Yet another warmist squawk point bites the dust..

[KLATTU]

I found that the consensus rate in the data differs from that reported in the paper. Further research showed that, contrary to what is said in the paper, the main validity test in fact invalidates the data. And the sample of papers does not represent the literature. That is, the main finding of the paper is incorrect, invalid and unrepresentative.

Richard Tol: half Cook’s data still hidden. Rest shows result is incorrect, invalid, unrepresentative. « JoNova

Just begs the question. If they are so sure of the science, why they get repeatedly caught in these kinds of lies and deceptions??

 

[sawyerloggingon]

I found that the consensus rate in the data differs from that reported in the paper. Further research showed that, contrary to what is said in the paper, the main validity test in fact invalidates the data. And the sample of papers does not represent the literature. That is, the main finding of the paper is incorrect, invalid and unrepresentative.

Richard Tol: half Cook’s data still hidden. Rest shows result is incorrect, invalid, unrepresentative. « JoNova

Just begs the question. If they are so sure of the science, why they get repeatedly caught in these kinds of lies and deceptions??

This whole scam is starting to unravel.

 

[Threegoofs]

The funny thing is, in real science, you would spend your energy confirming (or refuting) the study with an independent analysis.

In denier world, they try to pick apart the methodology in various silly ways, probably because its blatantly obvious that the basic assertion (the vast majority of climate papers accept AGW as simple reality) can't be proven wrong by a study.

 

[KLATTU]

This whole scam is starting to unravel.

It seems to be. And the level of desperation will continue to grow as predicted by one of the warmiste' elite
."On the one hand we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but& which means that we must include all the doubts, caveats, ifs and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists, but human beings as well. And like most people, we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we have to get some broad-based support, to capture the publics imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This double ethical bind which we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.”

-Stephen Schneider.