Another View on Climate

My Own View of Global Warming

Posts Tagged ‘Science’

How the System Works

Posted by greg2213 on May 29, 2010

Rumor has it that when a scientific paper is published in a journal that people are allowed to comment on said paper.

Here’s how that process works:  How to Publish a Scientific Comment
in 123 Easy Steps

I’m not quite sure what to make of the very last paragraph, though. So I think I’ll just ignore it.

Posted in Scientists Say | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »

So How Does a Non-Scientist Decide?

Posted by greg2213 on March 18, 2010

For the of us who don’t have PhDs in statistics, atmospheric physic,, etc. how do we decide where the science really is on an  issue? How do we decide that the science behind a claim is solid? Of course, one can always follow the money and see who is profiting from the (extreme) claims, but there are other ways.

The American has a great post on the subject and also mentions that global warming is actually several claims. The writer has a few interesting things to say about the so-called “consensus,” as well.

Anyone who has studied the history of science knows that scientists are not immune to the non-rational dynamics of the herd. Many false ideas enjoyed consensus opinion at one time. Indeed, the “power of the paradigm” often shapes the thinking of scientists so strongly that they become unable to accurately summarize, let alone evaluate, radical alternatives. Question the paradigm, and some respond with dogmatic fanaticism.

We shouldn’t, of course, forget the other side of the coin. There are always cranks and conspiracy theorists. No matter how well founded a scientific consensus, there’s someone somewhere—easily accessible online—that thinks it’s all hokum. Sometimes these folks turn out to be right. But often, they’re just cranks whose counsel is best disregarded.

So what’s a non-scientist citizen, without the time to study the scientific details, to do? How is the ordinary citizen to distinguish, as Andrew Coyne puts it, “between genuine authority and mere received wisdom? Conversely, how do we tell crankish imperviousness to evidence from legitimate skepticism?” Are we obligated to trust whatever we’re told is based on a scientific consensus unless we can study the science ourselves? When can you doubt a consensus? When should you doubt it?

here’s the rest: When to Doubt a Scientific ‘Consensus’

I think I’ll also add this: When a term, such as Global Warming, which gives some idea of the issue, is changed to something meaningless, such as climate change, then it might be reasonable to suspect that something fishy is going on here. Let’s face it, none of the GW/CC advocates are concerned about global cooling.

Update 2/2/13:

  1. WUWT on Consensus, the ridiculous “97% of all scientists” meme, and the IPCC.
  2. Petition Project and it’s 31k + signers.
  3. 1000+ peer-reviewed (not Pal Reviewed) papers supporting skepticism.


Posted in Global Warming | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »

Climategate, NASA, and so on…

Posted by greg2213 on February 18, 2010

Now, to be fair (why?) I should point out that the warming advocates see nothing in the climategate situation that’s damaging to the science or the message. This means that modern science is in much worse shape that we thought.

  • Losing/deleting data is Standard Operating Procedure (SOP);
  • Making efforts to keep opposing points of view out of the “peer reviewed” literature is Ok;
  • Controlling the “peer review” is recommended;
  • Throwing out inconvenient data and keeping the “good” data (hide the decline) is A-Ok;
  • It’s Ok to use one tree to support your message if that’s the only tree that supports your message. The other few hundred can be tossed with no problem;
  • Keeping on message is good (“…that there is no warming… is a travesty…”);
  • Hiding data from those who might criticize your work (even though they own the data, since it’s publicly funded and not classified) is the recommended procedure;
  • Incompetent technique (eg: hockey stick creation) is fine if it supports the message;
  • Avoiding FOIA requests is a respectable thing to do;
  • Flushing other “peer reviewed” research (hundreds of papers proving the medieval warming period, for example) because it doesn’t support the message is a good thing to do.
  • Adjusting data until it fits the message is recommended.

Of course, if any of us did any of that in our college science classes we would have flunked and our advisors would have recommended something like Sociology or Alinski Studies. This is just another indication that college/university does not prepare one for the real world (but it can be a great indoctrination experience.)

However, if you’re a professional (climate) scientist then all of the above procedures are recommended, if not encouraged. Somehow I don’t think any of these people could get a job in private industry, where certain standards are legally required and enforced. Imagine if any company treated its tax records this way. Think the IRS (and its many supporters) would say, “it’s really meaningless, you should trust their numbers anyway?”

Now, with the understanding that the Climategate files are really meaningless, since what they show is simply SOP for modern science, I’m going to post my collection of Climategate links. Just as an excercise, mind you. By the way, the US media agrees entirely with the “meaningless” comment, which is why the issue isn’t being covered by them.

But Why Would I Bother If It’s Meaningless????  Oh, just because it’s fun and because I used to respect groups like NASA before they flushed their scientific standards. Seems that NASA has been following the recommended FOIA procedures:

In August 2007, I (Christopher Horner) submitted two Freedom of Information Act requests to NASA and its Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), headed by long-time Gore advisor James Hansen and his right-hand man Gavin Schmidt (and co-founder).

I did this because Canadian businessman Steve McIntyre — a man with professional experience investigating suspect statistical claims in the mining industry and elsewhere, including his exposure of the now-infamous “hockey stick” graph — noticed something unusual with NASA’s claims of an ever-warming first decade of this century. NASA appeared to have inflated its U.S. temperatures beginning in the year 2000. My FOIA request asked NASA about their internal discussions regarding whether and how to correct the temperature error caught by McIntyre.

Here’s the rest of the article: Climategate 2.0 — The NASA Files: U.S. Climate Science as Corrupt as CRU (PJM Exclusive — Part One)

Climategate (and related) links:

And Now, Some Light Reading, from

Climategate: The Crutape Letters (Volume 1)

Climategate: A Meteorologist Exposes the Global Warming Scam

The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science (Independent Minds)

Posted in Climategate | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »