14 replies to this topic

[OEXCHAOS]

the type of thing that made me a global warming skeptic.

I smelled a rat a long time ago on the AGW thing, but I'm a believer in science so I had to do my research. It takes a lot of time and wading through contradictory claims and data and claims about the same data.

If you would like a clear idea of the type of thing that sets my "stink-o-meter" flashing "red alert" however, take a gander at this posting including documentation, and the lengthy comments at the end.

http://wattsupwithth...any-university/

At the very least, it should be disturbing to any lover of science, regardless of what side of the debate you come down on.

[risktaker]

Mark, Stephen McIntyre (the primary author of Climate Audit) started the fraud allegations against Wei-Chyung Wang. See http://www.informath...pubs/EnE07a.pdf

Again, McIntyre has no educational background in climate science. He holds a BS in mathematics from the University of Toronto. He was a director of several public mineral exploration companies. He has also been a policy analyst in the Canadian government. See http://en.wikipedia....tephen_McIntyre

I was and still is a man-made climate-change skeptic. I have not paid much attention to climate-change arguments until last week, but the more I looked into it, the more fishy the anti-climate change camp seems.

[stocks]

I was and still is a man-made climate-change skeptic. I have not paid much attention to climate-change arguments until last week, but the more I looked into it, the more fishy the anti-climate change camp seems.

I was and still am a man-made climate-change believer.

I've followed Al Gore for years. I've confronted the deniers and embarrassed them. I have called for them to be sent to jail.
I supported James Hansen's call for civil disobedience. I watched the academy award winning movie 9 times. I've done my part to save the polar bear.

But now, I am having second thoughts. The skeptics are getting to me. Could they be right?
Is it possible that global warming is a not a planetary emergency?

I have not paid much attention to anti-climate-change arguments until last week, but the more I looked into it, the better the anti-climate change camp seems.

[stocks]

Mark, Stephen McIntyre (the primary author of Climate Audit) started the fraud allegations against Wei-Chyung Wang. See http://www.informath...pubs/EnE07a.pdf

Again, McIntyre has no educational background in climate science. He holds a BS in mathematics from the University of Toronto. He was a director of several public mineral exploration companies. He has also been a policy analyst in the Canadian government. See http://en.wikipedia....tephen_McIntyre

Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick exposed the hockey stick fraud. (Energy and the Environment, 2003)


The `Hockey Stick':
A New Low in Climate Science


It is now clear that the climate history of the northern hemisphere and the globe as a whole bears no similarity whatever to that portrayed by Mann's `Hockey Stick'. It is inconceivable that two major climatic events of the last millennium, the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age, could be observed at the same points in time in such varied locations and with such a variety of proxies, around the world and yet be missed by Mann's study. One possible explanation for this discrepancy is that tree rings are inappropriate as temperature proxies, something most dendrochronologists are reluctant to acknowledge.

The question must then be asked, why do people who claim scientific credentials in the field cling so tenaciously to a characterization of past climate that is so patently false? Why was there so little challenge to the Mann theory among his peers? Why is there collective denial about the role of the sun when published and peer-reviewed evidence from solar scientists demonstrates a clear relationship between solar change and climate change?

A booklet titled "On Being a Scientist: Responsible Conduct in Research" [18], published by the National Academy of Science in 1995, provides us with a well-presented set of criteria to guide the conduct of scientists as they navigate their way through the difficult choices they have to make in the way they conduct themselves ethically.

"The fallibility of methods is a valuable reminder of the importance of skepticism in science. Scientific knowledge and scientific methods, whether old or new, must be continually scrutinized for possible errors. Such skepticism can conflict with other important features of science, such as the need for creativity and for conviction in arguing a given position. But organized and searching skepticism as well as an openness to new ideas are essential to guard against the intrusion of dogma or collective bias into scientific results."

Here, scepticism is held up as a virtue, in contrast with the hostile treatment afforded to sceptics in the climate sciences. But we also have this cogent warning against dogma and collective bias intruding into a science. This caution is directly applicable to those involved in climate change research as they have demonstrated numerous times a collective bias in their work, a bias that must inevitably contaminate the peer review process itself.

A common failing of scientists, particularly those engaged in research which may have impacts upon the public, is to reject any input from the public in the conduct of their work. The peer review process provides an effective barrier to public scrutiny of a science, as is the tendency to regard the public as people to `be educated' instead of being learned from. The resulting intellectual arrogance has the effect of making scientists into a sort of medieval priesthood, keepers of secret and exclusive knowledge, and to be kept away from prying public eyes. Such an attitude, common with many scientists, is unpardonable given that most research is paid for by public money. This however, does not prevent such scientists from adopting a proprietorial view of their research results. The NAS booklet cautions -

"In fulfilling these responsibilities scientists must take the time to relate scientific knowledge to society in such a way that members of the public can make an informed decision about the relevance of research. Sometimes researchers reserve this right to themselves, considering non-experts unqualified to make such judgments. But science offers only one window on human experience. While upholding the honor of their profession, scientists must seek to avoid putting scientific knowledge on a pedestal above knowledge obtained through other means."

This is a direct criticism of `scientism', a belief held by many scientists that knowledge not acquired by professional scientists is knowledge not worth having. Scientism is an affront to free people everywhere as it denies the right of the public to judge the work of science, even where this work is funded from taxpayer's money. It is a formula that holds scientists above criticism, and unaccountable to anyone but their own peers. It is an anti-democratic view of the world and is clearly opposed by the National Academy.

Yet in the climate sciences, we have numerous examples of public criticism and concern being dismissed with gratuitous statistics and spurious appeals to academic authority.

http://www.john-daly...ckey/hockey.htm

[risktaker]

stocks, are you a political lobbyist? Everything you have posted on this site is related to political policies.

[OEXCHAOS]

Mark, Stephen McIntyre (the primary author of Climate Audit) started the fraud allegations against Wei-Chyung Wang. See http://www.informath...pubs/EnE07a.pdf

Again, McIntyre has no educational background in climate science. He holds a BS in mathematics from the University of Toronto. He was a director of several public mineral exploration companies. He has also been a policy analyst in the Canadian government. See http://en.wikipedia....tephen_McIntyre

I was and still is a man-made climate-change skeptic. I have not paid much attention to climate-change arguments until last week, but the more I looked into it, the more fishy the anti-climate change camp seems.

Please show me any reason to doubt McIntyre's ethics. Do you have any? He has uncovered tons of fishy stuff in the data that "alleged" climate scientists are basing their models on. It has not been effectively challenged. Many times, it's just errors, and they get corrected (sometimes with a "thank-you). But what would have happened without somone to keep the numbers "honest"?

I'm hoping this wasn't an attempt at character assassination here, risktaker. Do you have an agenda?

[SemiBizz]

Check out Keplerian Planetary Dynamics....

[OEXCHAOS]

Check out Keplerian Planetary Dynamics....

That is some interesting stuff!

M

[risktaker]

Mark, this is your website. You are entitled to host a political lobbyist for whatever reason. I will stop posting dissenting opinion since it upsets you. Wishing you all the best.

Edited by risktaker, 05 May 2009 - 01:46 PM.

[OEXCHAOS]

Mark, this is your website. You are entitled to host a political lobbyist for whatever reason. I will stop posting dissenting opinion since it upsets you. Wishing you all the best.

That's quite an assertion.

Who's a political lobbyist? Are they precluded from posting items of interest on Climate Science? Not that I've said, certainly.

Nor is dissenting opinion a problem. I mean, MINE is the dissenting opinion. The only thing that upsets me is that you appear to actually think that your opinion is correct.

No, seriously, I'm convinced that you're wrong, but it's my job to convince YOU that you're wrong. That won't happen if you're beaten up on.

But I'm not cool with character assassination. You can make your sources stand on their own and refute mine factually.