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
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.
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.
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.
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.”
@Jan Frykestig 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.
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
Nonetheless, the majority of scientists who echo the bad science are not deliberately spreading false lies.
Incorrect. They are spreading true lies.
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.
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?
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.)
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
“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
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
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?
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.
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
Hey Ivan,
What happened to your debate offer???