Resignation over flawed paper "debunking" man-made global warming

Of course not. But whatever the do print did pass whatever their (peer review) standards were at the time. Let it stand.

 

Why should they consider the "scientific" arguments of others?

It shouldn't matter in the least if 97% of scientists polled say the earth revolves around the sun. If a scientist wants to present his "scientific" observations that the earth orbits the sun, who's right?

I don't see any need whatsoever to address crystal spheres, beautiful geometry, someone else's computer model, etc.

 

The Wegman issue is interesting in it's own right. There is a deliberate and targeted effort to attack all his work and have it all retracted. By the same group of scientists.

How can you not question their motives and see the bias and attempts to squash reports that make the consensus view questionable at best?

I'd be truly amazed if a lot of peer reviewed work didn't have some incidental flaw, like a copy/paste from WikiPedia. So why focus on just Wegman?

 

Well, it should probably have something new to say. That the earth revolves around the sun is pretty well established, it would be hard to get published just repeating what everyone already knows

barfo

 

How would that work? Something along the lines of:

"I am receiving political pressure from interests vested in the continued treatment of global warming as a man-made problem. As a result, I fear my career in this field may be in jeopardy. To avoid this, I am resigning from my post."

?

Ed O.

 

Why would he do that, though? Why further piss off people who are potentially spoiling your career? If he doesn't MIND pissing them off and/or risking his career, then he'd just stay.

I'm not saying that this is evidence that he was forced out, but that his lack of recognition of that doesn't preclude it.

Ed O.

 

Why are all the links in what you posted link to their front page?

It would be believable that those were bad "signs" if they at least linked to a direct page instead of circle linking (not to be confused with circle jerking, although it pretty much is the same thing).

Especially the one that says the world isn't warming, considering we just had one of the hottest summers on record.

 

The links contain javascript to open windows or whatever.

 

didn't open anything for me.

 

didn't for me.

I'll counter with this though.


http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/03/the-global-cooling-mole/

http://www.exxposeexxon.com/facts/gwdeniers.html


WHY the confusion on global warming? For more than a decade, the best
science has been telling us that the Earth is warming at an alarming
rate with even more alarming consequences. Extreme droughts and floods
and longer-lasting and more frequent tropical storms are on the horizon.
The consensus among scientists has been that the prime cause of warming
is the emissions of heat-trapping gases caused by the burning of fossil
fuels. So why has global warming been largely covered in the U.S. as a
debate? For years, a network of organizations have worked together to
block action on global warming. In the words of the U.K.'s Royal
Society, one of the most prestigious scientific academies in the world,
these groups "misrepresent the science of climate change by outright
denial of the evidence." This network has been consistently funded by
ExxonMobil. Since at least 1998, ExxonMobil has spent $17 to $23 million
to bankroll these groups. Today, ExxonMobil is the only known oil giant
directly bankrolling global warming denier groups. The funding is part
of its continued involvement in an orchestrated plan to manufacture
uncertainty around climate science. The plan, made public by The New
York Times in 1998 (see clip at right), and retold recently by the Union
of Concerned Scientists, employed the same strategy and some of the same
personnel as the tobacco industry. The memo laid out a plan to
"identify, recruit and train" a small team of unknown scientists and
declared that: "Victory will be achieved when uncertainties in climate
science become part of the conventional wisdom" for "average citizens"
and "the media."

======================

American Enterprise Institute

$1,860,000

Offered $10k to scientists to write a paper on the UN IPCC "...that
thoughtfully explores the limitations of climate model [forecasting]
outputs as they pertain to the development of climate policy..." Project
was apparently canceled. (Letter, 2/5/07) "If you look closely at the
IPCC's full reports, they are hedged repeatedly in uncertainties and
limitations about what we know." Hayward, (FrontPage, AEI, 5/21/07)

American Legislative Exchange Council

$1,126,200

"The science of climate change is unsettled" and the "question is how
much, if any, of this warming is caused by human activities."(ALEC
Analysis, Fall 2006)

Cato Institute

$125,000

" Using normal scientific standards, there is no proof we are causing
the Earth to warm, let alone that such warming will cause an
environmental catastrophe." (publication, 7/11/07)

Citizens for a Sound Economy Educational Foundation [2004 in FreedomWorks]

$380,250

"Don't allow our corporations to be used as pawns for a radical agenda
which is not based on science...Human impact on global warming is likely
negligible at best!" (Stop the Extremists on Global Warming: An open
letter to ExxonMobil Shareholders, 5/26/03)

Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT)

$567,000

"Despite the endless deluge of global warming claims there is also a
mountain of climate data to dispute them." (website, 2/20/07)

Fraser Institute

$120,000 All for climate projects

"Climate change activists are exaggerating the certainty in the linkage
between human action and climate change and advocating policies that
offer no environmental gain, but a lot of economic pain." (Press
Release, 7/21/03)

Free Enterprise Action Institute/ CSR Watch

$130,000

"...the junk science behind global warming hysteria,... subscribing to
the unproven notion that humans are altering global climate for the
worse..." (Top 10 Worst in 2004, 12/7/05)

Frontiers of Freedom Institute

$1,182,000

" there is a wide spectrum of opinion on almost every aspect of the
subject..."(Rebuttal to Al Gore's Congressional testimony, May 2007)
"Climate has always varied, often with large swings...These dramatic
climatic ebbs and flows are naturally occurring events." (Science Hill
Watch, 2/2/04)

George C. Marshall Institute

$745,000

"We have at least 25 years to research this issue before CO2 emission
cuts need to be considered." (A guide to global warming, accessed 10/07)

Heartland Institute

$830,000
"The supposed scientific consensus on global warming is pure fiction."
(Joseph Bast, president, 6/28/07 Press release) "... warming is likely
to be very modest relative to natural variation," (2007 Guidebook for
State Legislators)

Heritage Foundation

$565,000

" Virtually all of the alarming rhetoric surrounding global warming is
speculative and lies outside the scientific consensus.... given that
global warming is not unprecedented, is not catastrophic, we really need
to think seriously about the costs of some of these efforts to deal with
global warming...." (Cold Facts on Global Warming, accessed 8/07)

Media Research Center

$202,500

Dedicated to revealing liberal bias media."ABC, CBS, and NBC are giving
overwhelmingly one-sided coverage to the global warming issue with
numerous reports that largely mimic the talking points of former Vice
President Al Gore and climate disaster alarmists..." (Press Release,
4/19/07)

National Center for Policy Analysis

$545,900

"Due to the complexities of the climate system, we currently cannot
reliably connect emissions of greenhouse gases from any specific source
or group of sources to an increased risk of any particular
outcome..."(NCPA publication, 5/15/06)

National Center for Public Policy Research/ EnviroTruth

$335,000

"the science implicating human activity on global warming is uncertain
and speculative"(testimony of Sr. Fellow Thomas J. Borelli, 6/29/07)
"There is no serious evidence that man-made global warming is taking
place." (NCPPR website, 4/04)

Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy

$430,000

This example misinforms readers by confusing weather with climate:
"Warming theorists warn that there is more to come, but as farmers know,
the weather does not always cooperate with predictions." (Capital Ideas,
8/15/07)

The Advancement of Sound Science Center and Junkscience.com

$50,000

"Global warming alarmists, such as the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC),..." Milloy replays hackneyed arguments that
attempt to disprove the IPCC conclusions of the state of science.

(lifted from a friend)

 

Didn't work for me either, not that I mind terribly.

barfo

 

The links will only work on the origin site because their JavaScript isn't loaded on our pages (just their pages).

 

I don't think that's the problem. If I go to their site their links still don't work.

barfo

 

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/09/hurricanes-and-global-warming/

(ooooops! Hurricanes are weather. And this claim of global warming leading to more hurricanes is rubbish)

 

Not necessarily more, but stronger ones.

But there are more hurricanes occurring.