PEER REVIEW, WHERE ARE YOU?
Posted by Andrew Roman on December 1, 2009
For years, the fact that there even existed an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) made me wonder if the existence of other such panels – like the Transnational Water-Is-Wet Agency and the World Sex-Feels-Good Council – were just around the corner. That the United Nations felt an urgency to create an intergovernmental body of scientists whose purpose was to confirm that climate actually does change always seemed a bit milky-in-the-filbert to me. Their purpose, so they said, was to assess the risk of global climate change due to the activity of humans.
It sounded so menacing, but it was nothing new.
I’d been hearing that the earth was tangoing with grim death due to one thing or another since I was a little boy – and that every threat to delicate existence could always be pinned on the actions of self-absorbed, gluttonous excesses of humanity.
By the time the IPCC came along, one couldn’t help but feel guilty about being alive.
By my thirtieth birthday, the end of the planet must have come and gone at least twelve times, maybe more.
When the IPCC – an organization that doesn’t do its own research, incidentally – won the Nobel Peace Prize a couple of years ago (along with Al Gore), I knew that either this whole “global warming” thing was a grand hoax of the highest order or someone had slipped a psychotropic drug into my Yoo Hoo. It was so fantastically surreal listening to hysterical apocalyptic climate jockeys predict certain doom when common sense prescribed that even if all of humanity decided tomorrow to make the earth warmer, it simply couldn’t be done.
But agendas are powerful little bastards, persistent and merciless. Like illegals that gather in front of the Home Depot, or the sound of Barack Obama’s voice, they don’t just go away – even when the evidence points to the contrary.
Rajendra Pachauri is the Chairman of the IPCC. Despite the recent “climategate” revelations of manipulated data, conspiratorial suppression of opposing opinion, and the blackballing of dissenters, Pachauri displays what can either be called colossal ignorance or steadfast leftism.
According to him, on the level playing fields of modern science, such bias cannot exist.
James Randerson at the UK Guardian writes:
Pachauri said the large number of contributors and rigorous peer review mechanism adopted by the IPCC meant that any bias would be rapidly uncovered.
“The processes in the IPCC are so robust, so inclusive, that even if an author or two has a particular bias it is completely unlikely that bias will find its way into the IPCC report,” he said.
“Every single comment that an expert reviewer provides has to be answered either by acceptance of the comment, or if it is not accepted, the reasons have to be clearly specified. So I think it is a very transparent, a very comprehensive process which insures that even if someone wants to leave out a piece of peer reviewed literature there is virtually no possibility of that happening.”
It just isn’t possible, he says.
It’s all so very transparent, he explains.
Well, if it is, you can thank hackers for that.
Despite Mr. Pachauri’s claims, the fact remains that the global warming all-stars – like Phil Jones and Michael Mann – were doing what they could to exclude dissenting papers from being peer reviewed in scientific journals.
That’s kind of an important point.
Therefore, how could peer reviewed papers disagreeing with Climate Research Unit (CRU) conclusions be considered when none were offered in the first place thanks to the likes of Jones and Mann?
No one – not even a chairman of one of those feckless UN commissions – can possibly be that ignorant.