NYT: Crack Down on Scientific Fraudsters

Guest essay by Jim Steele,

Director emeritus Sierra Nevada Field Campus, San Francisco State University and author of Landscapes & Cycles: An Environmentalist’s Journey to Climate Skepticism

While alarmists try to enshrine climate scientists as pure and unbiased, those familiar with real life science understand a scientist’s opinion should always be challenged- challenged because personal bias taints their interpretations and challenged because a small minority will fudge the data in order to gain peer acceptance, status and funding.

Read the NY Times piece Crack Down on Scientific Fraudsters  

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/11/opinion/crack-down-on-scientific-fraudsters.html?_r=1

Scientific fraud is found in the field of medical science because results can be quickly checked. In climate science, dooms day predictions are cast far into the future and alarming predictions go untested. As seen in the diagram below negative ecological disruptions are highlighted as the deadly consequence of climate change while ignoring thriving populations just a few meters away.

Unfortunately the few climate alarmists that constitute the “consensus” have circled the wagons to protect obviously flawed publications as documented in How the American Meteorological Society Justified Publishing Half-Truths

http://landscapesandcycles.net/American_Meterological_Society_half-truth.html and seen in the Climate gate emails.

They should be concerned.

The crack down is coming.

clip_image002

About these ads
This entry was posted in Opinion. Bookmark the permalink.

66 Responses to NYT: Crack Down on Scientific Fraudsters

  1. Shawn from High River says:

    Lets hope so :)

  2. frozenohio says:

    Looks like the climate ‘emperors’ have no clothes.

  3. jim Steele says:

    Those so invested in human caused climate catastrophe have waged a media campaign to enshrine climate scientists as if climate scientists do not suffer the same problems that are being exposed. It reminds me of the Frank Zappa song “It Cant Happen Here”

    [video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svdrAHn_LGo [/video]

  4. Sparks says:

    It is indeed Jim.. there are bright minds paying attention to all this.

  5. dynam01 says:

    @Jim Steele: Whoooooo … could imagine …

  6. pdtillman says:

    It’s good to see a professional trying to help his field to self-correct. But it’s really hard to get people to back away from positions they’ve invested a good deal of effort in — and been well-rewarded for it
    It.

    There’s really no easy solution to this problem — as you say, these are half-truths. Probably a tipping-point will be reached, as it becomes more evident that the CAGW hypothesis’s drastic predictions of woe aren’t happening, and the climate isn’t even warming much.

    Until then, I guess it’s up to us old guys who don’t have much to lose, to keep pointing out that stuff that’s been predicted ain’t happening. And a “science” that can’t make valid predictions is pretty much useless. Eh, grant-granters?

    “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.”
    — Upton Sinclair

  7. Long game. I like it. Finally.

  8. Peter Miller says:

    “Because a small minority will fudge the data in order to gain peer acceptance, status and funding.”

    And that in a nutshell is the role of most climate scientists in today’s.world of real science.

  9. Alan Robertson says:

    dynam01 says:
    July 11, 2014 at 2:35 pm

    @Jim Steele: Whoooooo … could imagine …
    __________________
    Would that cause a freakout in Kansas?

  10. David L. says:

    Read this from Bill Moyer about poor downtrodden Mickey Mann. You’ll find Mickey is just a pure honest scientist who is the true sceptic, fighting the good fight.

    http://billmoyers.com/2014/06/12/six-things-michael-mann-wants-you-to-know-about-the-science-of-global-warming/

  11. Hawkward says:

    They’ll never retract the paper. It has too many cards above it in the house of cards.

  12. Paul Coppin says:

    Its important to note that the NYT article was written by the founders of Retraction Watch, not NYT staff or elites. It is to NYT’s credit, and probably more for a ratings nudge than any ideological bent, that they published it.

  13. Max Hugoson says:

    Where is Elmer Fudd when you need him? (Kill the Wabbit! KILL THE WABBIT!)

  14. Bob says:

    Jim, do you realize that the Department of Integrative Biology at the University of Texas still claims a Nobel Peace Prize for Camille Parmesan.
    Faculty

    37 faculty
    3 members of the National Academy of Sciences
    7 fellows of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences
    4 National Science Foundation Early CAREER Awards
    2 MacArthur Fellows
    1 Kavli Frontiers of Science fellow
    1 International Prize for Biology
    1 Howard Hughes Medical Institute Award – Early Career Scientist
    1 2007 Nobel Peace Prize jointly awarded with Al Gore and others

  15. jim Steele says:

    @David L.

    Moyer is definitely an anthropogenic climate change disciple. His website recently authored an article about climate myths arguing the 17 year pause was the fabrication of Lord Monckton, stating the number 1 myth was “Earth Hasn’t Stopped Warming Since 1998 (or 1996 or 1997)”

    This claim was popularized by “Lord” Christopher Monckton, a prominent British climate “skeptic” with no scientific background who presented himself as a member of the House of Lords until the Parliament published a cease and desist order demanding that he stop. His so-called “research” relies on people’s confusion about the difference between weather, which fluctuates all the time, and climate, which speaks to long-term trends. With some careful cherrypicking of data, you get the argument that there’s been “no global warming for 17 years, 3 months.”

    Moyer was oblivious to the fact that hundreds of peer-reviewed papers have been trying to explain this so-caled “imaginary pause”.

    So that Moyer writers would enshrine Michael Mann comes as no surprise. In that interview they quote Mann “Part of the reason for the attacks against me and other scientists who have participated prominently in the public discussion is to send a warning signal to other scientists who might think about speaking out. But if we don’t speak out, then we leave a vacuum in the discussion.”

    But they neglect to balance their discussion with the wide spread attempt to shut down all skeptical thought from “deniers.” The printed form of Trenberth’s address after climategate added a cartoon that said ” Global Warming is not the greatest threat to the World” ” Global WArming Skeptics are!” Clearly if you wanted to be funded and published, Trenberth was warning ” do not be a skeptic!” So to steal the words from Mann ” But if we [skeptics] don’t speak out, then we leave a vacuum in the discussion” created by threats from Trenberth and Mann.

  16. Latitude says:

    because a small minority will fudge the data in order to gain peer acceptance, status and funding.
    =====
    Jim, this is absolutely not true…….
    Fudged data…once accepted..becomes even more fudged data
    As more is accepted…even more science is built on the fudged data that was built on the fudged data..and on and on

    Faster than you can blink….it becomes a huge majority…just look at what happened to climate science

  17. jim Steele says:

    Bob says “Jim, do you realize that the Department of Integrative Biology at the University of Texas still claims a Nobel Peace Prize for Camille Parmesan.
    Faculty”

    Yes I am sadly aware. It reminds me of the quote from Godfather 3 where Michael says to Connie, “All my life I kept trying to go up in society. Where everything higher up was legal. But the higher I go, the crookeder it becomes. Where the hell does it end?”

  18. Bruce Cobb says:

    Maybe they’ll allow Mickey to have a picture of his self-awarded Nobel Prize on his cell wall.

  19. Reasonable_Skeptic says:

    I have noticed some basic math issues.

    1) Sea Level Rise
    We keep hearing that the heat is hiding in the oceans. Ok, I buy that. How much will SLR be impacted by it? I hears that the land ice is melting and it too is impacting SLR. Ok, I buy that too. I hear that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is melting due to geo thermal heating. I buy that as well.

    Given the current SLR and the three major factors above, do the numbers add up?

    2) Missing Heat
    There are a number of reasons for the missing heat. OHC being the big one, but natural forcings are another and the Cowtan and Way paper that merged data and concluded it was in the arctic was another. It seems to me that there is a lot of heat accounted for.

    This, while not fraud, seems more than a little odd to me. Perhaps there are very obvious reasons but other than evaporation rate impacting SLR I can’t see anything.

    Anybody wish to comment?

  20. neillusion says:

    It is possible that science fraud will become MSMs new sensational headlines, especially when there is nothing more newsworthy/sensationalist or attention grabbing. Then we could see a cascade of domino collapse as the scientists involved start to go down. Political power and conspiracy has floated there boat, it can easily be sunk when the MSM ‘climate’ is right. It will be Titanic.

  21. jim Steele says:

    @Latitude

    I agree that once that small minority publishes, a falsehood it goes viral as I have documented here http://landscapesandcycles.net/hijacking-conservation-success-in-the-uk.html

    Nonetheless, the majority of scientists who echo the bad science are not deliberately spreading false lies. They are merely parroting ideas they have come to trust. As I said in the “Blinded by Beliefs” essay about Emperor Penguins http://landscapesandcycles.net/resilient-emperor-penguin.html, Mark Twains nails the universal problem that is as true for science as it is for religion, “In religion and politics people’s beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from others.”

  22. neillusion says:

    their boat

  23. Latitude says:

    They are merely parroting ideas they have come to trust…
    ====
    Jim, they are also parroting data, charts, graphs, science, formulas……building on science that wasn’t true….

    Just look at all the science built on science that was built…all the way back to some questionable paper that got through

  24. Green Sand says:

    jim Steele and Latitude

    The problem we have is ongoing citation. Falsehood upon falsehood becomes an issue, as does good science based on a citation later proved to be “false”. I hesitate to use the word “false”, but I know no other that fits.

  25. pat says:

    whoever wrote it, at least NYT did publish it.

    12 July: Spectator: In apologising for having Nigel Lawson on to discuss climate change, the BBC has breached its charter
    Rational debate is poisonous to climatic correctness
    It is only a matter of time before Nigel Lawson — if he is allowed on the BBC at all — has to have his words spoken by an actor in the manner of Gerry Adams at the height of the IRA’s bombing campaign during the 1980s. In the case of Mr Adams, whose voice was banned from the airwaves by the government, the BBC stood up for free speech. But it is quite a different story with Lord Lawson. The BBC has effectively banned the former chancellor (and former editor of this magazine) from appearing on its programmes to debate climate change, unless he is introduced with a statement discrediting his views…
    When people try to close down debate rather than engage with it, there is a pretty clear conclusion to be drawn: they lack confidence in their own case. The suppression of debate was shown again this week when Vladimir Semonov, a climate scientist at the Geomar Institute in Kiel, Germany, revealed that a paper he wrote in 2009 questioning the accuracy of climate models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was effectively censored by the scientist to whom it was sent for review. Their reasons for demanding passages be removed seems rather less than scientifically rigorous: one wrote that the offending material would ‘lead to unnecessary confusion in the climate science community’ and another said that ‘this entire discussion has to disappear’….
    http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-week/leading-article/9259911/climatic-correctness/

    remembering Natalie Bennett – who “was editor of The Guardian Weekly from December 2007 until March 2012, and previously its deputy editor” (Wikipedia) – the Australian-born leader of the Green Party in England & Wales:

    17 Feb: Breitbart: Raheem Kassan: Green Party Wants Ouster Of Govt Climate Change Sceptics
    Britain’s Green Party has called for the ouster of climate change sceptics within the British government, in what critics have called a ‘quasi-fascist’ move to force the issue.
    Green Party leader Natalie Bennett, whose party has one Member of Parliament in former leader Caroline Lucas, specifically targeted Conservative government ministers Owen Paterson and Eric Pickles, demanding that those who refuse to accept “the scientific consensus on climate change” should be removed from the positions.
    Australian-born Bennett told the BBC that “…those are situations that cannot be allowed to continue in government. People need to accept the reality and need to act to take the choices we need to deal with climate change”…
    When asked if her comments were being interpreted correctly, and if she really meant that every senior government adviser, even those not linked to environmental issues, should be removed for their climate change scepticism, Bennett responded, “Yes… we would ask the government to remove them.”…
    (BBC VIDEO: approx 2 mins INTERVIEW WITH NATALIE BENNETT)
    http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/02/17/Greens-want-ouster-of-cabinet-climatesceptics

  26. Bob Johnston says:

    Scientific fraud is found in the field of medical science because results can be quickly checked.

    Wanna bet? We’ve been watching our LDL cholesterol and saturated fat for 60 years due to some of the worst science ever. Ancel Keys is the Michael Mann of medical science.

  27. pat says:

    MSM all subscribe to Reuters, but who will publish the following?

    11 July: Reuters: UK court shuts 2 firms over carbon, diamond investment schemes
    A British court has ordered two firms into liquidation after an investigation found they had made nearly 2 million pounds ($3.4 million) through selling carbon credits, diamonds and other commodities to investors using false and misleading information.
    Pinecom Services Limited and Pine Commodities Ltd were ordered closed by the UK High Court on July 2 after they were found to have continued a business operated by three firms that were shut in the last two years for similar reasons, Britain’s Insolvency Service said on Friday.
    “The grounds for winding up the companies arise from the connections to companies that this court has previously wound up, namely Tullett Brown Limited, Foxstone Carr Limited and Carvier Limited, all of which were engaged in the trade of selling carbon credits to members of the public,” registrar Christine Derrett of the court said in a ruling, which the Insolvency Service cited in a statement.
    “The companies appear to have been incorporated to take over the trade of those other (three) companies once they had been wound up. The two companies are, to use the colloquial term, ‘phoenix’ companies,” she added.
    Attempts by Reuters to contact the firms were unsuccessful…
    The agency said Pinecom Services and Pine Commodities sold carbon credits generated by 11 clean energy projects around the world, storing the revenues in a bank account in the Seychelles.
    It added that the firms made over 1.8 million pounds from cold-calling potential investors and selling them carbon credits as well as diamonds, precious metals and storage units as investments.
    “Contrary to the companies’ claims, their services, in plain English, were designed to rip off investors,” Chris Mayhew, company investigations supervisor at the Insolvency Service, said in the statement…
    Some 37 firms have been ordered into liquidation by courts since 2012 over claims that they collectively made more than 45 million pounds using high-pressure techniques to sell illiquid and over-priced carbon credits.
    The Insolvency Service has estimated that at least 1,500 British investors have been defrauded by carbon credit sellers.
    http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/07/11/britain-carbon-courts-idINL6N0PM41C20140711

    MSM will, however, probably pick up the following:

    11 July: Reuters: Ben Garside: Germany wants aid for emission-cutting projects in poor countries
    Germany is advancing plans for rich countries to encourage the developing world to cut greenhouse gas emissions by subsidising projects, replacing the funding after a United Nations programme has run out of cash.
    Such a move could yield cuts of around 5 percent of the gap between current government pledges and the amount needed by 2020 to prevent climate change that would lead to rising seas, droughts and flooding.
    It also could throw a lifeline to owners of those projects that would destroy particularly potent industrial gases who are unwilling to pay for the measures themselves and do not expect their host countries to introduce regulations for years…
    “Some of the cheapest options available for cutting emissions are at a real risk of stopping for purely political reasons,” said Silke Karcher, an official at Germany’s environment ministry.
    “We are now looking at what is politically and financially feasible to act, with money spent wisely and in a way that does not create perverse incentives.”
    ***The U.N.’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) channelled over $400 billion into projects over the last decade, but the funding has dried up as nations wrangle over a new global deal to tackle climate change…
    An Oeko-Institut study commissioned by Germany found that additional funding for CDM projects and others outside the CDM could prevent emissions of 800 million tonnes by 2020 at an average cost of 0.47 euros a tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent…
    Owners are wary of disclosing their projects’ status, said Carsten Warnecke of consultancy Ecofys, which Germany has commissioned alongside auditor TUV SUD to survey so-called “zombie” projects that were registered with the CDM but never applied for credits.
    Only a third of the 7,789 registered CDM projects have applied for credits, Thomson Reuters Point Carbon data shows…
    The Oeko report suggested that HFC-23 could be regulated under the U.N.’s Montreal Protocol, including possible financing from richer nations under its multilateral fund…
    Alternatively, funding could be channelled through an expansion of the World Bank’s Auctioning Facility, which is due to launch later this year to buy credits from projects that cut methane emissions at landfill waste sites.
    http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/07/11/un-carbon-idUKL6N0PK4GS20140711

  28. rogerknights says:

    frozenohio says:
    July 11, 2014 at 2:16 pm

    Looks like the climate ‘emperors’ have no clothes.

    In Antarctica, the Emperor wears a tux.

  29. Catcracking says:

    It seems as though there are a few more groups cooking the books on the peer review process in the science and Engineering arena. A scholarly journal has retracted 60 papers due to fraud in the peer review process.
    “The reason for the mass retraction is mind-blowing: A “peer review and citation ring” was apparently rigging the review process to get articles published.”

    “You’ve heard of prostitution rings, gambling rings and extortion rings. Now there’s a “peer review ring.”

    “The publication is the Journal of Vibration and Control (JVC). It publishes papers with names like “Hydraulic enginge mounts: a survey” and “Reduction of wheel force variations with magnetorheological devices.”

    “It’s field is highly technical:”

    “Analytical, computational and experimental studies of vibration phenomena and their control. The scope encompasses all linear and nonlinear vibration phenomena and covers topics such as: vibration and control of structures and machinery, signal analysis, aeroelasticity, neural networks, structural control and acoustics, noise and noise control, waves in solids and fluids and shock waves.”

    JVC is part of the SAGE group of academic publications.

    “An announcement from SAGE published July 8 explained what happened, albeit somewhat opaquely.”

    “In 2013, the editor of JVC, Ali H. Nayfeh, became aware of people using “fabricated identities” to manipulate an online system called SAGE Track by which scholars review the work of other scholars prior to publication.”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/07/10/scholarly-journal-retracts-60-articles-smashes-peer-review-ring/

  30. ROM says:

    I think Jim Steele is being a bit generous when he suggests that a minority of scientists are fraudsters.
    In numbers of scientists deliberately fraudulent he is probaly somewhere near correct but take a look at there the main centres of fraud in the climate alarmist business exists.

    We only have to look at the highest echelons of climate science such as the CRU Climate Gate mails and the subsequent dismemberment of Hockey Stick as a rank fraud by Steve McIntyre [ who should be the one to be in line to get a Nobel ] on the Hockey Stick , a scientific fraud and debacle that has few equals in both past science history and in it’s entirely negative impact on every aspect of our society as the ideologically and crassly bigoted sectors of our society took the Hockey Stick up with gusto and tried to use it to enforce their dictatorial ideology and dogma onm to the rest of our society across the globe.
    Now we are seeing a similar performance from the NCDC [ and GISS ] in the manner in which it is constantly “adjusting” both today’s temperatures and the temperatures from many decades past on a daily basis.
    It is using “estimated” temperatures for stations that have not operated for decades. It is infilling temperatures for places where there are no records. It uses hypothetical stations, Zombie stations as a part of the supposed temperatures reigning today and it does all of this “adjustment” “estimation” and inventing of temperatures while selling the public the claim that these are the real actual recorded temperatures which have been recorded over the decades past.

    If that type of deliberate fraud, the quite deliberate claims directed at the public aby the
    NCDC and GISS about the accuracy and the actuality of the supposedly recorded data when that temperature data is entirely based on constantly adjusted, kreiged, infilled, zombied and etc data is deliberately sold to the public without any caveats or explanations about the data’s origins then that ranks as outright fraud .
    And this from the central clearing house for global temperature data, the NCDC.
    And then on the basis of those often spurious adjustments, infilled, zombied, krieged and etc included stations any and all temperatures that are supposedly higher than the NCDC and GISS adjusted temperature data for any particular day in any particular location are immediately hailed as proof of some sort of catastrophic warming under way.

    As one ages we start to look back on our lives and what we have done and accomplished and for many, wonder as to how history will regard us.
    For many high profile alarmist climate scientists and for their innumerable running dogs in the media and green eviro-loon movement, if and as now seems probable, a significant global cooling gets under way over the next few decades, history is going to treat the reputations of so many of those ideologically and dogma fixated scientists very harshly indeed.
    If that cooling is confirmed within the next half a decade or so then most of them will go to their graves with the full knowledge that they were utterly wrong in their climate catastrophe fixation and were responsible for one of the worst debacles of corruption of science’s basic principles and impartiality that modern science and the world has ever been seen .
    Plus creating untold misery and innumerable quite avoidable deaths from the very corrupted cause they so heavily promoted, that of a catastrophic global warming.
    Very few of them indeed will have had the cojones and honesty to admit they were dramatically wrong and have the courage to humbly apologise and try and make good the immense harm they have done to society, to economies of entire nations, to individuals and to humanity by their rigidity and fixation with a claimed phenomena for which there never ever was any proof that it ever existed.
    And that is scientific fraud on a scale that has never been seen before with only the Ozone hole affair approaching it where as James Lovelock has claimed, an estimated 80% of science papers had fraudulent and altered and made up data included.

    Perhaps it would be wise for climate scientists if they ever wish to try and retrieve a semblence of their reputations to take cognizance of Phaedrus and Sophocles

    “Whoever is detected in a shameful fraud is ever after not believed even if they speak the truth”.
    Phaedrus

    “Rather fail with honor than succeed by fraud.”
    Sophocles

  31. Justthinkin says:

    “NYT: Crack Down on Scientific Fraudsters”
    So Mr.Steele. When are the supeonas and handcuffs coming out? I can’t remember who said it,however to paraphrase….Justice must not only appear to be done,Justice MUST be done. Same as I once thought that freedom meant I did not have to make a choice.I now know that freedom is the fact I CAN make a choice.

  32. geran says:

    Okay, I just did a test. The comment was immediately deleted.

    WUWT is still deleting comments that reflect “real science”.

    I just need to keep a record of screen shots.

    (Sorry rogerknights, you are just a victim.)

  33. jim Steele says:

    @Latitude “Jim, they are also parroting data, charts, graphs, science, formulas……building on science that wasn’t true….”

    I agree with you and Green Sand the problem is ongoing citation.

    Honesty was the ultimate virtue in my family. I was told the story of how a lie was like a bag of feathers that once dropped on someones doorstep will be swept away by the wind, not amount of effort or apology can put those feathers (lies) back in the bag.

    My point is that only a minority of scientists willfully spread their lies to the wind, and it is those people who we must crack down on. Many scientists who accepted their arguments on hearsay are embarrassed when the truth becomes more apparent and they will become allies. Deliberate amputation of evidence to promote an argument must be exposed which is why I will continue to point out such tactics in the Parmesan paper http://landscapesandcycles.net/American_Meterological_Society_half-truth.html

    I sincerely believe most scientists treasure the truth above all, and are committed to the notion that we only arrive at the truth after rigorous cross examination and testing.We truly believe “let the truth lead us where it may!”

    Although it is maddening to see some parrot dubious speculation and gross misinterpretations, such behavior will always be a fact of human nature we can never change. All sides are blinded by our beliefs, and only respectful debates and evidence can bring the greater truth into the light. The motto of the oldest scientific society when Sir Isaac Newton presided warned, “Nullius in Verba”, take no one’s word. But our biggest enemies of science, of truth seekers, are those who try to squash that debate, liike Trenberth labeling all skeptics as the biggest threat to the earth, or Michael Mann’s attempts to argue that anyone criticizing his hypotheses are “anti-science” and other alarmists like Slandering Sou who attempt to label honest skeptics as deniers. Unfortunately their tactics are not as illegal as they are dishonest. Legally we can only crack down on the deliberate lies, knowing eventually it will erode the support of the Trenberths and Manns and their ilk.

  34. Curious George says:

    Re Dr Parmesan’s nomination: Isn’t there a Nobel Prize for hiding inconvenient data? Who would not proudly receive a prize that Yasser Arafat, Al Gore, and Barack Hussein Obama got?

  35. Mike T says:

    Crackdown and doomsday are each one word. “Meterology” as found in the link is the study of what? Meteorology or metrology? Two different fields, of course. Otherwise, an interesting read, although it’s a tad disturbing to see obvious spelling errors in a NYT piece.

  36. jim Steele says:

    @David L.

    The most dishonest segment of the interview with Mann for Moyer’s website was

    “Mann: I wrote an op-ed in The New York Times earlier this year in which I made a very strong and impassioned plea to my fellow scientists to be willing to advocate for an informed public discourse. Not that they need to advocate for specific policies to deal with climate change, but to be willing to step up and participate in the larger public discourse over what we know about the scientific evidence.”

    “Participate in the larger public discourse”??? ROTFLMAO Mann and his ilk have steadfastly boycotted all attempts to have a well moderated climate debate. The closest thing to a debate by Mann’s RealClimate cult was Gavin Schmidt’s appearance on Stossel’s show. But Gavin would only appear if Dr. Roy Spencer was banished offstage so that Gavin could speak without being challenged. The Moyer article is such a propaganda piece, and symptomatic of the distortions being pushed and the attempts to enshrine Mann as the pure and innocent scientists who objectively challenges his own beliefs. But these articles are attempts to re-instate a fallen high priest who was exposed in the climate gate emails as a vengeful prideful man(n) who will denigrate his opponents by any means necessary!

  37. Latitude says:

    jim Steele says:
    July 11, 2014 at 5:32 pm
    =====
    agree 100%…..that was a nice read, thank you….I like your style

  38. Alan Robertson says:

    geran says:
    July 11, 2014 at 5:23 pm

    Okay, I just did a test. The comment was immediately deleted.

    WUWT is still deleting comments that reflect “real science”.

    I just need to keep a record of screen shots.

    (Sorry rogerknights, you are just a victim.)
    _________________
    I don’t believe you. While deleted comments are exceedingly rare at WUWT, the one or two I have seen were the most scurrilous sort of defamation, or what might be considered egregious lies, after warnings to stop.
    Did your post ever appear,or is it stuck in moderation?

    [Reply: It was in the spam folder for some reason. Rescued & posted. ~ mod.]

  39. SIGINT EX says:

    American Meteorological Society, American Association for the Advancement [Ha Ha] of Science [is THAT what they call it] and the American Geophysical Union (the once respected Journals of Geophysical Research and Geophysical Research Letters amongst more who expunged the words Geophysics and Geophysical from their “by-laws” [Ah ... the hand of Mann]) need strong legal complaints against them followed by convictions and Federal Prison sentences [very unfortunate that the "Executive" and "President" of the AGU cannot be killed if convicted ... what about ... killed by drone (?) through .... Executive Order ... Ah Ha !] in order to out their “Executives”, “President”, “Council,” i.e. Legal … but … NO, and “Religion” Editors from their Ponzi scheme they are and live 24.

    Good work to come for the Legal Sciences [time to invest]. :-)

  40. paddylol says:

    A critique of the US False Claims Act would be a wonderful subject for a few science conferences. It should scare the wee wee out of some well know scientists. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_Claims_Act

  41. Jim Clarke says:

    I was so proud to become a member of the AMS when I was in college. 25 years later, I let the membership go and haven’t regretted it for the last 10 years. Thanks to its stance on global warming, it is no longer a reputable organization. I do hope the day of reckoning is coming.

  42. goldminor says:

    rogerknights says:
    July 11, 2014 at 4:59 pm
    =========================
    + a few points up

  43. AndyH says:

    Any crackdown via statutory or regulatory avenues is a very slippery slope. When questions of policy are involved, law often becomes the tool to stifle dissent, even unto stuffing the unbelievers into real, deep dark, holes when they insist in speaking out.

  44. tommoriarty says:

    Without fraudsters the NYT would lose the source of their best material.

  45. TomB says:

    Typical NYT – right problem, wrong solution. They’re talking about people committing criminal acts and they’re proposed solution is to give yet another agency “bigger teeth”. No. I think we’ve all seen what happened when you gave the EPA “bigger teeth”.
    If they have reason to suspect that there is criminal fraud, they turn that investigation over to the Department that already has the teeth. The United States Department of Justice.

  46. Ivan Steele says:

    Scientific opinion should always be challenged. What has been happening on climate change however is that opinion, and fact, are being confused, and fact is often being challenged, usually with opinion.

    I was once a practicing lawyer, and a good one, and know that If you want to believe something hard enough, or simply argue for it, you can come up with anything. Here is a classic example http://goldminor.wordpress.com/2014/03/14/the-spirit-of-the-atlantic-surveys-his-realm/, where the author (a commenter above on this very post) goes on for several pages, sounding like a highfalutin scientific adventurer of centuries past, yet says absolute nothing of scientific relevancy, let alone relevant to the actual issue of climate change itself, and then out of that morass makes a startling leap of conclusion that has no more basis than if it were uttered in a meaningless simple sentence “uh, the earth is warming because of solar cycles. Or his neighbor’s cat. It belies no understanding of the issue. And yet sounds great. So if you want to believe, why, read this highfalutin piece, and here is yet more great sounding (but meaningless) “evidence” of what a bunch of crockheads the many scientists who say “hey, um, we shouldn’t be changing our atmosphere this way,” really are; just — even those not grabbing any research funding — a bunch of research funding grabbing do do heads!

    The plain fact, hidden to some, is that there is a lot of drive to believe that Radical Atmospheric Change is overblown. Then interpretations slotted in to reinforce and support that belief. (Again, I refer you to the above link,which while well written, and a fun read, serves as a caricature; a mind struggling, reeling, to find a way to believe, to justify, that climate change is nary much more than a hoax of overblown hooey, and convincing itself of that fact that it wants to know, and thus does know, in the process.) The argument that the belief based drive extends in the other direction, is often far fetched, and when valid, a mere pittance of the enormous corporate interests with a short term fealty toward not upsetting their nice imbalance, and leveling the playing field for energy processes and sources whose true costs are a micro-fraction of theirs, but that don’t get integrated into our economic picture.

    The opposite argument, that money drives scientists on this, is akin to saying all science is bad, because scientists (unique, I guess, among human professions) are paid. Book writers and researchers, are never to be believed, because, well. “they are writing a book.” The reality being that only of course applies to those one does not want to believe. Otherwise this argument applies equally to all. To everything. And everybody.

    I am also often a dissenter from, and challenger of, conventional wisdom. I disagree with some of the conventional wisdom on this atmospheric problem, as well. The basic underlying issue however is one of fact, and it’s somehow been turned into one of opinion by scientists who don’t really understand the issue, and those who don’t want to accept that, yes, we can radically if inadvertently alter the world that houses us, in ways that might be extremely counter productive. And that, yes, based upon very basic facts that are almost never properly articulated, we are doing that, right now, on a geologically radical level.

    This is something that few people understand, because they don’t understand the basic issue; because it is almost never properly explained, and what little cogent assertion exists, is drowned out in a sea of both anti science propaganda (or heart felt but misinformed belief) or dismissive, conclusionary, belittlement rather than illumination, by those who know about and are thus legitimately concerned over the issue, speaking to others who are so, rather than instead, as they should, to everybody, at large.

    Does the author of this post even know what the real “Climate Change” issue is? I would heavily doubt it — as most people don’t, and almost all detractors do not. All of which is understandable in a world where anything can be printed on the Internet and called fact, and amidst the sea of misinformation we are awash in on this topic, the sea of rhetoric posing as sound logic, or worse, scientific reasoning, and where the sea of desire to push a point, and the unfortunate tie to heavy political interpretation, even economic belief, about what is in fact a purely scientific (and fascinating) issue, is enormous. But I challenge the author of this piece, or really of just about any post on here, to an open discussion, or debate, on the the actual issue itself; what it is, what it is not, why it is a problem, and why, it is not. With everything written down, and presented unedited. With time to check sources, evaluate the logic and the science given, and respond to what has specifically been written, and hold it all, accountable.

    It just might be too revealing, or too scary, for a site that is profoundly convinced that it has the big truth that the majority of the world’s scientists don’t see (which does happen from time to time) but that yet repeatedly and continually misconstrues, and misrepresents on, the basic issue, time and time again. IS this not true? Then let’s have that open discussion, and get down to the nitty gritty of what this issue is, what it is not, and what is fact, and what is not, and what “opinions” that may be had, are actually based on, and their scientific logic, and let us see.

    And to those who really want to learn about the issue, and not push an agenda, I ask you to join me, and others, in learning about it.

  47. NikFromNYC says:

    Lament not. Fight. Go to the front. The kids are all right.

  48. Greg says:

    NYT :”Criminal charges against scientists who commit fraud are even more uncommon.”

    Yes. Still waiting to hear why Peter Gleick was not arrested ( or even interviewed ) having ADMITTED what amounts to wire fraud and intentity theft.

    It would not seen hard to justify a prosecution when the perp admits what he did.

    May be the fact the current encument of the White House is a lawyer from Illenois may mean he has close contacts there ?

  49. Greg says:

    JimSteele “….because a small minority will fudge the data in order to gain peer acceptance, status and funding.”

    I guess you are trying to err on the side of caution, not to be conspiratorial, etc. But I am sceptical of this claim.

    Do you have any data to suggest it is just a “small minority”?

    Since career development , professional status and funding are all basically determined by publishing record and citations and there is very little chance of much more than a slap on the wrist if caught, I would say ‘bending’ results to fit requirements is much more widespread than is recognised.

  50. Santa Baby says:

    To promote political Agendas, radical change of society, global governance, etc..they have put huge piles of money on the table for those willing to produce policy based science results that support UNFCCC and EPA lookalike agencies?

  51. KNR says:

    jim Steele , scientists are supposed to do ‘critical review’ has part of their day job , not just take peoples word for it . Although to fair those working in climate ‘science’ may be in different positions given their often not scientists in any meaningful sense.

  52. lonetown says:

    Its not fraud to reject some data and accept other based on evidence that you perceive flawed or acceptable.. Its not fraud if you publish a tenuous theory based on cherry picked data. Its not fraud if the peer reviewer is a friend and part of your network of associates. Its not fraud to lobby worst case scenarios based on your tenuous theory.

    Somewhere in there it becomes fraud.

    Ethically, if your rejecting data you don’t agree with, you must explain why. Changing data you don’t agree with, see above.

    Lobbying to have the sole say on the flow of money for research and the access to the public square – what can I say? I never expected it of scientists at least not on such a large scale.

  53. Chuck Nolan says:

    Ivan Steele says:
    July 11, 2014 at 11:29 pm

    Scientific opinion should always be challenged. What has been happening on climate change however is that opinion, and fact, are being confused, and fact is often being challenged, usually with opinion…
    Does the author of this post even know what the real “Climate Change” issue is? I would heavily doubt it — as most people don’t, and almost all detractors do not.
    ———————————————-
    Damn Ivan, I thought you were going to enlighten us.
    Your write up was that of a lawyer or politician? Same BS without saying anything?
    Do you think you can get Gavin to debate?
    Mikey Mann?
    Maybe Kevin or Phil?
    Glieck might do it but he has shown the world he absolutely has no integrity.
    Maybe the EPA might send John Beale or Gina McCarthy to debate.
    There’s some honest scientific leadership.
    If you won’t tell us the “what the real “Climate Change” issue is”, who will?
    Pure rhetoric from a “mouthpiece.”

  54. jim Steele says:

    @Ivan Steele “But I challenge the author of this piece, or really of just about any post on here, to an open discussion, or debate, on the the actual issue itself; what it is, what it is not, why it is a problem, and why, it is not. With everything written down, and presented unedited. With time to check sources, evaluate the logic and the science given, and respond to what has specifically been written, and hold it all, accountable.”

    Skeptics have been seeking well moderated debates for decades. It has been the alarmists that have refused to debate at the behests of the likes of Trenberth. I would gladly debate you on the “actual issue, what it is, what it is not, why it is a problem, and why, it is not.”

    It could be my email and I could post at my website Landscapesandcycles.net, here if Anthony agrees or any other website of your choosing.

  55. Chuck Nolan says:

    Greg says:
    July 12, 2014 at 12:39 am

    NYT :”Criminal charges against scientists who commit fraud are even more uncommon.”

    Yes. Still waiting to hear why Peter Gleick was not arrested ( or even interviewed ) having ADMITTED what amounts to wire fraud and intentity theft.
    —————————————-
    I may be wrong but, my understanding is there were no damages. There was instead an increase in donors and donations so Gleick caused a gain rather than loss a loss.
    I don’t think you can sue for that.
    Maybe Ivan or some ambulance chaser knows how?
    cn

  56. Ray Van Dune says:

    With all due respect many, and perhaps the majority of, comments in this thread contain grammatical errors, malapropisms, convoluted passages, and “sentences” that are… not. I am sympathetic to global warming skepticism, and thus I am concerned that the poor expressive quality of these comments will only assist anyone seeking to discredit or dismiss them. Yes, it is a drag to have to worry about typing and grammar while engaging in spirited argument, but I believe that we should be conscious of the need to be winning hearts and minds here.

    Ps. I am sure there is an error somewhere in the above, but I hope it is not too egregious.

  57. M Simon says:

    Nonetheless, the majority of scientists who echo the bad science are not deliberately spreading false lies.

    Incorrect. They are spreading true lies.

  58. The thermonuclear explosion of the 105 IPCC climate models which Pat Michaels exposed (starting at 6:00 minutes in at http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/49730085 ) would be a great subject for an investigative documentary journalist. How did so many get it so wrong, and was it all innocent, or is this a case of producing fraudulent results by programming computers in such a manner that the scientists in question continue to obtain federal funding?

    As Pat points out, statistically, there is a one in 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 chance (10 to 46th chance) that out of the 428 articles reporting climate scenarios predictions 376 of them reported things were “worse” than they originally thought.

    Where’s 60 minutes when you need them?

  59. DirkH says:

    NikFromNYC says:
    July 11, 2014 at 11:59 pm
    “Lament not. Fight. Go to the front. The kids are all right.”

    I do. Every day I don’t give the NYT one cent.
    I mean, hello? NYT complains about scientific fraudsters?
    Do I have to spell out Walter Duranty?
    One bunch of fraudsters throwing another bunch of fraudsters under the bus; that’s either a small purge in the party or a panic because the ship is sinking.
    (even if it was not a NYT apparatchik who wrote it; the NYT endorsed it so they own it.)

  60. Taphonomic says:

    Plymouth University is also claiming that Camille Parmesan is a Nobel prize-winning scientist.

    https://www1.plymouth.ac.uk/150/highlights/lectures/Pages/Camille-Parmesan.aspx

  61. Mark T says:

    “Skeptics have been seeking well moderated debates for decades.”
    Debates are worthless. They come down to which party is a better speaker and has an easier time responding with “zingers” that make the other look foolish. It does not matter whether the debate contains any factual content, the party that puts on a better show wins. It is no different than political debate (also worthless).

    Mark

  62. Totally agree with Mark T’s comment above. I thing that having a debate may be interesting entertainment when the public has to choose which candidate would make the better president. A debate about cimate change may get good TV ratings but debates are not the way to validate scientific theories.

    The correct approach is for experts look at the hard factual evidence for and against the premise that the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels to its current level, of over 400 ppm, caused global warming.

    The Science Geek

  63. Walt The Physicist says:

    How is that crackdown if this is the only one case. Fraudulent data… ok, but what about use of peer-review system to block novel research (both publication and grant competition) that is contrary and “inconvenient” to the established groups? What about awarding multimillion dollar grants to fund research that is known to produce zero result? When and how “crackdown” on this will come?

  64. jim Steele says:

    Indeed poorly moderated debates such as seen in the presidential debates are meaningless. But when you suggest “The correct approach is for experts look at the hard factual evidence for and against the premise that the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels to its current level, of over 400 ppm, caused global warming” , you assume that present all the conflicting data. Only a debate will help promote the presentation of all the evidence.

  65. Eugene WR Gallun says:

    Absolutely positively final version.

    PROFESSOR PHIL JONES
    The English Prometheus

    To tell the tale as it began
    An ego yearned
    Ambition burned
    Inside a quiet little man

    No one had heard of Phillip Jones
    Obscure to fame
    (And likewise blame)
    The creep of time upon his bones

    Men self-deceive when fame is sought
    Their fingers fold
    their ego told
    That fire is what their fist has caught!

    Such want to feel, not understand
    Jones made it plain
    That Hell must reign
    In England’s green and pleasant land

    What demon in him came to birth?
    In mental fight
    Against the light
    He raised the temperature of earth

    And with his arrows of desire
    In sneak attacks
    He shot the backs
    Of those who questioned — where’s the fire?

    Raw data which was burning gold
    He threw away
    So none could say
    It falsified what he foretold

    East Anglia supports him still
    Whitewashed and praised
    His name emblazed
    Within that dark Satanic Mill

    The evil that this twit began
    Will go around
    And come around
    Prometheus soon wicker man

    Eugene WR Gallun

  66. jim Steele says:

    Hey Ivan,

    What happened to your debate offer???

Comments are closed.