Lawrence Solomon has an interesting post in the FP Comment section of today’s National Post:
Those determined to prove the existence of man-made climate change may soon taste their own medicine
Climate scientists play a good game of whack-a-mole.
Right from the early days of the global warming controversy, they whacked any scientist who dissented from the view that CO2 was warming the planet in a dangerous way. Up popped other skeptical scientists, and WHACK!! Down they went.
Up popped skeptical journalists and WHACK! Down they went, too. Then more whacks for new scientists who surfaced, or pesky scientists who resurfaced.
Today, decades later, the climate science establishment is still whacking away, faster and more frenetically than ever, as more and more skeptical scientists, journalists and politicians surface. And now there’s a new species of skeptic in need of whacking down — the many inquiries that have sprung up in the wake of Climategate […]
A favourite crutch of the “big” players in the climate change game – which Pachauri brandishes like a crucifix before vampires – is that the IPCC report is “all peer-reviewed”.
Perhaps the big players have a different definition of the word “all”. Donna Laframboise, whose Citizen Audit project results will be available next week, notes that last November Pachauri insisted that:
“[The] IPCC studies only peer-review science. Let someone publish the data in a decent credible publication. I am sure IPCC would then accept it, otherwise we can just throw it into the dustbin.”
Coming very soon to a monitor near you … “F21” … In the meantime, Laframboise offers you the opportunity to guess how many of the 2007 IPCC report’s 18,531 references are not peer-reviewed.