Saturday, November 27, 2010

Dressler and Lindzen Debate Climate Change Science,

This week on Nuclear Green, there has been some discussion of allegations of criminal wrongdoing against climate scientists Michael Man, following a couple of posts this week. In comments, "Charles H." has alleged that Mann, at the very least, was guilty of bad science, but there would appear to be no law against bad science in the State of Virginia, where Mann is being investigated. Further the research that Virginia authorities are investigating is not the same research in which "Charles H." and others including Steve McIntyre allege the bad science occurred. Steve McIntyre has indicated that although he challenges the validity of Mann's scientific research, he does not believe that Mann is guilty of a crime for which he should be prosecuted.

In the following video, Professors Andrew Dessler of Texas A&M and Richard Lindzen of MIT debate the scientific evidence of anthropogenic global warming, while University of Virginia Law School professors Jonathan Cannon and Jason Johnston discuss the policy implications. The climate science debate is of particular interest to anyone who is following the Nuclear Green discussions of the treatment of Michael Mann, by the Grand Inquisitor of Virginia. Dessler argues that the evidence for the Mann Hockey Stick extends far beyond the evidence which Mann used to support his original case.

Unless you are interested in climate change policy issues, you might want to skip the Cannon-Johnson discussion.


al fin said...

Thanks for the video. Too often ideas and findings that are contrary to the well-funded mainstream are kep out of the public eye.

It appears that busy-body prosecutors are jumping into this circus because science publishers and the media in general are failing to provide an open forum for argument and ideas. Anything that clashes with the pre-determined outcome favoured by the orthodoxy, tends to be censored from mainstream outlets for both science and the public.

Anonymous said...

al fin,

As a Virginia resident, I can tell you the witch hunt against Mann is not about shoddy science. Our AG is a tea bag wingnut. He has national and/or gubernatorial aspirations and his persecution of Mann is blatantly political grandstanding.


DocForesight said...

@Anon -- Interesting that you use the sexual connotation "tea bag(er)" to describe your AG. Why do you need to reduce your disagreement with him or his rationale for pursuing this action by using such terms?

Why not keep the discussion above the level of gutter language? This is part of the problem with the entire debate on AGW - those who find inconsistencies in the data are smeared with the Holocaust-evoking "denier" moniker. Even McIntyre, who may have the most reason to denigrate the "hockey stick" findings, doesn't appear to want a 'pound of flesh'.

Can we agree on a truce with the juvenile language?

Charles Barton said...

Doc, if allegedly invidious language is in deed a problem as you maintain, there is a far more serious problem on the skeptical side. AGW skeptics frequently accuse climate scientists of perpetrating a hoax, and flaims of criminal fuaud are being leveled against climate scientists like Michael man, despite repeated investigations which have cleared him of wrong doing. As Jesus once said, before you talk about the speck of dust in your neighbor's eye, you need to get the beam out of your own eye.

DocForesight said...

Charles, I appreciate the reference to Jesus' admonition, which had to do with personal conduct as it related to the Law of Moses. The criminal fraud accusation against Mann has to do with using taxpayer funds to advance a theory - one which many credentialed scientists disagree.

If Mann is indeed innocent of fraud or even the less damning but no less concerning "inconvenient manipulation of scientific data" (i.e. the MWP disappearing despite it being well-accepted as a global event, just like the Little Ice Age), then fine. Let's move on.

I do not use those derisive terms to describe those with whom I disagree and simply expect others to act in similar fashion. That ought not be too much to ask.

Charles Barton said...

Doc Your view of Mann is not shared by a large majority of climate scientists who hold Michael Mann in high regard, and say that steve NcIntyre criticisms of Mann have been debunked.

Anonymous said...

"Dressler and Lindzen Debate Climate Change Science" is the title of this piece. But it talks about Dr. Andrew Dessler.

Can we asked that this be straightened out?


Blog Archive

Some neat videos

Nuclear Advocacy Webring
Ring Owner: Nuclear is Our Future Site: Nuclear is Our Future
Free Site Ring from Bravenet Free Site Ring from Bravenet Free Site Ring from Bravenet Free Site Ring from Bravenet Free Site Ring from Bravenet
Get Your Free Web Ring
Dr. Joe Bonometti speaking on thorium/LFTR technology at Georgia Tech David LeBlanc on LFTR/MSR technology Robert Hargraves on AIM High