I believe that, over the last 30 years, political views and politically driven sources of money tainted climatology as a science.
Today comes more evidence of bogus science – evidence damning of the entire notion of global warming.
For all the details go to Climate Audit. Steve McIntyre has been on the trail of tree ring data being used to “document” climate change for some time. But the researchers didn’t want him digging in their data. Then they made a fatal error… they published to a journal that requires data sharing.
And he was on it.
There he found that the researchers had cherry picked data to show a huge jump in global temperature over the last century:
The red-line is the climatologists “hockey stick” of change. The green line is what happens when you look at all the data.
Which line would get more grant funding?
Note that the first comment on Steve’s post is his statistical script that ANYONE can use to pick apart his analysis.
Shouldn’t we require anybody feeding analysis into world economic and political action to expose their data and methods as rigorously?
September 28th, 2009 at 11:48 am
So the critic gets to publish his analysis of the data with no peer review and no offer to the original authors to reply. Why is his credibility any better than the original authors who may have taken the data into account? That’s the general problem with bloggy drive-by science writing: nobody knows what’s well-based.
September 28th, 2009 at 11:57 am
They can comment just like the 200 some odd others than commented.
peer review in climatology can not be trusted.
I’ll take a guy who makes the data and his stats script available with is analysisi over people hiding their data for a decade.
September 28th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
The beauty of blogging is that skeptical questions can be asked and answered. Maybe the blogger’s credibility is in question, but blogging provides a forum for dispute. With the global warming issue and the policies being forced upon us and the indoctrination of our children on this issue, there should be more debate and more research. Someone has a financial and/or power interest in the perpetuation of the global warming THEORY and we shouldn’t be sheep on this issue. It will unnecessarily cripple our country financially and take away our freedoms.
September 28th, 2009 at 7:48 pm
Climatology is similar to 1930s automobile design, a lot of guessing and
lack of system level analysis. Sure, some of the parts were well known but not the materials or critical system interactions. Don’t think so, take a trip to the Indy 500 track and museum.