It's Junk Science Week at the National Post and they have a lot of material this year... Just read and enjoy and make of it what you will. We all have our opinions on this stuff...

Climate science, Bag bans and so on...

http://opinion.financialpost.com/201...-reality-test/

A 2011 study in the Journal of Forecasting took the same data set and compared model predictions against a “random walk” alternative, consisting simply of using the last period’s value in each location as the forecast for the next period’s value in that location. The test measures the sum of errors relative to the random walk. A perfect model gets a score of zero, meaning it made no errors. A model that does no better than a random walk gets a score of 1. A model receiving a score above 1 did worse than uninformed guesses. Simple statistical forecast models that have no climatology or physics in them typically got scores between 0.8 and 1, indicating slight improvements on the random walk, though in some cases their scores went as high as 1.8.
Bags -- Plastic is Green...

http://opinion.financialpost.com/201...s-are-plastic/


From “Life-cycle assessment of supermarket carrier bags,” U.K. Environment Agency, 2011.
Conclusions related to individual carrier bags The comparisons include the secondary reuse of 40% of lightweight bags (high-density polyethylene [HDPE], HDPE pro-degradant and starch-polyester) as bin liners.


But you guys have already seen that...


On peer review...
http://opinion.financialpost.com/201...eview-process/


The head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has referred to its work as the gold standard, based on its oft-made claim that it only surveys work published in peer-reviewed professional research papers.

Interestingly, Albert Einstein’s famous 1905 paper on relativity was not peer-reviewed. It is therefore quite clear that peer-review is not a precondition for excellent, indeed epoch-making, scientific research.

So what is a peer-reviewed (also termed refereed) research paper?
... Indeed the referenced paper had no references...


Check the RH side et the post -- more articles there and more to come.




Hopefully they will pick up on this article...
http://notrickszone.com/2012/06/15/n...t-as-reliable/

At their Die kalte Sonne website, Professor Fritz Vahrenholt and Dr. Sebastian Lüning present a guest post by Prof. Jan-Erik Solheim, who comments on the huge divergence between Hansen’s 1988 forecast and actual observations. I’ve translated his guest post in English:

...
The arrow extending beyond Scenario A shows the temperature value that should have been predicted by the Hansen Team based a CO2 increase of 2.5%. According to Hansen’s projection, the temperature should have increased 1.5°C when compared to the 1970s level. In truth the temperature rose only 0.6°C.

It is clearly visible that the temperature forecast modelled by the Hansen Group is off by about 150%. It is truly regrettable that precisely this modelling is still being viewed as a reliable forecast by our politicians.

Of course an engineer making planes or even kiddie cars would be fired for those kinds of errors in his models...

Lots of stuff out there...

It's worth repeating: Just read and enjoy and make of it what you will. We all have our opinions on this stuff...

But if you have a favorite candidate -- by all means a link and a comment would be nice.