Comments on: When Climate Scientists ATTACK

By: Joe Duck

Joe Duck — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 18:51:31 +0000

Michael it’s going to be interesting over the next few years to see the debate over the MWP, especially in light of the (controversial but increasingly clear) current non-warming trend. At climate audit this is one of Mckintyre’s key points – that the natural variability that drove the MWP may also be driving the clear warming trend over the last century, with CO2 and humans playing only a minor role in that.

By: Michael B. Combs, Major USAF Retired

Michael B. Combs, Major USAF Retired — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 21:18:21 +0000

Lost in all this are the hundreds of studies (Soon et al) that demonstrate the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than current warming and was globally wide spread. Given that the Warmists have created a history that doesn’t conform to the reality of the easily demonstrated Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age, and previous periods of natural climate change, it is obvious that the Warmists are using outstanding methods to achieve mediocre results.

This challenge misconstrues the methods of science. Science is not school-boy taunts – Steve McIntyre does not have to come up with a climate change study to replace one he criticizes. The authors of the study being criticized have to prove their work has not been falsified by the criticism. As to McIntyre not being published in peer reviewed journals, reading the Climate Research Unit e-mails would lead to the conclusion that unethical means were used to discourage dissenters from being published.

By: David Harrington

David Harrington — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 09:38:18 +0000

I have created a petition on the UK Number 10 web site to gather signatures for an inquiry into this affair. If you are a UK citizen or resident please add you name to this petition.

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/HADLEY-LEAK/

Thanks

By: JoeDuck

JoeDuck — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 17:52:45 +0000

This little technical debate about proxy selections and methodologies is probably going to become a major story.

It’s sure easier to understand the writing of the skeptics …
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/10/01/ross-mckitrick-defects-in-key-climate-data-are-uncovered.aspx

Than the scientists:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/09/hey-ya-mal/

That doesn’t make anybody right or wrong but it raises more questions about why RealClimate (the science blog run by many of the key players in Climate Science), routinely fails to clearly address criticisms of the methodology used in papers. Calling for critics to jump into the climate science peer review process is ridiculous because one of the key points in the whole debate is that the peer review process has broken down. Fortunately there are now many online venues for discussion and review.
Unfortunately they will remain polluted by a lot of egotistical junk and science nonsense, but one can screen that out quickly enough.

By: FoolsGold

FoolsGold — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 16:36:44 +0000

>climate science – it’s almost a contact sport…..
Science reporting often is a contact sport: you contact a lobbyist, then the lobbyist has someone contact your palm and then…

You stand up and give your speech about Nicotine Is Not Addictive… oops I meant you give your speech about tree rings. I keep getting confused between Tobacco Science and Weather Science. I wonder why.