lauantai 6. maaliskuuta 2010

Uusin "climategate": Myös NASA:n tiedot manipuloituja !


"Now a new "Climategate" scandal is emerging, this time based on documents released by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in response to several Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) suits filed by the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI). The newly released emails further demonstrate the politicized nature of climate science, revealing a number of questionable practices that cast doubt on the credibility of scientific data provided by NASA"

2 kommenttia:

  1. Alkaa jo ihan kunnolla säälittämään noiden puolesta.

  2. Joo, rintama romahtaa parasta aikaa koko laajuudelta.

    Tässä uusin löydös:

    "A couple of days ago I blogged about a chapter in the latest report which, I discovered, relies on peer-reviewed sources only 58 percent of the time. That number seems shockingly low when one considers that the IPCC's expert reviewers complained bitterly about the quality of the citations at the time the report was being written.

    Yet that may be the IPCC on a good day. Chapter 5, from Working Group 3's report - which I randomly chose to examine next - is far worse. Only 61 of the 260 references relied on in that chapter have their feet firmly planted in peer-reviewed literature – an abysmal 24 percent. Put another way, three-quarters of the material cited there is grey literature. In a chapter devoted to something as tangible as the transportation sector."

    Mutta tämä asettaa IPCC:n neljännen arvioraportin oikeaan asemaansa:

    "Elsewhere, when Takeshita said he considered a statement in the chapter to be "doubtful" and noted that it conflicted with almost "all of the literature I have ever read" on the topic, he was told: "Rejected; text simply quotes the study, and good chance the study is correct.""

    Näin sitä arvioraportteja nykypäivänä tehdään.