The Global Warming Debate...

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Is this supposed to somehow exonerate Jones from his statement that he would attempt to suppress conflicting research?

In the sense that what a person does is more important than what they talk about doing, absolutely.

Unfortunately, you have no way to know that the papers didn't make it in OVER Jones' attempt to block them.

Color me disappointed but unsurprised at your answer.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[lawrocket 3]

Indeed. I recall the news when this happened. I have not noted any real effort to defend the plagiarism, short of the usual trying to conjure reasons for it and arguing that the points are not lost because of plagiarism.

Yes, it appears that this stuff was lifted from elsewhere without credit being given. There you go.

Is it a "nail in the denialist coffin?" COuld be for part of it. The problem is that if the issues are cleaned up it is now a political issue where it is doubtful that a journal would accept it.

---

Of course, this does nothing to change my mind on the issue. I still contend that "climate science" as it is known now is pseudo-science. Here are my reasons:
(1) Climate science is not an example of the scientific method. Climate models are pseudo-science. "Our model shows that we'll be 3 degrees warmer in 2100 than now." Nice. THat's called a prediction. Under science, predictions are tested. This means that testing will be completed in 2100. IF the model's predictions turn out to be correct, then you've got science. If they are not correct, then you don't have science.

I predict that the models will not be accurate. I base this on their utter failure to be correct for the last decade. The typical alarmist response is, "These models have greater error in short term because of variations with noise. They are more accurate in the long term." Yeah? Prove it. You'll have proof in 2100. But for the time being, they aren't accurate (though they don't just put the end-point prediction on there. They plot their predictions for th enext 100 years).

2) Credibility. Sorry, Bill, but I give climate armageddon predictions as much credit as I give religious doomsday predictions. Both have the same rate of success.

The problem is that it is political. Check out Paul Erlich. Why the hell is he given ANY credibility at all? He predicted famines and pestilence and has been nothing but wrong. But he gets a MacArthur Award.

Unfortunately for the alarmists, they have put themselves on the line with their "predictions." The uneducated masses have memories. There is NO LEGITIMATE SCIENTIFIC JUSTIFICATION for attributing droughts and floods, hot and cold, humid and dry, wind and doldrum, etc., to global climate change. Got record cold? Global Warming. Got record heat? GLobal Warming. "Snow is a thing of the past due to global warming." Then record snow happens. "Well, of course. Global warming will cause increasing snow." Then there will be less snow. "That's global warming, too."

The CRU Hack really did damage. Even the Oxburgh report painted climate scientists as bringing problems on themselves because they are secretive cliques who tolerate no dissent and allow not access to others. It's a subculture.

Also - climate science is an amalgam of statistics, mathematics, metoerology, physics, chemistry, biology, oceanography, geology, etc. It is interesting that the statisticians, physicists, etc., are the ones who are making the most peer reviewed impact. It takes a statistician to show selection bias and they ARE. (Note - one of the reports specifically recommended actually including statisticians to counter selection bias. Because the climate scientists weren't using them. Leading to selection bias or, at the very least, allegations of same).

Climate scientists are making prediction after prediction that aren't coming true. Fear mongering worked for 20 years.

(3) It's not science, it's politics

realclimate.org is a fine example of this. Take a look at "About." It states:

Quote

RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists. We aim to provide a quick response to developing stories and provide the context sometimes missing in mainstream commentary. The discussion here is restricted to scientific topics and will not get involved in any political or economic implications of the science

(emphasis added)

On the first page there are the following stories:
- Nobel Laureates Speak Out
- Health on a Changin Planet (a review of a book written by a writer and a physician that is about the societal effects of climate change

Page 2 contains book reviews and even this piece:

Quote

Steve Schneider’s first letter to the editor

Filed under: Climate Science
Communicating Climate
— gavin @ 25 April 2011

There was a time at NASA when writing a letter to the paper without your director’s permission could get you fired. And no, I’m not talking about the last Bush administration.

Take a look at Real Climate (which I have read religiously for nearly five years). Tell me how to reconcile the nature of the MAJORITY of the posts with "The discussion here is restricted to scientific topics and will not get involved in any political or economic implications of the science."

It cannot be reconciled. Real Climate is the publicity arm of climate scientists. On three occasions have I commented on RC about this and not once has the comment cleared moderation. I'll credit Joe Romm for being a partisan hack. HE is what he is. As is any other blogger out there. They don't hold themselves as holier-than-thou. (trust me - whenever someone says they are "real" it means they are subjectively dissing everyone else)

Gavin Schmidt, Eric Steig, Ray Bradley and Michael Mann have a site that is exactly what it claims it is not. How the HELL am I supposed to trust them when they are not what they say they are?

(4) I've studied the history of science and technology policy

Read the writings of Vannevar Bush. What we see in climate science fits to a tee what Thomas Kuhn wrote about in "The Structure of Science Revolutions." As anomalies occur, practicing scientists don't lose faith in the paradigm so long as there is no acceptable answer. Now, because there is so much money and reputation invested - and because scientists are human - scientists have their very livelihoods

Mix Vannevar Bush with Kuhn and we have today's climate science template. There's money to be made. The money is fed through politiccal process. Form a scare and politics will fund it. Hence the reason for all of the predictions of destruction and horror. Want money for a war? Weapons of mass destruction aimed at us unless we go get them. (hee hee. Fooled them). Want money for climate science? Tell them that Armageddon is coming and we need money to study it. We know for certain it will occur btu we need money because while we don't need to understand it any more (we already do understand it) we need to measure the horrific effects. We also need more money to study how to prevent it (which is unpreventable unless we have more money to study it an come up with solutions).

My profession is to argue and spin. I'm fairly good at recognizing it when I see it.

Climate science is climate politics. Real Climate is a policy advocacy arm with some science mixed in, a site created with an investment-backed expectation. Hence GISS gets massive increases in funding while the rest of NASA loses. For James Hansen is a phenomenal politician.

My wife is hotter than your wife.