It’s coincidence that Public Relations (PR) and Peer Review (PR) have the same initials, but apparently there’s a connection in Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Climatic Research Unit (CRU) science.
Tagged: peer review
The bulwark claim of the anthropogenic global warm (AGW) hypothesis and the objective of the stick are that current global annual average temperatures are the warmest ever. This meant the upturn of the blade in the 20th century was only relevant if it was higher and steeper than any previous record.
A small group of scientists – mostly associated with the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia – have consciously withheld data and methods to place global progress, development, economies and peoples lives in jeopardy. Lord Monckton calls it a global fraud. It is that, but much more – and raises the question of accountability.
Break your stick in ice hockey and drop it immediately, or a penalty is assessed because continued use can cause serious damage (Rule 10.3). Apparently this rule doesn't apply in climate science, where a few scientists continue to use a broken "hockey stick" and cause serious damage.
Meant to ensure the integrity and objectivity of scientific studies, the peer review process has been repeatedly perverted by academic and business interests to prevent information that would disrupt existing paradigms from reaching public attention. While the public is aware that peer review exists, its potential for abuse (illustrated by the ClimateGate scandal) is rarely discussed openly or candidly. Dr. Tim Ball and author Gavin Menzies join <a href="http://itsrainmakingtime.com" target="_blank"><em>It's Rainmaking Time!™</em></a> host Kim Greenhouse to discuss the problems of peer review in detail.