Lewandowsky has stated that an online survey by an opponent was “useless” “without the authors demonstrating the integrity of their data” and that their study “should not have been published without the authors demonstrating the integrity of their data—I doubt that they could”. Words that apply even more forcibly to his own study. I guess […]
The key issue for Lewandowsky et al 2012 is its use of fake data, a problem squarely addressed by Tom Curtis of Skeptical Science and discussed at CA here. I raised this issue in a comment at Lewandowsky’s blog here as follows: Rather than answer the question, Lewandowsky, the author of a paper entitled “NASA […]
In Lewandowsky’s original editorial about climate “skeptics”, as discussed yesterday, Lewandowsky characterized climate skeptics as “obsessively yelping” and marked by the following belief: The further fact that the satellite data yield precisely the same result without any surface-based thermometers is of no relevance to climate “skeptics.” A few days ago, Lucia wondered about the identity […]
The recent article by Lewandowsky et al, “NASA faked the moon landing, Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science”, has attracted commentary at Jo Nova, Bishop Hill, WUWT, Lucia’s and Skeptical Science, as well as by Lewandowsky himself. The data was placed online at Bishop Hill here. Tom […]
I’m speaking in London on August 16: When: Thursday, 16 August 2012, 3pm Where: Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining, 1 Carlton House Terrace, London SW1Y 5DB The talk is public. It is hosted by the Global Warming Policy Foundation. I’m going to be talking about events over the past year, but will mostly be […]
The main target of Phil Jones’ notorious email deletion campaign was Eugene Wahl’s surreptitious correspondence with Briffa in summer 2006, in which Wahl changed the IPCC assessment of the Mann controversy from that which had been sent out for external review. Wahl’s changes were contained in attachments to his emails to Briffa. The emails mostly […]
On Feb 26, 2010, as part of their first response to Climategate, Thomas Stocker, a Climategate correspondent of Phil Jones and by then Co-Chair of AR5 WG1, sent a still secret letter to all AR4 Lead Authors, Coordinating Lead Authors and Review Editors under the letterhead of WG1, purporting, it seems, to represent the parent […]
According to information from the University of Melbourne, Gergis et al was not re-submitted by the end of July, but has been delayed until the end of September. The university stated: Please see latest information below Print publication of scientific study on hold An issue has been identified in the processing of the data used […]
Pielke Jr asserts, using unvarnished words, that WG2 Co-Chair Christopher Field, an ecology professor at Stanford, “misled” Congress. Pielke stated: This is not a particularly nuanced or complex issue. What Field says the IPCC says is blantantly wrong, often 180 degrees wrong. It is one thing to disagree about scientific questions, but it is altogether […]
People have quite reasonably asked about my connection with the surface stations article, given my puzzlement at Anthony’s announcement last week. Anthony described my last-minute involvement here. As readers are probably aware, I haven’t taken much issue with temperature data other than pressing the field to be more transparent. The satellite data seems quite convincing […]
Climate Audit 