I couldn’t help chuckling as first I read unrealclimate desperately trying to find some way to knock down the paper that proves their models are wrong.
The paper has been published in a journal called Remote sensing which is a fine journal for geographers, but it does not deal with atmospheric and climate science, and it is evident that this paper did not get an adequate peer review. It should not have been published.
Then what do I read next:
Gleason is questioned about the ridiculous 25% survival calculation in his paper; he’s asked why he could get clear pictures of whales, but not dead polar bears; he’s asked why his only photos appear to be manipulated; he’s asked whether he’s sure that the same dead polar bear wasn’t seen more than once. He’s also questioned on the “pal review” on this paper (Monnett’s wife was a reviewer). (Link)
Which just about sums up the whole distorted carnival. If you write something alarmist … no climate “scientists” will ever complain, (unless you aren’t alarmist enough). But if you write something scientific … then they’ll complain till kingdom come that it didn’t go through their buddy review.
Some interesting info about the Monnett investigation. Previously posted with links that got stuck somewhere.
online-advice-service.com/environment/archives/8530
“The letter asked Monnett to meet government investigators on 9 August. Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (Peer), which is acting as Monnett’s defence team, said Monnett will be asked about his compliance with government contracting regulations as well as his relationship with the lead researcher, a reputed polar bear scientist, Andrew Derocher.”
Dr Andrew Derocher (et al) was the guy who stopped his former Uni tutor Dr Mitchell Taylor from attending an important meeting because of his AGW sceptic views.
telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5664069/Polar-bear-expert-barred-by-global-warmists.html