Happy birthday to the GWPF "inquiry"

Moyhu wins the prize for actually bothering to track the GWPF and its waste-of-time "inquiry". That's about all there is to say, really. I could take the piss out of them a bit more I suppose but it hardly seems worth the effort. Terence Kealey (chairman) ends up looking like an idiot, which in GW terms he probably is; rapidly heading Emeritus I'd guess.

I must remember to add it to WATN in 2016; speaking of which, has anyone seen any life out of AW's poor stillborn paper?

NS must be an elephant: he can also remember the OAS.

Refs

* Moyhu: apparently RP Sr may be writing the report.
* Twitter maps via Sou.
* Cooling America - Tamino.

More like this

Per Moyhu it looks like the GWPF's joke review is, errm, a joke. Who could have guessed? just to refresh your memory: submissions are invited, deadline 30th of June and will be published, here. Oh. I see two obvious possibilities: (a) they got embarrassingly few submissions; (b) they got…
I wander thro' each charter'd street, Near where the charter'd Thames does flow. And mark in every face I meet Marks of weakness, marks of woe. In every cry of every Man, In every Infants cry of fear, In every voice: in every ban, The mind-forg'd manacles I hear Over the year a number of things…
Mais où sont les neiges d'antan! Did you know that "Antan", though it now means "yesteryear" (which was itself coined to translate "antan") formerly meant "last year", as a contraction from the latin "ante annum"? Fascinating, eh. But not as fascinating as poking at the innards of dead things.…
Its shooting fish in a barrel, of course, but you must go and read Another uncertainty for climate models – different results on different computers using the same code [WebCitation]. The issue here is a well-known one - it dates back to Lorenz's original stuff on chaos. That trivial differences…

WMC: "Since all of this was a PR stunt to get their words into the Torygraph, I wonder if the right answer is to write to the Graun and Indy to see if they feel like writing a “Torygraph falls for GWPF fakery” type article? -W"

Now after the anniversary would be a good time. Could make a nice story together with the worries of the House of Lords about the editorial dependence of The Times on the GW Policy Foundation.

By Victor Venema … (not verified) on 30 Apr 2016 #permalink

Considering that AW must have massively cherry-picked his 400 stations, he may well be in peer-review purgatory. And considering that he won't even tell us which stations he's using until after publication, we may never know how big a steaming heap this thing really is. Or was.

By Keith Pickering (not verified) on 30 Apr 2016 #permalink