Friday, June 19, 2009

My Pet Peeve

If the so-called science on global warming is so settled, why does the adminsitration rely on such shoddy work to support their claims and proposals?

[Why] is a report characterized by [White House] Science Advisor John Holdren as being the “most up-to-date, authoritative, and comprehensive” analysis relying on a secondary, non-peer source citing another non-peer reviewed source from 2000 to support a claim that a large amount of uncited and more recent peer-reviewed literature says the opposite about?


Because the idea that man is causing whatever warming can be demonstrated (though not in the last decade) is a belief held with religious fervor?