Saturday, April 17, 2010

And this is why we describe them as "retards."

Here's Blogging Tory "Natasha," pulling an alternate reality out of her ass (emphasis retardedly added):

Well then, aren’t you just so proud of yourself for putting me in my place. And for providing off-topic irrelevant comments to boot. Obviously you missed it or are just very thick-headed, but the topic of this posting is about the epic failure of the IPCC to use peer-reviewed science, all while claiming that it’s 100% peer-reviewed.

And here's Dr. Dawg blogger John Cross, not being full of shit:

The key point is that the IPCC does not claim to use only peer reviewed literature. This is clear from the document Procedures for the Preparation, Review, Accpetance, Adoption Approval and Publication of IPCC Reports in which Annex 2 specifically deals with how to use non-peer reviewed material. To quote from it:

Because it is increasingly apparent that materials relevant to IPCC Reports, in particular, information about the experience and practice of the private sector in mitigation and adaptation activities, are found in sources that have not been published or peer-reviewed (e.g., industry journals, internal organisational publications, non-peer reviewed reports or working papers of research institutions, proceedings of workshops etc) the following additional procedures are provided. These have been designed to make all references used in IPCC Reports easily accessible and to ensure that the IPCC process remains open and transparent.

And now you know why we mock them. Because they're retards.


KEvron said...

heh, she first gave a weak apology for the her uasge, only to follow-up with....

of course, it's not the usage, it's the pearl-clutching hypocrisy.


KEvron said...

honey pot: "it's just a word"

so is "cunt".

KEvron, done hijacking the thread