killed 40%… Bill Sokeland on NSIDC : Arctic Was Ice Free In… Notes To Ponder on 45 Years Since Paul Ehrlich Wa… gator69 on A Proof That Greenhouse Gas Dr… gator69 on Toto Has Moved! Menicholas on Toto Has Moved! Sir Charles on A Proof That Greenhouse Gas Dr… Sir Charles on A Proof That Greenhouse Gas Dr… Ed Darrell on Phil Jones Removing The 1940…
Another Week, Another Hockey Stick Fraud
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
Any self-respecting scientist would say neither reconstruction looks physically reasonable, with those out-of-control swings on the right end.
Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings.
Marcott-Shakun report was proof read, and then subject to “peer-review”.
Given what had happened with Mann et al. and that whole mess, someone in this paper’s “peer-review” process should have realized that all the figures required checking.
Surely now it is so obvious that the “peer-review” process is broken, and to any reasonable person the process is beyond repair. The whole process needs to be stripped away and a fully open system, with check and balances installed. Until then all parties involve in this paper’s “peer-review” process should be held to account pending dismissal.
After-all on the basis of reports such as this on $Billion will be foolishly wasted.
What system could replace peer-review? Non peer-review? No review? Seems to me that as this is a recent paper, we give it time to steep. If there are true errors, then they will be exposed and will then be used to improve upon the study.
Knee-jerk reactions like stating that we should do away with peer-review are not helpful.
It took me about 10 seconds looking at that graph to realize that it was fatally flawed.
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/03/08/smoking-gun-that-the-new-hockey-stick-is-junk-science/
Why can’t paid experts do their job?
My suggestion would be fund less science overall by focusing on less but better quality science. That means: having a more formal peer review system in place and also paying peer reviewers for their trouble.
Obviously the current system is beyond redemption, it is corrupted beyond fixing. This sort of mendacity called a scientific paper by Marcott-Shakun et al. proves it. Get rid of this stinking so called peer-review system IT DOES NOT WORK and taints every good honest scientist.
Replace it with a more open – dare I say it a more challenging review process – a review where those in the field and out side the field are allowed to question. Where the reviewer’s reputation and income is affected by their actions.
What the so-called scientists cause worldwide –
Peer-review obviously does work. it is an important part of a system that has created world travel for the masses, increased our lifespan and taken the effort out of work plus too many other things to count.
You are just grousing because you take issue with some of the studies (rightly or wrongly). That does not mean the system is broken, it simply needs constant maintenance.
Rather than throw stones, you should pick up a wrench.
Climate science is corrupt. The peer review process for climate science is completely broken. These people have never helped anyone.