Scientists betraying science 27

Although this article from PowerLine by Steven Hayward, referring to another in Nature, doesn’t deal specifically with retractions of scientific papers on climate change, it provides a needed lesson to those warmists who argue that consensus is in itself a scientific proof.

[B]ehind at least half of [the retractions] lies some shocking tale of scientific misconduct plagiarism, altered images or faked data — and the other half are admissions of embarrassing mistakes. But retraction notices are increasing rapidly. In the early 2000s, only about 30 retraction notices appeared annually. This year, the Web of Science is on track to index more than 400 — even though the total number of papers published has risen by only 44% over the past decade.

There’s a lot more here to ponder, such as the essentially hollow and meaningless nature of modern peer review, and the increasingly tribal and ideological drift of much of the academic scientific establishment. …

Elsewhere in this week’s issue of Nature, Dan Sarewitz of Arizona State University, one of the truly honest brokers in the academic science and policy world, offers a terrific essay on what’s wrong with so-called “consensus” science reports. …

When scientists wish to speak with one voice, they typically do so in a most unscientific way: the consensus report. The idea is to condense the knowledge of many experts into a single point of view that can settle disputes and aid policy-making. But the process of achieving such a consensus often acts against these goals, and can undermine the very authority it seeks to project. . .

The very idea that science best expresses its authority through consensus statements is at odds with a vibrant scientific enterprise. Consensus is for textbooks; real science depends for its progress on continual challenges to the current state of always-imperfect knowledge.

Yet it was probably peer review criticism that revealed the errors in at least some of the retracted papers. The fact that so many more papers are being retracted is a healthy sign. To what extent, one may wonder, is the international row over climate-change claims and counter-claims responsible for the rise.

What seems to have happened with the papers on man-made global warming (AGW) is that a politicized posse of immoral scientists did everything they could to silence criticism.

They wanted AGW to be believed like a religion, with faith rather than reason. That made them betrayers of science itself, its enemies: anti-scientists.

If their thesis was true, why did they need to fake data (the “hockey-stick” graph), suppress facts (the Climategate emails), and conspire to block criticism?

Because – one must conclude – they wanted “scientific fact” to support policies that mattered more to them than truth. See here and here and here.

Change happens. Warming happens. It’s the causes of change that are in dispute – and whether it is a threat, so serious that impoverishing redistribute policies must be enacted by governments to save the earth from doom. In regard to which, there is this statement (from this source):

In the room where you are sitting right now, the temperature difference between the floor and the ceiling is about one degree. That’s the kind of imperceptible change we’re talking about — over the next century!

Arguments supporting and disputing that are invited.

  • Don L

    I think you’re all bonkers!  LOL.
     
    Harold, no one will believe you…scientist has become a dirty word because your profession has been shown to be corrupted/corruptable.  It’s a function  of central planning whereas all you scientist types are now in one way or another beholdin’ to big brother’s wishes, winks and nods.  Sorta like professional politicians…Leading, Top, The council of, 500 university, independent…economists agree….sells the program then used as the excuse to deflect blame.

    Anyway, came by the site to see if there was anything on the Jeffress idiot calling mormons a cult and that Romney should not be elected because he wasn’t christian.  Sounds like a taliban position to me.  Better believe in my belief!.  Later,

    Don L

    • George

      Yes Don scientists and the profession have been corrupted but I would still welcome a debate.  I notice that Al Gore refused to come on a radio talk show after being invited to debate a scientists who refuted the global warming fiasco.   Gee , I wonder why !   
                      Furthermore , there you go again Don with the name calling attacks with this  ” You’re all Bonkers ”  remarks.   Oh but I’m sure you’re the only one posting with any brains and the rest of us are ALL a bunch of dummies in your eyes .   Yeah–right !   I don’t have a degree in this field of course , however from what I have personally read, heard and been exposed to by various credible sources ,   as I have stated before many scientists have blown the whistle on this global warming fiasco , and are “pulling the covers off” —–. I am still willing to listen to a debate if the two opposing sides are up to it. If the ones who are fueling the global warming side totally across the board refuse , then that in itself wil “seal the deal” for me and it will prove the clear corruption among scientists as you have so indeed asserted.

      • Don L

        That was no “name calling attack”…Get a sense of humor man!

        • George

          Don , I have a sense of humor , but for crying out loud guy , no one knows where you’re coming from.    You started out before calling everyone ( including US ) sons of bitches and sons of bitchettes and even Jillian Becker took offense to it as well and corrected you on that.  No , I’m NOT being sensitive on this but you can do better .  You’re not going to attract people to your perspective or presentation by taking jabs at them from the get  go. I tell jokes to my friends all the time and people tell me that I’m the most humourous and entertaining individual they have met . You have a lot of valuable information to shed on various issues but you’re NOT being stimulating at all but rather repulsive .   I know I have a very  aggressive side to my presentations as well but I ONLY get that way if I’m personally attacked or my beliefs  ( the jarhead coming out ) , otherwise I’m just a Teddy Bear .     
                        By the way ,    you have a lot of expertise and knowledge to share with the secular community which I admire , but don’t expect people to reach out to shake your hand if you’re punching them in the face to start with.  You and I are both former military and both are conservative and have endured probably the worst of the worst ,  but c’mon man ,  look at it from the other POV.   Anyway , I hope you’re enjoying your picnic , because it’s raining cat’s dogs , and bullfrogs down here .   Take care ! 

    • George

      I heard that on the radio talk show regarding Romney and the jerk saying he’s in a cult. Of course to fundamentalist Christians only their belief is right and all others are condemned to hell . The same nuitcase who attacked Romney stated to the effect that  Judaism , Islam, Buddhism ( etc) are all false religions and he said he stands by that.   As usual the fundamentalist brainwashed zealots are convinced via their indoctrination that only THEY have the right beliefs and all of us INFIDELS  are the epitome of SIN !  My other post was a few minutes prior below and I’m starting to have serious suspicions about a certain person.  Go have a beer and a  Bar-B-Q   dude   !!      Semper Fi  !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Harold

    Jillian, I assume your references to CERN are the CLOUD experiments on nucleation? These were widely announced by the media as, for example: “Sun causes Climate Change Shock”, “Global Warming Caused by Sun” “Did CLOUD just rain on the Global Warming parade?” “CERN scientific study proves Global Warming is caused by the sun”, “CERN: Global warming caused by sun”. These were all from the first page of Google hits, I did not select these. I have to agree with George, the media is a terrible source of information on science. From this coverage, one could easily believe that the results of the CERN experiment proved that recent global warming was caused by changes in cosmic rays from the sun. What did the study actually show? What was it intended to show, and what could it possibly have shown? From the abstract:
    ” Despite extensive research, fundamental questions remain about the nucleation rate of sulphuric acid particles and the mechanisms responsible, including the roles of galactic cosmic rays and other chemical species such as ammonia”Despite extensive research, fundamental questions remain about the nucleation rate of sulphuric acid particles and the mechanisms responsible, including the roles of galactic cosmic rays and other chemical species such as ammonia”So this is a fundamental study to elucidate the mechanisms of nucleation. They were conducted in artificial conditions (no VOC’c or other nucleation sites), as these fundamental studies must be. What they did not, could not or attempt to show was that nucleation in the real world (i.e. in the presence of VOC’s, salt, dust etc.) was mainly caused by cosmic rays. Nor that this nucleation would actually lead to the much larger seed particles that cause clouds. Nor that even if this was the case, this would actually change the structure of the clouds, nor that if this did actually happen, whether this would have an effect (positive or negative) on global warming, and especially it did not show that there had been changes in cosmic rays from the sun that would explain recent changes in climate, because there has not been such changes. They specifically acknowledge that “the sensitivity of the number of cloud condensation nuclei to changes of nucleation rate may be small”. Thus the study, worthwhile though it was, could not possibly have “proved that Global warming is caused by the sun”. It seems the headline writers were completely wrong. It is comparable to someone finding a chemical that has a negative effect on the growth rate of cancer cells on a petri dish (a common enough finding) and announcing it as a cure for cancer. A pretty good rule of thumb – if announcements of science are made by press release, be very cautious – cold fusion springs to mind. If the news reports make claims not made by the authors – be very cautious. This paper is a good example of this.I see this a lot. There is some finding that has some pertinence to global warming, and the news media produce headlines totally out of proportion to its significance, and often completely misrepresent it. You say there are examples of the media being “pro -AGW”, and I believe you. But there are also a great many that are “anti-AGW”. Your further questions: I have read the links – in every case I have looked into the criticisms of the IPCC are hollow and simplistic. I have not seen or looked into the vast majority of the claims, but all so far follow the same pattern. Does it concern me that there is a political agenda? Yes it does, but no political agenda seems to have gone far enough that it undermines the scientific basis. Does it concern you that there is a political agenda behind the skeptics? There must be, or why would the CERN paper be so fundamentally mis-reported. Oh dear, I haven’t got started on boreholes. I think I will have to leave that for now, but before I go, I did look at the link you posted, and will need to spend some time to consider it..  
    So this is a fundamental study to elucidate the mechanisms of nucleation. They were conducted in artificial conditions (no VOC’c or other nucleation sites), as these fundamental studies must be. What they did not, could not or attempt to show was that nucleation in the real world (i.e. in the presence of VOC’s, salt, dust etc.) was mainly caused by cosmic rays. Nor that this nucleation would actually lead to the much larger seed particles that cause clouds. Nor that even if this was the case, this would actually change the structure of the clouds, nor that if this did actually happen, whether this would have an effect (positive or negative) on global warming, and especially it did not show that there had been changes in cosmic rays from the sun that would explain recent changes in climate, because there has not been such changes. They specifically acknowledge that “the sensitivity of the number of cloud condensation nuclei to changes of nucleation rate may be small”. Thus the study, worthwhile though it was, could not possibly have “proved that Global warming is caused by the sun”. It seems the headline writers were completely wrong. It is comparable to someone finding a chemical that has a negative effect on the growth rate of cancer cells on a petri dish (a common enough finding) and announcing it as a cure for cancer. A pretty good rule of thumb – if announcements of science are made by press release, be very cautious – cold fusion springs to mind. If the news reports make claims not made by the authors – be very cautious. This paper is a good example of this.

    I see this a lot. There is some finding that has some pertinence to global warming, and the news media produce headlines totally out of proportion to its significance, and often completely misrepresent it. You say there are examples of the media being “pro -AGW”, and I believe you. But there are also a great many that are “anti-AGW”. Your further questions: I have read the links – in every case I have looked into the criticisms of the IPCC are hollow and simplistic. I have not seen or looked into the vast majority of the claims, but all so far follow the same pattern. Does it concern me that there is a political agenda? Yes it does, but no political agenda seems to have gone far enough that it undermines the scientific basis. Does it concern you that there is a political agenda behind the skeptics? There must be, or why would the CERN paper be so fundamentally mis-reported.
    Oh dear, I haven’t got started on boreholes. I think I will have to leave that for now, but before I go, I did look at the link you posted, and will need to spend some time to consider it..
     
      

  • Harold

    George, Jillian. You ask why this subject and why this forum, and is it an obsession of mine. I am not a climatologist, but I am a scientist. I find the subject very interesting, both from a scientific point of view, and to try to understand the motivations of people. Why this forum? It is possible to conduct a discussion with respect here, and to exchange views and information. As an atheist site it also interests me. From my perspective, it appears that the scientific evidence for AGW is overwhelming, nearly as much as it is for evolution. To me, the GW debate is similar to “debates” about whether ID or creationism should be taught alongside evolution in science classes. By expressing atheism, you have shown what seems to me to be the ability to examine the evidence and come to the “right” conclusion (which is obviously the one I hold). We agree on that, so why not on AGW? I find it interesting. I remain open to the possibility that AGW is not correct, but every instance of evidence against the “consensus” view I have looked into has turned out to be unfounded, so I firmly believe at the moment. Perhaps there will be some that I cannot find fault with, then I will have to think again, but nothing so far has even come close.
    I do not believe through faith. One thing that may provide an answer within about 3 years is the global temperature. The “IPCC” models allow static or slight cooling for periods of about a decade, but not for longer. If temperatures do fall for the next 2-3 years, then the models will have been shown to be wrong. This evidence I would find compelling. So far, temperatures are within predictions, and I am impatient; a further 2-3- years is a long time. Also, if the temperature does continue to rise, the argument against AGW will not disapear.
    I have seen “end of the world” predictions, and these are nonsense. These annoy me also. The world will not end, but it could cost us a lot of money, a lot of suffering and lives, and cause a lot of unhappiness. Because these may be overblown does not lesses the argument in favor of AGW.
    A few specific points not from George I think, but from theblog or other comments – CO2 can be both natural, necessary for plants and still a pollutant. Pig manure is an excellent fertiliser, but you can still call it a pollutant. This semantics has a place in policy discussion, but not in the science behind and the existence of AGW.
    The comment about 1°C being the difference between ceiling and floor is similar. Policy aim is to restrict temperature rises to less than 2°C. This rise is the same as having a body temperature of 101.6. A small rise, but quite significant. Merely saying “this seems like a small matter” seems to show a lack of understanding.
    George, your scientist on the radio seemed not to know what he was talking about. The ozone destruction is pretty settled science, and no longer controversial. Since the world got together to ban certain CFC’s, the ozone hole has repaired. The ozone hole is unrelated to GW. Spray cans are not a significant cause of global warming, although ironically the chemicals that replaced the CFC’s are powerful greenhouse gases, so they do make a contribution. Cow farts are a major contributor to GW, much more significant than spraycans, but then nobody says spraycans are the problem – that was ozone destruction, not GW. He says CO2 is absorbed by plant life – well, it is pretty uncontroversial that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are rising due to fossil fuel burning. Plants and animals were in balance – the one absorbing and the other producing CO2 so the concentration remained the same. If we add CO2 from fossil fuels, then the concentration will rise. I don’t think this is seriously disputed anymore. 
     

    • George

      Harold , as I have stated on a few previous posts concerning the [global warming  / climate change ] matter , I am NOT a scientist and I am NOT an expert in the field and I will never claim or pretend such.  You say that you are a scientist —– what is your specialty field  ?  I am just curious. The reason tha I ask this question is because I have observed that you concentrate almost entirely on the climate change issue and nearly NOTHING on the issue of secular freethought vs theology issues.   I’ve wondered why is that the case .  I can understand that this maybe or is a speciaity  field of yours ( I wish you had stated such in the very beginning ) and why your concentration  or apparent obsession on this topic alone.
                      If you will also recall Harold , I am very skeptical of any and all information that I get from the mainstream media sources and this is why I continue to be objective and open to view all sides on an issue ( whatever that may be ).   As a suggestion , since you say that you are an atheist and a scientist , you may consider writing articles with refutable evidence or scientific data .    If you also recall , I have made it perfectly clear that I have no agenda and no personal claim in this so-called [climate change] social debate. My information has come from scientists and yet I have also seen scientists argue and refute others of their colleagues.
                         One of the biggest questions that the   ‘every day’   layman asks is how do we know who to accept as far as data and information is concerned ?   How can the average layman decipher who is correct and who isn’t ?  How can the average layman decide what data is accurate and true and what is false and fabricated ?   As I have honestly stated before repeatedly —–I DO NOT have the answers to these questions and I will continue to remain objective and open to hear all points of view . 

      • George

        In continuation to my previous post—        I would like to see a panel of opposing scientists in a debate on the climate change / global warming issue.   Have a public debate by scientists on a panel who agree with the global warming issue and those scientists who disagree with the same.  Let both sides present their data, information, sources, methodology of obtaining their findings and then let the public decide who has the most compelling and convincing presentation .  Some would argue that the mainstream public wouldn’t understand how to interpret scientific data and then we’ll be back to square one, and then again maybe not.

        • Harold

          George, I am a chemist, and have no professional link to climate change. I understand the confusion over who to believe. The problem is that the anti AGW people can make a vast noise with little amunition. Take the CERN results, for example. The headlines were completely misleading. Every time someone comes up with a easy soundbite that sounds convincing on the surface, it gets reported as “proof” that AGW is wrong. Painstaking work picking it apart and showing why it “proves” no such thing does not get any coverage. Over the history of this debate, the scientists have seen this happening time and again, and became frustrated. These scientists spend several years gathering and analysisng data, familiarising themselves with the field, carefully writing a paper that puts their findings clearly in perspective. It must be galling to see someone picking a few bits of data, doing a rudimentary analysis and getting their results covered by media internationally. This creates the false impression that there is much more debate and uncertainty that there actually is. This frustration with the mis-reporting and cherry picking has led some of the scientists to behave badly. They have been reluctant to divulge their hard earned data to bloggers who will cherry pick the bits they want, and put it out to the world without explaning the complexities of the issues. They have therefore, for example, tried to avoid freedom of information requests, and misbehaved in other ways. Their misbehaviour was wrong, but not without provocation. I am not saying that there is absolutely no disagreement, and no anti- AGW work is of good quality, but there is very little.The climatologists (and ecologists, botanists, oceaonographers etc.) have been portrayed as a powerful group perpetuating an industry based on a hoax and a lie. University professors are not usually considered to be the movers and shakers and power-brokers in this world. More usually it is those who control the real money- the leaders of industries such as petroleum and automotive. These are exactly the people who have most to lose if the scientists are right. There was a concerted efffort to rubbish the GW theory, similar to the efforts of the Tobacco companies earlier. This has been tremendously succesful. It is not feasable that all of these scientists are lying, when ultimately their lies will be found out. This would constitute possibly the biggest conspiracy ever, and for what? People talk of lots of money going to the scientists, but they do not get it personally – it is spent on research. These scientists are not particularly wealthy individuals. Would all these scientists really lie just to keep themselves in a job – a job that they knew was meaningless and doomed ultimately to failure? It does not make any sense. I think we have to accept that the majority of these scientists actually believe what they are saying. It is not impossible that they are mistaken, but it is all but impossible that they are all involved in a huge hoax.

  • George

    Hey Harold, please read my last 3 posts .  If you have verifiable and substantiated proof that I can check out independently I will concede that you do indeed have made your point.   I have to go back and dig out my stored paper files on this and I also have an audio clip recording from a radio talk show of a scientist who was presenting very compelling evidence against the global warming fiasco. Now you may have some info that contradicts that as well — I don’t know.  I’m eager to check it ALL out also.   After having listened to both sides of the argument Harold, and being objective on the issue as I have no personal agenda on this matter ,  currently the arguments from the expert scientists that I PERSONALLY HAVE outweigh the arguments  of the pro-climate change pundits. Now , having said this ,—— do I  know for a fact that they are 100% right . No , I do not , but currently from what I have personally obtained so far the credibility leans in favor of those scientists who have presented data against the hysteria of the global warming /climate change promulgators.   Does this mean that I am closed on the issue ?  No , it doesn’t  . Why ? Becasue I’ve taken sides before and had to later “eat crow”  for prejudicially “jumping the gun” and siding with a biased media source. That is why I’m open to read your POV as well as the other viewpoint or pespective as well.
                       Here’s what I have personally experienced  Harold.   I have seen liberal animal rights extremists and liberal environmentalist extremists promote an agenda caring more for snails, rare birds, sharks , etc. moreso  than the welfare and safety of humans.  By the same token Harold, I have seen conservative big business tycoons care more for making big MONEY  and couldn’t care less for human safety, our environment and the welfare of our planet because to them the “bottom line ” was PROFITS.  So to be honest Harold , I’ve been rather ticked off at both. As I have repeatedly said several times already , the comments I have posted are totally from the scientific reportings that  I have obtained , read, seen and heard .  Now , if you or anyone is in disagreement  or have contrary views , then so be it , as I am only quoting what I  have been presented with and I am NOT the judge of it’s AUTHENTICITY.  I’m simply being honest and I’ll leave it at that.

  • George

    A scientist recently went on the air radio program and acknowledged that the issue with aerosol can sprays dstroying the ozone layer is bogus and he stated that our ozone layer is being replenished daily .  He went on to say that the effect of some people spraying aerosols from mere cans is nothing compared to volcano eruptions and methane gas rising from our vast oceans .  He went further to say that the majority of his colleagues are reluctant or scared to come out publicly on this for fear of either losing their jobs, losing their funding or not being accepted academically in the media and academia.
                          He also stated that cow flatulence ( cow farts) emit  more harm from our massive cow farms and herds than someone at home spraying hair spray in their hair. The carbon dioxide from our land vehicles and jet aircraft are absorbed by our earth plant life ( and of course this is why I am all for saving our rain forrests and forrestry in general ).   He also pointed out that our latest major climate changes of late have been from things such as solar flares on the sun, magnetic shifts from lunar effects , magnetic polar shifts , etc.  and that our chances of having a coming Ice Age is far greater than any chance of the planet drying up in a global drought and world wide extreme heat wave. Now having presented this from this individual ( once again I am not the judge here ) but this scientist  was a “whistle blower” and risked his career to come forward. IMHO , I do not see someone putting their career/job and reputation on the line to get acceptance for having sided  with a PC agenda .   Having said this , I am still open to listen to BOTH sides objectively. 

  • Harold

    Jillian,
    AGW is in accordance with the laws of physics, as was understood over 100 years ago.  Increasing CO2 will increase temperature of earth, unless there is some factor that will counteract it.  This is really pretty basic physics, and was recognised by Arrhenius in 1896.  At the time, it was largely ignored, until peopole looked a bit closer and realised that it was true.  The US military decided that this needed to be looked at, so started the research into  global warming.  The big mystery then was why was the world apparently cooling, when the CO2 levels were rising?  This turned out to be aerosols (sulphates – remeber acid rain?)  Combating acid rain reduced sulphates, and allowed the warming to show through.  Basic physics assumes global warming – the onus is on you to say why it does not happen.

    You say the  onus is on me, well perhaps for you it is, but from my perspective you are arguing from a similar position as the creationists.  How to you demonstrate to these folk that evolution is real?  It is not easy for non evolutionary biologists, but part of the argument is that pretty much every biologist believes it.

    Anyway, I will provide one piece of evidence.  Borehole data.  Heat from the center of the Earth radiates out in a linear manner.  As an approximation, if the temperature of the atmosphere has been constant, then temperature as you go deeper will be a straight line with depth.  If the climate has increased, then the shallower temperatures will be a bit higher than expected.  The temperature profile in fact does show this positive deviation from the straight line from boreholes all over the world.  The extent of the deviation correlates pretty exactly with other reconstructions of past temperatures.  Do you reject this evidence, or do you accept the extent of warming described by this work, but deny it is caused by greenhouse gases?  If you reject the temperature conclusions, I will provide references and detailed commentary.  If you accept the temperature conclusions, and only differ on the cause, then we know where to focus the argument.

    • George

      Harold , if it turns out that your presentation is right then I applaude you , and by  the same token if it later turns out that the other argument is right , I will do the same in that respect as well. I’m not trying to sit on the fence here but I have heard scientists on both sides argue this situation and I’ll be totally honest Harold , sometimes  I have my skepticism on both. 
            I do have a question for you Harold , and I apologize if I come across as abrasive ( and I’m being totally honest here ) but I’m wondering if this field is a special interest of yours or that you are an expert professional  worker in the field or simply that it draws concern and interest.  I’m only asking that to see why you appear to harp on this so passionately and fiercely.
                     I am NOT an expert on the subject and I am NOT going to pretend or mislead anyone in believeing such is the case.     From my personal experience Harold , I have seen the liberal left push the environmentalist agenda as if doomsday is near with such a ferfor that it almost creates hysteria and panic.  On the other side , I have seen conservatives downplay or ignore the problem with environmental  harm  ( such as toxic wastes , air-water-soil pollutants , etc ).  That’s why I p[ersonally do NOT jump on anyone’s bandwagon but simply sit back and observe and study both sides.  It’s NOT just a matter of trying to play it safe but to thouroughly gather as much information and data on the entire spectrum of the “thorny” discussion.    I don’t want to see this turn into a heated and bitter exchange. I will confess Harold , that I have indeed heard more and read more information that presents the claim that the global warming  fiasco is bogus , yet  then again I am NO expert to decide . It may turn out later that even these guys were wrong—- I don’t know for a fact and I’m not going to pretend otherwise.   I have indeed seen a lot of fraudulent info put out there by the liberal elites , but then when I think how BIG CORPORATE giants are so money hungry and will deceive the public for a big buck , I become even distrusting on that side as well.  If you have info that WE do not know about Harold , as I stated before I am indeed sir open to read and  observe your presentations just as well ( to be fair ).    Admittingly so Harold , a few things you posted I must honestly admit , I never heard before ( at least I’m honest about it ) and I’m not going to try to “save face” pretending that I know something that I  DON’T.  I’m truly concerned about our environment and I’m really tired of all the political propaganda that’s being put out there to promulgate a dubious agenda via propaganda.   Fair enough ?

      • George

        3rd paragraph /4th sentence should be    [ fervor ]  ——typo (above post)

    • Jillian Becker

      Harold –
      You haven’t answered most of my questions. 

      About what borehole evidence can show, and about CO2, and AGW, go here:

      http://www.sciencebits.com/NothingNewUnderTheSun-I

      There is doubt about CO2, strong doubt about AGW, doubt whether it would be a good or a bad thing if there were global warming, and even doubt about whether there’s global warming at present or not.  

      Neither you nor I can settle the scientific arguments. Cern might – as far as any science is ever settled. 

      But you are certain, utterly convinced. By faith, it seems, not reason.

       

  • Liz

    I don’t claim to be an expert on climate science, but I can recognize BS when I see it.  Like the fact that thousands of people are now dying of malaria in Africa and bedbugs are becoming an epidemic everywhere since we banned DDT, people are starving because we started using corn for ethanol instead of food, lightbulbs are now a hazmat issue…the list goes on and on.  All for the sake of “protecting the environment”, and it all adds up to more government regulation and control.  If you want to go be politically correct and go along with that “consensus”, you get government funding – whaddyaknow!!  Amazing how that works. 

    • George

      Yep  !!!!!!

  • Harold

    Hi George, as you might expect I do have some opinions about this one.First, lets deal with the idea that the “warmists” claim that consensus represents proof.  Non specialists cannot follow the research in any area.  How can we know what is most likely?  Take quantum mechanics.   We don’t say that because most physisists agree that represents proof.  Rather, we acknowledge that the experts know more than us, and so we accept their consensus view.  The proof is in the scientific papers, but most of us cannot acces them directly.   The consensus is not proof, but it is a very strong signal that the layman should accept this view unless there is very good reason not to.    Anyone that can demonstrate that the consensus view is wrong will be guaranteed fame and reputation.  There is a great incentive for individual scientists to do so.

    It is odd that ” the essentially hollow and meaningless nature of modern peer review” has led to only 0.05% of papers retracted.  This is a resounding success, rather than hollow and meaningless.

    There are problems with peer review.  I believe that the author should be anoymous, as well as the reviewer.  This would remove the inherent bias towards established authors. But with its faults, it still serves us extremely well.

    Then the subject of this post – retractions, and why this should be linked to global warming.  Looking at “retraction watch” website
    http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/ I could not find a single paper retracted in climate science.  So why should the retraction issue be linked to global warming, unless there is a particular agenda to be selective in trying to discredit the scientifically accepted view of AGW?
    The question “To what extent, one may wonder, is the international row over climate-change claims and counter-claims responsible for the rise.” has a very clear answer.  Since no retractions are in this area, it has no responsibility for this rise.  Any other answer is clearly nonsense, and even asking such a question reveals an agenda to twist any information into an anti AGW position.
    The criticism of the IPCC report is that these consensus reports mis-represent the position of the experts.  Many climatolagists agree, that the consensus report underplays the dangers in order to get political agreement.  These reports can only summarise data and published papers that exist.  If you disagree with the report, I challenge you to come up with one decent contrary paper.inions

    • George

      Harold , first of all  , I merely asked  YOUR  viewpoint on the article as I made no comment on the presented position whatsoever. And yes I do indeed acknowledge that there are questions regarding  peer review based upon the fact that there  can be  and are biased positions in both “camps”   . 
                    In regards to the IPCC reports , nothing can prevent anyone from “misrepresenting ”  a documented or even an undocumented report and yes indeed we in the public DO NOT have access to SOME information and data  that has been in some cases censored or not yet revealed to us in the general populace. 
                   As far as you saying that you challenge me to come up with any contrary paper , there is NO challenge either way because I stated NO position on either.  If you had closely read a previous post of mine , I made it perfectly clear that I have found a bias on both sides and I am NOT an expert in the field and we in the public sphere rely on what the so-called experts present us with . A number of these “experts”  on both sides have personal biases , agendas,  and have drawn  inconclusive hypothesis formulations on the subject.  
                       So as NOT to go on a long drawn out rant , I will repeat again that I have seen those who have created hysteria claiming that a  “heat wave doomsday ” is near and on the other side those who proclaim that absolutely nothing is wrong with the environment whatsoever . 
                      To reiterate what I stated before , people need to be open minded and study BOTH sides thouroughly and objectively in order to perceive a more informed knowledge and understanding of this  “HEATED ”  ( no pun intended )   situation. I also resent ANYONE  who wants to be argumentative or debative just for the sake of  intentionally creating controversy.  I am and will always remain OPEN for factual and unbiased information .

      • Harold

        Hi george, sorry if my reply came accross as directed only at you, it was intended as a more general challenge.  You say “both sides”, but in reality there is only one side with proper data and analysis.  To give equal weight to the opposing view, represented by a small minority, is to give each of the contratrians much more weight than the majority. 

        • George

          Hello Harold.   That has been argued by even scientists themselves who have even made refutations on your assertions.    Scientists on both sides of the argument have presented POV’s that have challenged the other.    If a person were to present scientific data and YOU don’t agree with it ( even if it is accurate ) then we still have conflict. On the other hand if YOU present data , and other people don’t agree with it , the scenario plays out vice-versa.  There have been inaccurate info  “markers”  set forth by both sides , so for you to infer only ONE side has it TOTALLY right is to ignore the other factual data information that counters the opposing presentation. I don’t have any “dog in this debative political fight” and I personally have no axe to grind with anyone or any agenda fueling my position.
                            My position is simply being objective and reading & listening to both sides to formulate my perspective on the matter . My comments  DO NOT come from me but from the various  scientific sources I have heard and read .  If one side is more accurate or even completely so over the other then the debate is with THEM ( not with ME ).

        • George

          Harold , I posted one hour ago below in response to your previous post.     What is it with you and the subject of [ global warming ] or  [ climate change ] ?  This is a website discussion forum on atheism/religion and the ONLY subject that you post on is [ global warming or climate change ].  It appears to me IMHO that  you have an obsession with the subject —but why this   forum ? 
                                  We have articles presented about people being slaughtered, beheaded, burned to death , enslaved , women beaten and killed by so-called “honor” and you are totally SILENT on these issues  , but as soon as the topic of [ global warming ] or [ climate change ] comes up , here you come Harold crawling from out of the woodwork posting comment after comment on that singular subject . What gives ?  You don’t seem to care IMO about people being massacred or tortured or enslaved , but you’re quick to talk about some freakin’ temperature changes .    For crying out loud dude,  what’s up with you on this topic ?  Why aren’t you on a  ” GLOBAL WARMING ” website or discussion forum and presenting your arguments there ?  Why aren’t you posting comments about the religious attrocities occurring around the world ?   People are being tortured, slaughtered , violated, enslaved , and subjected to the most inhumane treatment imaginable and all you have to talk about on an atheist website is freakin’ temperature variations on the planet.   Give us a f***ing break with this crap guy  !!   Yes, Harold , you have a right to express your views just as anyone else on the topic but YOU have an OBSESSION on this topic alone  and you appear IMO not to give a rat’s butt about the religious mayhem and murders around the world but let  a solar flare occur on the sun or let a hot summer occur and you’re ranting nonstop on the matter.     It makes no sense to me , but that just MY opinion of course !

    • Jillian Becker

      There’s a famous one here, Harold: 

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/23/breaking-news-scientist-admits-ipcc-used-fake-data-to-pressure-policy-makers/

      – a link given in the article too. 

      • Harold

        Jillian, you have not posted to anything that challenges the basic science of global warming.  You have picked up on a mistake in the communication, and a very regretable one.  But this in  no way challenges or changes the central findings of the IPCC.  I suspect you will not be able to find any, but I await eagerly.  What I am after is some good reason why intelligent, inquisitive people would conclude that global warming was either not there or natural.   Not nit-picking over one or two minor claims in a report of hundreds of pages.  I am talking the science, not the politics.

        • Jillian Becker

          Harold – 

          Like God, AGW needs to be proved by those who allege it’s existence. Like God, it has not been proved. The IPCC report was written to “prove” a foregone conclusion. It had to misreport to achieve that. The Himalayan ice is just one thing it asserted which was not true. It was not just “a mistake in the communication”, it was a deliberate lie. Why was the lie told in the first place? Why was the hockey-stick graph forged? We are awaiting further conclusions from CERN to learn what effect if any human action has on climate (in addition to the huge effects of the sun).Have you read the pages our links in the article take you to? No one who does could assert that the IPCC report proved its case. Why are you convinced of AGW? Can you cite proven facts? Does it not concern you that its promoters have a political agenda (vastly increased government control, world-wide economic redistribution, world government)?The ball is in your court. The onus is on you. Prove to us that AGW is true.  (Just saying lots of scientists believe it won’t cut it.)      

  • George

    Hey Harold —————–  what’s your take on this article ?  Just wondering.