UPDATE: 12:55PM Dr. Mann ducks a TV station reporter who requested an interview afterwards, see below.
Steve McIntyre recently published a new graph on his website Climate Audit.
Alerted to the fact that Dr. Mann would be speaking at the OC Water Summit, I was asked to submit a question, but I could not make it there in time given the short notice. A suitable proxy, our friend Roger Sowell, was kind enough to attend and ask a question. Here’s what I sent him in way of a primer, I don’t know the actual question he asked, but we hope to have a video presentation later as I was told it was recorded.
Figure 1. Yamal Chronologies. Green – from Hantemirov _liv.rwl dataset; red- from Briffa et al 2008.
How interesting it is that the Hantemirov data in green, diverges from the CRU 2008 “Hockey Team” data in red. This is due to a larger data sample. One tree core, YAD061 is responsible for most of the difference, when a small set of tree core data is used.
This graph demonstrates how trees simply don’t show a hockey stick shape when all of the data is used.
In MBH98, your paper Dr. Mann, has a similar problem to the Briffa data. Your solution was to not use tree core data after 1960 and to splice on the instrumental temperature record to in effect “hide the decline” of the trees after 1960.
How do you respond to the charge that the tree ring data was cherry picked to show a desired result, and that Mr. McIntyre has falsified your work by showing that the premise of a hockey stick falls apart when all of the data is used?
===========================================================
Roger Sowell was in the audience this morning (thank you for responding on short notice). I received this answer via text from Roger Sowell, to a question he asked:
He responded that it was Bradley as coauthor, and his (MBH98) work did not use the Briffa data.
Said the decline or divergence is well known but not understood, so is being studied.
Basically dodged the question; called it “specious”.
He said the warming is real and he addressed all this in his book.
It was hoped that Steve McIntyre would have provided a question for submission, but there was no email response from him in time.
Roger Sowell has done some excellent work in climate skepticism, I urge readers to read his recent presentation, here’s the primer:
The following is the presentation I made on April 17, 2012, to the Southern California Section of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE), at their monthly dinner meeting held at Long Beach, California. The title for the presentation is “What if the Warmists are Wrong? Is Catastrophic Cooling Coming? Implications.” My heartfelt thanks to Mr. Alan Benson, chair of the Southern California Section, for the invitation to speak. I also appreciate those who attended, and especially for their questions. As always, it is an honor to address AIChE members.
The presentation was approximately one hour, followed by another hour of questions and answers. The presentation is in three parts, as suggested by the title: 1) Are the Warmists Wrong? 2) Is Catastrophic Cooling Coming? and 3) Implications.
Background: this topic could easily require a week to present the many aspects and interesting details. With a mere hour at my disposal, this presentation necessarily hits only the major points. My purpose here, firstly, was to inform the audience of what has transpired in the climate science arena in part 1, primarily as to the quality of the data and the climate models. It is important to note the scarcity of agreement between the model projections and actual data. Secondly, my purpose was to present the case for imminent global cooling in part 2. Thirdly, my purpose was to describe a few of the many and serious implications for imminent global cooling in part 3, tying this in to what engineers can expect. Engineers are problem-solvers, and this presents a great many problems to solve. I also described a few of the legal ramifications of imminent global cooling.
Full presentation here, well worth bookmarking.
============================================================
UPDATE: 11:40AM I’m told via telephone that a local TV station is going to be interviewing Dr. Mann, and also Mr. Sowell due to his question. He promises more details later. Stay tuned.
UPDATE2 11:55PM: I wrote to Roger Sowell, after getting the above message, he reports Mann ducked the interview with KOCE-TV, the PBS station in Southern California. When Mann can’t even appear on warm-friendly PBS, you know he’s on the run.
On Friday, May 18, 2012, Anthony wrote:
Dear Roger,Thank you most sincerely for taking time out of your busy schedule to do this, I am in your debt. Anthony,
He replied:
My pleasure. This has been noteworthy.
Dr Mann refused the interview, and according to the reporter, he was extremely rude about it.
My interview went ok, I believe.
Roger
I’ll post that interview if it becomes available online.
otter17;
This is healthy skepticism.>>>>
This is intellectual baby talk.
otter: “I can’t stress enough my skepticism of the notion that there is a vast failing in nearly every journal, scientific organization, and among a vast majority of practicing climate scientists.”
Your thought is backwards. Otter, that is what has happened with every new realization, from Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, etc…. every journal, scientific organization, and among a vast majority of practicing scientists were found wrong…. all of them. If I were you I would stay skeptical of the majority, leery of minority new ideas, only putting faith in data you have actually seen and analyzed yourself and can trust. That is true science, not the letters, not that they have degrees, not that they call themselves scientists, not the awards or the 100 articles they have written. That should mean nothing to you (if you have a scientific mind)
On the other hand, maybe you are just a blind follower of the consensus of the given day so don’t put your words up as meaning anything.
So, I ask generally, what should the layman do to learn about climate science? Read only blogs? Smokey above said I should read the WUWT archives to learn something instead of my knowledge on “free-association” (whatever that means). That seems like a very direct appeal to authority. I would rather gather information from a variety of sources first, then take a look at the hypotheses on blogs.
What about the DoD Quadrenniel Defense Review? The military is outside the journal community, too. And the military tolerates zero bullcrap in their assessments of threats.
QUOTE from DoD QDR
“Assessments conducted by the intelligence community indicate that climate change could have significant geopolitical impacts around the world, contributing to poverty, environmental degradation, and the further weakening of fragile governments.”
otter17;
what the military thinks about potential impacts from potential climate change has nothing to do with this entire thread. The discussion is about Dr Mann and what he passes off as science.
It appears that otter17 has never been in the military. The military is just like NASA, it takes it’s marching orders from the top. NASA now has Muslim Outreach as a priority, and the military is playing along with the C-in-C’s eco-nonsense. The Roman emperor Heliogabalus [Elagabalus] ordered his legions to collect 10,000 pounds of cobwebs. I doubt there was one Roman commander who did not say, “Sir, Yes Sir!” no matter how nuts they thought he was. But they collected the cobwebs.
If otter17 wants the straight skinny, he needs to listen to what retired astronauts think of the climate change scare. They tell it like it is.
Smokey;
Itz worse than that. otter17 is trying to claim that the military thinks climate change is real, and so Dr Mann’s papers must be right. The break down in logic from someone who claims to be at an engineering masters degree level of analytical thought is frightening. Either otter17 has no clue what analytical analysis is in the first place, or engineering programs are in deep, deep, trouble.
As I work with engineers on highly technical matters on a daily basis, I’m confident that the problem is with otter17, not the engineering profession.
Smokey;
I’m compiling a list I’m calling The Sins of Mann for quick reference in the future when discussions come up with nitwit defenders of Dr Mann. Am I missing any of the big ones?
The Sins of Mann
Sin1; Dr Mann claims that tree ring thickness responds primarily to temperature alone, and that this is the consensus position of science.
Reality; The consensus position of arborists, botanists, and biologists stands in direct opposition to this claim. Further, this claim defies logic. If temperature were the only significant factor in tree growth, the fastest growing trees in the world would be in the Sahara.
Sin2; MBH98 is claimed by Dr Mann and his co-author to “prove” that the world is warming at an accelerating rate.
Reality; The Wegman Commission demonstrated that a version of Mann’s code they obtained would seek out hockey stick shaped data and attribute higher statistical value to it that any other data, thus producing a hockey stick shape output nearly regardless of the data. Dr Mann claimed that the version of code available to the Wegman Commission was not his “actual” code, but has refused to release the “actual” code or data for verification of his claim.
Sin3; Dr Mann’s supporters claim the Wegman report has been discredited.
Reality; The only claim made against the Wegman report is that it improperly attributed a single quote that wasn’t even central to the issue. The central findings of the Wegman report have never even been disputed, let alone discredited.
Sin4; Dr Mann used sediment data known as the Tiljander Series to augment his tree ring studies.
Reality; Dr Mann was advised that the sediments in the lake had been mechanicaly disturbed and over turned prior to sampling, turning the temperature record they supposedly represented “upside down”. Despite being made aware of this, Dr Mann used the Tiljander series anyway, and has not withdrawn the paper or results derived from them.
Sin5; Mann was accused of malfeasance on several scores which he claims to have been cleared of by investigation on the part of the universities involved.
Reality; Anyone who reads the investigation documents becomes quickly aware that the issues central to the accusations against Dr Mann were never put in direct questions to him. Further, what few difficult questions were asked of him were responded to indirectly or in a manner so confusing that the answer hardly seemed related to the question.
Sin6; Dr Mann claims to be an open and honest scientist who has done nothing wrong, and has nothing to hide.
Reality; Dr Mann has gone to court, seeking intervener status, in order to prevent his email exchanges with other climate scientists to be made public. His reasoning is that only he can understand them. If that were the case, one can only wonder with whom he was corresponding, and to what end, since only he could understand what he wrote.
Sin7; Dr Mann claims that Phil Jones reference to “Mike’s Nature trick” was out of context and only referred to clever but proper handling of the data.
Reality; Dr Mann truncated tree ring data from his paper submitted to Nature because it began declining, rather than rising like a hockey stick. He patched in instrumental data instead, without explaining what he had done. This was the “trick” that he used to “hide the decline”. Having now been caught, Dr Mann reluctantly admits that the tree ring data goes in the opposite directionh to the instrumental temperature record for nearly half of the instrumental record. Despite this, Dr Mann continues to claim that the previous 900 years of tree ring data (which cannot be corroborated) accurately represent temperature.
otter17 says:
May 19, 2012 at 5:14 pm
Smokey above said I should read the WUWT archives to learn something instead of my knowledge on “free-association” (whatever that means). That seems like a very direct appeal to authority. I would rather gather information from a variety of sources first, then take a look at the hypotheses on blogs.
Between the posts and the comments at WUWT, you can get an excellent overview of both sides of pretty much any argument — *with* links to source material.
What about the DoD Quadrenniel Defense Review? The military is outside the journal community, too. And the military tolerates zero bullcrap in their assessments of threats.
The QDR is produced by DoD and it’s based on input from national security sources — the civilian side — so the threat assessment can (and does) change with the political winds (i.e., bullcrap). There’s more flexibility at the tactical level — for example, helicopter flight regimes. In Iraq, the policymakers based the assessment on the most-catastrophic threat, the SA-7 MANPAD, rather than the most-likely threat, small arms fire. When we started losing a lot of helicopters and crews to small-arms ambushes because we were flying below 200 feet AGL, the policymakers got smart and allowed flight crews the leeway to fly at altitudes based on the most-likely threat in a particular area.
davidmhoffer says:
May 19, 2012 at 6:07 pm
“Itz worse than that. otter17 is trying to claim that the military thinks climate change is real, and so Dr Mann’s papers must be right.”
____________________________
No. I was floating the QDR out there to see what you guys thought of it. Before making such judgments about me, it is proper form to clarify first. I have given you that courtesy. I have refrained from such language as “STFU” and calling one a “fool” or “nitwit” as well. An apology is requested.
But, back to the subject at hand, it appears that in your view that the blogs are where a lay person should go to learn about the latest science. But which blogs are credible? There are quite a few blogs out there that make potentially better cases for much of climate science, like Tamino or Skeptical Science. How is the average person supposed to begin learning about the subject? I’m just trying to understand the mindset.
@ur momisugly davidmhoffer
Sin 1; So, why does a concensus matter now, when it didn’t before? Also, the fastest growing trees would not necessarily be growing in the Sahara area, since the species of trees are completely different. These concerns have been addressed, and trees are useful as a climate proxy since a given species will indeed track tree ring size with temperature. There are some issues with various environmental effects, though, particularly in the modern era.
Sin 2; Actually, it was Wegman that refused to release HIS code, as I recall. Wegman altered the original code for his particular analysis.
Sin 3; Actually, there were many criticisms of the Wegman Report, not even including the fact that other methodologies have produced similar results to Mann et al. There are other hockey sticks to disprove after Mann’s you know.
…………….
And on and on. Why should people take your interpretation of the events and validity of the hockey stick when they can actually go to the base documents? You provide no citations, whereas Wikipedia, on the other hand, does. And if your criticisms are correct, why wasn’t Rep. Barton and Rep. Whitfield able to overturn the hockey stick via their commissioned Wegman Report? How did this supposedly shoddy science slip through their fingers?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy
otter17;
If you think that Tamino and Skeptical Science are blogs with actual science on them, then by all means, go spend your time there. You’ve added zero to the dicussion of science here.
Davidmhoffer
Sin7; Dr Mann claims that Phil Jones reference to “Mike’s Nature trick” was out of context and only referred to clever but proper handling of the data.
Reality; Dr Mann truncated tree ring data from his paper submitted to Nature because it began declining, rather than rising like a hockey stick. He patched in instrumental data instead, without explaining what he had done. This was the “trick” that he used to “hide the decline”. Having now been caught, Dr Mann reluctantly admits that the tree ring data goes in the opposite directionh to the instrumental temperature record for nearly half of the instrumental record. Despite this, Dr Mann continues to claim that the previous 900 years of tree ring data (which cannot be corroborated) accurately represent temperature.
****************
More on “the Divergence Problem”, “Mike’s Nature Trick” and “Hide the Decline”:
It took eight years before the “Divergence Problem” was revealed, also in testimony. Mann grafted modern surface temperature data onto earlier tree ring temperature proxies to produce his upward-sloping “hockey stick” graph. Grafting together two different datasets is usually NOT good scientific practice.
Why did Mann do this? Because if he had exclusively used tree-ring data, the blade of the hockey stick, instead of showing very-scary warming in the last decades of the 20th Century, would have shown COOLING.
The correct scientific conclusion, in my opinion, is that using tree rings as a proxy for temperatures is not sufficiently accurate for the major conclusions that were drawn from the Mann studies.
Mann and the IPCC were clearly wrong about the hockey stick – the only remaining question is not one of error, it is one of fraud.
For more on the public revelation of the Divergence Problem in 2006, see
http://climateaudit.org/2006/03/07/darrigo-making-cherry-pie/
“The discrepancy between the forecast and the actual caught Cuffey’s eye and he asked D’Arrigo about it. She said “Oh that’s the “Divergence Problem”‘?. Cuffey wanted to know exactly how you could rely on tree ring proxies to register past warm periods if they weren’t picking up modern warmth “questions dear to the heart of any climateaudit reader”.”
Here’s some interesting reading on wikipedia.
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-215_162-4241293.html
I stopped trusting them as a credible source of information (on controversial topics) a long time ago.
Where o where is William Connolley now? He was just here not long ago, claiming he was falsely smeared for his modus operandi and he was really a fact led editor. Now with some direct first person testimony – I am sure he will be along to dispute Lawrence Solomon wiki experience shortly (along with hell freezing over). I seem to recall he complained about not being treated fairly here. Kettle meet pot. GK
davidmhoffer says:
May 19, 2012 at 10:16 pm
“If you think that Tamino and Skeptical Science are blogs with actual science on them, then by all means, go spend your time there. You’ve added zero to the dicussion of science here.”
_______________
But this still doesn’t address how a potential newbie to the debate is supposed to choose a blog, or set of blogs to believe. If blogs or even think tanks become the new standard for science, then it becomes a crap-shoot of articles from non-experts, cartoons, politics, Unabomber comparisons, etc, with no organized way to collate knowledge. Furthermore, if blogs became the new standard, all the current scientific establishment (with all their data, laboratories, measuring equipment, etc) would simply move to the blogs and you have the same issue. As it stands now, though, blogs provide an outlet for potentially unfounded hypotheses that aren’t subject to the scrutiny of those with actual measuring equipment, laboratories, etc. It is potentially a breeding ground for a self-promoting set of ideas, maybe leading to all manner of fallacious arguments and conspiracy hypotheses.
And no, I have added much to the discussion of science and epistemology. I have added several pertinent questions and ideas on how to logically approach the epistemology of this subject. You state that I have “added zero” as if it were fact, yet I have asked some very important questions concerning how one approaches sources. Other very relevant questions concerning the level of evidence to show all-encompassing corruption in all the journals and scientific organizations go unanswered.
Here is direct evidence of the facts:
Both the Wegman and North Committees condemned the Mann et al methodology.
Excerpts – Wegman Report
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/WegmanReport.pdf
The debate over Dr. Mann’s principal components methodology has been going on for nearly three years. When we got involved, there was no evidence that a single issue was resolved or even nearing resolution. Dr. Mann’s RealClimate.org website said that all of the Mr. McIntyre and Dr. McKitrick claims had been ‘discredited’. UCAR had issued a news release saying that all their claims were ‘unfounded’. Mr. McIntyre replied on the ClimateAudit.org website. The climate science community seemed unable to either refute McIntyre’s claims or accept them. The situation was ripe for a third-party review of the types that we and Dr. North’s NRC panel have done.
While the work of Michael Mann and colleagues presents what appears to be compelling evidence of global temperature change, the criticisms of McIntyre and McKitrick, as well as those of other authors mentioned are indeed valid.
“Where we have commonality, I believe our report and the [NAS] panel essentially agree. We believe that our discussion together with the discussion from the NRC report should take the ‘centering’ issue off the table. [Mann’s] decentred methodology is simply incorrect mathematics …. I am baffled by the claim that the incorrect method doesn’t matter because the answer is correct anyway.
Method Wrong + Answer Correct = Bad Science.
The papers of Mann et al. in themselves are written in a confusing manner, making it difficult for the reader to discern the actual methodology and what uncertainty is actually associated with these reconstructions.
It is not clear that Dr. Mann and his associates even realized that their methodology was faulty at the time of writing the [Mann] paper.
We found MBH98 and MBH99 to be somewhat obscure and incomplete and the criticisms of MM03/05a/05b to be valid and compelling.
Overall, our committee believes that Mann’s assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis.
[The] fact that their paper fit some policy agendas has greatly enhanced their paper’s visibility… The ‘hockey stick’ reconstruction of temperature graphic dramatically illustrated the global warming issue and was adopted by the IPCC and many governments as the poster graphic. The graphics’ prominence together with the fact that it is based on incorrect use of [principal components analysis] puts Dr. Mann and his co-authors in a difficult face-saving position.
We have been to Michael Mann’s University of Virginia website and downloaded the materials there. Unfortunately, we did not find adequate material to reproduce the MBH98 materials. We have been able to reproduce the results of McIntyre and McKitrick.
Generally speaking, the paleoclimatology community has not recognized the validity of the [McIntyre and McKitrick] papers and has tended dismiss their results as being developed by biased amateurs. The paleoclimatology community seems to be tightly coupled as indicated by our social network analysis, has rallied around the [Mann] position, and has issued an extensive series of alternative assessments most of which appear to support the conclusions of MBH98/99… Our findings from this analysis suggest that authors in the area of paleoclimate studies are closely connected and thus ‘independent studies’ may not be as independent as they might appear on the surface.
It is important to note the isolation of the paleoclimate community; even though they rely heavily on statistical methods they do not seem to be interacting with the statistical community. Additionally, we judge that the sharing of research materials, data and results was haphazardly and grudgingly done. In this case we judge that there was too much reliance on peer review, which was not necessarily independent.
Based on the literature we have reviewed, there is no overarching consensus on [Mann’s work]. As analyzed in our social network, there is a tightly knit group of individuals who passionately believe in their thesis. However, our perception is that this group has a self-reinforcing feedback mechanism and, moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicized that they can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility.
It is clear that many of the proxies are re-used in most of the papers. It is not surprising that the papers would obtain similar results and so cannot really claim to be independent verifications.”
Especially when massive amounts of public monies and human lives are at stake, academic work should have a more intense level of scrutiny and review. It is especially the case that authors of policy-related documents like the IPCC report, Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, should not be the same people as those that constructed the academic papers.”
Did Wegman and North Disagree?
There’s obviously been a lot of spinning on this subject, since Wegman’s language was much more forthright than North’s. The realclimate crowd have tried to marginalize the clear statements in Wegman and more recently have tried to smear him for plagiarism, for (as I recall) one missing footnote,
At the July 19, 2006 House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee hearing, Barton asked North very precisely whether he disagreed with any Wegman’s findings and North (under oath) said no as follows:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-109hhrg31362/html/CHRG-109hhrg31362.htm
CHAIRMAN BARTON. I understand that. It looks like my time is expired, so I want to ask one more question. Dr. North, do you dispute the conclusions or the methodology of Dr. Wegman’s report?
DR. NORTH. No, we don’t. We don’t disagree with their criticism. In fact, pretty much the same thing is said in our report. But again, just because the claims are made, doesn’t mean they are false.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. I understand that you can have the right conclusion and that it not be–
DR. NORTH. It happens all the time in science.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. Yes, and not be substantiated by what you purport to be the facts but have we established–we know that Dr. Wegman has said that Dr. Mann’s methodology is incorrect. Do you agree with that? I mean, it doesn’t mean Dr. Mann’s conclusions are wrong, but we can stipulate now that we have–and if you want to ask your statistician expert from North Carolina that Dr. Mann’s methodology cannot be documented and cannot be verified by independent review.
DR. NORTH. Do you mind if he speaks?
CHAIRMAN BARTON. Yes, if he would like to come to the microphone.
MR. BLOOMFIELD. Thank you. Yes, Peter Bloomfield. Our committee reviewed the methodology used by Dr. Mann and his coworkers and we felt that some of the choices they made were inappropriate. We had much the same misgivings about his work that was documented at much greater length by Dr. Wegman.
G, Karst;
In once recent thread, he claimed that by constructing buildings, we were reducing the surface area that could radiate directly to space. When I pointed out that this could only be true if the roofs of the buildings themselves didn’t radiate, he became strangely silent. I don’t follow all threads by any means, but that is the last I recall of him on this blog, so if it was me that frightened him away, I’ll apologize.
Mr Connolley, I’m sorry that you said something so stupid that pointing it out made you look foolish and frightened you away.
Phil Clarke, you are being deliberately deceptive
Hardly. I provided a link so anyone interested could examine the context.
What Hantemirov has done is expose the shortcomings of the ‘audit’ approach to science. Yes, McIntyre provided the bare source code he used to make his plot. But this just tells us how the plot was made, not the details of how the data were selected, limitations, data profiles, errors etc. Thus the difference between blog science and the real thing become plain. Nor did he perform the basic courtesy of contacting Hantemirov before posting his ‘analysis’. No wonder Hantemirov is hacked off.
Given McIntyre’s record as ‘scourge of climate science’ something of a double standard at work here, no?
There is even a serious question whether that comment came from Dr Hantemirov.
Well, the brave auditor is taking it seriously.
Tell me, if the Yamal data is the source of all hockey sticks, how did Professor Mann manage to plot one without a single Yamalian tree in MBH98/99?
PS BTW if the name Hantemirov seems familiar, it was he, who when McIntyre complained about CRU scientists ‘stonewalling’ his requests for data revealed:
Steve has an amnesia. I had sent him these data at February 2, 2004 on his demand.
@David, do you remember what thread that was in?
Just some guy says:
May 20, 2012 at 9:55 am
@David, do you remember what thread that was in?>>>>
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/30/supreme-irony-wind-farms-can-cause-atmosphereic-warming-finds-a-new-study/
otter17;
You state that I have “added zero” as if it were fact, yet I have asked some very important questions concerning how one approaches sources.>>>
I said you’ve added nothing to the discussion of the science, and you haven’t. If you truly are a newbie, and you truly are interested, then take this advice:
Educate yourself in the basics. Find out for your self what “CO2 is logarithmic” means and figure out for yourself what that implies about itz ability to warm the planet. Gets some books on botany and read up on the factors that govern plant growth, and the relative importance of each in comparison to temperature. Pick up a geology text book and read through the history of the ice ages and what their causes were. Read some history books that focus on human activity during the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. Check out articles on receding glaciers in the current period which are exposing the remains of human civilization that precedes the glaciers. Take a look at the data from UAH and GISS on a regular basis. If you are really a newbie with a real interest in the issue, these are the things you need to do for yourself to have any hope of understanding the issues. If all you want to do is play “my cite is better than your cite” you will learn nothing, you will teach nothing, and you will waste other people’s times as well as your own.
This site must be required reading for Police Fraud Squad Officers.
Now it’s time for public prosecutors to go after crooked climate scamsters !!!
davidmhoffer says:
May 20, 2012 at 10:54 am
Just some guy says:
May 20, 2012 at 9:55 am
@David, do you remember what thread that was in?>>>>
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/30/supreme-irony-wind-farms-can-cause-atmosphereic-warming-finds-a-new-study/
———————————-
Thanks for that link. I just briefly read some of the discussion, I’ll read the who thing when I have more time. As one who’s been on the receiving end of the WMC & Co. brand of “wiki-bullying” (many years ago) , it is immensely satisfying to see this condescending jerk get put in his place.
otter17 says: @ur momisugly May 19, 2012 at 11:09 am
……I can’t stress enough my skepticism of the notion that there is a vast failing in nearly every journal, scientific organization, and among a vast majority of practicing climate scientists…..
____________________
Then you are extremely naive. Scientist lie and cheat just like everyone else. Here is your evidence and these are only the ones who got caught and the journals did not cover-up for.
Those are just from a quick ten minute search.
just some guy;
Connolley showed up on a couple of threads at Tallbloke’s as well, and got to looking awful foolish awful fast. When he’s in a conversation where he doesn’t have editorial control, he is out of his depth on the science by about the second sentence.
I share your frustration with wikipedia, but what has happened to it was inevitable. Being crowd sourced, any controversial topic becomes a target for propogandists. The battles to control the content about middle east history, or the Armenian holocaust, or anything else you can think of where emotions and political advantage are major factors are sickening. For those sort of topics, wikipedia isn’t just untrustworthy, it is dangerous.