I hearken back to last November when Ed Begley, Jr. flipped out on Stuart Varney, who was guest-hosting for Cavuto on Fox News. I happened to be watching, and every other word that came out of Begley’s mouth was “peer review.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Io1-lg9dLps

So how ’bout that peer review, Ed?

Cheers, Frank

This guy is the Indian version of Al Gore- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7005963/Taxpayers-millions-paid-to-Indian-institute-run-by-UN-climate-chief.html

This, then appears to be another WWF report,

The World Wrestling Federation is now doing climate reports for the UN? I knew it! Only the comically entrepreneurial mind of Vince McMahon could concoct such a lucrative facade and sell it as reality.

The Himalaya reference was a major one in justifying hatred and extraction of billions from Americans in perpetuity. They said the Himalayas fed 7 major river systems that provided water to 40% of the world’s population. A few days later the biggest basis for the impending ‘natural disasters’ claim was similarly discredited, crashing the largest excuse for climate reparations (for sinking island nations and the like). With exposure of numerous WWF references, a recalculation of the EPA ruling should obviously be demanded along with the 2007 5-4 Supreme court ruling. The EPA ruling relied on IPCC information that was not adequately reviewed. All the money in the world is still behind this. In recent days a top GOP pollster Frank Luntz has hired himself out to the Environmental Defense Fund to help them convince republicans that global warming and cap and trade are good, telling them better ways of wording things and the like. There are several articles about this. In advocating programs proven to be fraudulent, Mr. Luntz appears to be no better than ranting equatorial dictators in Copenhagen out to stiff Americans.

But the problem is that in all of climate science, peer review is nothing more than an echo chamber. All these researchers know each other and hold the same beliefs regarding climate change. So it stands to reason that all research confirming it will be peer reviewed. Of course, this is in regards to academic literature.

The IPCC reports are just syntheses of published literature, so I’ve never understood how they can claim it’s peer reviewed. Not only that, but the IPCC blatantly disregarded all rules of legitimate peer review by waving off true criticisms of the reports.

When your primary reviewers are the very people who wrote the papers on which you’re basing your synthesis, there’s undoubtedly a problem.

I’m wondering if this can be confirmed????

“The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer, and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen , Norway” .

“Reports from fishermen, seal hunters, and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes”.

“Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulfstream still very warm”.

“Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared”.

“Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old Seal fishing grounds”.

“Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable”.

“I’m sorry, I neglected to mention that this report was from November 2, 1922
as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post”.