Thread: Climategate
View Single Post
Old 02-23-2010, 01:08 PM   #583
zuluking
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Billy Tallent View Post
What journal was that published in? I'm guessing it wasn't because it's pretty horrible. It's badly written. The figures are badly done - some lack scales, no legends. The conclusions are pretty weak. I can't actually evaluate half the data in it because of a lack of information. Where did the data come from? Some of the references don't exist. Some of the references he uses to support his case are not scientific literature. There is no title. No author. No affiliations. There is curiously no mention of funding source - no acknowledgements. Hmmm...

That's not a believable manuscript. That's not proper science. I'm sorry if you don't believe me, but it really is junk. I could sit here and pull it apart all day if you want, but I don't think you care.
Publishing in a journal may not be what it's all cracked up to be. I guess we've come full circle to what Climategate originally exposed. It may not be as bad as it seems or it may be worse. Regardless, climate scientists have a strong agenda for controlling publications. Your gold standard is tarnished.

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/18584
__________________
zk
zuluking is offline   Reply With Quote