More "Settled Science" Fail
- Thread starter Gilligan
- Start date
AllanJPinkerton
New Member
This guy? Seriously?
This is how he works.
1. Spencer claims to show that standard climate models don’t reproduce some aspect of the data very well.
2. He then pulls out a very simple 1-box climate model that he claims does reproduce the data well. And invariably, this model incorporates a lower climate sensitivity than the standard models.
3. He writes it up, sends it in to a journal, and many times it is rejected. Why is it rejected? Well, Roy pretty much just ignores the statistical methods, and sometimes even makes up his own. For instance, some of the work he described in his book (which had been rejected from a reputable journal) was based on a made-up statistical method that could have given him any climate sensitivity he wanted, given that he was willing to allow his model parameters to stray into wildly unphysical territory.
4. If the paper gets rejected, Roy writes in a book or on his blog about the work, and claims he has once again been the victim of the “IPCC Gatekeepers,” who are in cahoots to keep any dissenting views out of the literature. If the paper was not rejected, Spencer hits the media with claims that he has all but proven the consensus wrong, even if such strong claims were not made in the paper.
5. The other scientists sigh… or maybe utter a few choice expletives… and go to work taking apart the work. They point out the flaws in Roy’s statistics, among other things.
6. If Roy acknowledges the criticism at all, he usually dismisses the main points, relying on the statistical naïveté of his core audience. For instance, amid pressure to respond to criticisms of his book, he initially said that he didn’t have time to respond to it, and later said there were so many errors in the analysis that he didn’t know where to start. As noted above, Spencer has a tendency to add charges of bias and even subterfuge to his dismissals.
7. The media may report on all this, but the coverage is mixed, because your average journalist doesn't know enough about the subject to tell who is right.
This is how he works.
1. Spencer claims to show that standard climate models don’t reproduce some aspect of the data very well.
2. He then pulls out a very simple 1-box climate model that he claims does reproduce the data well. And invariably, this model incorporates a lower climate sensitivity than the standard models.
3. He writes it up, sends it in to a journal, and many times it is rejected. Why is it rejected? Well, Roy pretty much just ignores the statistical methods, and sometimes even makes up his own. For instance, some of the work he described in his book (which had been rejected from a reputable journal) was based on a made-up statistical method that could have given him any climate sensitivity he wanted, given that he was willing to allow his model parameters to stray into wildly unphysical territory.
4. If the paper gets rejected, Roy writes in a book or on his blog about the work, and claims he has once again been the victim of the “IPCC Gatekeepers,” who are in cahoots to keep any dissenting views out of the literature. If the paper was not rejected, Spencer hits the media with claims that he has all but proven the consensus wrong, even if such strong claims were not made in the paper.
5. The other scientists sigh… or maybe utter a few choice expletives… and go to work taking apart the work. They point out the flaws in Roy’s statistics, among other things.
6. If Roy acknowledges the criticism at all, he usually dismisses the main points, relying on the statistical naïveté of his core audience. For instance, amid pressure to respond to criticisms of his book, he initially said that he didn’t have time to respond to it, and later said there were so many errors in the analysis that he didn’t know where to start. As noted above, Spencer has a tendency to add charges of bias and even subterfuge to his dismissals.
7. The media may report on all this, but the coverage is mixed, because your average journalist doesn't know enough about the subject to tell who is right.
Last edited:
This is almost amusing....
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/science/earth/what-to-make-of-a-climate-change-plateau.html?_r=1&
The science is apparently only "settled" if temperatures are observed to be rising. Otherwise....like in recent times, when it has not risen...those same scientists are "stumped".
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/science/earth/what-to-make-of-a-climate-change-plateau.html?_r=1&
The science is apparently only "settled" if temperatures are observed to be rising. Otherwise....like in recent times, when it has not risen...those same scientists are "stumped".
Yet another informed opinion...
Climate Scientist Von Storch: 'Some Scientists Behave Like Preachers'
Climate Scientist Von Storch: 'Some Scientists Behave Like Preachers'
Larry Gude
Strung Out
I've been saying it, global man made climate warm changing, is a religion.