tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post4851751551189642784..comments2024-02-16T17:52:44.944-06:00Comments on The Nuclear Green Revolution: Good science and scientific error: A comment elevated to a postCharles Bartonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01125297013064527425noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-83471599835488325092010-11-26T22:41:06.996-06:002010-11-26T22:41:06.996-06:00Charles H., It is clear that a large majority of c...Charles H., It is clear that a large majority of climate scientists, and a large majority of scientists as a whole have agree with Mann Hockey Stick conclusions and disagree with McIntyre's over all assessments. I am not a climate scientist, nor are you and Steve McIntyre for that matter. So I will post a debate between Andrew Dressler and Richard Lindzen, two climate scientists who have taken opposite sides in the debate, between the so called alarmist, and the so called deniers, <br />http://rabett.blogspot.com/2010/10/andy-dessler-smokes-richard-lindzen.html<br /><br />So far you have railed to address the most significant point of my argument. That is repeated investigations of McIntyre's charges against Mann, have not sided with McIntyre, and they have not found that Mann committed a crime, and that Mann is being subjected to a unique criminal investigation by the Attorney General of Virginia, even though there are no allegations of the exact nature of the crime, which Mann is being investigated for. Tell me, is this the standard of Justice which you conservatives believe that government should apply to its citizens, or do you only apply such standards to climate scientists whose conclusions you have chosen to disagree with?Charles Bartonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01125297013064527425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-72905287371732633132010-11-26T18:56:58.398-06:002010-11-26T18:56:58.398-06:00charlesB,
If you think Mc is wrong in his critici...charlesB,<br /><br />If you think Mc is wrong in his criticisms of Mann's scientific methods then tell us all where he is wrong.<br /><br />Of course Mc can make mistakes. He has in the past admitted them and moved on (like all good scientists). However, on the issue of Mann's science he has not made material mistakes and his conclusions hold. <br /><br />1) Mann's tree proxies don't track temps well and he tried to cover up this fact ("hide the decline").<br /><br />2) Mann's statistics find "hockey sticks" in red/random noise.<br /><br />3) Mann has with held his data and methods to avoid replication (or not) by others.<br /><br />4) Mann has tried to bias the peer review process and IPCC to reject paper that don't agree with his positions.<br /><br />***************<br /><br />Climate scientists receive $2B/yr and Mann in particular has received $Ms to support the IPCC position that AGW is really CAGW. On the other hand, Mc (retired, like you and I) has received nothing (maybe a few donations from readers to run his blog). Mann actually represents the power structure (church in you Galileo example) and Mc represents Galileo.<br /><br />Mc fighting the well funded Mann is very much like charlesB fighting the well funded Romm. Truely! I admire charlesB and Mc for not backing down. You have much more in common with Mc than you have with Mann.<br /><br /><br />Have you actually read the posts on CA that discuss "hide the decline"? What do you disagree with?<br /><br />Have you read Dr. Curry's blog yet?<br /><br />A good place to start.<br /><br />http://judithcurry.com/2010/10/25/heresy-and-the-creation-of-monsters/#more-816<br /><br />charlesHAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-81989205965227417162010-11-26T04:59:17.412-06:002010-11-26T04:59:17.412-06:00CharlesH, you have completely misread this post. ...CharlesH, you have completely misread this post. First it is a critique of the notion that any error in science is a sign of bad science. The underlying assumption here is that all science is prone to mistakes, and even good scientists can and do make major mistakes. The comments about Mr. McIntyre, simply pointed to indicators that he had made mistakes. The notion that McIntyre is fallible seems to contradict the assumption by the Climate Audit crowd. You seem to take it as an attack on McIntyre's character. I pointed to McIntyre's Wikipedia biography, which makes no mention of criticism of his work, even though quite obviously such criticism exists as evidence, as evidence that his followers are not open to the possibility that McIntyre is wrong.Charles Bartonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01125297013064527425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-33803971475577527372010-11-25T13:15:12.984-06:002010-11-25T13:15:12.984-06:00And Einstein's biggest blunder wasn't!!!
...And Einstein's biggest blunder wasn't!!!<br /><br />http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/dark-energy-cosmological-constant-101124.htmlsethnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-78631310258004280832010-11-25T10:49:30.151-06:002010-11-25T10:49:30.151-06:00charlesB,
This blog post is a "shoot the mes...charlesB,<br /><br />This blog post is a "shoot the messenger" post is it not? Rather than address McIntyre's specific scientific criticisms of Mann's work you choose to go after McIntyre's character. Who is Galileo again?<br /><br />I would like to suggest that Dr. Judith Curry fits the role of Galileo much better than Mann. Dr. Curry has recently dared to question the dogma of cAGW as preached by the IPCC. I recommend you read all of her posts if you want an insider climate scientist view of the world.<br /><br />Heresy and the creation of monsters<br />http://judithcurry.com/2010/10/25/heresy-and-the-creation-of-monsters/#more-816<br /><br />Dr Curry is far more deserving of your support than Mann et al.<br /><br />charlesHAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com