4 ms·
> Well for one thing Lindzen has no testable theory, no data, and no papers explaining the current temperature trend. Despite this he still manages to get his
by nsfmc 16y ago
> Well for one thing Lindzen has no testable theory, no data, and no papers explaining the current temperature trend. Despite this he still manages to get his opinions published...
No, but in order to be a scientist, you have to do... science, not opinion.
- hga 16y agoYou can and many do "do science" without offering alternatives, all you have to do is to point out how those you are criticizing are wrong, e.g. in interpretations of data, use of statistics, etc. Are those Canadian statisticians not doing science when they point out that you can use Mann's methods to get a hockey stick out of random noise?
- nsfmc 16y agoyes, we agree. science and rigor, not opinion and conjecture.
- vannevar 16y agoNo statistician, Canadian or otherwise, has shown that Mann's methods could generate a 'hockey stick' curve from random data.
- hga 16y agoRed noise, to be precise: http://www.google.com/search?q=hockey+stick+red+noise http://www.google.com/search?q=hockey+stick+red+noise
- vannevar 16y agoNo. A claim was made by two individuals, one a mining executive, the other an economist, in a trade publication called Energy and Environment with no peer review. Both of the authors are well-known industry skeptics. The claim was subsequently refuted by Mann, and ultimately discredited in a peer-reviewed article for the Journal of Climate (http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI3351.1 http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI3351.1), in which an alternate method confirmed the original result. The skeptics were Canadian, though, so at least you got one thing right.
- hga 16y agoThis would be the same Journal of Climate that Mann was once an editor of (http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=201 http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=201)? The invocation of "peer review" doesn't mean anything (good) nowadays in this field, as previously discussed (see also what the CRU emails revealed about ... management of "acceptable" journals and editors), and a single peer reviewed paper by the CRU circle including Mann is less than convincing, let alone definitive. This email from McIntyre and McKitrick http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=458 http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=458 should raise some serious questions about it.
- cgranade 16y agoIf you're going to cry out censorship, then at least have the common decency not to rely on the tired old CRU/climategate scam. This has been rather thoroughly and soundly debunked over and over again. Denialist papers get rejected from peer reviewed journals because they aren't science, not because there's a conspiracy.
- vannevar 16y agoOnce you accept the idea that all climatologists are partaking in a global conspiracy, then yes, peer review means little to you. You're stuck referencing emails from people you trust, which in your case consists of a mining executive and an economist. I prefer to get my climatology from people who study the climate. For folks out there who aren't conspiracy buffs, there's a good article on this 'controversy' at http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11646-climate-myths-the-hockey-stick-graph-has-been-proven-wrong.html http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11646-climate-myths-th....