Rather than reading for data that discredits particular erroneous results, a task that Steve and his crew can do much better than I can, I study the papers to reveal evil and madness, to reveal the cause of error, rather than specific particular errors.
The Anthropogenic Global Warmers know in advance the results of peer review that is not yet done. They also know in advance what the decisions of the environmental protection agency will be:
I suppose that a more formal response by the relevant scientists is likely eventually to become part of the EPA docket as part of their rejection of the CEI petition. But that will drag on
Like psychotic, they mistake their own voices for the external validation of their ideas that it purports to be. Simultaneously, however, they know that such peer review is not legitimate:
Michael E. Mann:
The Soon & Baliunas paper couldn’t have cleared a ‘legitimate’ peer review process anywhere.
Which quote marks suggest a conscious awareness that any peer review that they control is illegitimate, and therefore that peer review at Climate Research is legitimate and at the time of this email, 2003 March, was the only journal with legitimate peer review. They circulate a copy of Freitas’ defense of the Climate Research Peer Review process, and only discuss only how to destroy the journal, its editors, and those who produced unacceptable peer review results, not what is wrong with his defense, a silence that implicitly concedes the truth of Freitas’ defense, and their awareness of the truth of that defense. In discussing how to destroy these people, rather than rebut Freitas’ account of Climate Research peer review, they must know they are discussing how to ensure that ‘peer review’ is review for theological correctness, rather than empirical validity.
In contemplating their response to the Soon & Baliunas paper they did not consider replying in the pages of the same journal, the normal scientific procedure, despite naming various editors which they assume to be in their own pocket, which deviation from normal science implies an awareness that their reply could not survive legitimate peer review, only ‘legitimate’ peer review – implies awareness of evil.
By 2007 however, they no longer show confidence that peer review will produce predetermined results – there numerous journals whose peer review is no longer ‘legitimate’, among them “Energy and Environment”, and they cease to discuss destroying those responsible in ways that display confidence that they will succeed.
When they cherry pick statistics:
since ca. Nov 2008, satellite data was removed from the analysis, and was called v3b, but the methodology is essentially the same as in the paper. The reason was that there was a residual cold bias in the satellite data. This caused problems for users concerned with rankings.
It is because they know what the results must be, therefore data that fails to support the predetermined result must be wrong. They sincerely believe they are practicing real science, and they do not sincerely believe they are practicing real science.
I had come to feel that the days of science and mathematics had ended, that science and mathematics had largely become like high art, a multitude of little government funded fiefdoms in which each specialty was controlled by a little incestuous group that approved each other’s grants and was indifferent to external reality, unwanted facts and internal consistency. On the evidence of these emails, that is indeed the state of affairs, but contrary to my expectations, does not go unchallenged.
Tags: the past keeps changing