PDA

View Full Version : Climate Scientist Speaks out



BlasterBates
26th October 2010, 15:02
Interesting post from Professor Judith Curry on her blog

Heresy and the creation of monsters | Climate Etc. (http://judithcurry.com/2010/10/25/heresy-and-the-creation-of-monsters/)

...and what does she say:


If, how, and why I had been duped by the IPCC became an issue of overwhelming personal and professional concern. I decided that there were two things that I could do: 1) speak out publicly and try to restore integrity to climate science by increasing transparency and engaging with skeptics; and 2) dig deeply into the broader aspects of the science and the IPCC’s arguments and try to assess the uncertainty. The Royal Society Workshop on Handling Uncertainty in Science last March motivated me to take on #2 in a serious way. I spent all summer working on a paper entitled “Climate Science and the Uncertainty Monster,” which was submitted to a journal in August. I have no idea what the eventual fate of this paper will be, but it has seeded the uncertainty series on Climate Etc. and its fate seems almost irrelevant at this point.




If the IPCC is dogma, then count me in as a heretic. The story should not be about me, but about how and why the IPCC became dogma.



sums it up...well said Judith.

sasguru
26th October 2010, 15:08
Given the public humiliation I dealt out to you today, exposing your complete ignorance of numbers and statistics and logical reasoning, perhaps you should leave the climate science debate to those more intellectually equipped than yourself.

:rollin::rollin::rollin:

HTH.

kandr
26th October 2010, 15:12
Rrrrrrround 2.

sasguru
26th October 2010, 15:18
Rrrrrrround 2.

Nah wouldn't be fair. Like fighting a dead, wet, floppy fish.

kandr
26th October 2010, 15:26
Nah wouldn't be fair. Like fighting a dead, wet, floppy fish.

Nice left hook from SAS, goes for the knockout early.

BlasterBates
26th October 2010, 16:05
2 years from now AGW will be a completely dead duck, the climate scientists are queueing up to get off the band wagon.

EternalOptimist
26th October 2010, 16:57
2 years from now AGW will be a completely dead duck, the climate scientists are queueing up to get off the band wagon.

Yes but how do you do that ? How do you actually backtrack and admit that everything you stand for and fought for was a lie.

I mean, did the church suddenly rurn around one day and say - ok heaven is not up. we've been there and heaven wasnt there, it must be somewhere else.

is there some sort of grand announcement ?



:rolleyes:

RichardCranium
26th October 2010, 17:35
Yes but how do you do that ? How do you actually backtrack and admit that everything you stand for and fought for was a lie.

I mean, did the church suddenly rurn around one day and say - ok heaven is not up. we've been there and heaven wasnt there, it must be somewhere else.

is there some sort of grand announcement ?Come on, EO, you know the answer.

You know how every three months the government takes out a full page ad in the broadsheets explaining what they've learned, what they had wrong, and how they are going to do things differently in the future?

And you know how the Pope does the same thing each year on his balcony in St Thingies Square on behalf of the Catholic Church?

And you know how on the first Sunday of each month the vicars read out the "Corrections from the Synod" just before the marriage banns?

Well, the scientists that published papers with results as specified by their sponsor BP or Monsanto or AstraZeneca have a combined scientific periodical called "Actually Folks Journal" where they publish retractions saying they made stuff up that was contrary to their actual findings.

At least, that's what the big pink sugar mouse told me when we went to la-la land in his flying gravy boat.

HairyArsedBloke
26th October 2010, 17:42
2 years from now AGW will be a completely dead duck, the scientists be banging on about something else that they have conviced politicians to spend loads of money on.


FTFY

EternalOptimist
26th October 2010, 18:04
I am facinated on how this is going to happen.

'ok guys, look , the earth is not flat after all, but all the other stuff we said is true. Yes, you there at the back , yes you. Ok NO. The earth does NOT go around the sun. Get the matches, we got another burner here!'


Its like living in interesting times or something.


:rolleyes:

RichardCranium
26th October 2010, 18:57
I am fascinated on how this is going to happen.

'ok guys, look , the earth is not flat after all, but all the other stuff we said is true. Yes, you there at the back , yes you. Ok NO. The earth does NOT go around the sun. Get the matches, we got another burner here!'

Its like living in interesting times or something.Yes Minister. Series 2, Episode 4. The episode about building a metadioxin production plant (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0751819/), which is safe, but sounds like dioxin, which isn't. A scientific report needs to be rubbished.


Yes Minister, The Bureaucrat Bible

Sir Humphrey: There is a well established Government procedure for suppress… deciding not to publish reports.
Jim Hacker: Really?
Sir Humphrey: You simply discredit them.
Jim Hacker: Good heavens... how?
Sir Humphrey: Stage one, you give your reasons in terms of the public interest. You hint at security considerations – the report could be used to put pressure on government and could be misinterpreted.
Jim Hacker: Anything could be misinterpreted. The Sermon on the Mount could be misinterpreted!
Sir Humphrey: Indeed – it could be argued that the Sermon on the Mount, had it been a government report, would almost certainly not have been published. A most irresponsible document. All that stuff about the meek inheriting the earth could do irreparable damage to the defence budget.

Sir Humphrey: In stage two you go on to discredit the information you’re not publishing.
Jim Hacker: How, if you’re not publishing it?
Sir Humphrey: It’s much easier if it’s not published. You do it by press leaks. Say it leaves some important questions unanswered, that much of the evidence is inconclusive, that the figures are open to other interpretations, that certain findings are contradictory and that some of the main conclusions have been questioned.
Jim Hacker: Suppose they haven’t?
Sir Humphrey: Then question them. Then they have.
Jim Hacker: But to make accusations like that you’d have to go through it with a fine-toothed comb.
Sir Humphrey: Nonsense – you can say all that without reading it. There are always some questions unanswered.
Jim Hacker: Such as?
Sir Humphrey: The ones that weren’t asked.

Spacecadet
26th October 2010, 19:02
I am facinated on how this is going to happen.

'ok guys, look , the earth is not flat after all, but all the other stuff we said is true. Yes, you there at the back , yes you. Ok NO. The earth does NOT go around the sun. Get the matches, we got another burner here!'


Its like living in interesting times or something.


:rolleyes:

They might back down when the ice caps reach the med.
In the mean time so called proof of warming/cooling will always be open to differing interpretation and conflicting sources of evidence.

All the easy science has been done already