A wave of heated peer pressure results in shrinking integrity

Weather, not climate. Watch the Eastern US shrink into oblivion in 72 hours (circled in magenta) – Images from Dr. Ryan Maue, policlimate.com collated and annotated by Anthony Watts – CLICK FOR MUCH LARGER IMAGE

Over on the thread The folly of blaming the Eastern U.S. heat wave on global warming there is a lively discussion going on between people that think the Eastern US heatwave hype by media and a few activist scientists is just bunk -vs- the defenders of the faith that insist it is a signature of global warming climate change climate disruption. Generally, these defenders are people that only look forward using model projections and pronouncements made by the IPCC, rather than look back at historical data and the propensity for nature to create such extremes, such as the nearly identical weather pattern that led to the 2010 Russian heatwave in which “climate change” was found blameless in a peer reviewed paper by NOAA.

In that thread there’s a comment by Gail Combs in response to the defenders of the faith (typically hit and run anonymous cowards) that I though worthy of elevating to a full post.

Gail Combs says:

July 8, 2012 at 5:47 am

Mr. B. says: July 7, 2012 at 6:48 pm

The IPCC and the National Academy of Science believe global warming is real and directly related to human activity. Over 95% of Scientist worldwide believe global warming is real and directly related to human activity. If you don’t want to believe it you don’t have to. But I for one am more willing to listen to the conclusions of people who have devoted their education, time, study and energy to this issue than to some guy with a blog……

____________________________________

As a scientist, I KNOW other scientists will lie through their teeth when it comes to money or their career. I have had plenty of direct experience of outright lying and falsification of data. I have also been fired more than once for refusing to falsify data upon direct order from my superior.

My personal experience with the “Honesty” and “Integrity” of scientists is that it is rare, most will go along with the herd or with higher authority rather than stick their neck out.

In my entire career I found only one other person willing to stand up for what was right instead of going along with what was easiest. She was also fired for her honesty. Most people are followers not leaders. I have read somewhere only one in two hundred is actually a leader and to control a group all that is needed is to identify and break that leader. That is what saying there is a “Consensus” and the labeling and denigrating of those who don’t go with the flow is all about. That practice alone should make people wonder about “The Science” Real science is about the quest for truth and facts not following “Authority” not being a member of the “A” list.

Here is the current state of “Honesty” in Science:

How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data

…..Survey questions on plagiarism and other forms of professional misconduct were excluded. The final sample consisted of 21 surveys that were included in the systematic review, and 18 in the meta-analysis.

A pooled weighted average of 1.97% (N = 7, 95%CI: 0.86–4.45) of scientists admitted to have fabricated, falsified or modified data or results at least once –a serious form of misconduct by any standard– and up to 33.7% admitted other questionable research practices. In surveys asking about the behaviour of colleagues, admission rates were 14.12% (N = 12, 95% CI: 9.91–19.72) for falsification, and up to 72% for other questionable research practices. Meta-regression showed that self reports surveys, surveys using the words “falsification” or “fabrication”, and mailed surveys yielded lower percentages of misconduct. When these factors were controlled for, misconduct was reported more frequently by medical/pharmacological researchers than others.

Considering that these surveys ask sensitive questions and have other limitations, it appears likely that this is a conservative estimate of the true prevalence of scientific misconduct.

More articles about the lack of honesty in science.

A Sharp Rise in Retractions Prompts Calls for Reform

ScienceDaily: US Scientists Significantly More Likely to Publish Fake Research, Study Finds

A few individual cases:

In a July 26 letter to Cetero, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration describes the falsification as “extensive,” calling into question all bioanalytical data collected by Cetero’s Houston bioanalytical laboratory from April 1, 2005 to June 15, 2010. The FDA said Cetero manipulated test samples so the tests would yield desired results….

UConn officials said their internal review found 145 instances over seven years in which Dr. Dipak Das fabricated and falsified data, and the U.S. Office of Research Integrity has launched an independent investigation of his work.

The inquiry found that Stapel, former professor of cognitive social psychology and dean of Tilburg’s school of social and behavioural sciences, fabricated data published in at least 30 scientific publications, inflicting “serious harm” on the reputation and career opportunities of young scientists entrusted to him. Some 35 co-authors are implicated in the publications, dating from 2000 to 2006

The United States Attorney’s Office..announced that a felony Information has been filed …. During the time period alleged in the Information, Grimes resided in Boalsburg, Pennsylvania, and was a Professor of Material Science and Engineering at The Pennsylvania State University.

LISTINGS:

Retraction Watch

.naturalnews.com:Scientific fraud news, articles and information

Many here at WUWT have a degree in science, engineering or the maths. That is why we smell something very fishy with the IPCC and “The Science”

This is what Forty citizen auditors found when they looked at “the United Nations’ Nobel-winning climate bible.. the gold standard.”

…Contrary to statements by the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the celebrated 2007 report does not rely solely on research published in reputable scientific journals. It also cites press releases, newspaper and magazine clippings, working papers, student theses, discussion papers, and literature published by green advocacy groups. Such material is often called “grey literature.”

We’ve been told this report is the gold standard. We’ve been told it’s 100 percent peer-reviewed science. But thousands of sources cited by this report have not come within a mile of a scientific journal.

Based on the grading system used in US schools, 21 chapters in the IPCC report receive an F (they cite peer-reviewed sources less than 60% of the time), 4 chapters get a D, and 6 get a C. There are also 5 Bs and 8 As…. http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2010/04/14/climate-bible-gets-21-fs-on-report-card/

Sorry, the more we dig, and look at the data we can get our hands on (as any true scientist is required to do) the more it stinks. “The Team” knows this and that is why the data was not released upon simple requests, Freedom of Information Acts and when push finally came to shove the data was “Lost”

Phil Jones: The Dog Ate My Homework

From the “A goat ate my homework” excuse book: NIWA reveals NZ original climate data missing

Lonnie and Ellen, A Serial Non-Archiving Couple

Eduardo Zorita, Scientist at the Institute for Coastal Research, specialist in Paleoclimatology, Review Editor of Climate Research and IPCC co-author, calls for barring Phil Jones, Michael Mann, and Stefan Rahmstorf from further IPCC participation

If you want more on the supposed “Integrity” of those you seem to believe in see: WUWT Climategate links

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Edohiguma

Here’s the problem right away, straight from the horse’s mouth:
“The IPCC and the National Academy of Science believe global warming is real and directly related to human activity. Over 95% of Scientist worldwide believe global warming is real and directly related to human activity.”
Belief is nice, but science works with facts. Just because the IPCC and their boss, the railroad engineer, believe, means nothing. Some people believe in god. Some people believe in the space butterfly. The IPCC can believe in aliens, but that doesn’t make aliens real. Belief has no room in science, only facts and hard evidence. Belief only has room in religion.
And well, I still wonder where those 95% of scientists comes from. 95% of all scientists, that’s a lot of people. Have they all been interviewed? Unlikely. It’s more like this being another upgraded percentage based on statistics trickery. Too bad that a statistic isn’t really science either.

kim2ooo

Well DONE!
A keeper!
Thank you

Heh — “Ryan’s Geography Trick.” He shrank Oz, too.

actuator

I would say to Gail, “May the Force be with you.” But, apparently it already is and then some.

Bill Tuttle says:
July 8, 2012 at 9:05 am
> Heh — “Ryan’s Geography Trick.” He shrank Oz, too.
Yes, but note there’s an ongoing calamity (or something) going on in southern Greenland! 🙂

There is a great deal of literature out there that pushes the idea that the developed world needs to shift to a government managed green economy with a direct Industrial Policy orientation. The government partners would be Big Business and research universities who of course love the idea of such a lucrative, for them, rent seeking economy. For those of us providing the funding who are not part of the politically connected class, it really will be 21st century serfdom with assigned places and lifestyles.
The National Academy of Sciences published a report last week on the critical role computer science will have in this new sustainability economy that of course has the tech companies salivating. It acts as if bigger computers and better software were the only impediments in the past to command and control economies having better results. Here’s the misguided quote:
“advances in computing are critical enablers of change for addressing the growing sustainability challenges facing the United States and the world. . . research and innovation in computing, information, and communications technologies are consequently critical to addressing the broad range of sustainability challenges.”
Then the cite is to the UN’s 1987 Bruntland Report Our Common Future.
That industrial vision is designed to corrupt any entity who may have access to that stream of taxpayer cash. Which is what has happened.

95% of those contributing to the IPCC reports believe in global warming is real and directly related to human activity. And we will identify and eliminate from the IPCC the remaining 5%

Tom in Indy

Progressivism Socialism, Statism, etc. Call it what you want, but the current U.S., U.N., E.U. leadership is fairly open about redistributing wealth on both national and global scales usineg Climate as a central piece of its tax revenue generating mechanism.
The United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs has published “IN SEARCH OF NEW DEVELOPMENT FINANCE 2012”. Take a look at what your government has planned for you.
http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/wess/wess_current/2012wess_overview_en.pdf
Note how the types of global taxes are similar to those proposed by the Obama Adminstration. This is Globalism folks. Climate Policy is a central piece of the plan.
See Page 3, Figure 0.1 and page 4, Table 0.1.
Here is a sample:
Carbon taxes
EU Emission Trading Scheme
Air passenger levy
Certified emission reduction tax
Billionaire’s tax-a 1% tax on WEALTH not income.
Currency transaction tax-per unit tax
Financial transaction tax-per unit tax

I fear that if it were not for the likes of WUWT, we would have been assimilated by now.

highflight56433

When I see a commenter belch that “Over 95% of Scientist worldwide believe global warming is real and directly related to human activity.” I have to wonder why an individual would in good conscious who professes to be a science guru use an unscientific statistic. If asked how many scientists there are on the planet what would;be their answer? I see a lot of numbers with out the process that produced the stats. An answer on an exam without any work backing and supporting the conclusion.
As a scientist, I liked that there was some warming because it is better than the alternative. I liked that CO2 is rising because my garden produced more food. However; it took very little effort on my part to smell a dead fish in the AGW crowd. It is so simple to vet out the followers of AGW who are the “sheep” following the wolf in sheep’s clothing. It is so clear there is a money train burgeoning with dollars fueling CAGW. It is so grossly obvious. In religious zealotry, they can look you in the face and spew junk, vomit on themselves, and actually believe “the world is flat” brain wash.
As for leadership, yes the sheep are many, the sheep dog is few, and the wolves are circling. So , the folks like Anthony are the sheep dogs; as the folks who read and participate in the conquest of truth we see at this blog, what are you? The wolf, sheep dog, or sheep?

I read the headline as “A wave of heated bpeer pressure results in shrinking integrity”
I’ll read the whole thing again after a bit, but I don’t think correcting the error changed anything.

Sean Peake

That settle it. I want Gail on my side in a bar fight

gregole

Gail,
Thank you for your post, your passion for honesty is an inspiration. I am not a scientist but a life-long (+30 years) engineer and have seen my share of dishonesty, carelessness, laziness and in general, a pervasive lack of integrity from a wide range of technical professionals. From programmers, to scientists, to engineers – there are good, strong professionals, but in my experience, they have always been in the minority and yes, commonly their careers are threatened – they quit and in some cases are harassed and even summarily fired simply for telling the unvarnished truth.
How do the rats get away with it? Many ways, but all their strategies seem to fall under the general rubric of politicizing and humanizing (ala ad-hom attacks) problems rather than sticking to the facts at hand and taking rational steps to solve said problem. Politicizing and finger-pointing works well within a managed organizational structure because all the rats need to do is snow those vested with authority, that and a bit of boot-kissing and the deal is sealed.
Twelve years ago I had had enough and started my own company. I’m still at it.
November 2009 I became aware of Climategate through the WSJ. Initially, it just tickled my funny bone to see people whom I considered stuffed-shirt over-educated welfare cases getting caught with their hands in the cookie jar (so to speak) but I slowly over time realized the corruption in climate science is far more advanced and serious than your typical run-of-the-mill corporate or research facility sewer rat environment. I clued to the absolute lack of MSM coverage (it would have been a great story); investigations that were nothing but transparently gratuitous whitewashes; and there’s the money. Lots of money. Big buildings, facilities, supercomputers, careers, academic grants, boondoggles to Copenhagen, Rio, all expenses paid. The media feeds on it. Politicians feed on it – can you imagine – taxing air?
Climate Science has become a gigantic sewer rat magnet.

DJ

Gail,
I too have witnessed falsification 1st hand. In my case, it was having to do with Superfund sites and soil remediation. We’re talking billions of dollars here, and the stakes are huge. I wasn’t quiet enough in my questioning some methods, and my complaints to OSHA regarding research method’s safety didn’t help in my longevity with the program. I’ve seen examples of others who didn’t last long either after “not going along with the program.”
What stunned me was the weekly reports to the DOE… always containing the statement that “Progress in all areas is excellent.”
Have some consolation in the knowledge that at least one reader here knows that what you’re saying is true.

I don’t keep records, and I don’t know where to find honest ones, but it seems to me that this current summer if very reminiscent of the first years we lived here (we moved here in the winter of 1989-1990 (the winters were bitterly cold and the summers were scorching–maybe a bit hotter than this year so far).
I wonder what the GHG concentrations against temperature graph looks like for the period 1980-2013 for east-central (Douglas County) looks like.

One doesn’t have to be a scientist to recognize the almost constantly flawed argumentation of the CAGW proponents. Ad hominem, appeals to authority, band wagon appeals, and many other errors crop up in any warmist defense against skeptical criticism.

Ric Werme says:
July 8, 2012 at 9:18 am
Yes, but note there’s an ongoing calamity (or something) going on in southern Greenland!
🙂
“Viking settlements in Greenland during the Middle Ages? Preposterous! Show me where they were on the map — no, no, use *this* map”…

…the more we dig, and look at the data we can get our hands on (as any true scientist is required to do) the more it stinks. “The Team” knows this and that is why the data was not released upon simple requests, Freedom of Information Acts and when push finally came to shove the data was “Lost”

It is hard not to get worked up about this. The progression he mentions is in itself reason to think that they know the data does not bear close examination. 1: Refuse to provide the data. 2: Stonewall 3: Do what Nixon should have done with the White House tapes – hide them or destroy outrigh
(I am anything but a Nixon fan, but I still can’t believe he let them survive so long it got to where he couldn’t destroy them any longer.)
It is as clear as the nose on your face that if the data supported their CAGW contentions then they would have made it all available long ago.
This all has made me so untrusting of ALL science. I’ve gotten to the point of this: If you scientists don’t let me personally see every bit of your work, I don’t believe a word you say. Even if much of it is over my head, I still want to be able to see it all.
Steve Garcia

Gary Pearse

The heat wave was also being exaggerated, and in places, created by the alarm force, in my case: Theweathernetework.com in Canada. I had the suspicion for several days that the actual temperature and humidity (replaced by “feels-like”) in Ottawa, Ontario has been “cooked” but last Friday, with the reported temperature at 34C (93.2 F) and “feels like” 40C (104 F), I duly put some “45” sunscreen and walked home from work. I stopped at my favourite pub “The New Edinburgh”, which has a patio on the roof. Having made the ~ 1 mile without working up a sweat, I decided to try the patio. Man, it was simply pleasantly warm, with a nice breeze. I asked the waitress what she thought the temp was and she replied “maybe 26…28”.
Now I worked for three years in the middle 60s in a place where it didn’t only feel like 40’s but often wasn’t far from 50C – the Sahel south of Lake Chad in Nigeria (plus other parts of northern Nigeria) – mapping the geology on my own (no assistant) as an employee (not a tech aid guy) of the Geological Survey of Nigeria. On one of the hotter days, I came down off a rocky ridge to seek the shade of a thicket of dry-leafed shrubby trees to rest and eat a small lunch. I entered the thicket and set off a heart-stopping thundering and billowing of thick red dust that was like hot ashes as I roused a huge flock of sleeping warthogs (Hausa muslims don’t eat pork) who took off, thin gray-skinned tails with black paint brushes on the ends sticking up straight as they fled. I came back out choking and had to settle for the shade of a large rock at the foot of the ridge. Now that, folks, is what 40s “feels like”.

As usual, I wrecked my comments with sloppy editing.
One should say:

I read the headline as “A wave of heated beer pressure results in shrinking integrity”
I’ll read the whole thing again after a bit, but I don’t think correcting the error changed anything.

The other (as if I had found them all):

I don’t keep records, and I don’t know where to find honest ones, but it seems to me that this current summer is very reminiscent of the first years we lived here (we moved here in the winter of 1989-1990, the winters were bitterly cold and the summers were scorching–maybe a bit hotter than this year so far).
I wonder what the GHG concentrations against temperature graph looks like for the period 1980-2013 for east-central (Douglas County), Nebraska, looks like.

Jimbo

Mr. B. says: July 7, 2012 at 6:48 pm
The IPCC and the National Academy of Science believe global warming is real and directly related to human activity. Over 95% of Scientist worldwide believe global warming is real and directly related to human activity…..

Ask yourself one question Mr. B. would you trust a man whose livelihood depends on him being right? Would you trust a man whose livelihood depends on continued warming? Have you actually looked at the huge amount of money being funneled into this scam?
As for the IPCC you should take a closer look and weep. 😉 Here are some quotes from IPCC insiders given to the InterAcademy Council committee that investigated the IPCC.

There cannot be any assessment of impacts and possible response strategies to climate change on peer-reviewed literature only. (p. 48)

My WG III chapter depended heavily on non-peer reviewed literature and I have yet to hear a complaint about its quality. (p. 52)
http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/Comments.pdf
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/01/21/grey-literature-ipcc-insiders-speak-candidly/

What’s this??

…we carry out an assessment of climate change based on peer-reviewed literature, so everything that we look at and take into account in our assessments has to carry [the] credibility of peer-reviewed publications, we don’t settle for anything less than that.
http://tinyurl.com/c7bonvl

Now do you feel deceived?
You should learn from an arch warmist at the Guardian.

George Monbiot – 6th January 2010
Britain’s cold snap does not prove climate science wrong
Climate sceptics are failing to understand the most basic meteorology – that weather is not the same as climate, and single events are not the same as trends……
The ability to distinguish trends from complex random events is one of the traits that separates humans from the rest of the animal kingdom. It is also the basis of all science; detecting patterns, distinguishing between signal and noise, and the means by which the laws of physics, chemistry and biology are determined. Now we are being asked to commit ourselves to the wilful stupidity of extrapolating a long-term trend from a single event.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/jan/06/cold-snap-climate-sceptics

How strong is your faith now?

DJ says:
July 8, 2012 at 9:52 am
Gail,
I too have witnessed falsification 1st hand. In my case, it was having to do with Superfund sites and soil remediation. We’re talking billions of dollars here, and the stakes are huge. I wasn’t quiet enough in my questioning some methods, and my complaints to OSHA regarding research method’s safety didn’t help in my longevity with the program. I’ve seen examples of others who didn’t last long either after “not going along with the program.”
What stunned me was the weekly reports to the DOE… always containing the statement that “Progress in all areas is excellent.”

Superfund remediation was a gigantic self-licking ice-cream cone. Originally, the toxic crud was incinerated, but when that proved horrendously expensive, it was just transported to other landfills, which became Superfund sites in turn, and the crud was transported to *other* landfills, lather, rinse, repeat. Ask anybody who worked at a landfill in the ’70s and ’80s what an “ID 23” classification was.

PiperPaul

…I have read somewhere only one in two hundred is actually a leader and to control a group all that is needed is to identify and break that leader…
Above is my drive-by accentuation and emphasis. I see Anthony’s site as an intelligence test of sorts and I’m one of those guys who can’t chew bubblegum and walk at the same time. And I’m almost all out of bubblegum.
Sorry, gotta go, I’m almost out of bubblegum! Cheers!

Tom in Indy- When I read that Computing Research for Sustainability report all i could think of was how this is how John Holdren is pushing the Future Earth Alliance work that I had written about in June. http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/future-earth-alliance-where-education-climate-and-economic-planning-are-all-cores/
It even had IBM overseeing the report. I guess providing those needed mainframes and software and consulting services is consistent with its Smarter Planet and Smarter Cities business model for future revenue.
This is the report that refers to people and their behavior as sociotechnical systems in need of new mindsets and behaviors that reflect sustainability.
It rather gives me the creeps to keep running into tech companies funding and advocating transformational changes in education and the supposed necessity of a Green Economy when the funding federal government is saying:
“Information and data are critical to understanding the challenges, to formulating and deploying solutions, to communicating results, and to facilitating learning and new behaviors based on the results of the work.”
I cannot link these reports as my access is visual only but it goes on to state that “Sustainability is a challenge that will persist for generations.”
We better start understanding all the elements of this statist engrenage soon. The politically connected clearly have aspirations that this command and control management is a long term way lock in an ability to live at our expense.

Jim

I don’t know, Anthony. Those charts still look pretty warm. It looks like the global anomaly is up to 0.23C above the 1981-2010 mean. The weird color scheme makes it more difficult to discern with the grayscale extending up to 3.5 degrees above normal, but the blues beginning at 0.5 degrees below normal.

Darkinbad the Brightdayler

Me?
I’m a 5%er and proud of it!

John K.

As another scientist…I’ll second the notion that scientists are not above flat out lying to get grant money or some other support. You have to even be careful when faculty come up for tenure. Unfortunately, happens more often than you would think (at least in chemistry).
I was told in grad school once that was just how the game was played.

Gary Pearse says:
July 8, 2012 at 10:05 am
I entered the thicket and set off a heart-stopping thundering and billowing of thick red dust that was like hot ashes as I roused a huge flock of sleeping warthogs (Hausa muslims don’t eat pork) who took off, thin gray-skinned tails with black paint brushes on the ends sticking up straight as they fled. I came back out choking and had to settle for the shade of a large rock at the foot of the ridge. Now that, folks, is what 40s “feels like”.

Sounds like a balmy day in early May in Iraq. Just substitute camel spiders and/or scorpions for the wart hogs, and you’d have felt right at home, Gary!

KnR

95% of scientists, BS and for one simple mathematical reason . Given the total number of scientists are not know its impossible to say what % of scientists are represented by a what is know as a sub-group of the whole not matter what its size. Simply maths really but to the AGW faithful whats a claim as entered the dodgem , no matter how poor it is , them its unchangeable and unchallengeable an approach standard in religion but one with zero scientific validity.

Jimbo

Let me be a climate weather alarmist and lets extrapolate from here. These are signs of global cooling. Get ready for the next next ice age.
/ SARC

Jan 2010
Cold records are shattered across Florida
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34805079/ns/weather/t/cold-records-are-shattered-across-florida/
9 March 2010
Blizzards have hit the French Mediterranean coast amid warnings of up to 20 inches of snow in Northern Spain on Tuesday.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8557570.stm
February 7, 2012
Rare Snowfall Blankets Tataouine [Tunisia]
http://www.treehugger.com/climate-change/rare-snowfall-makes-real-life-tataouine-look-more-hoth.html
Jul 20, 2010
South America Cold Wave Brings Rare Snow, Freezing Deaths
http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/south-america-cold-wave-brings/34265
08 July 2012
Cold snap kills 600 in Europe
http://www.iol.co.za/news/world/cold-snap-kills-600-in-europe-1.1233304#.T_nFGvWmnk8

You see, two can play silly games.

This is what Forty citizen auditors found when they looked at “the United Nations’ Nobel-winning climate bible.. the gold standard.”
I was one of those auditors. Donna really bent the rules to give the benefit to the IPCC — and it was much worse than she reported… Just sayin’

Paul K2

[SNIP: Your snark and attacks on Anthony Watts are getting tiring. Discuss the science. If you can. -REP]

ssupak

You’re all so sure of yourselves, but you just won’t bet on it…
https://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/?eventGroupId=7620

Many excellent comments here. Fortunately, I was already employed by a prestigious research laboratory upon graduation from college. Anyone who works in a raw data research lab knows how easily data is ‘cooked’ to look good. We generally did not do that, but it did occur in situations where the chips (i.e. funding) were down. Personally, I witnessed this on many different occasions, the best technique being that of omission: if some of the experimental data doesn’t fit, ignore it, thereby making the remainder look better.
Less fortunately, a situation arose where I discovered the cause of death of scores of children who were immuno-suppressed for the treatment of leukemia. Upon discovery, I was warned by my superior, a PhD/MD, not to divulge the information or we could lose our funding and be shut down. I was young, intimidated, and didn’t like starvation, so I kept my mouth shut. The company responsible quietly went about correcting the problem, the parents never knew what killed their children, and I went on my way out the door back to college and to launch my career in business. The decision to leave was mine, out of disgust.
The moral of the story? Many scientist’s experiments and findings become biased once under contract since they will do whatever is necessary to continue the government-sponsored gravy train. Always look behind the reports at the raw data to decide for yourself. To me, the raw data does not support CAGW in any manner whatsoever. Those who decry CAGW and look to the government for solutions are lemmings being led to the river bank.

kakatoa

Thanks for elevating Gail Combs’ comment to a headline post!
Gail’s integrity, combined with an understanding of the scientific method, is what I was looking for when selecting “independent” scientific experts for various product and process design reviews I was responsible for.

Otter

paul kr~ I am still hoping to see your response to Rockwood, re Arctic ice during the massive heatwaves and droughts of the 1930s.

Gail Combs

feet2thefire says:
July 8, 2012 at 10:03 am
….This all has made me so untrusting of ALL science. I’ve gotten to the point of this: If you scientists don’t let me personally see every bit of your work, I don’t believe a word you say. Even if much of it is over my head, I still want to be able to see it all.
____________________________
GOOD!
Steve that is how ALL science is SUPPOSED TO BE DONE, PERIOD. No ifs, no ands, no buts, no hiding data, no hiding methods or codes or anything else. If you do not want to let it all hang out then fine it becomes a “Trade Secret” and IT DOES NOT GO INTO PEER REVIEWED journals. It is either a “Trade Secret” or it is peer reviewed science it can not be both and that is what the Post Modern Science group is trying to do, have their cake and eat it too by hiding the data.
If scientists and journals were ethical the first article that tried the “hide the data” crap should have been shoved back at the guilty party(s) and told FIX IT or shut up. The fact the journals, editors and reviewers did not say “Where is the data?” is a big glaring neon sign of collusion to hide dicey results in my book. I do not have to know a thing about the science involved to smell a big fat rat. If there is no data to back it up it just plain isn’t science. That put Nature and the other guilty journals in the same category as the National Enquirer.
Actually I have more respect for the National Enquirer than I do for Nature. At least the National Enquirer does not have its nose stuck in the air in a “Holier than Thou” attitude while they trash the reputation of science and they try to ram down my throat political policy that will bankrupt my country. The Science Journals are no longer anything but political propaganda outlets and should be boycotted by all scientists with integrity.

DDP

95%? it’s been adjusted the wrong way, ‘the team’ will not be happy. Obviously just a minor modelling error that is easily correctable. But then we all know in reality it’s just a random number pulled from an extremely uncomfortable place.
…..and I don’t mean the back of a Volkswagen.

Mindert Eiting

There is more at stake than just honesty. What do these (real) cases have in common? An archival employee stealing documents from an important historical collection and selling them on the market, a medical doctor imitating Jack the Ripper and kiling his female patients, and a scientist who fabricates his data.

R. Shearer

As a scientist, I’d like to believe that we are superior in honesty and intellect. Compared to politicians, this would certainly be true. However, scientists are people too. As a general rule, we “don’t bite the hand that feeds us.”

pat

Wow. Well done.

Rob

What about the hot weather in northern Canada on these maps? Is this real or is there a lack of observations there to base it on? I seem to see this on every map.

turnedoutnice

The IPCC models are plain wrong, It’s not me saying this but the American Physical Society’s guide to atmospheric physics: http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/hafemeister.cfm
In Eq 17 the authors show the IPCC assumption, lower atmosphere DOWN emissivity = 1, gives excess energy. The way they solve it, reduced emissivity, is a fudge because you must also reduce the earth’s emissivity: the problem has no solution.
The error [333.[1-0.76 W/m^2] is 50 times claimed AGW. To fix it requires major surgery of incorrect physics. One way the models pretend to work is to use exaggerated low level cloud optical depth. They double it: http://www.gewex.org/images/feb2010.pdf [page 5]
This settled science is nothing of the sort. No IPCC model can predict climate.

Paul K2

The link to the Russian heat wave refers to a team led by Dr. Hoerling (among others). He has put a series of papers claiming that extreme events are caused by blocking patterns in the jet stream. Here is the quote from the press release accompanying his paper:
The heat wave was due primarily to a natural phenomenon called an atmospheric “blocking pattern”, in which a strong high pressure system developed and remained stationary over western Russian, keeping summer storms and cool air from sweeping through the region and leading to the extreme hot and dry conditions. While the blocking pattern associated with the 2010 event was unusually intense and persistent, its major features were similar to atmospheric patterns associated with prior extreme heat wave events in the region since 1880, the researchers found.
Unfortunately, they didn’t examine the possibility that the formation of these blocking patterns is linked to changes in Arctic sea level pressure trends (SLP), which alters the behavior of the jet stream. That kind of analysis is beyond what this group considered. They looked for a direct correlation with 2010 sea ice extent, but didn’t consider the recent decades influence of reduced sea ice pack on jet stream patterns.
The recent meteorological theory proposed by Dr. Jennifer Francis can explain a lot of the changes in jet stream patterns that cause extreme events. And the more regional seasonal temperature data is examined, in light of these theories, the more it seems that increased numbers of blocking patterns in the jet stream are causing more and more extreme events.
The odds are very high that the shift in jet stream patterns caused by higher Arctic pressures resulting from reduced Arctic ice (due to polar amplification), caused the duration and intensity of the Russian heat wave.

highflight56433 says July 8, 2012 at 9:42 am
When I see a commenter belch that “Over 95% of Scientist worldwide believe global warming is real and directly related to human activity.” I have to wonder why an individual would in good conscious who professes to be a science guru use an unscientific statistic.

Yes … well … one may have to grant Gail some leeway in her continued use of hyperbole; it is endemic to her style and no doubt, while there is probably some basis to her observations she should be cautious in extrapolating her observations into the rest of the world let alone other ‘fields’ and various ‘industries’; my own experience certainly does not mirror hers, but then design reviews, ‘cross checks’ of the data taken on product/devices etc with separate instrumentation works to ensure compliance with quality standards and minimize cheating.
It does look though, that the higher the monetary stakes (the multi-billion dollar ‘climate research’ industry not to mention carbon-credit trading exchanges) coupled with minimal supervision and only ‘pal’ review and given unverifiable within-the-strict-confines-of-a-laboratory ultimate ‘projections’ (forecasts in any other vernacular) decades into the future (2030 – 2050 even to the year 2100!) that the field of cli sci is ripe for hucksters of many makes to bluff, counterfeit, feign, fake, pretend, profess, put on, omit and sham in ‘activities’ involving quite-frankly outright fraud, organizational-level effusion, wholesale dissembling all the while obstructing (e.g. refusing to archive or outright refusing to make available raw datasets for analysis) those in honest pursuit of the truth …
.

Doug Huffman

I had procrastinated my too terse and trite retort to scientists. Science is a way of thought that may lead to truth and not a title and certainly not a self-assigned epithet. See Karl Popper’s Logic of Scientific Discovery.
Believe nothing that you read or hear without verifying it yourself unless it fits your preexisting worldview.

Eric Dailey

I’ll just leave this here.
http://youtu.be/yRc3Ev05QiM

Andrew

Anthony You are so wrong don’t you see the “global warming” moved across to the Sahara from the USA its right there for all to see LOL

FundMe

I think the trees were telling the truth. Anomalous readings are hiding the truth, the decline is real.

Jimbo

ssupak says:
July 8, 2012 at 10:51 am
You’re all so sure of yourselves, but you just won’t bet on it…
https://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/?eventGroupId=7620

You should get out more often ssupak.

“David Whitehouse Wins BBC Climate Bet”
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/43881
“Scott Armstrong of the Wharton School challenges Al Gore $20,000 that he will be able to make more accurate forecasts of annual mean temperatures than those that can be produced by climate models.”
http://www.theclimatebet.com/?page_id=4

What about debates? Oh, here you lose too. Get of the good ship global warming while it’s sinking.

Gail Combs

Robin says:
July 8, 2012 at 10:20 am
….It even had IBM overseeing the report. I guess providing those needed mainframes and software and consulting services is consistent with its Smarter Planet and Smarter Cities business model for future revenue.
This is the report that refers to people and their behavior as sociotechnical systems in need of new mindsets and behaviors that reflect sustainability.
It rather gives me the creeps to keep running into tech companies funding and advocating transformational changes in education and the supposed necessity of a Green Economy….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Robin it will give you more creeps when you read these:
Counted for Persecution; IBM’s Role…
….survivors filed suit against IBM
Thomas John Watson, Sr.- … Watson’s pursuit of profit led him to personally approve and spearhead IBM’s strategic technological relationship with …. Germany during the 1930s. He was the IBM chairman and CEO at the time. His connections are interesting especially his interest in “global commerce and international peace”
Thomas J. Watson, Sr. Encyclopedia Britannica’s sanitized version.
Technology of course is neutral, it is the use to which humans put it that is either good or evil.