Quote:
Originally Posted by GreyWolf
Dippin:
As always, people (and scientists are people), see what they want to see. So are, and do, you. And that is not a problem with the scientific method, but with the peer review mechanism.
I have never denied global warming. Most evidence suggests it is happening. I have yet to see any conclusive evidence of AGW, because the data is inconclusive and extremely difficult to come by because of the extremely short time-span over which we have reliable data in geologic terms. As for East Anglia, I read the leaked documents myself. I stand by my own conclusions as a well-trained and reasonable person. Five inquiries coming to the wrong conclusion does not make them right, only five.
As for the issues about getting published, for heaven's sake READ the CRU e-mails and their comments on black-balling journals that would consider publishing dissenting views/studies. These were serious comments by senior researchers!! Or just ask Tom Tripp (one of the original lead authors on the IPCC, albeit a metallurgist, believe it or not) how easy it was to get his opinions/concerns published. His letters of dissent were regularly rejected by journals and magazines. Letters of opinion or criticism of the process! Or Richard Tol and the 1000+ scientist who have dissented to the IPCC AGW conclusion. Their extensive critique of the IPCC report has been widely ignored by the media because it flies in the face of the non-existent consensus on AGW.
|
I have read the emails. In context. And so have the 5 inquiries above.
The idea that the media somehow tried to cover up the whole "climategate" thing is absurd. A good chunk of the media does nothing but exaggerate anything that questions it even remotely. There is a reason "climategate" was so extensively covered, but almost no one knows of the results of the inquiries.
The specific exchanges about "black balling" journals refers to a case where a publication decided to publish previously rejected papers that were highly critical of Michael Mann's research without informing him or allowing him to respond, as it generally is the case when the paper to be published is specifically critical of past published work. The fact that Mann wasn't allowed to respond is more serious than his talks with others about the quality of the specific journal and its editorial practices.
Similarly, it is telling that the people that you mention are a metallurgist (who only participated in the IPCC in the section that estimated how much green house gas is produced in magnesium production, and as such is as qualified as any other non climatologist to comment on the issue), and economist (Tol, who by the way thinks AGW is real, only overstated in its economic impacts, in research where he openly assumed away part of the costs - AND he was invited for the next report, but complains that expenses aren't paid, using that as his evidence of a conspiracy against him), and so on.