Comments on: WHERE IS CLIMATE SCIENCE TODAY?

By: uberVU - social comments

uberVU - social comments — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 22:11:04 +0000

Social comments and analytics for this post…

This post was mentioned on Twitter by miner4hire: http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2010/02/02/where-is-climate-science-today/.. So what’s the answer?…

By: saltbus

saltbus — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 06:07:44 +0000

Sorry to rain on your parade but your attempt to make a fair and reasonable assessment fails miserably. The AGW scare was and is one big boondoogle. CO2 in the atmosphere is basically a plant food and a bit more increases boita growth. The IPCC has overstated the ablility of CO2 to increase the global temperature.
Last night I had the privledge of hearing Lord Monckton speak in Perth, Western Australia and I suggest you obtain a copy of his set of FACTS. The outcome of the issue should be decided on the facts alone, and the IPCC is, and always has been a poor source of FACTS and this is now becoming obvious to all and sundry. The huge body of knowledge , the thousands of scientists, the concensous never was. We don’t need any more debate but a panel of honest scientist to look at the relevent science and cull out the lies, distortions and the cherry picked non-facts. When we have something that approaches the true state of knowledge of CAGW, then we can have a debate.
A debate with the current corrupted science as a starting point is useless. Release the data and take politics out of science.

saltbus

By: Robert

Robert — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 04:37:42 +0000

Your assessment is both fair and reasonable given the information currently available. If nor for politics and money I think the debate that now rages would also be fair and reasonable. What has corrupted the science and sapped it of its credibility is nothing more complicated than agenda.

By: TMLutas

TMLutas — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 00:42:53 +0000

The reason the frauds were so hard to spot is that they agreed with so many other pieces of data that have not been double checked by skeptical outsiders. The question is naturally raised, if we double checked that other data would enough digging find other frauds, other problems? We don’t know.

There are known psychological phenomena that affect science where scientists “shade” data that they “know” must be in a certain value range so that it fits in the value range. It’s not fraud but it’s not accurate science either. Have honest scientists fallen to AGW propaganda and subconsciously done quite a bit of shading in the non-fraudulent evidence? Are the frauds that we’re uncovering the pieces that couldn’t be hammered into fitting the preconceived results that were expected?

We don’t know. The original data needs to be double checked to find out. That’s a huge task given the peculiar data sharing ethic that seems to have taken root in climate science. Given the HarryReadMe file, I expect that we are going to find a huge mess under a large number of rocks. People who will just make up basic info like weather station numbers are not going to be careful with anything else.

Given the number of frauds already discovered, there is a great sense that a large number of shoes have yet to drop. We won’t know until we double check. Anthony Watts’ surfacestations.org project to hand check the siting issues of the entire US network of temperature stations and then the world’s network needs to get done and without funding, even that is going to take years.

By: Paul

Paul — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 00:10:50 +0000

My opinions have a simpler basis - if the science of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is so certain, why do the core promoters (Hansen, Briffa, Jones et al) tell so many lies? Why do they conceal the base data? Why do they conceal the operation of their models? Why do they seek so actively (as a group) to suppress alternate views of the science from individuals with equal or even better skills? That is not ’science’, it is advocacy.
I’m a corporate manager with a specialist skillset in data acquisition/validation and projective modelling. I recognise many of the ‘methods’ used by this core group as games I have played to get support and especially funding - selective presentation of data, use of supportive time slices and so forth. Creative but justifiable if you don’t look too closely.
However, in the case of the ‘core science’ of CAGW, I also see many outright and deliberate lies that in no way could stand up to a competent systems review.
No one who ever had to justify their expenditures to even a vaguely competent Board would get away with such distortions. What we have in CAGW is the meeting of a group of scientists desperate for funding with a group of well-funded bureaucrats in search of relevance.
It is the existence of the United Nations, of bureaucrats spending other people’s money without independent checks and balances, which is responsible for this boondoggle. It has allowed a simple matching of supplicant with sponsor to be magnified by a sensationalist media, and a whole host of carpetbaggers, into the literal crime against humanity that CAGW has become.

By: Jim

Jim — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 20:59:59 +0000

Hi Rick

There has been an “unholy alliance” of profiteers, media, entertainment businesses and politicians. That alliance has consistently presented worse than the worst possible scenarios as beyond argument and imminent. Ratings and (as we now see) coerced business opportunities have been the motivation.

How to fix it?

Sometimes I despair. Every third show on the “History” channel is about Nostradamus, vampires, aliens, ghosts,crypto zoology, Truthers and murder. The rest is Adolf Hitler. In politics we have this mess created by Congress over the last 30 years. Democrats and Republicans both. The current administration is taking us off a cliff. I read today that some “strategists” are urging Republicans to strangle the good parts of President Obama’s weak and paltry first steps at finacial reform. The very thing we need most and need immediately is being turned into a football by partisans on both sides.

So an increasingly ill-informed public (the trolls here always talk about the God-fearing in this light but the other side has no idea what carbon dioxide is and wants to treat it as a toxin because they got their science from their astrologer) duels with venal hacks of both parties. All presided over by a clueless administration.

By: mannning

mannning — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 19:37:07 +0000

This is a fair-enough picture of the AGW debate today. One might also observe that:

1)Scientists that are far out on the limb of total belief in catastrophic AGW are not very likely to recant and suddenly become rational and effective partners for the rapidly growing number of rational scientists that;

2) Believe that the science is very far indeed from settled, and rank with defective approaches(such as models that will not predict in reverse, tampered models, refusal to show the base data used, glaringly imperfect understanding of the physics of the upper atmosphere and the role of clouds, and worldwide data that is tainted).

These scientists have been calling for an objective scientific program for years, hollering into the wilderness of AGW political posturing, settled science advocates, and fear-mongering pronouncements (such as from Algore).

Meanwhile, the AGW crowd receives the lion’s share of funding, journal space, and acceptance, so long as they tow the mark. Even the current President supports AGW as if it is settled.

Scientific sanity will not return without a protracted battle.

By: Mr. Xyz

Mr. Xyz — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 19:36:47 +0000

“We’ve told so many lies, young scientists are totally confused”

http://climaterealists.com/?id=4960
(a video spoof of climate science)