Pielke: Systematic Misrepresentation of the Science of Disasters and Climate Change

From Roger J. Pielke Jr.'s blog:

This post summarizes and reviews the systematic misrepresentation of the science of disasters and climate change in major science assessments, partly for my own purposes, but also to explain that there is a pattern of behavior taking place in this community that should be of concern to anyone who cares about the integrity of science, regardless of their position on climate policies and politics.

What I document below includes the following:

1. Reliance on non-peer reviewed, unsupportable studies rather than the relevant peer reviewed literature.
2. Reliance on and featuring non-peer reviewed work conducted by the authors of the assessment reports.
3. Repeated reliance on a small number of secondary of tertiary sources, repeatedly cited such that intellectual provenance is lost.

The questions that I have are, does anyone in the mainstream scientific or media communities actually care? Or is climate change politics so important that we cannot simultaneously worry about standards of scientific integrity?

Read the whole thing.

Who are the "Deniers"?

Over at Celestial Junk, Paul E. Marek takes a look at Quacks, Cranks and Junk Science:

Let’s examine who some of the “deniers” are; you know, the “junk scientists”, the “quacks” and “cranks”, who dare oppose the Global Warming consensus. After all, there couldn't be too many of them if 2500 scientists (or is it 51) back the IPCC report:

Read the list here...

Climate Change's Carnival Atmosphere

By Steven Milloy

The global warming carnival hits its full stride this week in preparation for the release of the long-awaited and much-hyped United Nations report on global warming. It’s unfortunate for the climateers that this week’s climate science doesn’t live up to all the hoopla. (...)

First, the UN isn’t releasing its full report this week – just the curiously edited “Summary for Policy Makers.” The detailed report on the science won’t be issued until May or so because it’s not finished.

If you’re wondering how the UN can issue a summary of a report that’s not even finished, fear not. The UN has announced that changes to the full report shall be made “to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policy Makers." The UN process – akin to shooting first and asking questions later –is the exact opposite of the traditional scientific method.

Read the full article here.
h/t: PTBC