I’m reminded of this quote:
“No one is more dangerous than he who imagines himself pure in heart: for his purity, by definition, is unassailable.”
This below pretty much says it all.
http://twitter.com/RogerPielkeJr/status/318719008503365632
Given the evidence, will the science community find the integrity to call for a retraction?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Well stated.
I don’t think people realize how broken science really is if this is allowed to sit as is. Marcott should be allowed to resubmit the paper, but without the hockey stick and other wording pointing to modern warming. Perhaps he could write a different paper with different smoothing methods to prove these assertions. But until he utilizes a DIFFERENT method to come to these conclusions, the conclusions are just flat-out contradictions of his own words.
As I stated in a previous comment, I could logically write up a paper and claim I proved the existance of God. And then on page 23 in small letters state “the data is not conclusive (robust)” And science of this calibre requires that my scientific paper is fine like that.
Has there ever been a better opportunity for the scientific community to take action and demonstrate their integrity?
The public will not play ball with either scientists or politicians if the integrity of the establishment can be so easily questioned.
“Given the evidence, will the science community find the integrity to call for a retraction?”
You’ll be able to take an aerial tour of Liberty Island by flying pig about a week before that happens….
“Will the scientific community call for a retraction?”
I did, 2 weeks ago in an online comment submitted to Science. (Posted at BH about March 17th). Unfortunately my comment has not appeared at Science.
Great question and great post, Anthony. In addition, will all those who hyped the “new hockey stick” for the public and all those who fostered that hype take the necessary steps to mitigate the harmful disinformation that they unleashed on the public?
Baldwin said for morality what I say for technical matters:
Those who suffer from the Unique Solution Syndrome, in which there is only one correct or best solution, must, by the nature of their Syndrome, vehemently deny any solution other than the one they have embraced because, being it The One, by definition all others are wrong or inadequate.
CO2 is a Unique Solution to the 20th century warming. Mann’s tree-ring is a Unique Solution to determining paleotemperatures. Deep-ocean sequestration is a Unique Solution to Trenberth’s “missing” heat. The list goes on.
Skepticism denies that the Unique Solution exists. Sceptisim shares William James’ pragmatic view of truth, that we can approach it but never completely grasp it, that “truth” is something that is helpful for us to move forward until it doesn’t. Then we revise the “truth” into another, temporarily useful “truth”. Not so for the warmists.
Gore, the supporters of the IPCC, Mann, Trenberth, Guergis, McKibben, Suzuki all believe in Unique Solutions. They want and believe the world can be nailed to the floor, and since they have smacked a nail with their hammers, the world is settled and certain. They will carry their Unique Solutions to the grave, and if they can find acolytes as did Paul Erhlich, they will get them carried beyond it, too.
The link in the phrase “given the evidence”, points to this post, not to a page where one could read or review the evidence.
It is naive to think that this is about the unassailable purity of “science”. Such a thing has only ever existed as an ideal in the mind of idealists. It is a noble ideal not only because the scientific method is to be pursued and followed but also because the pursuit of scientific method requires that we believe in the fundamental goodness of humankind and therefore we can trust people to do science research using the honest way. That certain parts of the “climate science” community appear somewhat disconnected from the honest part of this ideal should (at this late stage) surprise no one. And it should be even less surprising that the dishonest ones don’t actually feel compelled to be – well, honest. So it is left to the honest ones to hold the dishonest accountable. But if there are no honest ones left then don’t hold your breath. For those who still believe that science can and should be trusted, we ought to be hearing from honest scientists loud and clear condemnation of Marcott and others like him that used a paper that said NOTHING about modern temperatures as a vehicle to promote an political agenda that is all about modern temperatures.
Why is there mostly only one sided climate scientists. Either they are all in on the AGW side or all in on the other side. Like Democrats or Republicans with only a few independents in the middle like me.
I am no climate scientist but there is writing on the walls of cooling and warming caused by mankind.
I believe from all the data that is out on the net to view on the climate there are changes from mankind’s actions of cooling and warming. There are also natural cycles of cooling and warming that fit in the puzzle.
I am getting fed up with all the BS with both sides picking and choosing certain data to make statements on the climate.
Vent!!!
“The reality of climate change, the importance of the cause or the evilness of the deniers”
No, it’s about none of these things. It’s about power. Nothing more, nothing less. And according to the psychopathology of those who pursue such power, anything and everything is justifiable. It has never been about the science, evilness of anybody, a cause, or even whether or not climate change is a reality.
How the Yahoo resident warmist Bill MacCracken, director of the Climate Institute, promotes garbage as observation based study…
“Here is article about studies seeking to better understand what is happening
and its implications–an example of learning from observations and analysis:
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/global-warmings-paradox-more-antarctic-sea-ice-20130401-2h262.html
Mike MacCracken”
Just sat through a presentation about compliance and ethics in research. I wonder how many ‘climate scientists’ have ever done the same?
Mike MacCracken, of course… not Bill McKibben, although…
Will RC censor?
48
Nancy Green says:
1 Apr 2013 at 10:09 AM
Since Marcott et al ends in 1950 and the IPCC has concluded the temperature increases pre 1950 are due to natural causes, Macrott cannot be showing us anything about the human influences on temperature.
[Response: Marcott ends 1940. IPCC concluded no such thing, and Marcott’s work does place the 20th Century rise in the context of the long term natural trends. – gavin]
Rather, it must be concluded that what Marcott is showing is only the natural variability in temperature and if any weight is to be given to the uptick, it shows that at higher resolutions there may be significant temperature spikes due to natural causes.
[Response: Of the size and magnitude of the 20th Century – unlikely. Even the 8.2kyr event which is the biggest thing in the Holocene records in the North Atlantic is small comparatively. It would definitely be good to get more high resolution well-dated data included though, and Marcott’s work is good basis for that to be built from. – gavin]
Nancy Green says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
1 Apr 2013 at 10:47 AM
Response: 20th Century rise in the context of the long term natural trends… Even the 8.2kyr event which is the biggest thing in the Holocene records
==========
NOAA shows the 8.2kyr event as greater than 3.0C, while GISS shows the 20th Century rise as less that 0.7C.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/alley2000/alley2000.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Greenland_Gisp2_Temperature.svg
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1900/to:2000/trend
When one looks at long duration events we have the Younger Dryas event, with a temperature change of approximately 15C as compared to 20th century warming of less than 0.7C
“Near-simultaneous changes in ice-core paleoclimatic indicators of local, regional, and more-widespread climate conditions demonstrate that much of the Earth experienced abrupt climate changes synchronous with Greenland within thirty years or less. Post-Younger Dryas changes have not duplicated the size, extent and rapidity of these paleoclimatic changes”.
again from NOAA
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/alley2000/alley2000.html
Nancy Green says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
1 Apr 2013 at 11:03 AM
Once cannot conclude from Marcott that there have been no short term events of similar magnitude to the Younger Dryas (approx 15C) within the period covered by Marcott. Such events would be hidden by the lack of resolution so long as they were shorter than 1/2 the sampling rate as per Nyquist.
Dr. Pielke Jr was too polite. He focused on the fact that the new FAQ explicitly gives the lie to the press release, author interviews, and MSM reporting of this new hockey stick.
But it has been conclusively shown that Marcott’s thesis did not have the uptick, it’s methods explicitly prevented such resolution with any statistical certainty ( which the FAQ clarifies), and that the uptick was created by core top redating, pulling forward some that uptick and pulling back some than down tick. See other posts here, at Climate Audit, and at Climate Etc.
Dr. Pielke also offered the formal definition of academic misconduct, which includes fabrication/falsification of data. By fabricating new core top dates different than those expressly noted in the proxy papers themselves, a clearer case of explicit formal misconduct involving data falsification does not exist.
I for one hope that the full and severe consequences are borne by the perps, as an object lesson to the entire climate science community.
I am writing Science to demand the paper’s retraction, and hope others will do likewise. Enough is enough. They were caught red handed with a smoking gun. FAQs do not excuse the crime against science this paper represents.
Regards
It is really quite simple. If they knew what they were doing it is malfeasance. If they didn’t know it is incompetence.
Either way it is damaging to climate science, which already has a bad reputation for a pattern of such activities.
Strong indications of which it is lie in the ad hominem attacks against those who raise questions. This is reinforced by the failure to correct the science, instead choosing to move the goalposts, such as in the shift from global warming to climate change. As John Maynard Keynes said, “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do Sir?”
The reality of climate change, the importance of the cause or the evilness of the deniers — none of these excuse misrepresenting science.
Dear Roger Jr.
The end justifies the means for these people and it is high time that you understood that.
Just remember Plank’s dictum
“Science advances, one funeral at a time”.
Science has far more in common with religion than most want to admit. It is compounded when you consider any portion of science a “cause”. It is further debased when you call those who disagree with your science as “deniers”.
benfrommo at 8:36
Marcott should be allowed to resubmit the paper, but without the hockey stick and other wording pointing to modern warming. Perhaps he could write a different paper with different smoothing methods to prove these assertions.
I think he already did in his PhD thesis which covers the same 73 proxies but with a different result.
…which Anthony and McIntyre have commented on…
Well if they don’t retract (and resubmit is OK with me without the uptick) I would say the Journal Science and the AAAS is finished
“No one is more dangerous than he who imagines himself pure in heart: for his purity, by definition, is unassailable.”
That’s pretty much why I stopped regularly reading this site. The lack of self-awareness on display here is matched only by the surplus of projection.
REPLY: so says the anonymous coward with the fake email address…
…who can’t put his name to his words. Nice try though – Anthony
What might impress me about RC would be if occasionally one of them there ‘real’ scientists could just start his defence with ” of course it wasn’t a good idea to talk up the blade…” and then do the defence of “it doesn’t change anything” – but they never do. That’s what is worrying.
If the “data” aren’t fact, you must retract.
To paraphrase the late Johnnie Cochran, who last year was accused by OJ prosecutor Christopher Darden of tampering with evidence, just as apparently did the bad company into which impressionable, ambitious young Marcott fell.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/08/oj-simpson-tampered-with-glove_n_1866945.html
I’m not a climate scientist but I play one on TV…………Seriously though, is the concept of not comparing apples to oranges not taught anymore? Perhaps some ‘Sesame Street’ intensive therapy is called for here. ‘One of these things is not like the other. One of these things just doesn’t belong. Can you guess which thing is not like the others before I’m done typing this song.’
/kinda sarc
Theo Goodwin says:
April 1, 2013 at 8:44 am
“Great question and great post, Anthony. In addition, will all those who hyped the “new hockey stick” for the public and all those who fostered that hype take the necessary steps to mitigate the harmful disinformation that they unleashed on the public?”
On ALL past experience the betting is against. I am not holding my breath on this one!