Comments on: Report from the Climategate Guardian debate

By: The Climate Wars … ending? | Skeptical Swedish Scientists

The Climate Wars … ending? | Skeptical Swedish Scientists — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 20:07:30 +0000

[...] public debates are finally being allowed between “warmists” and “skeptics”. Even Steve [...]

By: The Climategate debate | Hoystory

The Climategate debate | Hoystory — Sun, 25 Jul 2010 15:38:11 +0000

[...] proprietor of ClimateAudit.org and debunker of the infamous hockey stick graph. You can find a brief summary of the debate [...]

By: Climategate, what is going on?

Climategate, what is going on? — Wed, 21 Jul 2010 15:40:26 +0000

[...] Report from the Climategate Guardian debate [...]

By: Richard Drake

Richard Drake — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 21:34:59 +0000

Re: pgosselin (Jul 18 03:50)

Schneider taking a swipe at Steve?

Andy Revkin at 1:06 p.m today in the New York Times

Stephen H. Schneider, a Stanford University climate scientist who for decades built the case that global warming, while laden with complexity, justified an aggressive response, has died. ... In an e-mail message to a group of contacts, his wife, Terry Root, a biologist at Stanford, said it appeared that he died of a heart attack today as a flight he was on was landing in London.

We're thinking of his family.

By: kim

kim — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 10:46:53 +0000

For sure, a proper inquiry would look at more than the released emails. If one doubts that more emails would reveal more scandal, then one must have vast faith in the abilities of the Miracle Worker to find all that was there.
==============

By: Roger Knights

Roger Knights — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 02:57:38 +0000

“There is no basis whatsoever for assuming that there must be more.”

But there’d be no harm in asking if there were, right?

By: Roger Knights

Roger Knights — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 02:39:10 +0000

And too few hyphens.

By: Britannic no-see-um

Britannic no-see-um — Sun, 18 Jul 2010 22:15:28 +0000

If he thinks they’ve only studied one climate change, he clearly has not paid his $49 for a copy of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists Memoir Studies in Geology no 47 -Geological Perspectives of Global Climate Change Eds Lee Gerhard et al 2001 372pp.

By: Tom Gray

Tom Gray — Sun, 18 Jul 2010 18:39:56 +0000

Taking Schneider’s metaphor at its face, one could well ask In the case of climate science, just what is being announced. The IPCC consensus is that a doubling of CO2 will result in a temperature rise that could eithr be benign or catastrophic. So people could support the consensus and advocate drastic action or no action. So using Schneider’s metaphor, one doctor could say that the new cancer drug was a breakthrough and another could say that it offered nothing new. What would people say about an announcement like that? Would they say that it was a crock? Or would they say it was worse than a crock, that it was useless.

By: stan

stan — Sun, 18 Jul 2010 17:54:20 +0000

A really bizarre choice for comparison. He likens climate science, where no one ever checks anyone else’s work, to the medical development of a new drug, where the work is checked and re-checked and double checked at every step of a long difficult process with multiple stages. Steve Mc’s very purpose has been to encourage the scientists to be more rigorous in checking the work.

If climate science was as rigorous as the development of a new drug, few of us would ever have heard of Steve. Some journalist needs to spell out the drug approval process, interview Steve about how climate science comes so woefully short of that rigor, and then ask Schneider to explain why he thinks his work is worthy of being considered equally rigorous. Might be fun. After all, he opened the door on this line of questioning.