Quote:
Originally Posted by Arragonis
Climategate seems to suggest Peer Review no longer does enough to ensure science is as rigorous as it once was.
You also have to include the adjustments which remain unexplained, and of course the period being reported on which seems to have excluded the cold snap at the end of the year. But nobody seems to explain why.
|
To be fair only people outside of science seem to view peer review as something that magically instills rigor in someone's work, they can still abuse
basic concepts. All Climategate did based on what I've read was illustrate how cliquey people can be.
A cold snap or any specific weather occurrence really isn't pertinent to GCC, a consistent change in them may be, but cold weather in an of itself doesn't invalidate anything. Having the kitchen window open for a nice cool breeze doesn't mean the garage isn't on fire. Weather isn't climate. What ultimately matters is whether or not we continue to see the same trend in the
GIS data and to some extent a consistent change in weather patterns. It could be colder winters in one place, warmer winters in another, and cooler summers in another. YMMV.