Over on the thread The folly of blaming the Eastern U.S. heat wave on global warming there is a lively discussion going on between people that think the Eastern US heatwave hype by media and a few activist scientists is just bunk -vs- the defenders of the faith that insist it is a signature of global warming climate change climate disruption. Generally, these defenders are people that only look forward using model projections and pronouncements made by the IPCC, rather than look back at historical data and the propensity for nature to create such extremes, such as the nearly identical weather pattern that led to the 2010 Russian heatwave in which “climate change” was found blameless in a peer reviewed paper by NOAA.
In that thread there’s a comment by Gail Combs in response to the defenders of the faith (typically hit and run anonymous cowards) that I though worthy of elevating to a full post.
Gail Combs says:
Mr. B. says: July 7, 2012 at 6:48 pm
The IPCC and the National Academy of Science believe global warming is real and directly related to human activity. Over 95% of Scientist worldwide believe global warming is real and directly related to human activity. If you don’t want to believe it you don’t have to. But I for one am more willing to listen to the conclusions of people who have devoted their education, time, study and energy to this issue than to some guy with a blog……
____________________________________
As a scientist, I KNOW other scientists will lie through their teeth when it comes to money or their career. I have had plenty of direct experience of outright lying and falsification of data. I have also been fired more than once for refusing to falsify data upon direct order from my superior.
My personal experience with the “Honesty” and “Integrity” of scientists is that it is rare, most will go along with the herd or with higher authority rather than stick their neck out.
In my entire career I found only one other person willing to stand up for what was right instead of going along with what was easiest. She was also fired for her honesty. Most people are followers not leaders. I have read somewhere only one in two hundred is actually a leader and to control a group all that is needed is to identify and break that leader. That is what saying there is a “Consensus” and the labeling and denigrating of those who don’t go with the flow is all about. That practice alone should make people wonder about “The Science” Real science is about the quest for truth and facts not following “Authority” not being a member of the “A” list.
Here is the current state of “Honesty” in Science:
…..Survey questions on plagiarism and other forms of professional misconduct were excluded. The final sample consisted of 21 surveys that were included in the systematic review, and 18 in the meta-analysis.
A pooled weighted average of 1.97% (N = 7, 95%CI: 0.86–4.45) of scientists admitted to have fabricated, falsified or modified data or results at least once –a serious form of misconduct by any standard– and up to 33.7% admitted other questionable research practices. In surveys asking about the behaviour of colleagues, admission rates were 14.12% (N = 12, 95% CI: 9.91–19.72) for falsification, and up to 72% for other questionable research practices. Meta-regression showed that self reports surveys, surveys using the words “falsification” or “fabrication”, and mailed surveys yielded lower percentages of misconduct. When these factors were controlled for, misconduct was reported more frequently by medical/pharmacological researchers than others.
Considering that these surveys ask sensitive questions and have other limitations, it appears likely that this is a conservative estimate of the true prevalence of scientific misconduct.
More articles about the lack of honesty in science.
A Sharp Rise in Retractions Prompts Calls for Reform
ScienceDaily: US Scientists Significantly More Likely to Publish Fake Research, Study Finds
A few individual cases:
LISTINGS:
.naturalnews.com:Scientific fraud news, articles and information
Many here at WUWT have a degree in science, engineering or the maths. That is why we smell something very fishy with the IPCC and “The Science”
This is what Forty citizen auditors found when they looked at “the United Nations’ Nobel-winning climate bible.. the gold standard.”
…Contrary to statements by the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the celebrated 2007 report does not rely solely on research published in reputable scientific journals. It also cites press releases, newspaper and magazine clippings, working papers, student theses, discussion papers, and literature published by green advocacy groups. Such material is often called “grey literature.”
We’ve been told this report is the gold standard. We’ve been told it’s 100 percent peer-reviewed science. But thousands of sources cited by this report have not come within a mile of a scientific journal.
Based on the grading system used in US schools, 21 chapters in the IPCC report receive an F (they cite peer-reviewed sources less than 60% of the time), 4 chapters get a D, and 6 get a C. There are also 5 Bs and 8 As…. http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2010/04/14/climate-bible-gets-21-fs-on-report-card/
Sorry, the more we dig, and look at the data we can get our hands on (as any true scientist is required to do) the more it stinks. “The Team” knows this and that is why the data was not released upon simple requests, Freedom of Information Acts and when push finally came to shove the data was “Lost”
Phil Jones: The Dog Ate My Homework
From the “A goat ate my homework” excuse book: NIWA reveals NZ original climate data missing
Lonnie and Ellen, A Serial Non-Archiving Couple
If you want more on the supposed “Integrity” of those you seem to believe in see: WUWT Climategate links
Related articles
- Alarmists Use Extreme Weather to Revive Man-Made Global Warming (theaveragejoenewsblogg.com)
- Now That the Weather Is Going Crazy, Americans Believe In Climate Change … – Slate Magazine (blog) (slate.com)
- Stockholm sees coldest June day in 84 years (thelocal.se)
- Hank Campbell: IPCC Gives Up On Science, Makes Grey Literature Official (junkscience.com)
- Comment On “Levitus Data On Ocean Forcing Confirms Skeptics, Falsifies IPCC” At Niche Modeling (pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com)
Here’s the problem right away, straight from the horse’s mouth:
“The IPCC and the National Academy of Science believe global warming is real and directly related to human activity. Over 95% of Scientist worldwide believe global warming is real and directly related to human activity.”
Belief is nice, but science works with facts. Just because the IPCC and their boss, the railroad engineer, believe, means nothing. Some people believe in god. Some people believe in the space butterfly. The IPCC can believe in aliens, but that doesn’t make aliens real. Belief has no room in science, only facts and hard evidence. Belief only has room in religion.
And well, I still wonder where those 95% of scientists comes from. 95% of all scientists, that’s a lot of people. Have they all been interviewed? Unlikely. It’s more like this being another upgraded percentage based on statistics trickery. Too bad that a statistic isn’t really science either.
Well DONE!
A keeper!
Thank you
Heh — “Ryan’s Geography Trick.” He shrank Oz, too.
I would say to Gail, “May the Force be with you.” But, apparently it already is and then some.
Bill Tuttle says:
July 8, 2012 at 9:05 am
> Heh — “Ryan’s Geography Trick.” He shrank Oz, too.
Yes, but note there’s an ongoing calamity (or something) going on in southern Greenland! 🙂
There is a great deal of literature out there that pushes the idea that the developed world needs to shift to a government managed green economy with a direct Industrial Policy orientation. The government partners would be Big Business and research universities who of course love the idea of such a lucrative, for them, rent seeking economy. For those of us providing the funding who are not part of the politically connected class, it really will be 21st century serfdom with assigned places and lifestyles.
The National Academy of Sciences published a report last week on the critical role computer science will have in this new sustainability economy that of course has the tech companies salivating. It acts as if bigger computers and better software were the only impediments in the past to command and control economies having better results. Here’s the misguided quote:
“advances in computing are critical enablers of change for addressing the growing sustainability challenges facing the United States and the world. . . research and innovation in computing, information, and communications technologies are consequently critical to addressing the broad range of sustainability challenges.”
Then the cite is to the UN’s 1987 Bruntland Report Our Common Future.
That industrial vision is designed to corrupt any entity who may have access to that stream of taxpayer cash. Which is what has happened.
95% of those contributing to the IPCC reports believe in global warming is real and directly related to human activity. And we will identify and eliminate from the IPCC the remaining 5%
Progressivism Socialism, Statism, etc. Call it what you want, but the current U.S., U.N., E.U. leadership is fairly open about redistributing wealth on both national and global scales usineg Climate as a central piece of its tax revenue generating mechanism.
The United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs has published “IN SEARCH OF NEW DEVELOPMENT FINANCE 2012”. Take a look at what your government has planned for you.
http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/wess/wess_current/2012wess_overview_en.pdf
Note how the types of global taxes are similar to those proposed by the Obama Adminstration. This is Globalism folks. Climate Policy is a central piece of the plan.
See Page 3, Figure 0.1 and page 4, Table 0.1.
Here is a sample:
Carbon taxes
EU Emission Trading Scheme
Air passenger levy
Certified emission reduction tax
Billionaire’s tax-a 1% tax on WEALTH not income.
Currency transaction tax-per unit tax
Financial transaction tax-per unit tax
I fear that if it were not for the likes of WUWT, we would have been assimilated by now.
When I see a commenter belch that “Over 95% of Scientist worldwide believe global warming is real and directly related to human activity.” I have to wonder why an individual would in good conscious who professes to be a science guru use an unscientific statistic. If asked how many scientists there are on the planet what would;be their answer? I see a lot of numbers with out the process that produced the stats. An answer on an exam without any work backing and supporting the conclusion.
As a scientist, I liked that there was some warming because it is better than the alternative. I liked that CO2 is rising because my garden produced more food. However; it took very little effort on my part to smell a dead fish in the AGW crowd. It is so simple to vet out the followers of AGW who are the “sheep” following the wolf in sheep’s clothing. It is so clear there is a money train burgeoning with dollars fueling CAGW. It is so grossly obvious. In religious zealotry, they can look you in the face and spew junk, vomit on themselves, and actually believe “the world is flat” brain wash.
As for leadership, yes the sheep are many, the sheep dog is few, and the wolves are circling. So , the folks like Anthony are the sheep dogs; as the folks who read and participate in the conquest of truth we see at this blog, what are you? The wolf, sheep dog, or sheep?
I read the headline as “A wave of heated bpeer pressure results in shrinking integrity”
I’ll read the whole thing again after a bit, but I don’t think correcting the error changed anything.
That settle it. I want Gail on my side in a bar fight
Gail,
Thank you for your post, your passion for honesty is an inspiration. I am not a scientist but a life-long (+30 years) engineer and have seen my share of dishonesty, carelessness, laziness and in general, a pervasive lack of integrity from a wide range of technical professionals. From programmers, to scientists, to engineers – there are good, strong professionals, but in my experience, they have always been in the minority and yes, commonly their careers are threatened – they quit and in some cases are harassed and even summarily fired simply for telling the unvarnished truth.
How do the rats get away with it? Many ways, but all their strategies seem to fall under the general rubric of politicizing and humanizing (ala ad-hom attacks) problems rather than sticking to the facts at hand and taking rational steps to solve said problem. Politicizing and finger-pointing works well within a managed organizational structure because all the rats need to do is snow those vested with authority, that and a bit of boot-kissing and the deal is sealed.
Twelve years ago I had had enough and started my own company. I’m still at it.
November 2009 I became aware of Climategate through the WSJ. Initially, it just tickled my funny bone to see people whom I considered stuffed-shirt over-educated welfare cases getting caught with their hands in the cookie jar (so to speak) but I slowly over time realized the corruption in climate science is far more advanced and serious than your typical run-of-the-mill corporate or research facility sewer rat environment. I clued to the absolute lack of MSM coverage (it would have been a great story); investigations that were nothing but transparently gratuitous whitewashes; and there’s the money. Lots of money. Big buildings, facilities, supercomputers, careers, academic grants, boondoggles to Copenhagen, Rio, all expenses paid. The media feeds on it. Politicians feed on it – can you imagine – taxing air?
Climate Science has become a gigantic sewer rat magnet.
Gail,
I too have witnessed falsification 1st hand. In my case, it was having to do with Superfund sites and soil remediation. We’re talking billions of dollars here, and the stakes are huge. I wasn’t quiet enough in my questioning some methods, and my complaints to OSHA regarding research method’s safety didn’t help in my longevity with the program. I’ve seen examples of others who didn’t last long either after “not going along with the program.”
What stunned me was the weekly reports to the DOE… always containing the statement that “Progress in all areas is excellent.”
Have some consolation in the knowledge that at least one reader here knows that what you’re saying is true.
I don’t keep records, and I don’t know where to find honest ones, but it seems to me that this current summer if very reminiscent of the first years we lived here (we moved here in the winter of 1989-1990 (the winters were bitterly cold and the summers were scorching–maybe a bit hotter than this year so far).
I wonder what the GHG concentrations against temperature graph looks like for the period 1980-2013 for east-central (Douglas County) looks like.
One doesn’t have to be a scientist to recognize the almost constantly flawed argumentation of the CAGW proponents. Ad hominem, appeals to authority, band wagon appeals, and many other errors crop up in any warmist defense against skeptical criticism.
Ric Werme says:
July 8, 2012 at 9:18 am
Yes, but note there’s an ongoing calamity (or something) going on in southern Greenland! 🙂
“Viking settlements in Greenland during the Middle Ages? Preposterous! Show me where they were on the map — no, no, use *this* map”…
It is hard not to get worked up about this. The progression he mentions is in itself reason to think that they know the data does not bear close examination. 1: Refuse to provide the data. 2: Stonewall 3: Do what Nixon should have done with the White House tapes – hide them or destroy outrigh
(I am anything but a Nixon fan, but I still can’t believe he let them survive so long it got to where he couldn’t destroy them any longer.)
It is as clear as the nose on your face that if the data supported their CAGW contentions then they would have made it all available long ago.
This all has made me so untrusting of ALL science. I’ve gotten to the point of this: If you scientists don’t let me personally see every bit of your work, I don’t believe a word you say. Even if much of it is over my head, I still want to be able to see it all.
Steve Garcia
The heat wave was also being exaggerated, and in places, created by the alarm force, in my case: Theweathernetework.com in Canada. I had the suspicion for several days that the actual temperature and humidity (replaced by “feels-like”) in Ottawa, Ontario has been “cooked” but last Friday, with the reported temperature at 34C (93.2 F) and “feels like” 40C (104 F), I duly put some “45” sunscreen and walked home from work. I stopped at my favourite pub “The New Edinburgh”, which has a patio on the roof. Having made the ~ 1 mile without working up a sweat, I decided to try the patio. Man, it was simply pleasantly warm, with a nice breeze. I asked the waitress what she thought the temp was and she replied “maybe 26…28”.
Now I worked for three years in the middle 60s in a place where it didn’t only feel like 40’s but often wasn’t far from 50C – the Sahel south of Lake Chad in Nigeria (plus other parts of northern Nigeria) – mapping the geology on my own (no assistant) as an employee (not a tech aid guy) of the Geological Survey of Nigeria. On one of the hotter days, I came down off a rocky ridge to seek the shade of a thicket of dry-leafed shrubby trees to rest and eat a small lunch. I entered the thicket and set off a heart-stopping thundering and billowing of thick red dust that was like hot ashes as I roused a huge flock of sleeping warthogs (Hausa muslims don’t eat pork) who took off, thin gray-skinned tails with black paint brushes on the ends sticking up straight as they fled. I came back out choking and had to settle for the shade of a large rock at the foot of the ridge. Now that, folks, is what 40s “feels like”.
As usual, I wrecked my comments with sloppy editing.
One should say:
The other (as if I had found them all):
Ask yourself one question Mr. B. would you trust a man whose livelihood depends on him being right? Would you trust a man whose livelihood depends on continued warming? Have you actually looked at the huge amount of money being funneled into this scam?
As for the IPCC you should take a closer look and weep. 😉 Here are some quotes from IPCC insiders given to the InterAcademy Council committee that investigated the IPCC.
What’s this??
Now do you feel deceived?
You should learn from an arch warmist at the Guardian.
How strong is your faith now?
DJ says:
July 8, 2012 at 9:52 am
Gail,
I too have witnessed falsification 1st hand. In my case, it was having to do with Superfund sites and soil remediation. We’re talking billions of dollars here, and the stakes are huge. I wasn’t quiet enough in my questioning some methods, and my complaints to OSHA regarding research method’s safety didn’t help in my longevity with the program. I’ve seen examples of others who didn’t last long either after “not going along with the program.”
What stunned me was the weekly reports to the DOE… always containing the statement that “Progress in all areas is excellent.”
Superfund remediation was a gigantic self-licking ice-cream cone. Originally, the toxic crud was incinerated, but when that proved horrendously expensive, it was just transported to other landfills, which became Superfund sites in turn, and the crud was transported to *other* landfills, lather, rinse, repeat. Ask anybody who worked at a landfill in the ’70s and ’80s what an “ID 23” classification was.
“…I have read somewhere only one in two hundred is actually a leader and to control a group all that is needed is to identify and break that leader…
Above is my drive-by accentuation and emphasis. I see Anthony’s site as an intelligence test of sorts and I’m one of those guys who can’t chew bubblegum and walk at the same time. And I’m almost all out of bubblegum.
Sorry, gotta go, I’m almost out of bubblegum! Cheers!
Tom in Indy- When I read that Computing Research for Sustainability report all i could think of was how this is how John Holdren is pushing the Future Earth Alliance work that I had written about in June. http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/future-earth-alliance-where-education-climate-and-economic-planning-are-all-cores/
It even had IBM overseeing the report. I guess providing those needed mainframes and software and consulting services is consistent with its Smarter Planet and Smarter Cities business model for future revenue.
This is the report that refers to people and their behavior as sociotechnical systems in need of new mindsets and behaviors that reflect sustainability.
It rather gives me the creeps to keep running into tech companies funding and advocating transformational changes in education and the supposed necessity of a Green Economy when the funding federal government is saying:
“Information and data are critical to understanding the challenges, to formulating and deploying solutions, to communicating results, and to facilitating learning and new behaviors based on the results of the work.”
I cannot link these reports as my access is visual only but it goes on to state that “Sustainability is a challenge that will persist for generations.”
We better start understanding all the elements of this statist engrenage soon. The politically connected clearly have aspirations that this command and control management is a long term way lock in an ability to live at our expense.
I don’t know, Anthony. Those charts still look pretty warm. It looks like the global anomaly is up to 0.23C above the 1981-2010 mean. The weird color scheme makes it more difficult to discern with the grayscale extending up to 3.5 degrees above normal, but the blues beginning at 0.5 degrees below normal.
Me?
I’m a 5%er and proud of it!
As another scientist…I’ll second the notion that scientists are not above flat out lying to get grant money or some other support. You have to even be careful when faculty come up for tenure. Unfortunately, happens more often than you would think (at least in chemistry).
I was told in grad school once that was just how the game was played.
Gary Pearse says:
July 8, 2012 at 10:05 am
I entered the thicket and set off a heart-stopping thundering and billowing of thick red dust that was like hot ashes as I roused a huge flock of sleeping warthogs (Hausa muslims don’t eat pork) who took off, thin gray-skinned tails with black paint brushes on the ends sticking up straight as they fled. I came back out choking and had to settle for the shade of a large rock at the foot of the ridge. Now that, folks, is what 40s “feels like”.
Sounds like a balmy day in early May in Iraq. Just substitute camel spiders and/or scorpions for the wart hogs, and you’d have felt right at home, Gary!
95% of scientists, BS and for one simple mathematical reason . Given the total number of scientists are not know its impossible to say what % of scientists are represented by a what is know as a sub-group of the whole not matter what its size. Simply maths really but to the AGW faithful whats a claim as entered the dodgem , no matter how poor it is , them its unchangeable and unchallengeable an approach standard in religion but one with zero scientific validity.
Let me be a
climateweather alarmist and lets extrapolate from here. These are signs of global cooling. Get ready for the next next ice age./ SARC
You see, two can play silly games.
This is what Forty citizen auditors found when they looked at “the United Nations’ Nobel-winning climate bible.. the gold standard.”
I was one of those auditors. Donna really bent the rules to give the benefit to the IPCC — and it was much worse than she reported… Just sayin’
[SNIP: Your snark and attacks on Anthony Watts are getting tiring. Discuss the science. If you can. -REP]
You’re all so sure of yourselves, but you just won’t bet on it…
https://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/?eventGroupId=7620
Many excellent comments here. Fortunately, I was already employed by a prestigious research laboratory upon graduation from college. Anyone who works in a raw data research lab knows how easily data is ‘cooked’ to look good. We generally did not do that, but it did occur in situations where the chips (i.e. funding) were down. Personally, I witnessed this on many different occasions, the best technique being that of omission: if some of the experimental data doesn’t fit, ignore it, thereby making the remainder look better.
Less fortunately, a situation arose where I discovered the cause of death of scores of children who were immuno-suppressed for the treatment of leukemia. Upon discovery, I was warned by my superior, a PhD/MD, not to divulge the information or we could lose our funding and be shut down. I was young, intimidated, and didn’t like starvation, so I kept my mouth shut. The company responsible quietly went about correcting the problem, the parents never knew what killed their children, and I went on my way out the door back to college and to launch my career in business. The decision to leave was mine, out of disgust.
The moral of the story? Many scientist’s experiments and findings become biased once under contract since they will do whatever is necessary to continue the government-sponsored gravy train. Always look behind the reports at the raw data to decide for yourself. To me, the raw data does not support CAGW in any manner whatsoever. Those who decry CAGW and look to the government for solutions are lemmings being led to the river bank.
Thanks for elevating Gail Combs’ comment to a headline post!
Gail’s integrity, combined with an understanding of the scientific method, is what I was looking for when selecting “independent” scientific experts for various product and process design reviews I was responsible for.
paul kr~ I am still hoping to see your response to Rockwood, re Arctic ice during the massive heatwaves and droughts of the 1930s.
feet2thefire says:
July 8, 2012 at 10:03 am
….This all has made me so untrusting of ALL science. I’ve gotten to the point of this: If you scientists don’t let me personally see every bit of your work, I don’t believe a word you say. Even if much of it is over my head, I still want to be able to see it all.
____________________________
GOOD!
Steve that is how ALL science is SUPPOSED TO BE DONE, PERIOD. No ifs, no ands, no buts, no hiding data, no hiding methods or codes or anything else. If you do not want to let it all hang out then fine it becomes a “Trade Secret” and IT DOES NOT GO INTO PEER REVIEWED journals. It is either a “Trade Secret” or it is peer reviewed science it can not be both and that is what the Post Modern Science group is trying to do, have their cake and eat it too by hiding the data.
If scientists and journals were ethical the first article that tried the “hide the data” crap should have been shoved back at the guilty party(s) and told FIX IT or shut up. The fact the journals, editors and reviewers did not say “Where is the data?” is a big glaring neon sign of collusion to hide dicey results in my book. I do not have to know a thing about the science involved to smell a big fat rat. If there is no data to back it up it just plain isn’t science. That put Nature and the other guilty journals in the same category as the National Enquirer.
Actually I have more respect for the National Enquirer than I do for Nature. At least the National Enquirer does not have its nose stuck in the air in a “Holier than Thou” attitude while they trash the reputation of science and they try to ram down my throat political policy that will bankrupt my country. The Science Journals are no longer anything but political propaganda outlets and should be boycotted by all scientists with integrity.
95%? it’s been adjusted the wrong way, ‘the team’ will not be happy. Obviously just a minor modelling error that is easily correctable. But then we all know in reality it’s just a random number pulled from an extremely uncomfortable place.
…..and I don’t mean the back of a Volkswagen.
There is more at stake than just honesty. What do these (real) cases have in common? An archival employee stealing documents from an important historical collection and selling them on the market, a medical doctor imitating Jack the Ripper and kiling his female patients, and a scientist who fabricates his data.
As a scientist, I’d like to believe that we are superior in honesty and intellect. Compared to politicians, this would certainly be true. However, scientists are people too. As a general rule, we “don’t bite the hand that feeds us.”
Wow. Well done.
What about the hot weather in northern Canada on these maps? Is this real or is there a lack of observations there to base it on? I seem to see this on every map.
The IPCC models are plain wrong, It’s not me saying this but the American Physical Society’s guide to atmospheric physics: http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/hafemeister.cfm
In Eq 17 the authors show the IPCC assumption, lower atmosphere DOWN emissivity = 1, gives excess energy. The way they solve it, reduced emissivity, is a fudge because you must also reduce the earth’s emissivity: the problem has no solution.
The error [333.[1-0.76 W/m^2] is 50 times claimed AGW. To fix it requires major surgery of incorrect physics. One way the models pretend to work is to use exaggerated low level cloud optical depth. They double it: http://www.gewex.org/images/feb2010.pdf [page 5]
This settled science is nothing of the sort. No IPCC model can predict climate.
The link to the Russian heat wave refers to a team led by Dr. Hoerling (among others). He has put a series of papers claiming that extreme events are caused by blocking patterns in the jet stream. Here is the quote from the press release accompanying his paper:
The heat wave was due primarily to a natural phenomenon called an atmospheric “blocking pattern”, in which a strong high pressure system developed and remained stationary over western Russian, keeping summer storms and cool air from sweeping through the region and leading to the extreme hot and dry conditions. While the blocking pattern associated with the 2010 event was unusually intense and persistent, its major features were similar to atmospheric patterns associated with prior extreme heat wave events in the region since 1880, the researchers found.
Unfortunately, they didn’t examine the possibility that the formation of these blocking patterns is linked to changes in Arctic sea level pressure trends (SLP), which alters the behavior of the jet stream. That kind of analysis is beyond what this group considered. They looked for a direct correlation with 2010 sea ice extent, but didn’t consider the recent decades influence of reduced sea ice pack on jet stream patterns.
The recent meteorological theory proposed by Dr. Jennifer Francis can explain a lot of the changes in jet stream patterns that cause extreme events. And the more regional seasonal temperature data is examined, in light of these theories, the more it seems that increased numbers of blocking patterns in the jet stream are causing more and more extreme events.
The odds are very high that the shift in jet stream patterns caused by higher Arctic pressures resulting from reduced Arctic ice (due to polar amplification), caused the duration and intensity of the Russian heat wave.
Yes … well … one may have to grant Gail some leeway in her continued use of hyperbole; it is endemic to her style and no doubt, while there is probably some basis to her observations she should be cautious in extrapolating her observations into the rest of the world let alone other ‘fields’ and various ‘industries’; my own experience certainly does not mirror hers, but then design reviews, ‘cross checks’ of the data taken on product/devices etc with separate instrumentation works to ensure compliance with quality standards and minimize cheating.
It does look though, that the higher the monetary stakes (the multi-billion dollar ‘climate research’ industry not to mention carbon-credit trading exchanges) coupled with minimal supervision and only ‘pal’ review and given unverifiable within-the-strict-confines-of-a-laboratory ultimate ‘projections’ (forecasts in any other vernacular) decades into the future (2030 – 2050 even to the year 2100!) that the field of cli sci is ripe for hucksters of many makes to bluff, counterfeit, feign, fake, pretend, profess, put on, omit and sham in ‘activities’ involving quite-frankly outright fraud, organizational-level effusion, wholesale dissembling all the while obstructing (e.g. refusing to archive or outright refusing to make available raw datasets for analysis) those in honest pursuit of the truth …
.
I had procrastinated my too terse and trite retort to scientists. Science is a way of thought that may lead to truth and not a title and certainly not a self-assigned epithet. See Karl Popper’s Logic of Scientific Discovery.
Believe nothing that you read or hear without verifying it yourself unless it fits your preexisting worldview.
I’ll just leave this here.
http://youtu.be/yRc3Ev05QiM
Anthony You are so wrong don’t you see the “global warming” moved across to the Sahara from the USA its right there for all to see LOL
I think the trees were telling the truth. Anomalous readings are hiding the truth, the decline is real.
You should get out more often ssupak.
What about debates? Oh, here you lose too. Get of the good ship global warming while it’s sinking.
Robin says:
July 8, 2012 at 10:20 am
….It even had IBM overseeing the report. I guess providing those needed mainframes and software and consulting services is consistent with its Smarter Planet and Smarter Cities business model for future revenue.
This is the report that refers to people and their behavior as sociotechnical systems in need of new mindsets and behaviors that reflect sustainability.
It rather gives me the creeps to keep running into tech companies funding and advocating transformational changes in education and the supposed necessity of a Green Economy….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Robin it will give you more creeps when you read these:
Counted for Persecution; IBM’s Role…
….survivors filed suit against IBM
Thomas John Watson, Sr.- … Watson’s pursuit of profit led him to personally approve and spearhead IBM’s strategic technological relationship with …. Germany during the 1930s. He was the IBM chairman and CEO at the time. His connections are interesting especially his interest in “global commerce and international peace”
Thomas J. Watson, Sr. Encyclopedia Britannica’s sanitized version.
Technology of course is neutral, it is the use to which humans put it that is either good or evil.
Ther is NO global warming and there is no USA warming either
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/June-US-sfc-temps-USHCN-vs-ISH-PDAT-1973-2012.png
I don’t bet on stuff.
The fortune to be made is in betting on the likelihood of some idiot troll saying something stupid, like “You’re all so sure of yourselves, but you just won’t bet on it.”
Problem in both cases: the payout is not worth the time.
Gail, thanks and well done! I’ll be bookmarking this one.
ssupak says:
July 8, 2012 at 10:51 am
You’re all so sure of yourselves, but you just won’t bet on it…https://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/?eventGroupId=7620
===========================================
You really don’t pay attention, do you? This post was about how scientist lie. It even gives examples of the temp records being lost and manipulated.
But, I’ll make a personal wager with you using UAH data that 2012 won’t be the warmest year on record. Not that weather has anything to do with climate.
http://suyts.wordpress.com/2012/07/03/its-sooooooo-hot/
Did I forget to close a tag? My bad. [Fixed. ~dbs, mod.]
On the horses thing: What is the point? Looks like the Netherlands, which is already below sea level. Did a pump break, or did somebody under-engineer the number of pumps?
I am in Gail’s camp. I once had a boss insist that we not report a drinking water sample that was above the limits for contaminants, because the other sample taken was within limits. These decisions can be made at the lowest levels of a company, and no one will ever be the wiser. I left that company soon after that, because of that man.
OT. I wish the sign-up-to-have-comments-forwarded thing would automatically shut off when the troll to human ratio rises above some threshold.
Take away 95% off the funding, & the 95% consensus goes away…
Real solutions are usually simple, if you have the courage to live in reality.
ssupak says:
July 8, 2012 at 10:51 am
You’re all so sure of yourselves, but you just won’t bet on it…
https://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/?eventGroupId=7620
_____________________________–
I do not bet not even on horses (my first love) but Piers Corbyn does.
So Piers Corbyn is ready to bet against you. Here is his contact link
Let us know how your bet with Mr. Corbyn comes out.
Astronomy (my field) is fortunately free of fraudulent conduct, with rare exceptions. But there is some thick-headedness about so-called “dark matter”, which represents only the gap between model and observation but is usually thought of as a variant of matter only because of the term “dark matter” — the slenderest of reeds. So now we have CERN talking about chasing dark matter with their collider which is totally pointless and a waste of time.
A more accurate quote would be “97% of actively publishing climate scientists are convinced by the evidence of anthropogenic climate change,” because that’s the only group that even came close to the 95% mark.
From the extract at http://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/928.asp
Bottom line, for those of us who like actual numbers rather than percentages: the *number* of actively publishing climate scientists who responded “Yes” to the question, “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” was —
*insert dramatic drumroll*
— seventy-five. As in, 75.
Yup — they contacted 1,372 actively-publishing, self-identified climate scientists, 79 replied, and 75 said they believed in AGW.
Full report on the “consensus” here: http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
I wish more people would participate there, especially on the long-term bets. I have.
We’ve already had the predictable UEA ‘scientist’ on the BBC blame our UK summer rains on AGW, of course if I wanted to be alarmist I could point them to historical records from 1315 when it started to rain and continued with heavy summer downpours for the next seven years. Causing famine and massive social upheaval here as well as most of Europe during that period. But then it’s not in ‘our lifetime’ or in ‘the records’ so mustn’t have happened……
leftinbrooklyn says:
July 8, 2012 at 12:47 pm
Take away 95% off the funding, & the 95% consensus goes away…
Real solutions are usually simple, if you have the courage to live in reality.
And I meant to add that Gail Combs certainly does have that courage to live in reality. We must thank her for that.
*sigh* When I was young, absolutely everybody expected heat waves in the summer, cold snaps in the winter and variable weather in the Spring and Fall.
We still have them, but now the data must be cherry-picked to prove something.
“Be careful. People like to be told what they already know. Remember that. They get uncomfortable when you tell them new things. New things…well, new things aren’t what they expect. They like to know that, say, a dog will bite a man. That is what dogs do. They don’t want to know that man bites a dog, because the world is not supposed to happen like that. In short, what people think they want is news, but what they really crave is olds…Not news but olds, telling people that what they think they already know is true.”
Terry Pratchett through the character Lord Vetinari from his novel, “The Truth”
Thanks, Gail. I’d like to meet you someday.
I’ve mentioned before that I copy/pasted record temperatures for Columbus Ohio into Excel in 2007 and in 2012 and compared them. Here’s they all are. Aside form the 2012 list including a later period, can anyone explain the changes to past records in the period both list cover? (I hope this copy/paste into the comments works. Apologies for it’s legnth.This is just one tab of the spreadsheet.)
Newer-’12 Older-’07 (did not include ties)
1-Jan 67 1952 Jan-01 67 1952
2-Jan 64 2000 Jan-02 64 2000
3-Jan 64 1897 Jan-03 64 1897
3-Jan 64 1950
4-Jan 67 1997 Jan-04 67 1997
5-Jan 65 1997 Jan-05 65 1998
5-Jan 65 1998
6-Jan 68 1946 Jan-06 69 1946
7-Jan 68 2008 Jan-07 64 1907
8-Jan 68 2008 Jan-08 66 1937
9-Jan 62 1946 Jan-09 65 1946
10-Jan 59 1975 Jan-10 59 1975
11-Jan 66 1890 Jan-11 66 1890
12-Jan 67 1916 Jan-12 67 1916
13-Jan 69 2005 Jan-13 67 1995
14-Jan 70 1932 Jan-14 70 1932
15-Jan 64 1932 Jan-15 64 1932
16-Jan 60 1949 Jan-16 60 1949
17-Jan 62 1952 Jan-17 62 1952
18-Jan 68 1996 Jan-18 68 1996
19-Jan 67 1907 Jan-19 67 1907
20-Jan 68 1906 Jan-20 68 1906
21-Jan 72 1906 Jan-21 72 1906
22-Jan 71 1906 Jan-22 71 1906
23-Jan 68 1967 Jan-23 68 1967
24-Jan 66 1909 Jan-24 66 1909
24-Jan 66 1950
25-Jan 74 1950 Jan-25 74 1950
26-Jan 70 1950 Jan-26 70 1950
27-Jan 68 1916 Jan-27 68 1916
28-Jan 66 1914 Jan-28 66 1914
29-Jan 65 2002 Jan-29 65 1975
30-Jan 64 1916 Jan-30 64 1916
31-Jan 66 2002 Jan-31 62 1917
1-Feb 66 1989 Feb-01 66 1989
2-Feb 64 1903 Feb-02 64 1903
3-Feb 63 1890 Feb-03 63 1890
4-Feb 61 1962 Feb-04 66 1946
4-Feb 61 1991
5-Feb 64 1986 Feb-05 64 1986
6-Feb 62 2008 Feb-06 60 1925
7-Feb 61 1925 Feb-07 61 1925
8-Feb 72 1937 Feb-08 72 1937
9-Feb 66 2001 Feb-09 66 2001
10-Feb 69 1932 Feb-10 69 1932
11-Feb 74 1999 Feb-11 74 1999
12-Feb 69 1984 Feb-12 69 1984
13-Feb 68 1938 Feb-13 68 1938
14-Feb 68 1918 Feb-14 68 1918
15-Feb 70 1954 Feb-15 70 1954
16-Feb 72 1883 Feb-16 72 1883
17-Feb 67 1911 Feb-17 67 1911
18-Feb 65 1948 Feb-18 65 1948
19-Feb 70 1939 Feb-19 70 1939
20-Feb 68 1891 Feb-20 68 1891
21-Feb 71 1997 Feb-21 71 1997
22-Feb 70 1930 Feb-22 70 1930
23-Feb 66 1906 Feb-23 66 1985
23-Feb 66 1985
24-Feb 72 1961 Feb-24 72 1961
25-Feb 74 2000 Feb-25 74 2000
26-Feb 75 2000 Feb-26 75 2000
27-Feb 71 1996 Feb-27 71 1996
28-Feb 65 1939 Feb-28 65 1955
28-Feb 65 1955
29-Feb 70 1976 Feb-29 70 1976
1-Mar 65 1972 Mar-01 65 1997
1-Mar 65 1997
2-Mar 73 1992 Mar-02 73 1992
3-Mar 75 1974 Mar-03 75 1974
4-Mar 78 1976 Mar-04 78 1976
5-Mar 78 1983 Mar-05 78 1983
6-Mar 76 1973 Mar-06 76 1973
7-Mar 77 1974 Mar-07 77 1983
7-Mar 77 1983
8-Mar 80 1974 Mar-08 80 1974
9-Mar 77 1974 Mar-09 77 1974
10-Mar 77 1973 Mar-10 77 1973
11-Mar 76 1990 Mar-11 76 1990
12-Mar 75 1990 Mar-12 75 1990
13-Mar 78 1990 Mar-13 78 1990
14-Mar 78 1990 Mar-14 78 1995
14-Mar 78 1995
15-Mar 79 1990 Mar-15 79 1990
16-Mar 79 1945 Mar-16 79 1945
17-Mar 74 2003 Mar-17 74 1889
18-Mar 77 1903 Mar-18 77 1903
19-Mar 77 1898 Mar-19 77 1903
19-Mar 77 1903
19-Mar 77 1921
20-Mar 78 1921 Mar-20 78 1921
21-Mar 77 1948 Mar-21 77 1948
22-Mar 82 1938 Mar-22 82 1938
23-Mar 81 1907 Mar-23 76 1966
24-Mar 84 1910 Mar-24 84 1910
25-Mar 84 1929 Mar-25 85 1945
26-Mar 80 1907 Mar-26 80 1907
27-Mar 81 1910 Mar-27 81 1910
27-Mar 81 1950
27-Mar 81 2007
28-Mar 83 1910 Mar-28 83 1910
29-Mar 83 1910 Mar-29 83 1910
30-Mar 82 1986 Mar-30 82 1998
30-Mar 82 1998
31-Mar 83 1998 Mar-31 83 1998
1-Apr 80 1959 Apr-01 80 1963
1-Apr 80 1963
2-Apr 82 1963 Apr-02 82 1963
3-Apr 80 2007 Apr-03 79 1981
4-Apr 82 1986 Apr-04 82 1986
5-Apr 82 1947 Apr-05 83 1947
5-Apr 82 1988
6-Apr 83 1929 Apr-06 82 1929
7-Apr 85 1893 Apr-07 85 1893
8-Apr 83 1893 Apr-08 83 2001
8-Apr 83 2001
9-Apr 83 2001 Apr-09 83 2001
10-Apr 82 1945 Apr-10 82 1945
11-Apr 88 1930 Apr-11 88 1930
12-Apr 86 1930 Apr-12 86 1930
13-Apr 86 1941 Apr-13 86 1941
14-Apr 84 1941 Apr-14 84 1941
15-Apr 82 1896 Apr-15 82 1896
15-Apr 82 2002
15-Apr 82 2003
16-Apr 86 1896 Apr-16 86 1896
17-Apr 88 1896 Apr-17 88 1896
18-Apr 89 1896 Apr-18 89 1896
19-Apr 85 1958 Apr-19 86 1941
19-Apr 85 2002
20-Apr 85 1896 Apr-20 85 1896
21-Apr 86 1985 Apr-21 86 1987
21-Apr 86 1987
22-Apr 87 1985 Apr-22 87 1985
23-Apr 88 1960 Apr-23 88 1960
24-Apr 88 1960 Apr-24 88 1960
25-Apr 90 1915 Apr-25 90 1915
26-Apr 89 1915 Apr-26 89 1948
26-Apr 89 1948 Apr-27 88 1990
27-Apr 88 1986
27-Apr 88 1990
28-Apr 85 1914 Apr-28 85 1914
29-Apr 86 1899 Apr-29 86 1899
30-Apr 89 1942 Apr-30 89 1942
1-May 88 1942 May-01 88 1942
2-May 88 1959 May-02 88 1959
3-May 89 1959 May-03 89 1959
4-May 91 1949 May-04 91 1949
5-May 92 1952 May-05 92 1952
6-May 91 1959 May-06 91 1959
7-May 87 1936 May-07 87 1936
8-May 89 1936 May-08 89 1936
9-May 93 1896 May-09 93 1896
10-May 94 1936 May-10 94 1936
11-May 92 1896 May-11 92 1896
12-May 90 1881 May-12 90 1881
13-May 88 1956 May-13 88 1982
13-May 88 1962
13-May 88 1982
14-May 91 1962 May-14 91 1991
14-May 91 1991
15-May 92 1991 May-15 92 1991
16-May 91 1900 May-16 96 1900
17-May 92 1900 May-17 92 1900
18-May 93 1962 May-18 93 1962
19-May 92 1964 May-19 92 1964
20-May 91 1962 May-20 91 1962
21-May 92 1941 May-21 92 1941
22-May 93 1941 May-22 93 1941
23-May 90 1939 May-23 90 1939
24-May 90 1975 May-24 90 1975
25-May 93 1975 May-25 93 1975
26-May 94 1911 May-26 94 1911
27-May 94 1911 May-27 94 1911
28-May 94 1911 May-28 94 1911
29-May 94 1914 May-29 94 1914
30-May 93 1953 May-30 95 1915
31-May 96 1895 May-31 96 1895
1-Jun 96 1934 Jun-01 96 1934
2-Jun 96 1895 Jun-02 96 1895
3-Jun 99 1895 Jun-03 99 1895
4-Jun 97 1895 Jun-04 97 1895
5-Jun 95 1899 Jun-05 95 1925
5-Jun 95 1925
6-Jun 95 1925 Jun-06 95 1925
7-Jun 95 1933 Jun-07 95 1930
8-Jun 98 1933 Jun-08 98 1933
9-Jun 96 1914 Jun-09 96 1914
10-Jun 98 1911 Jun-10 98 1911
11-Jun 95 1914 Jun-11 95 1933
11-Jun 95 1933
12-Jun 94 1902 Jun-12 94 1954
12-Jun 94 1954
13-Jun 95 1956 Jun-13 95 1956
14-Jun 94 1994 Jun-14 94 1994
15-Jun 96 1897 Jun-15 96 1897
16-Jun 96 1957 Jun-16 96 1957
17-Jun 97 1994 Jun-17 97 1994
18-Jun 99 1936 Jun-18 99 1944
18-Jun 99 1944
18-Jun 99 1957
19-Jun 98 1994 Jun-19 98 1994
20-Jun 97 1994 Jun-20 97 1994
21-Jun 98 1988 Jun-21 98 1988
22-Jun 97 1988 Jun-22 97 1988
23-Jun 96 1948 Jun-23 96 1948
24-Jun 97 1914 Jun-24 97 1914
25-Jun 101 1988 Jun-25 101 1988
26-Jun 100 1952 Jun-26 100 1952
27-Jun 101 1944 Jun-27 101 1944
28-Jun 102 1944 Jun-28 102 1944
29-Jun 100 1934 Jun-29 100 1934
30-Jun 99 1901 Jun-30 99 1901
1-Jul 98 1901 Jul-01 98 1953
1-Jul 98 1953
2-Jul 98 1898 Jul-02 98 1898
2-Jul 98 1911
3-Jul 101 1897 Jul-03 101 1911
3-Jul 101 1911
4-Jul 104 1911 Jul-04 104 1911
5-Jul 97 1911 Jul-05 97 1911
6-Jul 98 1881 Jul-06 98 1881
7-Jul 100 1988 Jul-07 100 1988
8-Jul 102 1936 Jul-08 102 1936
9-Jul 105 1936 Jul-09 105 1936
10-Jul 103 1881 Jul-10 103 1881
11-Jul 104 1936 Jul-11 104 1936
12-Jul 103 1936 Jul-12 103 1936
13-Jul 101 1936 Jul-13 101 1936
14-Jul 106 1936 Jul-14 106 1936
15-Jul 100 1988 Jul-15 100 1988
16-Jul 100 1988 Jul-16 100 1988
17-Jul 100 1887 Jul-17 100 1887
18-Jul 99 1887 Jul-18 99 1887
19-Jul 98 1930 Jul-19 98 1930
20-Jul 101 1930 Jul-20 101 1934
20-Jul 101 1934
21-Jul 106 1934 Jul-21 106 1934
22-Jul 104 1901 Jul-22 104 1901
23-Jul 99 1933 Jul-23 99 1933
24-Jul 102 1934 Jul-24 102 1934
25-Jul 104 1911 Jul-25 104 1934
26-Jul 102 1911 Jul-26 102 1934
27-Jul 102 1962 Jul-27 102 1936
28-Jul 100 1962 Jul-28 100 1952
29-Jul 99 1940 Jul-29 99 1940
30-Jul 99 1940 Jul-30 99 1940
31-Jul 100 1999 Jul-31 96 1954
1-Aug 97 1955 Aug-01 97 1955
2-Aug 99 1991 Aug-02 99 1991
3-Aug 100 1955 Aug-03 100 1955
4-Aug 99 1955 Aug-04 99 1955
5-Aug 103 1918 Aug-05 103 1918
6-Aug 102 1918 Aug-06 102 1918
7-Aug 98 1918 Aug-07 98 1918
8-Aug 96 2007 Aug-08 95 1914
9-Aug 98 1930 Aug-09 98 1930
10-Aug 98 1911 Aug-10 98 1944
10-Aug 98 1944
11-Aug 96 1926 Aug-11 98 1944
11-Aug 96 1944
12-Aug 97 1881 Aug-12 97 1881
13-Aug 98 1936 Aug-13 98 1936
14-Aug 96 1944 Aug-14 96 1959
14-Aug 96 1959
15-Aug 95 1944 Aug-15 95 1944
16-Aug 96 1913 Aug-16 96 1913
17-Aug 97 1988 Aug-17 97 1988
18-Aug 94 1916 Aug-18 96 1940
18-Aug 94 1922
18-Aug 94 1940
19-Aug 101 1936 Aug-19 101 1936
20-Aug 101 1983 Aug-20 101 1983
21-Aug 99 1936 Aug-21 99 1936
22-Aug 98 1936 Aug-22 98 1936
23-Aug 95 1936 Aug-23 95 1959
23-Aug 95 1959
23-Aug 95 2007
24-Aug 97 1948 Aug-24 97 1948
25-Aug 99 1959 Aug-25 99 1959
26-Aug 98 1948 Aug-26 98 1948
27-Aug 100 1968 Aug-27 100 1948
28-Aug 97 1948 Aug-28 97 1948
29-Aug 98 1953 Aug-29 98 1953
30-Aug 100 1953 Aug-30 100 1953
31-Aug 98 1951 Aug-31 98 1953
31-Aug 98 1953
1-Sep 99 1932 Sep-01 99 1953
1-Sep 99 1953
2-Sep 100 1953 Sep-02 100 1953
3-Sep 99 1953 Sep-03 99 1953
4-Sep 96 1953 Sep-04 96 1953
5-Sep 99 1954 Sep-05 99 1954
6-Sep 99 1954 Sep-06 99 1954
7-Sep 98 1939 Sep-07 98 1939
8-Sep 100 1897 Sep-08 100 1939
8-Sep 100 1939
9-Sep 95 1939 Sep-09 95 1939
10-Sep 96 1897 Sep-10 96 1983
10-Sep 96 1964
10-Sep 96 1983
11-Sep 96 1895 Sep-11 96 1895
12-Sep 96 1897 Sep-12 96 1897
13-Sep 95 1939 Sep-13 95 1939
14-Sep 98 1939 Sep-14 98 1939
15-Sep 97 1897 Sep-15 97 1939
15-Sep 97 1939
16-Sep 96 1897 Sep-16 96 1897
16-Sep 96 1939
17-Sep 94 1955 Sep-17 94 1955
18-Sep 95 1955 Sep-18 95 1955
19-Sep 97 1895 Sep-19 97 1895
20-Sep 97 1895 Sep-20 97 1895
21-Sep 96 1895 Sep-21 96 1895
22-Sep 95 1895 Sep-22 95 1895
23-Sep 90 1941 Sep-23 91 1945
23-Sep 90 1945
23-Sep 90 1961
24-Sep 92 1908 Sep-24 92 1961
24-Sep 92 1961
24-Sep 92 2007
25-Sep 93 1900 Sep-25 93 1900
26-Sep 92 1900 Sep-26 92 1998
26-Sep 92 1998
26-Sep 92 2007
27-Sep 90 1998 Sep-27 90 1998
28-Sep 92 1959 Sep-28 92 1959
29-Sep 96 1953 Sep-29 96 1953
30-Sep 92 1953 Sep-30 92 1953
1-Oct 89 1952 Oct-01 89 1952
2-Oct 88 1919 Oct-02 88 1919
3-Oct 89 1898 Oct-03 89 1953
3-Oct 89 1953
4-Oct 89 1951 Oct-04 89 1959
4-Oct 89 1959
5-Oct 90 1951 Oct-05 90 1951
6-Oct 89 2007 Oct-06 86 1963
7-Oct 91 2007 Oct-07 88 1941
8-Oct 90 2007 Oct-08 91 1939
9-Oct 88 1939 Oct-09 89 1939
10-Oct 87 2010 Oct-10 85 1949
11-Oct 86 1928 Oct-11 86 1928
12-Oct 84 1928 Oct-12 84 1928
12-Oct 84 1938
13-Oct 85 1969 Oct-13 85 1969
14-Oct 86 1897 Oct-14 86 1897
15-Oct 90 1897 Oct-15 90 1897
16-Oct 88 1897 Oct-16 88 1897
17-Oct 83 1968 Oct-17 83 1968
18-Oct 83 1938 Oct-18 83 1938
19-Oct 85 1953 Oct-19 85 1953
20-Oct 84 1953 Oct-20 84 1953
21-Oct 83 1953 Oct-21 83 1953
22-Oct 83 1947 Oct-22 83 1947
23-Oct 83 1947 Oct-23 83 1947
24-Oct 82 1963 Oct-24 82 1963
25-Oct 81 1963 Oct-25 81 1963
26-Oct 83 1963 Oct-26 83 1963
27-Oct 81 1963 Oct-27 81 1963
28-Oct 81 1927 Oct-28 81 1927
29-Oct 80 1900 Oct-29 80 1900
29-Oct 80 1922
30-Oct 80 1927 Oct-30 80 1927
31-Oct 83 1950 Oct-31 83 1950
1-Nov 80 1950 Nov-01 80 1950
2-Nov 79 1987 Nov-02 79 1987
3-Nov 80 1987 Nov-03 80 1987
4-Nov 78 1987 Nov-04 78 1987
5-Nov 76 1977 Nov-05 76 1977
6-Nov 77 1975 Nov-06 77 1975
7-Nov 78 1938 Nov-07 78 1938
8-Nov 74 1945 Nov-08 74 1945
9-Nov 76 1975 Nov-09 76 1975
10-Nov 72 1949 Nov-10 71 1998
11-Nov 74 1915 Nov-11 74 1927
11-Nov 74 1927
12-Nov 75 1849 Nov-12 74 1879
13-Nov 74 1955 Nov-13 74 1955
14-Nov 74 1909 Nov-14 74 1909
15-Nov 71 1960 Nov-15 71 1971
15-Nov 71 1964
15-Nov 71 1971
16-Nov 72 1931 Nov-16 72 1953
16-Nov 72 1953
17-Nov 76 1958 Nov-17 76 1958
18-Nov 73 1954 Nov-18 73 1954
19-Nov 73 1985 Nov-19 73 1985
20-Nov 74 1931 Nov-20 74 1942
20-Nov 74 1942
21-Nov 73 1934 Nov-21 73 1934
22-Nov 74 1931 Nov-22 74 1931
23-Nov 72 1931 Nov-23 72 1931
24-Nov 68 1931 Nov-24 68 1931
25-Nov 68 1908 Nov-25 68 1908
26-Nov 70 1896 Nov-26 70 1896
27-Nov 75 1990 Nov-27 75 1990
28-Nov 71 2005 Nov-28 67 1998
29-Nov 70 1927 Nov-29 70 1927
30-Nov 71 1934 Nov-30 71 1934
1-Dec 67 1970 Dec-01 67 1970
2-Dec 72 1982 Dec-02 72 1982
3-Dec 76 1982 Dec-03 76 1982
4-Dec 68 2001 Dec-04 68 1982
Dec-05 67 1909
6-Dec 73 1998 Dec-06 73 1998
7-Dec 69 1998 Dec-07 69 1998
8-Dec 69 1966 Dec-08 69 1966
9-Dec 66 1952 Dec-09 66 1952
10-Dec 72 1971 Dec-10 72 1971
11-Dec 66 1931 Dec-11 66 1931
11-Dec 66 2007
12-Dec 65 1949 Dec-12 64 1949
13-Dec 65 1901 Dec-13 65 1901
14-Dec 65 1901 Dec-14 65 1901
14-Dec 65 1955
15-Dec 65 1948 Dec-15 65 1948
16-Dec 64 1924 Dec-16 64 1984
16-Dec 64 1984
17-Dec 67 1984 Dec-17 67 1984
18-Dec 63 1967 Dec-18 63 1967
19-Dec 61 1895 Dec-19 61 1895
20-Dec 62 1895 Dec-20 62 1895
21-Dec 64 1967 Dec-21 64 1967
22-Dec 62 1941 Dec-22 63 1941
23-Dec 62 1933 Dec-23 62 1933
24-Dec 66 1889 Dec-24 66 1889
25-Dec 64 1893 Dec-25 64 1893
26-Dec 62 1982 Dec-26 62 1982
27-Dec 66 1959 Dec-27 66 1959
28-Dec 68 1984 Dec-28 68 1984
29-Dec 64 1984 Dec-29 67 1889
30-Dec 63 1964 Dec-30 63 1964
31-Dec 68 1951 Dec-31 68 1951
Just so people know.. July 4th.. coldest July 4th in Tucson…ever… hope everyone on the east coast enjoyed my heat…
ssupak says:
July 8, 2012 at 10:51 am
You’re all so sure of yourselves, but you just won’t bet on it…
https://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/?eventGroupId=7620
And
Paul K2 says:
July 8, 2012 at 11:32 am
…….Unfortunately, they didn’t examine the possibility that the formation of these blocking patterns is linked to changes in Arctic sea level pressure trends (SLP), which alters the behavior of the jet stream. That kind of analysis is beyond what this group considered. They looked for a direct correlation with 2010 sea ice extent, but didn’t consider the recent decades influence of reduced sea ice pack on jet stream patterns.
—–
The odds are very high that the shift in jet stream patterns caused by higher Arctic pressures resulting from reduced Arctic ice (due to polar amplification), caused the duration and intensity of the Russian heat wave.
ssupak – I see that Gayle has already pointed out that Piers Corbyn is not allowed to place bets on the weather any more as he continually won.
Of more interest to Paul K2 is that Piers is forecasting the movement of the jet stream and the associated weather based on solar and lunar effects. If you look at the DMI figures for the arctic temperatures here http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php you will note a marked consistency in temperatures and no ‘arctic amplification’. The amplification only exists in GISS which uses observations from up to 1200km away rather than local data.
Stephen Wilde’s theorizing agrees with Piers Corbyn that much of these temperature changes and blocking Rossby waves are due to the jet streams moving equatorward. This is supported by Dr Tim Ball http://drtimball.com/2012/current-global-weather-patterns-normal-despite-government-and-media-distortions/ who points out that Current Global Weather Patterns Normal Despite Government and Media Distortions.
Nothing to do with ‘reduced arctic ice’ which actually in 2010 was not that reduced.
Gail, that was absolutely brilliant! Jeez, with fraudulence so rife, not only must there be widespread inquiry but prosecution too. This HAS to be turned around. I am not a scientist but I do come from a scientifically-minded family. I was taught to trust research, data, and also science and scientists…
Ahhh… Gail Combs: a scientist who also knows how to get manure onto a fork. (there may be a connection!)
Thanks Gail! Thanks Anthony!
Since it was a few degrees above what they call normal here a few days ago, they screamed global warming. Now that the cold front has passed through and it is a few degrees colder than what they call normal are they going to scream global cooling?
Gail,
I am also a scientist. You make it sound like scientific research is a cesspool inhabited by greedy, self-serving liars. With all that lying it is remarkable that science has unraveled so much of cellular chemistry, for example. Metabolic reactions, cellular protein machinery, signalling pathways, etc have been elucidated to a level that has allowed the knowledge-based design of a whole new wave of wonder drugs. The march of science today is extraordinary and beyond the imagination of humans a mere two centuries ago. And all carried out by lying cheaters. Imagine! Oh wait, I can anticipate your poisoned response already – it is only climate scientists that are liars and cheaters.
Owen,
From my point of view, government is the problem, with its ability to shovel huge amounts of money into government ‘science’. That inevitably leads to corruption, as President Eisenhower stated in his farewell address, 1/17/61:
That has now happened. Doubled and squared.
Frank Kotler says:
July 8, 2012 at 2:43 pm
Ahhh… Gail Combs: a scientist who also knows how to get manure onto a fork. (there may be a connection!)
_________________________
Of Course there is a connection! We use getting manure onto a fork to teach kids something about PHYSICS. If you do not understand physics you can’t get the manure onto the fork – simple.
(I wonder how many people with physics backgrounds are now scratching their heads trying to figure out the connection)
Smokey,
“Government” science has indeed led to instances of corruption – no argument there. But it has also led to unparalleled success – and American business has for years been the recipient of big science that has elucidated a fundamental understanding of the physical and biological world.
Big money in business has also led to corruption, and on a far large scale that big science. Just look at the financial industries in the past decade – and that debacle cost this country far more than big science has spent.
Gail Combs says: July 8, 2012 at 10:57 am
And not only by “hiding the data”, IMHO. These noble climate scientists seem to want to have everything both ways, so that even when they’re wrong, they’re right!
By way of example, I tried to have a conversation with an IPCC Coordinating Lead Author almost a year ago.
It was over a very simple claim he had made that – by the IPCC’s very own numbers – I had shown to be incorrect. i.e. that the Summary for Policymakers of the SRREN report was “approved by all 194 countries”. Another claim of his that I had questioned was:
After a few emails in which he had indicated that he intended to respond, he simply disappeared!
A few weeks ago, I happened to encounter him on twitter. And by inference he accused me of “bad faith” and “rhetorical trickery” – which was his very belated “excuse” for disappearing. When I pointed out that we must have “different definitions of good faith”, his response was, “As I gathered from your other blog posts, in your world the IPCC is always wrong or evil or stupid, so no need to discuss anything.”.
From which, at this point, I can only conclude that his ability to objectively “assess” the suitability of material for inclusion in an IPCC report leaves me with considerably less than a high level of confidence!
I have been going through the international blueprint today involving transformational higher ed reform internationally. Again coming out of the UN. The change in the nature of the doctoral programs and the research emphasis appears to me to create further corrupting effects on this entire process. That would be consistent with a different UN report seeking UN approval before countries could take innovations into the production phase.
Bottom line is until the source and reasons for the poisoning of so much of the grant process is better known, we will have an increasingly more difficult time getting non-politically directed research with a desired conclusion prompting the funding.
All feeding into a centrally planned and coordinated economy around green principles. All benefiting politicians, govt employees and grant recipients, and connected Big Business.
Little prosperity for the typical person.
Unlike a certain chemistry professor on you-tube, I base credibility rankings not by the attributes of the purveyor of information but by the quality of the information itself. If a source of information “conveniently” leaves out pertinent information that source loses all credibility with me. Invariably, EVERY source of information that advocates climate change legislation while claiming to be objective (like NASA and NOAA) leave out highly pertinent information to the central questions involved (GW vs. AGW vs. CAGW).
For example: the global temperature from circa 1880 to present without disclosing the cooling period just prior to the industrial revolution and the fact that the temperatures began to rise BEFORE the industrial revolution.
Another example: showing pictures of glaciers circa 1979 and 2007 without disclosing that there was a cooling period in the just prior (Ice Age Scare circa 1970’s).
The pro-climate change action sources are replete with such obvious examples of Zohnerism.
The classic example I used for teaching my son about critical thinking is the ban DHMO “controversy”. There’s the “ban DHMO” website ( http://www.dhmo.org/ ) and the “friends” of DHMO website ( http://www.armory.com/~crisper/DHMO/ ), both are careful not to give away the punch line. The point being that leaving out (non-disclosure) one crucial (pertinent) bit of information in this case the common name of the chemical makes a decision or course of action seem reasonable when in fact it is completely and utterly unreasonable.
I challenge any of the defenders of the CAGW faith to cite one source of “scientific” information about GW in support of “action” that I can’t find some pertinent fact they’ve conveniently failed to disclose. I’ve been following this issue off and on since 1994 and have yet to see a pro-action on climate change information source or argument that doesn’t engage in Zohnerism. This type of activity is about as anti-science as one can get. There’s absolutely no honesty or integrity in engaging in Zohnerism and therefore those that engage in it have absolutely no credibility with me.
By contrast the WUWT reference pages (and comments) lay all the information bare for all to see whether in support of inaction or action. Best site by far for exposing the big picture IMO.
Owen,
You can hardly excuse corruption in government science by pointing out corruption in the financial industry. And even if you want to compare those apple and oranges, recall that well over $100 BILLION has been wasted on “climate studies” by government agencies. Bernie Madoff pales in comparison.
At least in the private sector there is regulation, and competition. Where is the government’s competition? And it is clear the government does not regulate itself.
Owen says: July 8, 2012 at 3:10 pm
Gail,
I am also a scientist. You make it sound like scientific research is a cesspool inhabited by greedy, self-serving liars. With all that lying it is remarkable that science has unraveled so much of cellular chemistry, for example…..
___________________________________
No, I made scientists back into human beings who are just as likely to do a good deed as they are to do a bad deed. It is putting scientists on a pedestal and treating them like some sort of god anointed priests instead of the way we treat everyone else that has gotten us into this trouble.
I am certainly well aware of the fact that science has made incredible advances. My Grandparents went from the horse and buggy age to the age of man walking on the moon during their life time. The fact that some bad apples are taking that incredible advancement and now are using it to shield their nasty deeds not only saddens me it makes me ANGRY.
If you are a scientist then why are you not absolutely LIVID to discover North Carolina clinical research organization Cetero Research allegedly falsified clinical trial documents and test results over a five-year period. These SOBs faked DRUG trials for Gosh sakes! For all you know your wife or child may end up taking one of those drugs that were never ever tested. And you want to defend them???
Did you even bother to read Patrick comment @ July 8, 2012 at 10:54 am
In my case it was three planes that went down due to substandard engine parts. I quit when the company involved refused to fire the Tech who I caught falsifying data.
The wonders discovered by the many excellent scientists should never ever be used to excuse the frauds and liars. Nor should it be used to excuse the current shoddy practices of the peer-reviewed journals (No data). As scientists it is up to us to scream bloody murder and get this mess cleaned up BEFORE the general public figures out exactly how bad it is and believe me they are already waking up.
Smokey says:
July 8, 2012 at 3:54 pm
Owen,
You can hardly excuse corruption in government science by pointing out corruption in the financial industry….
_____________________
Smokey, it is not just government funded scientists but ALL scientists. If you are Union worker you have some clout. If you are a hourly employee you have less clout but still some clout. If you are a professional engineer and are certified you have clout because of the government certification, if you are a tenured teacher/professor you have some protection but a salaried Scientist has NOTHING. He is an “at-will employee”
This means your employer can order you to lie, to falsify a Certificate of Analysis or report or paper and you have ZERO recourse. I know because I checked with a lawyer very early in my career. You can report questionable practices to a government agency but that is worse than useless depending on who knows who. (See government-industry revolving door ) You may just find yourself unemployed as a friend of mine did after reporting fraud to a government official who is a buddy of the companies CEO.
Unfortunately the rot is very very deep in our civilization and it is only as a group that we have any chance of combating it.
Gail,
In spite of corruption in some, perhaps many, instances, the body of work of scientists has been outstanding – in all areas, including climate science. In other words, instances of corruption have not negated (but may have slowed) our growing understanding of the physical universe.
Owen says:
The march of science today is extraordinary and beyond the imagination of humans a mere two centuries ago. And all carried out by lying cheaters.
Actually the march of “science” is only extraordinary in certain areas. Mostly it is in such “hard” areas that fakery is near impossible. Physics, chemistry, genetics, electronics.
The “soft” sciences (or wanna-be sciences such as economics) do not boast the same record. The march of science in psychiatry, for example, is pedestrian to put it mildly – despite enormous public interest and large numbers of psychiatrists.
Moreover the hard sciences had plenty of trouble in their early years too. The dead ends in chemistry were quite extensive (phlogiston, “organic” via “inorganic”, etc). Climate science will one day get to that point, but currently we are in the early days and almost every theory will not only be wrong, but dramatically wrong.
Woohoo Gail! What a slap down, definitely a keeper rejoinder!
I’d like to apologise, sort of, maybe, like…
Actually, I’d rather defend many of those scientists who followed the well traveled path. Whether it was a fear of their superiors, change, starvation, peers, being different or angry spouses; most scientists and engineers I’ve worked with were determined to do a good job, within their constraints and chains. Deliberate fraud for personal gain or fame was not common amongst the workers, but as you described every one is an unfailing follower and hate to rock their boats.
I agree with you Sean. Only, when I read your simple summation, I had a sudden Dilbert moment about another lady. One who has a certain fist of… But then I wouldn’t want to chance insulting Gail…
moderator,
It seems my comment has been lost. Can you rescue it from….where ever?
[REPLY: It’s not here. Sorry. Submit it again. -REP]
That is really interesting. Noteworthy, even. It seems like somebody would have mentioned it.
I call hyperbole; extrapolation to the ‘scale of world’ based on limited-sphere work experience (AND we don’t know the specific details of the stories related anecdotally).
(Boeing planes are still flying and Intel microprocessors are still HIGHLY reliable (all my Wintel PCs up through Core2 Duo are USED (and Dells to boot) plus the 80386 and a Pentium 166 with Intel uPs still operational too; engineering and the SCIENCE (materials science, solid-state physics etc) behind it, I contend, has not been corrupted to the extent expressed by the poster.)
Sorry mods, I feel compelled to weigh-in with some balance here (and note: I do not contend there is zero corruption; see 1st post of mine much further upthread.)
.
I sometimes think the accurate way to report this stuff is “95% of the scientists who are paid to say it say is a real, man-made, and imminent disaster….” (I keep thinking about the doctors that said smoking Camels was good for you.)
A question–if you examined ALL scientists (what ever that turns out to mean), would 95% of them know as much about climate as the average corn farmer does?
Found it on Gavin’s page
RiHo08 says:
July 8, 2012 at 10:36 am
Gail Combs
Thanx for the E.M.Smith article. This is the second time I have read it and I like the stitching together of pieces of human history on the bumpy climate road.
What is intriguing to me is the predictions of climate change around 2030. These are the dates that Robert Ellison (Chief Hydrologist aka Captain Kangaroo aka…) suggests will be the time for another regime change based upon oceanic/atmospheric regime changes ala Tsonis et al.
Hmmm. Arriving at similar prediction dates using two different approaches: one, observational and a 12000 year perspective and the other observing recent ocean currents and atmospheric pressure episodes.
Of course Smith and Captain Kangaroo could be in cahoots and are in the pay of big oil and are just trying to confuse us muddle-headed skeptics. But, a prediction is a prediction, and some of us will be around to see: true or false.
Gail, the leading post/article was a complete SLAP DOWN. If I ever need a spanking I’m sure you can/will deliver it. But then, I’m a ‘climate realist’ so it won’t be necessary 😉
It is obvious that the only way to get any sense into the so-called ‘believers’ will be slapping/spanking. They are getting it now. The slap downs that is. Hopefully they will soon really get it.
Ignorance can be cured with knowledge. Fraud is best cured with incarceration. The latter will be money well spent. It will stop the spread of an awful disease afflicting the so-called ‘climate science’ community.
_Jim says:
July 8, 2012 at 5:50 pm
Gail Combs. says:
July 8, 2012 at 4:20 pm
…
Unfortunately the rot is very very deep in our civilization and it is only as a group that we have any chance of combating it.
I call hyperbole; extrapolation to the ‘scale of world’ based on limited-sphere work experience (AND we don’t know the specific details of the stories related anecdotally)….
_______________________________
Fine. The exact problem was leaching of Lead and Bismuth into turbine aircraft blades during molding. Lead and bismuth make the metal brittle. FAA investigation showed the three planes went down because the lead and bismuth contamination was higher than allowed limits in the turbine blades and those parts were traced back to the company I worked for.
There was a heck of a lot more politics involved but that was the scientific end of it. The tech involved was the one who did the trace mineral analysis. I was the pigeon who signed off on her work and therefore would be the one hung out to dry if another plane went down so I left. (I have no desire to be sued for defamation so that is all I will say on the subject)
Given the problems that trace contamination caused in those blades one wonders just how good the Chinese manufactured blades for wind turbines are….
Owen says:
July 8, 2012 at 4:51 pm
Gail,
In spite of corruption in some, perhaps many, instances, the body of work of scientists has been outstanding – in all areas, including climate science. In other words, instances of corruption have not negated (but may have slowed) our growing understanding of the physical universe.
——————-
With all do respect…I think you’re confusing Normal Science with Post-normal Sciences [ The AGW – CAGW sciences ].
What happens in Normal Science to a hypothesis when a divergence happens from that hypothesis?
Oh, and _jim you seem to think I sat in a cave and only worked for one company so my experience was “small” Hate to break it to you but I worked for several companies (only one was honest) and belonged to ACS and ASQ. I had to have 18cr/3 years so I took at least one college course and a couple of seminars a semester for the past thirty odd years. I met a lot of people and we talked about QC/lab problems such as flinching and how to spot other data manipulation. Believe me the falsification of data and pressure from upper management is very common and the source of much complaining at seminars at least in QC circles.
From your comments you are either very young or oblivious.
highflight56433 says:
July 8, 2012 at 9:42 am
As for leadership, yes the sheep are many, the sheep dog is few, and the wolves are circling. So , the folks like Anthony are the sheep dogs; as the folks who read and participate in the conquest of truth we see at this blog, what are you? The wolf, sheep dog, or sheep?
============================================
Well, I humbly consider me to be a sort of veterinarian for both sheep and sheep dogs. And we need more active sheep like this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gEDUDmZkyc .
“It has been labelled “post-normal” science. Climate change seems to fall in this category. Disputes in post-normal science focus…on the process of science – who gets funded, who evaluates quality, who has the ear of policy…The IPCC is a classic example of a post-normal scientific
activity.”
“…‘self-evidently’ dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth-seeking…scientists – and politicians – must trade truth for influence. What matters about climate change is not whether we can predict the future with some desired level of certainty and accuracy.”
-Mike Hulme
Per Owen:
“Big money in business has also led to corruption, and on a far large scale that big science. Just look at the financial industries in the past decade – and that debacle cost this country far more than big science has spent.”
Of course neither the “red lining” threat nor the Fed backed Fannie Mae’s eager acceptance of substandard loans had anything to do with the meltdown. I know because I saw it on TV! A Congressional Committee gave a clean bill of health to the coercive and corrupt lending practices that helped to shape this festering mess. Those advising prudence were, of course, “right wing radical racists of the Republican Party”!!
This nonsense repeated often enough by the likes Owen ends up being considered to be true.
Look to the past regarding CAGW or any other major theories before you accept them.
Ray
Bill Tuttle says:
July 8, 2012 at 12:59 pm
Full report on the “consensus” here: http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
====================================================
The study actually proves the opposite, if you consider some details: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/30/consensus-argument-proves-climate-science-is-political/#comment-972119
On the Russian heat wave:
“likely to become increasingly frequent”
“could not be entirely ruled out”
“glimpse into the region’s future”
“signal of a warming climate”
“on the cusp of a period in which the risk of extreme heat events will increase rapidly”
“possibility of more such events ”
Yeah, they “officially” said it was due to weather. But with all the “wink-wink” statements, they really believe it was caused by global warming.
Owen says:
July 8, 2012 at 4:51 pm
Gail,
In spite of corruption in some, perhaps many, instances, the body of work of scientists has been outstanding – in all areas, including climate science. In other words, instances of corruption have not negated (but may have slowed) our growing understanding of the physical universe.
=====================================================================
What has stood out in the field of climate science is witholding data, broken hockey sticks, big money and bogus policies. To name just a few things. What has “climate science” actually produced besides headlines and fear and taxes? The sciences you’d like to link it to have produced tangible, provable results despite the shortcomings in the system Gail pointed out. “Climate science” is as solid as thin air.
highflight56433 says:
July 8, 2012 at 9:42 am
As for leadership, yes the sheep are many, the sheep dog is few, and the wolves are circling. So , the folks like Anthony are the sheep dogs; as the folks who read and participate in the conquest of truth we see at this blog, what are you? The wolf, sheep dog, or sheep?
=================================================================
I’m not sure which you’d call me but I knew what BS was before I ever heard of WUWT or SEPP or Junksciene.com.
I’ve leaned from such sites. I haven’t been led by them.
My last comment may have come off as harsh. I didn’t mean it that way. Just emphasing for the warmist out there that many of us “deniers” can think for ourselves without being told what to think.
Greg House says:
July 8, 2012 at 6:54 pm
…Well, I humbly consider me to be a sort of veterinarian for both sheep and sheep dogs. And we need more active sheep like this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gEDUDmZkyc .
_____________________________________\
Darn it Greg, I have a herd of sheep outside my back door and two bottle lambs I just fed and have to feed again in the morning. With a 200 lb ram that looks like this how am I going to be able to sleep after watching that? ROTFLMAO
Humans and honesty. Remember the Challenger disaster? An engineer recommended against a launch, because it was, in his opinion, too cold. But there was huge pressure to launch, and he was asked to put his management hat on. They launched.
On being quizzed about the probability of a failure in the space shuttle, managers estimated the probability at 1 in 300,000. That is, you could fly the thing every day for a few hundred years without it failing. Surely only a moron could say this with a straight face.
But these people were found out by reality.
And that is the key with science. You might fudge something quite successfully, but if what you are doing is important, it will be redone by others, and you’ll be found out. Not always straight away (look at Milliken and the history of the electron’s charge), but eventually. For this reason, I don’t think that climate scientists will commit egregious deceptions. They are smart enough to know that their work will be scrutinised by other smart people, and any errors will be found. Not by bloggers, but by their peers. And the last thing they want to do is look like idiots.
REPLY: “Not by bloggers…” yeah sure. There’s that holier than thou academic side of you again. I’ll bet you think internists and patent clerks can’t contribute anything either. Your wrongness about who can contribute is exceeded only by your condescension. If this is all a waste of time to you, then take a hike rather than lecture down to us, if it isn’t kindly shut the hell up and let’s compare publications later – Anthony
The good old days of real science and research.
Thought I would share….worth a peek in spite of the title. .
Part 2, ya know>>> Technology eh?
Gail Combs. says:
July 8, 2012 at 3:22 pm
Frank Kotler says:
July 8, 2012 at 2:43 pm
Ahhh… Gail Combs: a scientist who also knows how to get manure onto a fork. (there may be a connection!)
_________________________
Of Course there is a connection! We use getting manure onto a fork to teach kids something about PHYSICS. If you do not understand physics you can’t get the manure onto the fork – simple.
(I wonder how many people with physics backgrounds are now scratching their heads trying to figure out the connection)
——————————————————-
Perhaps some farmers trying to figure out what it is they understand about physics, too. Newton’s First Law of Motion, innit?
The “connection” I had in mind was your ability to recognize what is being shoveled by… certain segments of “science”.
As a scientist (not in climatology) for many years, I have personally dealt with the pressures of publishing and obtaining grant funding, and I think most scientists operate ethically most of the time. However, the pressures are real and make it more difficult to let the data lead us and maintain an objective style of science. I have been thinking about solutions that would maintain a vigorous, dynamic scientific enterprise, enhance the implementation of basic science for human good (e.g., translational medicine), and avoid the types of problems discussed here.
I taught in a required graduate course on scientific ethics for several years, and I presented Bauer’s puzzle-filter definition of science as most compatible with my experience in science. I also discussed some of Popper’s ideas and a bit of Kuhn. I only recently noticed that I didn’t, and most scientists don’t give a passing thought to Bacon and his idea that objectivity should be the principle goal in science. I know that there are aspects of Bacon’s philosophy of science that are oversimplified and that he ignored the real and obvious fact that no one can be truly objective, because our presuppositions and cultural norms influence the framework within which we view all of science. However, I am becoming convinced that it is time to revive Bacon and return to a science in which objectivity and careful identification of all our presuppositions and assumptions would be the ideal for normal operation in science.
Gunga Din says:
July 8, 2012 at 7:16 pm
What has stood out in the field of climate science is witholding data, broken hockey sticks, big money and bogus policies. To name just a few things. What has “climate science” actually produced besides headlines and fear and taxes? The sciences you’d like to link it to have produced tangible, provable results despite the shortcomings in the system Gail pointed out. “Climate science” is as solid as thin air.
==================================================
“Climate science” should be closed for 70 years, this is the only solution.
I know, I have already said that, but it is important.
Of course, I do not mean meteorology, they are mostly honest people and do what they can to help us.
highflight56433 says: @ July 8, 2012 at 9:42 am
As for leadership, yes the sheep are many, the sheep dog is few, and the wolves are circling…
====================================
Gunga Din says: @ July 8, 2012 at 7:29 pm
I’m not sure which you’d call me but I knew what BS was before I ever heard of WUWT or SEPP or Junksciene.com.
I’ve leaned from such sites. I haven’t been led by them.
====================================
A goat? Much more intelligent than a sheep and they don’t herd worth a darn compared to sheep. They remind me of cats who are even more independent minded.
I just read Dan Ariely’s latest book, ‘The Honest Truth About Dishonesty’. In it, there’s an experiment where people are given the option of buying a ‘green’ product. If they buy the green product they then feel ‘licensed’ to cheat more. Also, in other experiments when people feel they are being altruistic, they also cheat more. There are so many examples in his book of the archetypal examples of the type of cheating going on in this debate where the participants either feel justified or ‘licensed’ to behave the way they do. I’d love to see some more experiments or research by behavioral scientists on the behaviors of participants in this debate. Fascinating.
Stephen Pruett says:
July 8, 2012 at 8:26 pm
….. I have been thinking about solutions that would maintain a vigorous, dynamic scientific enterprise, enhance the implementation of basic science for human good (e.g., translational medicine), and avoid the types of problems discussed here.
I taught in a required graduate course on scientific ethics for several years,…. However, I am becoming convinced that it is time to revive Bacon and return to a science in which objectivity and careful identification of all our presuppositions and assumptions would be the ideal for normal operation in science…..
_____________________________
Thank You.
This is the type of stuff that we need to bring back to the field of science. The problem, and it is a growing problem, has to be acknowledged and addressed. Students have to be prepared for the challenges to ethical behavior they will have to face and be given the tools to deal with them.
It was a complete shocker to me to be asked to falsify a Certificate of Analysis a month into my first job and I was ill prepared to deal with it. Hopefully your students have the preparation they need to face similar situations.
Total BS as usual by John Brookes. It’s scary to see that this kind of a person is in charge of educating students. The flaws in climate science were not found out by peers or peer reviews or by fellow scientists. It is bloggers who successfully showed up the trash put out by ” climate scientists ” which were pal reviewed. As fate as climate science is concerned bloggers have exhibited more knowledge, skill, talent and hnoesty than any AGW supporting climate scientist and their pals.
And you, John Brookes are a prime example of such dishonest behaviour as evidenced by your trolling here and in Jo Nova’s blogs, deliberately and wantonly indulging in spreading untruths.
John Brookes says:
July 8, 2012 at 7:56 pm
I don’t think that climate scientists will commit egregious deceptions. They are smart enough to know that their work will be scrutinised by other smart people, and any errors will be found. Not by bloggers, but by their peers. And the last thing they want to do is look like idiots.
========================================================
Yeah, and now let us tell people the truth. Climate (AGW) scientists commit egregious deceptions. They are smart enough to know that their deceptions will be covered up by their colleagues who commit egregious deceptions too. Of course, they can be easily exposed just by looking at their basic claims, but they have a propaganda machine, corrupt politicians and not to forget useful idiots on their side, so they can successfully fool a lot of people.
“””””…..Mooloo says:
July 8, 2012 at 5:15 pm
Owen says:
The march of science today is extraordinary and beyond the imagination of humans a mere two centuries ago. And all carried out by lying cheaters.
Actually the march of “science” is only extraordinary in certain areas. Mostly it is in such “hard” areas that fakery is near impossible. Physics, chemistry, genetics, electronics.
The “soft” sciences (or wanna-be sciences such as economics) do not boast the same record. The march of science in psychiatry, for example, is pedestrian to put it mildly – despite enormous public interest and large numbers of psychiatrists……”””””
Well Ricky Ricardo’s P-sick-keyistry, with the accent on the “sick”, is a science only in the same sense that Astrology is a science.
The thought of counselors getting their jollies listening to the most intimate personal details about the most private matters of people’s lives, is enough to make one retch. Anyone who will openly discuss what their partners presume is a confidential interpersonal matter is likely beyond rescue anyway. Certainly, that indiscretion would be the end of any relationship. And these pseudo psychologists revel in it.
The idea that anyone can know what is going on in another person’s mind, is pure phantasy. Nobody could ever guess just what is going on in my mind, as I type this; they couldn’t even correctly guess what the first digit of the Dewey Decimal category is.
Studying behavior (Psychology) certainly qualifies as a science; but Psychiatry is akin to the study of crop circles; which are, in contrast, at least pretty to look at.
Greg House says: @ July 8, 2012 at 8:57 pm
“Climate science” should be closed for 70 years, this is the only solution.
I know, I have already said that, but it is important.
Of course, I do not mean meteorology, they are mostly honest people and do what they can to help us.
_________________________________
Add Ecoscience to the mix. It is just as badly “contaminated” with the “Post-Normal” crowd.
Greg House: ““Climate science” should be closed for 70 years, this is the only solution”. I understand what you mean. However, Lysenkoism should be closed forever. Sometimes, our enterprises may be beyond repair.
Greg House says:
July 8, 2012 at 7:07 pm
@ me (July 8, 2012 at 12:59 pm):
The study actually proves the opposite, if you consider some details: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/30/consensus-argument-proves-climate-science-is-political/#comment-972119
You betchum, Red Ryder. I only focused on the source of the “95%” AGW meme, but now that you bring it up, still another way of looking at it is “only 0.06% of actively-publishing climate scientists we surveyed admit they believe in AGW.”
Fun with numbers.
John Brookes says:
July 8, 2012 at 7:56 pm
I don’t think that climate scientists will commit egregious deceptions.
Does that statement mean that you don’t think climate scientists are venal enough to commit egregious deceptions or that you don’t think climate scientists will be foolish enough to continue to commit egregious deceptions?
Gail Combs says:
July 8, 2012 at 9:20 pm
It was a complete shocker to me to be asked to falsify a Certificate of Analysis a month into my first job and I was ill prepared to deal with it.
Fortunately for us pilots, Gail, the majority of aircraft parts inspectors/certifiers share your ethic.
Unfortunately for us pilots, there are still government suppliers who knowingly buy counterfeit parts from China.
Even more unfortunately, the ChiComs have gotten very *good* at counterfeiting aircraft parts…
Jim said: (Boeing planes are still flying and Intel microprocessors are still HIGHLY reliable (all my Wintel PCs up through Core2 Duo are USED (and Dells to boot) plus the 80386 and a Pentium 166 with Intel uPs still operational too; engineering and the SCIENCE (materials science, solid-state physics etc) behind it, I contend, has not been corrupted to the extent expressed by the poster.)
This is typical from a slashdotter wanting to pile-on. Very little real-world experience, but supremely confident because s/he can fix his Mom’s computers and feel superior while doing so.
Shall I go on about armchair experts as compared to Watts’ ACTUAL WORK or should a taunting be required again?
Thomas Hobbes says: July 8, 2012 at 9:18 pm
Those psychological “studies” were done decades ago by both sides. Neither side likely had truth in mind.
A good article, the most illuminating part for me was that the USA has an “Office of Research Integrity”
http://ori.hhs.gov/
Has anyone reported some of the main players in the climate industry to this organisation?
They seem to come down hard on bad research in the medical community.
“The impacts of global warming fall disproportionately on the poor.
This means that global warming is not just a scientific issue, but a class issue.
…we have a choice between Socialism and Barbarism, with no middle ground.
…the choice is stark: Socialism or Extinction.”
“For environmental issues to be addressed, the development of society must be planned. However, we cannot plan what we do not control, and we cannot control what we do not own.”
The above statements are from a July 6th article on the website of the The International Marxist Tendency, entitled: “Global Warming: a Marxist perspective”
These statements are from Lisa P Jackson, head of the EPA, prior to the Rio beanfest
“As Rio+20, the 20th anniversary of the 1992 Earth Summit, approaches in June, we have a chance to learn lessons, build partnerships and put in place innovative strategies that can reshape the economic and environmental future of our entire planet. It is the rarest of opportunities to truly change the world, and make a difference that will benefit billions of people”
This was from a speech in January this year, at the EPA Observance of Martin Luther King Jr. Day
“…..environmentalism followed in the footsteps of the Civil Rights movement. Today we continue to take direct inspiration from Dr. King, especially in our fight for environmental justice. Environmental justice is one of my top priorities for my time at the EPA, and it is something we are working to include in each and every initiative and decision the agency makes.”
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/lisa_p_jackson_epa_administrator_fulfilling_the_un_mission.html
I forgot the link for the Marxist Tendency, so sorry.
http://www.marxist.com/global-warming-marxist-perspective.htm
They do have a little insight:
“…under capitalism, investment will not be directed into the development of new industries if it is not profitable.”
“Green investment mostly took the form of large state subsidies, which were a direct transfer of funds from the public purse into private profits.”
Bill Tuttle says: @ July 9, 2012 at 12:09 am
Fortunately for us pilots, Gail, the majority of aircraft parts inspectors/certifiers share your ethic.
Unfortunately for us pilots, there are still government suppliers who knowingly buy counterfeit parts from China.
Even more unfortunately, the ChiComs have gotten very *good* at counterfeiting aircraft parts…
_______________________
That is one of the reasons I really hate ISO and “Just in Time” I had some real knock down drag out fights with upper management on the subject of incoming inspection. It usually took a major $$$$ mess from bad material to convince each company to at least do limited incoming inspection.
One of the guys I ran into at a seminar a couple of decades ago, told me about the Chinese counterfeited aircraft parts problem. In spite of company policy (ISO) he grabbed some samples of incoming bolts and found those nice high grade bolts were nothing but pot metal and sheared at a very low strength.
I am amazed that we have not had more airline accidents from Chinese substandard parts. If we have not it is probably thanks to that guy who was making sure to pass the information along to everyone he met in the Quality field.
At my first ISO seminar in the early eighties I sat next to a recent Russian immigrant. During the break he commented bitterly that ISO was the same system used in the USSR and it did not work. Over two decades latter the members of ASQ agreed with him.
Here are a couple of articles by Scott Dalgleish of ASQ who identifies some of my dislikes.
(I really hate Six Sigma too)
Probing the Limits: ASQ– A Consultant’s Promotional Tool?
(it has a very interesting comment on ASQ, ISO and the Columbia Shuttle Accident Report,)
Probing the Limits
ISO 9000: More Hindrance Than Help
Probing the Limits: ISO 9001 Proves Ineffective
And the response from the ASQ membership.
See this article: http://www.systemsthinking.co.uk/3-1-article.asp for a discussion of the origins of ISO 9000, what is wrong with it, and why. In the article Admiral Hyman Rickover was concerned with bad quality that resulted from bad management. ISO 9000 addresses conformity to standards instead of improvement of management. The Japanese who were trained in QUALITY IMPROVEMENT by Dr. Demming, father of the modern Quality Movement, do not endorse ISO.
ISO is an overlooked part of the Agenda 21/Global Governance problem. I made the link years ago when I found out that the “Guide to Good Farming Practices” was a collaborative effort between the World Trade Organization, the United Nations (FAO & OIE) and ISO. This unholy threesome have been busy over the past decades writing “internationally established guidelines” for just about everything starting with how we grow food. Since I first stumbled onto the “Draft Guide to Good Farming Practices” years ago that draft has proliferated into a whole bookcase full of farm practice guidelines. link For example WHO guidelines on good agricultural and collection Practices (GACP) for medicinal plants Seems the UN even wants to tell the Shaman and Witch Doctor how to collect their herbs /sarc.
Dr Deming the father of the modern Quality Revolution had this to say on the topic of Quality:
No amount of paperwork, or traceability or other magic wands can make up for the attitude of top management whether it is scientific research or Quality. Turning control of quality and food safety over to a paperwork system directed by a top Management whose first (and only) concern is Profit is the act of a madmen and that is the system our “Global Governance” leaders are striving for.
GAIL C:-) YOU ROCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
and to this chap,
Owen says:
July 8, 2012 at 3:10 pm
Gail,
I am also a scientist. You make it sound like scientific research is a cesspool inhabited by greedy, self-serving liars. With all that lying it is remarkable that science has unraveled so much of cellular chemistry, for example. Metabolic reactions, cellular protein machinery, signalling pathways, etc have been elucidated to a level that has allowed the knowledge-based design of a whole new wave of wonder drugs. The march of science today is extraordinary and beyond the imagination of humans a mere two centuries ago. And all carried out by lying cheaters. Imagine! Oh wait, I can anticipate your poisoned response already – it is only climate scientists that are liars and cheaters.
==============================
No mate but quite a LOT of the supposed medical wonders are also BIG FAT LIES!
that KILL people.
celebrex, statins , Baxters 72kg of live H5N1 they sent to eu in 09, supposedly biolevel 3/4 controls etc etc that WOULD have killed many many thousands , they got a slap on the wrist. and blamed a cleaner.
and one recent one I found.
http://www.in-pharmatechnologist.com/Regulatory-Safety/FDA-publishes-Celltex-Therapeutics-inspection-483/?utm_source=newsletter_daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Newsletter%2BDaily&c=j%2FnIs1FdlzUDI%2BCN8gLC1A%3D%3D
no active ingredient, contaminated etc etc.
and the coverup over at CDC (yet again) over crappy lab safety standards,
not that long after that young lad died in 18hrs after working with?
neisseria.
amazing he was the only death really.
=================
as someone else said, you want me to TRUST what you say, you show me the proof the workings and let ME make a truly informed decision.
and boy does that! go for GMO crapfoods.
ALL the data, all of the time.
[SNIP that is Gail Combs writing from an elevated comment as a post, not Mr. Watts. Check your own perceptions before making angry insults ~mod]
This should be added to the comments from other scientists: German Physicist/Cabaret Artist Vince Ebert On Climate Science: “Einstein, Planck, Schrödinger Got To Be Rolling In Their Graves”
….Vince Ebert majored in experimental solid state physics at the Julius Maximilian University in Würzburg. He worked as a consultant at Ogilvy & Mather Dataconsult in Frankfurt.
Here are a few experiences I have had over the years concerning ‘scientists’:
1. There are labyrinthine procedures for handling, using and disposing of radioactivity in science labs. There are supposedly hefty sanctions for breaches. I worked in a lab where multiple breaches occurred (> 5000cpm ‘spillages’ left uncleaned up) over an 18 month period and twice the Institute Radiation Protection Officer had the whole group in a room supposedly reading the riot act. One day later, I was leaving at 11pm and, knowing that radioactivity had been used that evening, did a quick check of other people’s workspaces to see what gave. I found > 500cpm behind a perspex shield, left a note on a post-it note and went home to bed. I came in the next morning and the lab was in uproar. We now knew who had caused the problem and they started accusing others of planting it. I and another went around monitoring, documenting and ultimately signing a contemporaneous report of the spillages, which included enzyme tubes subsequently returned to -20C freezers, microfuges, Eppendorf tubes in general waste bins. The lab expected action. All we got from the Professor was a cover up. As I said at the time: ‘everyone must now act in their own best interests’. I left research science less than a year later, the camel’s back having been broken. It wasn’t the spillage so much as the attitude that repeated exposure of people in their 20s, not yet parents, to radioactivity is consistent with a medical research vocation.
2. For many scientists, the ‘literature’ means peer reviewed literature, not that plus patent filings plus commercial knowledge. I have done at least 2 dozen due diligence exercises where scientists claimed ‘world-leading technology’ and I have rubbished the claim by one morning of searches. If you claim you have ‘world leading technology’ as a scientist, it should imply that you have carried out suitable checks to verify that claim. It very rarely happens in my experience.
3. Even if scientists have a patent filed, they often claim the ability to operate commercially without considering how easy it is to break such claims. I evaluated some Electrocardiogram analytical software once and it took me 10 minutes to see how to break the patent claims. The statement that ‘no-one else can operate in this field’ was not sustained. Commercial naivety probably, but when requesting £250k investment, not very professional.
4. There are scientists out there who will play the aspirant entrepreneur when all they really want to do is to keep doing research and going to conferences. It’s one of the most difficult things to prove up front in due diligence and sometimes you have to just refuse funding without mentioning that. If you spend £250k claiming to want to commercialise something when actually you don’t, I call that fraud by scientists. It’s not scientific fraud per se, but defrauding just those investors who want to believe in scientists and will back risky early-stage stuff. I’ve seen it two or three times.
5. There are scientists out there who don’t have many ideas but talk about ‘ideas being cheap’ in the presence of those with many ideas but fewer publications. Some call that ‘competitive behaviour’, others call it sponging. Whatever it is, it doesn’t paint scientists in a very good light sometimes.
6. There are some very senior scientists, Professors, even, who write articles in national newspapers with the aim of getting a blogger to comment on their work, since their ideas are valuable for research but won’t get funding as they aren’t Professors or even lecturers. Some would call that business, some would call it sharp practice. It doesn’t sit well wiith those claiming to be part of an oppressed segment of society…….
7. Many University Professors are now part of the surveillance states which are HEIs. I would testify before the UK Parliament about organisations and individuals who behaved this way but it wouldn’t stand up in a court of law. I say this not to throw wild accusations around but to make sure no-one is in any doubt about what goes on. I tested this by writing documents on a private PC and seeking reactions from Professors. I got them. In the Marines, you would use that confirmation to bump someone off. In democracy and ‘our universities’, you have to just tolerate it. It’s why I don’t see universities as hallowed institutions, to be frank……
8. Many Professors want free research/due diligence for grant applications/start-up funding but don’t want the person doing that research to be any part of it. Strange that they don’t pay for that upfront then, isn’t it? It’s called using people. It’s a default mode amongst many Professors.
9. Most Professors want admiration more than anything. They are vain, egotistical and highly power-centric. They are top dog in their own small worlds and don’t understand bowing to greater knowledge outside their spheres of expertise. Scientific and rational, such behaviour is not. Common, I am sorry to say, it most certainly is.
Let me state that you’ll find similar traits amongst corporate financiers, so I merely ascribe these behaviour patterns as evidence that scientists are human beings just like everyone else.
Grubby, avaricious ones sometimes.
But that doesn’t make all scientists like that.
Just some of them.
‘I have read somewhere only one in two hundred is actually a leader and to control a group all that is needed is to identify and break that leader. That is what saying there is a “Consensus” and the labeling and denigrating of those who don’t go with the flow is all about.’
I can confirm that US foreign policy in the UK acts upon just such a premise……
Gail Combs says:
July 9, 2012 at 5:20 am
One of the guys I ran into at a seminar a couple of decades ago, told me about the Chinese counterfeited aircraft parts problem. In spite of company policy (ISO) he grabbed some samples of incoming bolts and found those nice high grade bolts were nothing but pot metal and sheared at a very low strength.
I am amazed that we have not had more airline accidents from Chinese substandard parts. If we have not it is probably thanks to that guy who was making sure to pass the information along to everyone he met in the Quality field.
Most have been Class C or D. I get updates from a bud who was in the NTSB and still has contacts. The military accidents usually don’t get publicized.
Our QC guy once found a counterfeit UH-1 tail rotor blade by accident — the data plate on the grip fell off because they used fish glue instead of epoxy to stick it on.
Gail Combs says:
July 9, 2012 at 5:20 am
…and has suggested that companies eliminate ISO 9000 altogether from their quality management systems.
Graveyard Humor Anecdote: We found a dirtbag bomb factory in Kirkuk in 2009, complete with fully assembled EFPIEDs (explosively-formed penetrator IEDs) manufactured in Iran. The penetrator disks were all stamped “ISO 9000 Compliant”…
Gail Combs says:
July 8, 2012 at 9:06 pm
highflight56433 says: @ July 8, 2012 at 9:42 am
As for leadership, yes the sheep are many, the sheep dog is few, and the wolves are circling…
====================================
Gunga Din says: @ July 8, 2012 at 7:29 pm
I’m not sure which you’d call me but I knew what BS was before I ever heard of WUWT or SEPP or Junksciene.com.
I’ve leaned from such sites. I haven’t been led by them.
====================================
A goat? Much more intelligent than a sheep and they don’t herd worth a darn compared to sheep. They remind me of cats who are even more independent minded.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I think this is the the first time I’ve ever been called “a goat” with it meant as a compliment.
[Moderator’s Point of Order: If Gail says it’s a compliment, it’s a compliment. Don’t look a gift goat in the mouth. -REP]
My experience in basic research is pretty much the opposite of Gail’s. Scientists are much more honest that other groups (especially businessmen and politicians) because their careers and jobs depend on honesty. Many of my best publications report results different from expection and contrary to the main theory at the time. Perhaps it is different in applied science such as pharmacueticals and other areas where employers pressure scientists for favorable results. On the other hand, scientists in basic research have every incentive to overcome prevailing theory–that’s how one makes a reputation. So, I completely disagree with the premise that scientists in a field such as climate science have incentives to be dishonest. The reality is qute the opposite.
Stephen Pruett says:
July 8, 2012 at 8:26 pm
I only recently noticed that I didn’t, and most scientists don’t give a passing thought to Bacon and his idea that objectivity should be the principle goal in science. I know that there are aspects of Bacon’s philosophy of science that are oversimplified and that he ignored the real and obvious fact that no one can be truly objective, because our presuppositions and cultural norms influence the framework within which we view all of science. However, I am becoming convinced that it is time to revive Bacon and return to a science in which objectivity and careful identification of all our presuppositions and assumptions would be the ideal for normal operation in science.
————
A very interesting comment. I’ve just been reading “Matters of Exchange: Commerce, Medicine, and Science in the Dutch Golden Age” which is about the period in which Francis Bacon lived. One of the author’s arguments is that the fact that the Scientific Revolution coincided with the Age of Exploration is no coincidence. Scholars were embarked upon the exploration of nature as a part of world exploration, and what drove this in part was a desire to discover objective facts or knowledge of nature. Commerce and the desire to improve medicine and diet and worldly goods were also part and parcel of this program. This was a new project for humanity, especially in contrast with the focus on philosophy, spirituality and abstract truth that preceded it.
I suspect Bacon went out the window in the 1960s, with so much else of Western Civilization. Objectivity implies Truth, and that would never do in modern academe (or at least in the Arts faculties).
Your comment raises the question, then, as to how the Global Warming pseudoscientific program differs from the eugenics studies and propaganda of the early 20th century. It is highly doubtful that scientists in that era would have embraced the Global Warming arguments, but they did embrace the equally ideological eugenics ideas. This is something to mull over.
Gunga Din says:
July 9, 2012 at 1:45 pm
…. I think this is the the first time I’ve ever been called “a goat” with it meant as a compliment.
[Moderator’s Point of Order: If Gail says it’s a compliment, it’s a compliment. Don’t look a gift goat in the mouth. -REP]
____________________________________
It is a compliment. I really like goats.
“I have had plenty of direct experience of outright lying and falsification of data.”
i’d be just a bit worried about this admission!
[REPLY: Are there any mirrors in your house? You are one of the “typically hit and run anonymous cowards” that Anthony was referring to. One would suspect that you are less offended by the dishonesty than the exposure of it. -REP]
Scientists aren’t a different sort of people. They don’t have distinctive DNA, they don’t have a unique shape, they aren’t raised in isolation from humanity in special Science Ranches.
The subcultural conceit of superiority is crippling, like every other form of bigotry. Unfortunately it’s fairly universal – everybody thinks they’re better than everyone else. The Science community just seems particularly unaware of the fact that it’s a conceit (in large part, obviously not everyone is).
BillD says:
July 9, 2012 at 2:41 pm
My experience in basic research is pretty much the opposite of Gail’s….
_________________________________
I would agree that pure research, where there is no political motive driving it, is much less likely to run into the clash with the “God of Profit” However once the politicians like the UN saw CAGW as a means for extracting a world tax to fatten UN coffers and the World Bank saw the Carbon Trading Market as another financial instrument it was no longer pure research any more than the research on red wine and cancer was.
– A University of Connecticut researcher known for his work on the benefits of red wine to heart health falsified his data in more than 100 instances, and nearly a dozen scientific journals are being warned of the potential problems after publishing his studies in recent years….
The basic message should be there ARE dishonest people out there and they are making headlines. As Scientists we need to acknowledge that and make sure we clean up our act. Science journals insisting on archiving of data, methods and computer programs so research can be verified and validated will go a long way towards cleaning up the problem.
Mandatory courses in not only statistics but in the statistical traps like “flinching” or discarding “outliers” should be mandatory for undergraduate science degree completion.
On a final note, the doom and gloom inflammatory press releases by Universities should be STRICTLY avoided, especially when accompanied by weasel words.
Profit doesn’t just mean money. People profit from enhanced reputations, the respect and admiration of others, the feeling of accomplishment, etc.
Some people act like the motive is limited to the “icky other” known as “business.” Guess which one came first.
[SNIP: You are not funny. You are done. Get lost. -REP]
Well, Gail, as you should be well aware, there are two sides to every event, or ‘story’. I don’t know what your experience has been with ‘direct reports’ (the direct supervision of employees reporting to yourself), and maybe this is not news to you, but individual employees can vary widely (and wildly) in terms of capabilities, comprehension, compliance with company ‘policy’ as well as shop procedure … not every one of them has the same scruples nor conscience as say yourself or others even.
Another item that may not be news to you is that it is usually necessary to use some moderate amount of politics and yes, even salesmanship, in the performance of one’s job, especially when it come to ‘breaking’ bad news to one whom one reports to. “Hair on fire” style may work for posting in a forum to get attention for one’s favored causes or topics, but this can be a definite turn-off to management and ‘normal’ people in general; better to take a lower-profile with the company when addressing hot-button issues as when flagging possible out-of-conformance billable material (after all, you’re talking about profit-generating product, the life-blood of the company and not simply engaging in some abstract QA statistical drill!) and ‘sell’ yourself and position on what is wrong with the product you’ve flagged …
A couple years back, a customer we depended on for a goodly chunk of our business was complicating our ‘lives’ as a result of their designs and their supplied ATE test sets acting in collusion to produce ‘low yields’. The backlog of red-tagged material was collecting on shelves and represented a substantial billable amount of money … a long story made short, it required weekly meetings with said customer over which we would discuss reports I had compiled detailing shortcomings as to performance and certain ‘fails’ (which were parametric in nature, not complete malfunction or non-functioning product) that occurred in conjunction with the new ATE (Automated Test Equipment) they had ‘fielded’ for our use. Cutting to the chase, it took about two years to straighten out the design issues (as seen once that design is brought out of the lab and ‘kicked’ into the production environment) as well as the shortcomings of the ATE (test set) … and of course each new ‘spin’/generation of product carried with it ‘issues’ that would only be seen when the spread of component values seen with production quantities on the ‘production floor’ but by this time we had worked-up a good rapport with this customer so resolution was much easier and quicker; point being, in the real world in order to accomplish things bigger than oneself (e.g. a largish manufacturing operation) one has to work with people, not against them.
And again, every ‘story’ has two sides; alas, we will never know the complications of what the other side experienced when certain issues were brought to the fore in the positions one as yourself held in previous years …
.
Now let us look at the definition of a Quality Engineer : –
“The Certified Quality Engineer is a professional who understands the principles of product and service quality evaluation and control. This body of knowledge and applied technologies include, but are not limited to, development and operation of quality control systems, application and analysis of testing and inspection procedures, the ability to use metrology and statistical methods to diagnose and correct improper quality control practices, an understanding of human factors and motivation, facility with quality cost concepts and techniques, and the knowledge and ability to develop and administer management information systems and to audit quality systems for deficiency identification and correction.”
Skeptic’s list of “Fallacy Arguments”. link: http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html
A true skeptic, will examine the data, source opinion from fully qualified sources, does not leap to wild conclusions based on cherry picked data and above all maintains a clear mind, whilst avoiding the evils of cognitive dissonance double think.
Cui Bono Nullius in verba
I’ve got the pitchforks, who has the torches? Lets go get them nasty, dishonest climate scientists!
The Eastern US should be hauled into World Court for theft of the ROW’s (Rest Of the World’s) heat. Brazen, I calls it!
I think scientists are no more dishonest than the average population, but certainly far better than business(men/women) or politicians. Significantly more number of business people and politicians go to jail for professional dishonest dealings than scientists. Looking at dishonest scientists, unless one can make a case that scientists who believe in global warming are more dishonest than the skeptics, such statements may not mean much. Leaders and followers can fall in both sides, and I see no evidence to claim that most followers and dishonest scientists are global warming believers, and most leaders and honest scientists are in the skeptics group. Also, few people may get dismissed for being honest, but I would assume a larger number are dismissed for not being honest – so those data won’t support one side or other.