No, Really?

I've lost a lot of motivation for writing posts on this site as the climate blogosphere is basically a dead end of echo chambers and inactivity (and I've been spending much more time on game development projects), but today I heard Michael Mann released e-mails people have spent years trying to obtain via legal means. You can see his statement here as well as find instructions on how to access those e-mails. I wish they were bundled in a zip file so they could be easily downloaded and examined via a more normal method, but it's still good to have access to the information. Especially since it shows Michael Mann and the people he talked to were fully aware of many of the issues his critics would eventually raise.

For instance, a key issue raised by his critics is Mann's results were entirely dependent upon a small amount of tree ring data from one part of North America. Here is an e-mail from Mann in 2000 showing he knew that to be true for his results prior to 1400 AD:

A great deal of time was spent discussing this heavy dependence upon tree ring data from one region. Imagine how things would have played out if Mann had just been up front about this point, which he clearly knew to be true?

For the record, the same thing is also true for his results up to 1450 AD, save that Mann arbitrarily duplicated a series to use a second time and let himself claim he had two proxies that supported his results back to 1450 AD. And even then, he had to secretly extrapolate values for the duplicate series to do so.

37 comments

  1. Here's an excerpt from an e-mail sent by Malcolm Hughes, a co-author of the (in)famous hockey stick papers:

    Dear Ed and Mike and others,
    All of our attempts, so far, to estimate hemisphere-scale
    temperatures for the period around 1000 years ago are
    based on far fewer data than any of us would like. None
    of the datasets used so far has anything like the
    geographical distribution that experience with recent
    centuries indicates we need, and no-one has yet found a
    convincing way of validating the lower-frequency
    components of them against independent data. As Ed
    wrote, in the tree-ring records that form the backbone of
    most of the published estimates, the problem of poor
    replication near the beginnings of records is particularly
    acute, and ubiquitous. I would suggest that this problem
    probably cuts in closer to 1600 than 1400 in the several
    published series. Therefore, I accept that everything we
    are doing is preliminary, and should be treated with
    considerable caution.

    One can only wonder how things would have played out if Hughes had said things like that publicly. Instead, he said them in private and let the public think their results were far stronger than he believed them to be.

  2. So in reality he has 'released' a select subset of his heavily edited inbox with explanatory notations attached? Where are the sent emails? And since the emails in this 'release' have all been edited by the addition of an 'explanatory note' how can anyone be sure the content of the emails is unchanged?

    Certainly no forensic investigator would accept this.

  3. Peter, when documents are released because of legal processes, it is common for parts of documents or even entire documents to be redacted. There are a variety of legal exemptions which justify it. That said, a public posting like this would never qualify for *legal* purposes.

    But that's not the purpose of this. These e-mails were released in this fashion preemptively to influence the public. The lawyers will receive a different copy, one which will be sent to them directly (either in physical or digital form). That copy will not have the "added context" this release has for some e-mails.

  4. Oh, I agree. it certainly doesn't qualify for *legal* purposes, but I doubt it actually qualifies for anything other than publicity purposes.

    Maybe it's just semantics, but I don't accept that 'publishing a selected set of editorialised content' in any context equates to 'released'.

  5. I've lost a lot of motivation for writing posts on this site...

    It seems to be a trend.
    Just recently, I did a bit of a search on some of the old climate denial blogs I used to frequent, only to find that they've been defunct or have moved on to other topics.
    There's not exactly a brave, new movement of fresh bloggers setting up shop in their stead.
    But that's just me. Maybe you've seen something totally different.

    Trump seems to have been mentioned more than once in a couple of the defunct blogs.
    It's not something that makes for a good narrative. Much easier to play the role of the underdog when there's not a climate denier in power.

    ...s basically a dead end of echo chambers and inactivity...

    NASA is still very active. Of course, it's a bit more than just a blog.
    NASA and every single scientific community on the planet.

    ... Michael Mann released e-mails...

    Emails, eh? Again?
    If it didn't do much last time and the time before that then...why bother?
    Maybe focusing on the vast body of peer-reviewed research would be more productive?
    Just a bit?

    ...a key issue raised by his critics is Mann's results...

    Put forward all the key issues you like. Let's pretend that Mann's just terrible, terrible, terrible.
    So what?
    Flush everything he ever did down the toilet if you like.
    (shrug)
    Doesn't make a difference.
    It's not how science works. Mann is not the kingpin. He's not "the guy". The scientific consensus on climate change is not founded on any one person or one paper or one organization.
    Creationists obsess over Darwin too. It doesn't help them. The Theory of Evolution doesn't rest on his reputation or whatever work he did or did not do in the 19th Century.
    You could magically burn all the copies of "On the Origin of Species" tomorrow and it wouldn't matter at all.

  6. Cedric, The problem here is that the entire field of paleoclimatology is open to many of the objections raised against Mann. Steve McIntyre has a few recent excellent posts on PAGES discussing these issues. I've never seen an example in another field of science where an entire subfield (albeit a quite small one) is so biased and the literature so flawed.

    The climate blogosphere is becoming a lot less active. The reason is obvious to me. Basically, the battle over the green house effect has been won by the scientists. The remaining issues (actually much more important) such as the value of ECS have seen essentially no progress in 40 years of intense funded work. There is a growing divergence between observations and the climate models. Much of the research for example on clouds relies on these models. There has been little progress because the problems are so hard and because climate scientists as a whole are biased in favor of alarmism.

    Finally, much of the activity was due to activists trying to "counter disinformation" with a blend of science and more disinformation. I thing that those activists are losing motivation as it becomes clear that the real problem is that mitigation is costly and harms ordinary people like the yellow vests. Further, mitigation efforts so far are a miserable failure. In other words the "information deficit" model was wrong.

  7. Cedric, The problem here is that the entire field of paleoclimatology is open to many of the objections raised against Mann.

    Who says?
    In the real world, other branches of the Earth Sciences would notice that there was something wrong with one of the branches.
    It would be big news in the scientific world. Not just wittering on some fringe corners of the blogosphere.
    That hasn't happened.

    Steve McIntyre has a few recent excellent posts...

    I'm sure bloggers have written a lot of stuff. It's not how I get my science. My standards are much higher than that.
    There's a choice that ordinary people have to make.
    Do you want to got the relevant scientific communities that do the hard work that science demands or...are you going to bypass it in favour of a blog?
    It's a really bad idea to copy the methods of creationists. If your opinion on a scientific issue is unrepresented by a scientific community like NASA or the Royal Society and instead is only to be found at the ICR...then there's no way to rationalize that in a reasonable manner.

    I've never seen an example in another field of science where an entire subfield (albeit a quite small one) is so biased and the literature so flawed.

    Says you? And a blogger?
    No.
    In the real world, such a huge claim would be easy to independently verify outside of your assurances. A quick google would confirm it.
    Imagine how Nature would react to it...if it was true?
    Or NOAA.
    Or the NAS.
    Or the APS.
    But there's nothing.

    Bloggers make judgments all the time. Big ones. Scandalous ones. Yet...so many of them sink without a trace.
    Years go by and the other shoe does not drop. The storm never breaks.
    Seldom, if ever, does the blogger revisit their claim years later and compare it to the outside world and admit to a goof.

    The worst enemy of a blog article that reveals a 'scandal' is the timestamp.
    And it gets worse for every day that passes.

    There is a growing divergence between observations and the climate models.

    Not according to NASA.
    NASA and every single scientific community on the planet.
    They do the work.

    There has been little progress because the problems are so hard and because climate scientists as a whole are biased in favor of alarmism.

    Climate science doesn't exist in a vacuum. It relies on co-operation from all the Earth Sciences.
    If there was "bias" then the relevant authorities in the scientific would spot it.
    After all, you supposedly did it.
    (shrug)
    But they haven't.

  8. This quote is a perfect demonstration of the willful blindness people have to systems of authority:

    If there was "bias" then the relevant authorities in the scientific would spot it.
    After all, you supposedly did it.

    Biases and other problems exist in systems without being called out all the time. Sometimes it's because nobody notices them, but usually, it's that people choose not to speak out about them. It's the same thing you'll see in social groups where people will do stuff like catch a member of the group cheating on their spouse but not say anything for reasons like avoiding drama. In climate science, it's even worse as speaking out about problems can directly impact one's career. Plus, there are a lot of people who will argue against speaking out about certain things as they don't want to add "confusion" or "give fodder to skeptics" since combating global warming is too important.

    The truth is it is an open secret Michael Mann is a dishonest hack who produced terrible work that corrupted the field of paleoclimatology. There are climate scientists who changed their career paths to transition away from fields he was involved in because they didn't want to be involved because they didn't want to deal with the ethical issues he has created. I say this as a person who has spoken to two such people (on the condition of anonymity). In both cases, the story was largely the same. They didn't know just how bad things were, but they saw enough to know they couldn't remain in the field without feeling like they were complicit in spreading disinformation.

    That said, it's worth mentioning that paleoclimatology covers much more than just multiproxy reconstructions. There are plenty of people in the field doing good work. If you talk to the people who are actually going out and collecting data, most of them seem to be exactly what you'd expect and hope for from scientists. The problem is thanks to things like Mann's dishonesty with his original hockey stick getting him obscene amounts of publicity, it has become highly incentivized for temperature reconstructions to a particular narrative. Any work that doesn't gets trashed. And since the field is dominated by just a small group of people, that's not going to change.

    And this is not remotely surprising to anyone familiar with the history of science. Science is replete with examples of new discoveries/ideas/approaches being rejected for bogus reasons simply because the established authorities in those fields refused to acknowledge they had gotten things wrong. That's the reason for the famous quote, "Science progresses one funeral at a time."

  9. "This quote is a perfect demonstration of the willful blindness people have to systems of authority.

    Not really.
    Relying on the relevant authorities for information is not blindness. It's sensible.

    Your doctor is an authority. So is your dentist. It's not willful blindness to visit them and pay them money and do what they tell you.
    It's expected.
    Now, they could be wrong. And if you really want to be cautious, there's nothing wrong in getting a second opinion.
    From...another doctor....or another dentist.

    Biases and other problems exist in systems without being called out all the time.

    Sure, however the bigger the bias and the greater the number of relevant authorities looking on, the more inevitable the response.

    The truth is it is an open secret Michael Mann is a dishonest hack...

    Says who?

    ...who produced terrible work that corrupted the field of paleoclimatology.....

    And yet all the other Earth Sciences haven't noticed. How odd.

    I say this as a person who has spoken to two such people (on the condition of anonymity).

    Yes, of course. I salute your discretion.

    "There are plenty of people in the field doing good work. If you talk to the people who are actually going out and collecting data, most of them seem to be exactly what you'd expect and hope for from scientists."

    It's such a shame they are corrupt and don't see what you see. Oh well.

    And since the field is dominated by just a small group of people...

    Just a small group of people, eh? I didn't know that. Numbers?
    Besides, that doesn't really help. There's all these other scientific organizations and science journals...outside the field.

    "That's the reason for the famous quote, "Science progresses one funeral at a time."

    Have you ever heard of Bob Carter?
    How about Tim Ball?
    Have a good hard look at the age group of the tiny stable of "scientists" that the Heartland Institute trots out for the public from time to time.
    They bring out the same people again and again because they don't have any other options.

    ……

    "Biases and other problems exist in systems without being called out all the time. Sometimes it's because nobody notices them, but usually, it's that people choose not to speak out about them. It's the same thing you'll see in social groups where people will do stuff like catch a member of the group cheating on their spouse but not say anything for reasons like avoiding drama. In Evolution, it's even worse as speaking out about problems can directly impact one's career. Plus, there are a lot of people who will argue against speaking out about certain things as they don't want to add "confusion" or "give fodder to skeptics" since biology is too important.

    The truth is it is an open secret Darwin was a dishonest hack who produced terrible work that corrupted the field of biology. There are biologists who changed their career paths to transition away from fields he was involved in because they didn't want to be involved because they didn't want to deal with the ethical issues he has created. I say this as a person who has spoken to two such people (on the condition of anonymity). In both cases, the story was largely the same. They didn't know just how bad things were, but they saw enough to know they couldn't remain in the field without feeling like they were complicit in spreading disinformation.

    That said, it's worth mentioning that biology covers much more than just fossils. There are plenty of people in the field doing good work. If you talk to the people who are actually going out and collecting data, most of them seem to be exactly what you'd expect and hope for from scientists. The problem is thanks to things like Darwins's dishonesty with his finches getting him obscene amounts of publicity, it has become highly incentivized for homology reconstructions to a particular narrative. Any work that doesn't gets trashed. And since the field is dominated by just a small group of people, that's not going to change.

    And this is not remotely surprising to anyone familiar with the history of science. Science is replete with examples of new discoveries/ideas/approaches being rejected for bogus reasons simply because the established authorities in those fields refused to acknowledge they had gotten things wrong. That's the reason for the famous quote, "Science progresses one funeral at a time."

  10. Cedric, Science progresses by skepticism and open debate. A great example is Nic Lewis spotting very major errors in a recent big splash Nature paper by Respandy et al. There are excellent posts about it at Climate Etc. Climate science is unique in that many scientists are also political activists and there are large uncertainties in the field.

    The doctor's analogy is tired and invalid. Intelligent people get second opinions of if they are smart enough check the studies themselves. Medical advice is never black and white as anyone familiar with the replication crisis knows.

    Brandon is right about Mann and his hockey stick. Climate gate emails revealed that many of his fellow scientists had serious reservations about it too.

    Reading a little would help you develop a healthier attitude toward authority figures.

    https://www.nature.com/news/registered-clinical-trials-make-positive-findings-vanish-1.18181

    https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsos.160384

  11. The doctor's analogy is tired and invalid.

    Doctors are an authority. They really are.

    Intelligent people get second opinions of if they are smart enough check the studies themselves.

    Intelligent people are not automatically doctors. Intelligent people can get things very badly wrong outside their own field of expertise.
    Not very intelligent people can go through life thinking that they are intelligent.
    (Dunning-Kruger Effect)

    Medical advice is never black and white as anyone familiar with the replication crisis knows.

    A meaningless statement.
    Either you have cancer or you don't. Either you should quit smoking or you shouldn't. Either the medical community does have a large body of evidence and studies going back decades demonstrating a link between cancer and cigarettes...or they don't.

    Brandon is right about Mann and his hockey stick.

    Not according to the scientific community. It's Brandon versus NASA and every single scientific community on the planet.
    That's a bad look.
    You have to step outside the bubble of the fringe and check in with the mainstream where all the actual work happens.
    If your position keeps hugging the fringe even after decades go by in the spotlight then it's time to admit to a goof and abandon the fringe rather than prolong the mistake.

    Climate gate emails revealed that many of his fellow scientists had serious reservations about it too.

    The year is 2019. Ten years have passed. Climategate didn't pan out. Wittering over emails is stupid. In science, only the work counts.

    Reading a little would help you develop a healthier attitude toward authority figures.

    I have a healthy attitude towards authority figures. I avail myself of them.
    NASA, for example.
    They do the work. According to them, we went to the moon. The Earth is round. Climate change is real.
    (…)
    Ok then. I have no reason to believe they are lying to me on any of those counts.

    Getting your science information from blogs is how creationists do things.
    As a methodologies go, it's incompetent.
    If your sources of information are at odds with the scientific consensus then you need better sources of information.

    Going to a doctor is sensible. It really is. There's no getting around that.
    Same diff with NASA and every single scientific community on the planet.

    For example, you decided to link to Nature and the Royal Society. That's sensible.
    Both of those sources are excellent sources of information on climate change. They are both relevant authorities. Relying on them is a good move.

    The Royal Society sums up my opinion on climate change very nicely. NASA too. If all the blogs in the world vanished overnight, it wouldn't limit my options for scientific sources at all.

    "The Royal Society undertakes a wide range of activities with relation to climate change, acting to help ensure that the best possible evidence is available to inform policymaker decisions. This programme of activities draws on the expertise of Fellows of the Royal Society, and wider community, to deliver a number of projects in this field.

    Human emissions over the last two centuries have altered the composition of the Earth’s atmosphere. As a result, more of the Sun’s heat is retained warming the ocean and the atmosphere. Global mean surface temperature is now about 1 °C higher than that in the late 19th century and is expected to increase further in the future, with the trajectory dependent on human activity on emissions. To understand climate change requires an understanding of the physical processes involved, the impact those changes might have on the planet and ecosystems in it, and how humanity responds, either through mitigation (e.g. emissions reduction) or adaptation (e.g. implementing coastal protection)."

    https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change/

  12. Jesus Cedric, you are showing your ignorance. Have you looked at any of the links I posted here? Of course you haven't because you are an internet anonymous troll whose respect for authority is based on lack of experience or perhaps lack of intelligence. Science is riddled with bias and false findings as those who follow the science well know.

  13. ...you are showing your ignorance.

    NASA isn't ignorant. Neither is your doctor.

    Science is riddled with bias and false findings as those who follow the science well know.

    Any science denier could say the same.
    But there's no alternative to the study of reality.

    "What were the biopsy results?"
    "Science is riddled with bias and false findings as those that follow the science well know"
    "Dude, cancer is nothing to screw around with. Get the biopsy done."
    "Na, this guy with a blog reckons I'm fine."

  14. Cedric, you can declare me dumb for following bogs rather than scientists, but this is not an inscrutable field.
    For example, I can read this blog post:
    https://climateaudit.org/2008/10/02/its-saturday-night-live/
    and actually download the code that Michael Mann provided for the paper, and evaluate whether the claim made by this blogger is true or false. At one point ten years ago it was even easier, because Kaufmann did a similar upside-down usage in his Arctic warming paper, and I could just point people to an Excel spreadsheet to show how wrong they were, but, unlike Mann, Kaufmann issued a correction.

    Now, you say Mann is irrelevant to the field because of the work of other scientists, but what I see is none of these scientists are willing to identify this error as an error. Indeed, many go on to defend the incorrect usage. How can I give credibility that they are doing things correctly when they are unable to see this error that can be seen by basic engineering students? They instead parrot and believe the lies told by Michael Mann. Martin Vermeer took the strange position of agreeing with the upside-down usage by Mann, but claiming that Mann was still correct, as his statement 'regression algorithms are blind to the sign of the indicator' is a true statement.

    I can't take seriously a field that is so clearly not self-correcting. Instead, there are backhand acknowledgements of the error in some blogs, but not in scientific papers(IPCC AR5 included this upside-down usage five years after the error was pointed out).
    Only mainstream climate scientist who I can think of who has acknowledged Mann's errors is Robert Way, who did so possibly as an undergrad student, and when this was pointed out at a skeptic blog, he commented to object to the post as likely to hurt his career.

  15. Cedric Katesby, people come to climate blogs, not because we get all of our science information from blogs, but because climate science is a unique case. The media does not have the expertise to effectively vet science. And, in today's political environment the media rarely vets anything that supports their personal or organizational political biases. I hope you agree about bias in journalism. Yet, journalists are born of the same academic campuses where climate scientists are. If you accept that bias can slant a news story then why would you not accept that bias could infect other political fields? I imagine you think that climate scientists are too conservative to weigh in on public policy debates or to fan political ideology. That apparently is the old way. Today, scientists or even a "science guy" can be very political. Micheal Mann is the reason I came to check out things for myself. Climategate also turned Judith Curry into a skeptic after years as part of the consensus. Nic Lewis, mentioned by David, is a remarkable example of someone who came from outside and now is an established top-notch expert in effective climate sensitivity. Nic manages to publish scientific papers and blog at the same time. The science and public would be much benefited if others could follow his example.

    I seek doctors and lawyers when I need to but I also will do my own online research before and after the visit. I am guessing David and Brandon would do this. Would you?

  16. ...and actually download the code...

    That's wonderful. But if your path takes you to a place where your position on a scientific issue is at odds with NASA then you have a big problem.
    You can query the biopsy results all day long. Take a sample of your own skin cells and shove 'em under microscope to your heart's content.
    Or...pay attention to your oncologist.
    Which one is the smarter play?

    Now, you say Mann is irrelevant...

    Yes. You are wrong to obsess over him. Scientists are not priests. Forget Mann. All his work could disappear tomorrow and it would not make a bit of difference.

    How can I give credibility that they are doing things correctly when they are unable to see this error that can be seen by basic engineering students?

    Doesn't that strike you as weird? Think about what you are claiming. There's this error that you have spotted and you know you are right.
    But the scientists don't see it. NASA doesn't see it. The NAS doesn't see it.
    But surely they would, right?
    Yet they mysteriously don't.
    (...)
    Maybe you have been misled.

    People keep seeing these "obvious" errors in all sorts of science. They breathlessly report them on blogs. It's not just climate science.
    There's all these huge errors about vaccines too.
    And evolution.
    And the moon landings.
    If you do a casual search on fringe science groups on the web, they will bore you silly with all sorts of errors and scandals and dodgy numbers etc that they have bravely discovered that mainstream science foolishly ignores.
    Everybody is a Galileo in the comfort and safety of their own armchair.

  17. ...people come to climate blogs, not because we get all of our science information from blogs, but because climate science is a unique case.

    Not according to the scientific community.

    The media does not....

    Not the media. NASA.
    NASA and every single scientific community on the planet.
    Not some 'journalist'. Your doctor.

    Climategate also turned Judith Curry into a skeptic after years as part of the consensus.

    Then shame on her. Think how stupid that is. Emails are a poor substitute for actual work. If she has a beef with the science then she needs to blog less and enter the scientific arena where her ideas will be challenged by people with the relevant expertise and equipment to do so.
    Anything else is just hot air.

    I seek doctors and lawyers when I need to but I also will do my own online research before and after the visit.

    Why do you pay money for doctors and lawyers when you can just DIY with a quick google?
    Think about it.
    Your doctor does the biopsy. She gives you the bad news and recommends a course of action.
    You go to a blog. It assures you that you are just fine because something something unique something something.
    Now what?

    Think how an antivaxxer or an HIV denier would go about things. How are you any different?

  18. Cedrick, you are assuming a lot my friend. Both David and I work in the scientific community. David has published about 40 papers and I prefer to keep my research proprietary but will likely apply for a few patents before I'm done. I don't know if you conduct science but it is extremely tedious work that requires a lot of safeguards to insure the production of accurate and novel information. So, when one finds the types of revelations found in the Mann hockey stick covered up by colleagues and overseeing institutions it strains trust in the field and weakens the coin of science. For one who truly cares about the nature of things this should be alarming and not be acceptable. If it doesn't alarm one then one is motivated by something other than curiosity for truth. One might be simply looking for confirmations of held beliefs, and there is plenty of that.

    Despite your argument for respecting authority I'm sure that you would find if you thought a little more you would realize that only applies for authorities that support your ideology. There's nothing wrong with this except for the making of one's argument for support be purely based on authoritarian grounds.

  19. Cedrick, you are assuming a lot my friend.

    Such as?

    Both David and I work in the scientific community. David has published...

    Maybe. Maybe not. On the internet, nobody knows you are a dog.
    Besides, how is that relevant even if it's true?

    "I don't know if you conduct science but it is extremely tedious work that requires a lot of safeguards to insure the production of accurate and novel information.

    Which is why I have such high confidence in NASA and every single scientific community on the planet.
    Blogs not so much.
    Comments on blogs even less.

    So, when one finds the types of revelations....

    I understand that you feel that you have found something. But I can't very well use you as an authority. That would be silly.
    If you feel you have discovered something incredible/dastardly/shocking/terrible/sloppy/etc then enter the scientific arena.
    Your Nobel Prize awaits.

    For one who truly cares about the nature of things this should be alarming and not be acceptable.

    NASA and every single scientific community truly cares about the nature of things. They are not alarmed.
    How do you explain that?

    Despite your argument for respecting authority I'm sure that you would find if you thought a little more you would realize that only applies for authorities that support your ideology.

    Not at all. I accept all the scientific communities on the planet. No exceptions. Covering all the branches of science going back many decades.
    Any possible topic you could mention that has a scientific consensus I would freely accept.
    Vaccines? CDC.
    Shape of the Earth? NASA.
    Climate change? NASA.
    Moon landings? NASA.
    Evolution? Probably Berkley University but it's hard to pick a favourite.
    The link between cancer and smoking? The Surgeon General.
    The only 'ideology' that covers them all is the study of reality.

    There's nothing wrong with this except for the making of one's argument for support be purely based on authoritarian grounds.

    An argument from authority is sane and reasonable. It happens all the time. Just like going to your doctor when you are sick or even when you go to a different doctor for a second opinion.
    If you don't do that and then embrace the fringe, then you have entered Crazytown.

    Why do you pay money for doctors and lawyers when you can just DIY with a quick google?
    Think about it.
    Your doctor does the biopsy. She gives you the bad news and recommends a course of action.
    You go to a blog. It assures you that you are just fine because something something unique something something.
    Now what?

    Think how an antivaxxer or an HIV denier would go about things. How are you any different?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9X50lH-XxHI

  20. Cedric, I agree with your common sense advice to utilize expert resources, but like everything there are complexities. Your assumptions I would caution you on include the following:

    1) that authorities are monolithic and every individual within an organization or field holds the same opinion as the director of that organization or the consensus held by that field.

    2) that authorities never have motivation to exaggerate the breadth or certainty of their knowledge or are drawn to speak outside their expertise.

    3) that authorities are infallible and are immune from personal bias or groupthink. History shows many surprise twists in consensus assumptions. Millions of people were certain that ulcers were almost universally caused by stomach hyper-acidity. The experts were wrong.

    4) that science is not vulnerable to all the pitfalls of humanity and human nature stated above.

    5) that because it's true that people commonly hold onto staked beliefs in the face of contrary scientifically accepted truths that explains all to skepticism to scientific results, regardless of peer review. Many peer reviewed studies have produced contradictory results. Many times it is found results cannot be reproduced.

  21. Cedric, I agree with your common sense advice to utilize expert resources, but like everything there are complexities.

    Fine.

    1) that authorities are monolithic and every individual within an organization or field holds the same opinion

    This is not my assumption. Take any scientific consensus you like as an example. There will always be an assortment of oddballs and outliers. Sometimes those "independent thinkers" even retire in high dudgeon and go off and create an anonymous blog.

    ….organization or the consensus held by that field.

    Not consensus. Scientific consensus. Two different things. There's no voting going on. Scientists are not sharing their feelings on a topic.
    It's a scientific consensus created by an overwhelming body of evidence.
    There's never a good reason to just blank it.
    Either you go with the science or you don't. It's not a buffet. You don't get to pick and choose based on the topic and your personal suspicions.
    If you get to pick and choose then you advocate for others to pick and choose.
    And those others are vaccine deniers that will herald the return of 19th century diseases into your grandchildren's kindergarten.

    2) that authorities never have motivation to exaggerate....

    I'm sure they do. All the time. This is where the scientific consensus comes in useful. Confirmation bias is something that is well understood in science. When scientists create experiments and do work and publish their work, a routine question that pops up is about bias and how the research may be flawed because of this. It's all part and parcel of that extremely tedious work and the safeguards that you so wisely mentioned.
    It's the work that the authorities do that's the key.

    Bloggers? Not so much. They wallow in bias frequently. There are no safeguards at all. No consequences for the blogger if they get it wrong or just flat out lie to you.

    3) that authorities are infallible....

    Indeed they are not. But science already knows this. The safeguards, remember? That's why they exist.

    History shows many surprise twists....

    Very true. But all those twists came about because of more work. More scientific work.
    The creationists blogging about biology did stuff all.
    They didn't do the work.

    Take your example of stomach ulcers. It's a perfectly good one. It's a scientific success story. If you follow the man's methodology you will notice that he never bothered much with blogging. That was not the key to his eventual success.
    He did more work.
    That further work was accepted just like it was supposed to. There's no honest comparison to climate change denial.
    We know about his success not though blogging but because of the work and the eventual scientific consensus.

    4) that science is not vulnerable to all the pitfalls...

    We've covered this fairly well. But if you really want pitfalls, check out some blogs. There are some real doozies out there.

    … Many peer reviewed studies have produced contradictory results. Many times it is found results cannot be reproduced.

    Yes. That happens. But that does not produce a scientific consensus. It certainly didn't work out that way with the ulcers story.
    The scientific community would point out such problems themselves.
    On the other hand, bloggers will fixate on contradictory results and dodgy papers either in a feverish hope that at long last this is the "silver bullet" that will slay the terrible dragon of the scientific consensus on vaccines, a round Earth etc.
    Why, they will even pore over emails of all things.
    (…)
    Results that cannot be reproduced? Yep, that's a favourite of theirs.
    It's not the way to go.

    it's true that people commonly hold onto staked beliefs in the face of contrary scientifically accepted truths...

    They exist. There are legions of them. They fester on the blogosphere. Science denial is real for all sorts of things and it does great harm to you and your community.
    How are you and your people any different? I've asked you this question before.
    Look at how you go about things here on this thread. Look at the arguments you employ.
    How are you any different from them?
    How much of the stuff that you have written could be eagerly cut-and-pasted and then retooled to aid and abet them?

    Look at the bigger picture. How is the climate denial community any different in their methodology from say the anti-vaxxers?
    This has been going on for decades now.
    The literature on science denial is out there. Climate deniers always make the top of the list or at least the top three.
    I don't know if you have ever checked out websites that examine science denial but the legwork has been done on contrasting and comparing difference science denial communities.
    They all copy the same playbook.

    Scientific consensus and arguments from authority
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTJQPyTVtNA

  22. Guys, Cedric Katesby is am imbecile and troll. Do you really expect something productive to come from your approach to responding to him? He literally has nothing of his own to contribute. He's just an incompetent moutpiece for idiotic talking points.

    This nicely encapsulates why I've stopped talking about climate issues. The IPCC outright lies, blatantly and obviously, and not a single "skeptic" cares to talk about it. The IPCC engaged in massive rewrites of its latest report, without any form of external review or public documentation, while outright refusing to provide the evidenciary trail it promised to provide, and not a single "skeptic" makes a peep because that'd require actual thought or investigation. If you guys want to argue with Cedric Katesby you can. But nobody cares about any of these inane talking points.

    Yeah, Michael Mann is a hack whose flagrant fraud caused thousands of scientists to behave unethically. And Mark Steyn is a dishonest moron who makes things up on a regular basis because he's too lazy and incompetent to do anything more than grandstand. Blah, blah, blah. Toe your party line and be a part of the herd or be drummed out by the masses who want nothing more than partisan bickering so they can stroke their egos by demonizing anyone who disagrees.

    Feel free to do what you want. Just understand, every time I check this blog and see these comments, I become more certain not posting is the right decision.

  23. Gee, Brandon, I thought I was making progress with Cedric.

    And, don't give up on the insane bickering, hypocritical, promise-breaking world. It's all we got.

    If everyone was ten times as intelligent and honest would there be less or more inane bickering? If less, would they be as caring as we bickerers? If more, then bickering might be correlated with caring.

    So, what is trolling's definition? Maybe it's the intentional confounding of any progress from discussion, the art of intentionally sabotaging discussions from arriving at any productive result. But then we have to ask how many discussions end in productive result in order to have any influence? Is there any good troll test?

    I think Cedric truly believes in the points he is making, as do I.

    If Cedric is not a troll then isn't it just a matter of us revealing whose logic has unstable assumptions? Should it not be possible to drill down to rock solid assumptions that we can both agree upon? Could we not then carefully find step-by-step where our assumptions diverge? If so, could we not probe those differences under a microscope to enlighten one another?

    It might take years. But what is time? I'm in. What about you Cedric?

    His first assumption is that Michael E Mann practiced good science in his now famous/infamous hockey stick chart. And this is proven by the success of his colleagues replicating similar results. I would suggest Cedric read one of your books or the Hockey Stick Illusion, by Montford, but I don't know if he would make the time. He already is sure (you) they are wrong. So maybe a little factual discussion could give him a piece of evidence that shakes his staunch faith in the infallibility of climate science (and its authorities).

  24. >and actually download the code...
    >
    >That's wonderful. But if your path takes you to a place where your position on a scientific issue is at odds with NASA then you have a big problem.

    Yes, it would mean NASA is wrong. However, I don't think NASA has ever taken a close look at the Mann's code to reach a conclusion opposite to mine. In general, they are just giving credibility to each other's work without looking too closely.

  25. So, what is trolling's definition? Maybe it's the intentional confounding of any progress from discussion, the art of intentionally sabotaging discussions from arriving at any productive result. But then we have to ask how many discussions end in productive result in order to have any influence? Is there any good troll test?

    I think Cedric truly believes in the points he is making, as do I.

    I can go along with that. I am curious as to how our host justifies his comments.

    If Cedric is not a troll then isn't it just a matter of us revealing whose logic has unstable assumptions? Should it not be possible to drill down to rock solid assumptions that we can both agree upon? Could we not then carefully find step-by-step where our assumptions diverge? If so, could we not probe those differences under a microscope to enlighten one another?
    It might take years. But what is time? I'm in. What about you Cedric?

    Nothing but time. The reason why I am so very clear about my methodology is to keep it wide open to criticism.
    So far, I don't see a better way of doing things.

    His first assumption is that Michael E Mann practiced good science in his now famous/infamous hockey stick chart. And this is proven by the success of his colleagues replicating similar results.

    It's not an assumption. I don't really know much about Mann or what he did or didn't do.
    I don't do personalities. That's why I find it silly to focus on his emails. I also find it weird that after so very many years, climate deniers are still obsessing over the Hockey Stick.
    The scientific consensus is not build on any one person. Not on any one group. Not on any one paper.
    There is no silver bullet.
    That's not just for climate change. It's for all scientific fields.

    I would suggest Cedric read one of your books or the Hockey Stick Illusion, by Montford, but I don't know if he would make the time.

    Certainly not. That sounds like a really bad idea. Can you imagine a creationist saying the same thing?
    I can.
    It's an end run around the scientific research.
    Anybody can say anything they want in a book. There's no rigour. It's oddly similar to blogs in that regard.
    It's a bad methodology and it falls right into the comparison I made between climate deniers and other science denial groups.

    He already is sure (you) they are wrong.

    It's not about me. It's about NASA and every single scientific community on the planet.

    …. shakes his staunch faith in the infallibility of climate science (and its authorities).

    Well, it's all about the scientific consensus and the work that created it. There's no way to fake that. it's a long, slow tedious process filled with boring, old-fashioned safeguards.
    Can you think of any scientific consensus that you reject aside from climate science?
    There are people that do that on a long shopping list of issues.
    How do you get someone to reject the scientific consensus on one thing and yet leave the scientific consensus intact on something completely different?

    How is the climate denial community any different in their methodology from say the anti-vaxxers?
    This has been going on for decades now.
    The literature on science denial is out there. Climate deniers always make the top of the list or at least the top three.
    I don't know if you have ever checked out websites that examine science denial but the legwork has been done on contrasting and comparing difference science denial communities.
    They all copy the same playbook.
    Have you checked?

  26. Yes, it would mean NASA is wrong.

    You think so?
    Well, maybe. But there's another possibility.
    Maybe, just maybe, it's you that's wrong.

    Think about it for a moment. You versus NASA. Think how distinctly odd that is.

    However, I don't think NASA has ever taken a close look at the Mann's code....

    Does that sound reasonable to you? Mann is a bit famous, you know. Do you suppose that nobody else has looked at his code?
    Not even his colleagues? Over the course of how many years?
    (Spoiler alert: Peer review. Replication of results.)

    In general, they are just giving credibility to each other's work without looking too closely.

    They'd have to do that all the time. With everything. Consistently. Starting all at the same time. Not just NASA either. But all the other scientific communities out there.
    Seems unlikely.
    Physically impossible would be a better way to put it.
    You can't create a global scientific consensus simply by some magical "not looking too closely" rationalization.

  27. Ron Graf:

    And, don't give up on the insane bickering, hypocritical, promise-breaking world. It's all we got.

    I may not be giving up on the world, but I am largely giving up on the hope talking to people about matters like this will produce any results I'd care about. There are tons of other things I can do with my time. Many will be more enjoyable. And it's not like it'll make any difference if I do something else. Look the IPCC. It's outright refused to share the reviewer comments and other underlying work of its latest major report for half a year or more, and nobody cares. Nobody even cares that the IPCC outright lies in order to justify its refusal.

    People on one side don't care because they support the IPCC and wouldn't be willing to question its integrity or competence. People on the other side don't care because it's not "sexy" or "juicy" so it doesn't work as red meat for the masses. It doesn't matter that the IPCC flat-out rewrote entire sections of its latest report without any external review, an act which violates its own procedures and is dishonest. It doesn't matter that the IPCC never disclosed that it did so. It doesn't matter because the global warming debate is nothing more then partisan bickering between two "tribes" who have absolutely no integrity or, to be frank, intelligence.

    The insane thing here isn't how morally bankrupt people on both sides are. It's that people are so closeminded they actively sabotage their own "cause" solely to reinforce their own tribalism. There's a strong argument that the best thing either side of the "debate" could do for their agenda is to stop talking, safe in the knowledge the other side would screw up even worse if they weren't around.

  28. "There's a strong argument that the best thing either side of the "debate" could do for their agenda is to stop talking, safe in the knowledge the other side would screw up even worse if they weren't around."

    Brandon, the good that comes from debate is precisely the possibility of persuading thoughtful action to prevent screw ups. I hope we are more mature as a civilization than children living in the same house hoping a rival sibling screws up so as to look better. We can't allow a divide to push us past the point of civility that we can't debate important topics. This just throws the power into the hands of the loudest and dominating political leader, the "strong man." Perhaps Trump is not the cause of America's political state but a symptom. Perhaps there is a new religion proliferating, where the woke of 2019 are the latest "born agains."

    Brandon, you have invested years in becoming superbly informed about climate science (among many topics,) but especially this one. It would be a shame to allow the biased media to control the debate. Or do you disagree? Cedric has expressed contempt for anyone wanting to skeptically look at scientific claims. Cedric is now a believer, not looking for anything that might disturb his comfortable surety. As long as he believes that whatever is said by CNN or Huff is gospel, and he is sure that the 97% of climate scientists are of the same mind, then that is all he needs. Anything we say is moot. He has protected himself to dismiss anything from the mouths of "deniers," (and probably paid oil company lobbyists). Yes, including you, Brandon. Being a liberal does not get you off the hook if you stray from the farm. It can only get you into trouble being a heretic. And, the more government takes command of the economy the less you and others will wisdom finding truth and risking being heretic, like Judith. Better to be safe from disturbing information. Cedric, though, seems less blissful than one might imagine. Computer games are great fun I concede. May you have much enjoyment. (BTW, I am attempting to provoke but with the kindest regards.)

  29. Cedric has expressed contempt for anyone wanting to skeptically look at scientific claims.

    Oh, I hope not. Please quote the part that gave you that impression. I'll rebuke myself immediately.

    Cedric is now a believer, not looking for anything that might disturb his comfortable surety.

    I don't 'believe".
    Not any more than NASA 'believes' anything. I accept the scientific consensus...on everything.
    That happens to include climate change.
    If my doctor tells me that the biopsy results are in then, whatever those results are, I'm willing to accept them.
    I might well get a second opinion, but that would be from another doctor.

    As long as he believes that whatever is said by CNN or Huff is gospel....

    Never mentioned them. It sounds like a very bad idea to use them as sources of information on science. I'd be comfortable using an article from them if it was a good illustration of the scientific consensus but...if it didn't...then I wouldn't touch it with a ten foot barge pole.
    On the other hand, there's NASA.
    Have you notice me mention NASA at all in any of my comments?
    Ever?
    NASA and every single scientific community on the planet?
    Count the number of times.
    Now compare that to the number of times I've mentioned CNN or Huff.
    A glaring discrepancy will leap out at you.

    ….and he is sure that the 97% of climate scientists are of the same mind...

    Well, NASA seems sure of that number. It's on the NASA website in simple English.
    Did you know that?

    "Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources."
    https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

    He has protected himself...

    How exactly? You don't seem to have understood my methodology.
    What part of it isn't skeptical?

    Again, I'd like to point out that your entire comment could be easily cut-and-pasted by an antivaxxer.
    All your comments.

    How do you get someone to reject the scientific consensus on one thing and yet leave the scientific consensus intact on something completely different?
    Hello?

    How is the climate denial community any different in their methodology from say the anti-vaxxers?
    This has been going on for decades now.
    The literature on science denial is out there. Climate deniers always make the top of the list or at least the top three.
    I don't know if you have ever checked out websites that examine science denial but the legwork has been done on contrasting and comparing difference science denial communities.
    They all copy the same playbook.
    Have you checked?
    (…)
    Well?

  30. Ron Graf:

    Brandon, the good that comes from debate is precisely the possibility of persuading thoughtful action to prevent screw ups. I hope we are more mature as a civilization than children living in the same house hoping a rival sibling screws up so as to look better. We can't allow a divide to push us past the point of civility that we can't debate important topics.

    Except you, in reference to Skeptics as a whole, have done exactly that. Repeatedly. What you guys do is not try to engage in honest debate. What you do isn't even trying to en engage in debate. The whole reason you respond to the drivel of people like Cedric Katesby is to avoid engaging in any actual debate.

    It's no different than the inane commentary one gets from political pundits on cable "news" stations. You look for the dumbest, weakest, lamest talking points you can find drone on and on about them in order to pretend you're addressing the overall position of those you disagree with.

    Brandon, you have invested years in becoming superbly informed about climate science (among many topics,) but especially this one. It would be a shame to allow the biased media to control the debate. Or do you disagree?

    The media doesn't control anything. People just use the media as a scapegoat. The media gives people what they want. The bias it displays is the same bias you'll find everywhere else. And it's not just the "mainstream" media. Conservative media is every bit as biased and worthless. There is no person, no group, no organization remotely relevant in the global warming debate with the slightest integrity.

    That's why I say you're wasting your time. Threads like what we have on this post are no different than the Facebook threads from people mindlessly parroting the latest chain letter they came across.

    There are enormous problems within the global warming movement. There are plenty of topics people could have real, productive discussions about. They won't though. Instead, they'll sit there repeating the same tired talking points year after year, pretending responding to people like Cedric Katesby could somehow accomplish something. It won't. It'll do just as much to change the world as sharing the latest meme on Facebook will.

  31. There are enormous problems within the global warming movement.

    You mean...NASA?

    There are plenty of topics people could have real, productive discussions about.

    Well, we could talk about the various science denial groups out there on the internet and see how they compare in methodology.

  32. Cedric, which consensus on the cause of stomach ulcers do you prefer , the consensus that existed in the 70's or the current consensus ? On which would you like to be treated should you be unfortunate enough to have a stomach ulcer ?

  33. Cedric, which consensus on the....

    It's not 'consensus'.
    The term is scientific consensus. The idea is to go with the latest updated version because the old one was superceeded.
    It's a science thing.
    You may have had a biopsy six months ago but the test results you got on you last biopsy just the other day is the one you and your doctor go with.

    Scientists estimate that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old. They used to think that the Earth was about 100 million years old.
    I accept that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old for reasons repeatedly stated.
    (And no, it's really got nothing to do with CNN)

    But yours is not a new objection. You are rehashing a creationist argument.

    Claim CA250:
    Scientific theories are always changing. You cannot trust what scientists say, since it may be different tomorrow.

    Response:
    Science investigates difficult questions about unknown fields, and scientists are human, so it is inevitable that scientific findings will not be perfect. However, science works by investigating more and more, which means results get checked and rechecked with further findings. The reason some findings change is because they get corrected. This process of correction helps make science one of the most successful areas of human endeavor. The people who cannot be trusted are those who are always right.

    As more evidence accumulates, scientific findings become more and more certain. Theories that have withstood several decades of study may undergo more refinement of details, but it is almost inconceivable that they would be overturned completely.
    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA250.html

  34. Cedric, you need to read this article: https://quillette.com/2019/02/23/motivated-reasoning-is-disfiguring-social-science/

    The bottom line is that professional guilds such as the APA and AAP have a demonstrable track record of unreliability when speaking on matters of science. This means that parents, the general public, and policy makers may base decisions on erroneous pseudo-scientific claims that can’t be backed by good data. Perhaps the most egregious issue is when such bodies simply pretend no controversy exists in fields that are, in fact, highly controversial. This behavior, known as “citation bias,” has been described by some scholars as one of the seven deadly sins of research scholarship. As professors, we would give a student a failing grade for such behavior in an academic paper. And yet professional guilds engage in such behavior on a fairly regular basis, at least with respect to behavioral research.

    Why does this happen? There are a number of possible explanations.

    The first is a lack of intellectual diversity. It’s been known for decades that the social sciences are heavily weighted with individuals who identify as sociocultural liberals or progressives. It probably isn’t just a happy coincidence that so much of social science is in lockstep with liberal and progressive social advocacy positions.

    The second is the culture of institutions. From my experience and perspective, these tend to function on a corporate structure. Although they are typically non-profits, they increasingly behave like businesses rather than academic centers. As such, they do not appear to foster an appropriate level of critical thinking, skepticism, caution, or solicitation of opposing views (indeed on the spanking resolution, one skeptical scholar, Robert Larzelere, who volunteered to help was explicitly rebuffed). This is a recipe for conformity and groupthink. (Indeed, official APA policy appears to forbid scholarly special interest groups under its fold from taking public positions that differ from its own central stated positions…consistent with a business but not an academic or scholarly model.)

    Third, and related, the review processes these resolution statements undergo is obviously failing. Often, on council, advocates for a position will boast that a resolution passed through multiple boards and committees, all internal to the APA. And yet, I find myself thinking, the resolution still sucks. Indeed, the “this has been reviewed so many times before” line of argument is simply an appeal to consensus and authority, both of which expose the failure of such organizations’ review process, not any superior quality of the resultant product.

    Worryingly, professional guilds are producing resolution statements with increasing frequency. Indeed, our review of media effects policy statements found that the AAP, in particular, is producing them like a moral panic pez dispenser. Do the 2010s really require so many more policy statements than did the 1990s? I doubt it. Increasingly, they resemble products produced by a business, and so they should be treated by the general public as if that is what they are: the advertising may not always tell the full story.

  35. Cedric, you need to read this article...

    Why?

    The bottom line is that professional guilds such as the APA and AAP.

    The APA is...the American Psychological Association?

    The AAP is the American Academy of Pediatrics?
    Do I have that right?

    The bottom line is that professional guilds such as the APA and AAP have a demonstrable track record of unreliability when speaking on matters of science.

    Who says?

    This means that parents, the general public, and policy makers may base decisions on erroneous pseudo-scientific claims that can’t be backed by good data.

    Well, the easy fix is to cross reference any claims with other relevant institutions.
    Nobody is forcing you to pay attention to only the APA or the AAP.
    You could check out different countries counterpart scientific communities, for example.

    It’s been known for decades that the social sciences...

    Relevance? Climate science relies on all the Earth Sciences. No exceptions. None of them are social sciences.

    The second is the culture of institutions. From my experience and perspective...

    Oh? From some person's experience and perspective? Why should anyone care?

    Did you actually read my previous comment to you? It was rather good.
    I mentioned NASA.
    Oh and did you notice Chilly's comment?

  36. Cedric,

    So now you are saying be skeptical of claims from scientific authorities. I am glad to see you are persuaded by reason and evidence.

    Brandon, see, you were too cynical. Reason and debate can be productive, even with believers.

    Cedric, you keep throwing around NASA as if every employee there now was personally involved in the successful Apollo program (successful notwithstanding the three Apollo 1 astronauts killed in the capsule test). NASA has a great brand and part of the reason I got into climate science is I want to defend that brand, and that of western science, from being hijacked by identity thieves. Gavin Schmidt is no Gene Kranz. And Michael Mann is no Freeman Dyson, who by the way is a skeptic of the climate science "consensus."

    Some of the most vocal skeptics are from top institutions; Roy Spencer, the head of the U of Alabama, Huntsville, UAH global temperature tracking by satellite, is former NASA. Richard Lindzen, who is a top MIT professor of atmospheric physics, basically says that CO2 warming has no positive feedback loops to justify the scary model tuned forcasts, believes the minute amount of CO2 warming produced by the actual direct greenhouse effect is actually beneficial. Judith Curry, former top professor in atmospheric physics at GA Tech is only slightly less skeptical about the climate science industry.

    You ask what authority does Professor Chris Ferguson have to write about bias in the APA and AAP. Here is his Wiki : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Ferguson_(psychologist)

    Here is another recent article from Rutgers saying essentially the same thing. https://twitter.com/PsychRabble/status/1093903566635442182

    Researchers may engage in motivated reasoning, easily accepting evidence that supports preferred conclusions and intensely scrutinizing evidence that supports undesired claims. They may fall prey to excessive scientism, mistakenly conflating a finding being published with the finding being an established fact. They may also fall victim to status quo bias or status biases, such that they err on the side of maintaining the scientific consensus, or use prestige associated with a researcher, rather than strength of underlying evidence, as a heuristic when evaluating that researcher’s work. These factors may explain why some “scientific breakthroughs” – such as social priming, power posing, or “inaccuracy of stereotypes” – fail to hold up when subjected to scientific scrutiny. The chapter concludes with recommendations for limiting scientific gullibility.

  37. So now you are saying...

    My position is unchanged. What are you talking about?

    Cedric, you keep throwing around NASA....

    NASA and every single scientific community on the planet.

    Gavin Schmidt is no Gene Kranz. And Michael Mann is...

    We've covered this.
    Put forward all the key issues you like. Let's pretend that Mann's just terrible, terrible, terrible.
    So what?
    Flush everything he ever did down the toilet if you like.
    (shrug)
    Doesn't make a difference.
    It's not how science works. Mann is not the kingpin. He's not "the guy". The scientific consensus on climate change is not founded on any one person or one paper or one organization.
    Creationists obsess over Darwin too. It doesn't help them. The Theory of Evolution doesn't rest on his reputation or whatever work he did or did not do in the 19th Century.
    You could magically burn all the copies of "On the Origin of Species" tomorrow and it wouldn't matter at all.

    Some of the most vocal skeptics are from top institutions; Roy Spencer...

    Then let's hope they do some work. The scientific arena awaits. Opinions are all very nice and all but in science, only the work matters.

    You ask what authority does Professor Chris Ferguson...

    Never mentioned him. Why did you even bother posting what you did? Relevance?

    Here is another recent article from Rutgers saying...

    What are you doing?

    Did you actually read my previous comment to you? It was rather good.
    I mentioned NASA.
    Oh and did you notice Chilly's comment?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *