Comments on: Jon Stewart versus Gavin Schmidt

By: Jaber Aberburg

Jaber Aberburg — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 16:55:38 +0000

Ok, lets see:

Scientific dishonesty is present when a researcher or research group by means of falsification, plagiarisation, non-disclosure or in some similarly gross fashion misleads people about scientific efforts or results of research, and includes:
Undeclared construction or fabrication of data or substitution with fictitious data.

*Not the case here.

Selective and surreptitious discarding of undesirable results.

*Not the case here.

Undeclared misleading use of statistical methods.

*There is controversy over the so-called hockey stick, but on balance, the climate scientists seem to have a stronger case than McIntyre et al. And at any rate, even if we assume for the sake of the argument that Mann’s methodology is wrong, it is clearly not a case of fraud.

Finally, and more importantly, AWG does not depened on that one old graph anyway, so it doesn’t really matter for the real issue here: man-made global warming. (see http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11676)

“The reconstruction produced by Dr. Mann and his colleagues was just one step in a long process of research, and it is not (as sometimes presented) a clinching argument for anthropogenic global warming, but rather one of many independent lines of research on global climate change.”)

Undeclared misinterpretation of results and distortion of conclusions.

*Not the case here.

Plagiarisation of others’ results or publications.

*Not the case here.

Grossly misrepresented rendering of others’ results.
Inappropriate credit as author or misrepresentation of place of work.

*Not the case here.

Applications containing deliberately incorrect information.

*Not the case here.

So, charltond, it would appear that you have no case….

By: Jaber Aberburg

Jaber Aberburg — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 16:24:15 +0000

sorry, wrong link (no idea how that happened!):

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7273/full/462545a.html

By: Jaber Aberburg

Jaber Aberburg — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 16:22:40 +0000

Most do NOT think that there was deception, that is people who understand what they’re talking about generally do not belive there was any deception. Read this for example:

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/12/20/mr_president_where_is_the_passion/

Those who have made up their mind a priori and don’t want to believe in the science for ideological reasons, will of course believe anything…

By: LMB

LMB — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 16:31:24 +0000

Is Stewart the only comedian who took a crack at Climategate’s fools?

On Thursday night, Letterman had on one of the false prophets to plug his new doomsday book.

“Storms of My Grandchildren: The Truth About the Coming Climate Catastrophe and Our Last Chance to Save Humanity” by James Hansen

Buy it now before the world ends…

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1608192008/latenightline-20

By: bender

bender — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 11:52:51 +0000

Dear Dr. Weaver,
It is your Natural Duty to respond to this invitation. Please engage.

By: Tom

Tom — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 05:01:44 +0000

Dec 5’2009 episode “Daily Show” taken down by Viacom via copy rite request. Not Referenced on show site either. Any comments?

By: bender

bender — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 00:57:29 +0000

Dear Gavin,

I heartily invite you to a virtual debate:
You + Judith Curry + Andrew Weaver vs. Richard Lindzen + William Schaeffer + Anastasios Tsonis

The way it will work is through a round-robin of one-on-one essay writing followed by interrogation by a mixed team of alarmists and lukewarmers and skeptics.

The exercise will start with Judith Curry versus Richard Lindzen. What do you think?

By: patrick healy

patrick healy — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 16:44:35 +0000

great post from Henry A.
was thinking along same lines myself.
it is important that some comprehensive record (taped or written) is kept.
the winning side do have a record of writing the history books – lets make sure we are on the winning (squash?) team.
as an irishman i am only too well aware of how history can be moulded.

By: bender

bender — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 16:24:40 +0000

Dear Gavin,
Several years ago I invited you to dump Michael Mann in order to save the RealClimate brand. Now that that brand is ruined I implore you to jump ship and start your own blog focusing on the models. Although the RealClimate brand is in tatters it’s not too late for you and Pierrehumbert to start anew. Keep the modeling credible. Divorce yourselves now from paleoclimatology. Do it for the planet.

By: bender

bender — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 16:19:22 +0000

Dear Gavin,
Do you agree with Oppenheimer’s remark in the CNN interview that “there was no deception”? Most everyone else seems to think there WAS some deception, using “tricks” to “hide the decline”. Most everyone else seems to think the email evidence is incriminating in this regard. I would welcome a discussion with you on the topic. TIA.