What’s wrong with this picture:
Anthony Watts published a post today titled “The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project puts PR before peer review” and complained that BEST didn’t peer review the four papers they pre-released today. This is the same Anthony Watts who published a paper with Joe D’Aleo titled “Is The US Surface Temperature Record Reliable?” two full years before he published the associated peer reviewed paper. Oh, and the peer-reviewed paper came to the opposite conclusion of the Heartland paper.
And the BEST papers? Pre-release versions of the papers they’ll be submitting shortly for peer-review at real scientific journals. The Watts/D’Aleo paper? Published by the climate disruption denying Heartland Institute.
Watts has so much invested in the US surface station temperature record being wrong that he can’t seem to admit that his own research proved it was right, never mind accept that anyone else’s analyses might show the same.
Related posts (automated):
- New analysis shows US temperature record is reliable, rejects 2009 claims by Anthony Watts
- What’s wrong with this picture?
- Heartland Institute’s latest climate-related media advisory filled with the usual distortions
- Why scientific peer review matters
- Editor-in-chief resigns as a new paper identifies errors in “fundamentally flawed” climate paper
Print This Post
4 Trackbacks/Pingbacks
- Pingback: What I’m Reading Friday, October 21, 2011 | Rationally Thinking Out Loud on October 20, 2011
- Pingback: BEST Study Confirms: Elvis, Skeptic UHI Claim Dead | The Policy Lass on October 21, 2011
- Pingback: BEST Study Confirms: Elvis, Skeptic UHI Claim Dead | The Policy Lass on October 21, 2011
- Pingback: You’re (not) the BEST thing on October 23, 2011
It’s ok when deniers do it…
Psuedo-science versus real science. The Fantasyland people will never get it.
” Oh, and the peer-reviewed paper came to the opposite conclusion of the Heartland paper.”
Yes, that was a good one. I think I would lie very low after that. Maybe he will begin to understand the reason for the process, rather than just jumping the queue. But I doubt it.
Hopefully the next generation will not be tainted by the black propaganda that the denial industry has been spewing, and this whole debate will go the way of the manufactured cigarettes/lung cancer controversy as the deniers die out. Unfortunately, by then a lot of damage will have already been done, and the polluters will have been successful in making gargantuan profits by delaying action.