Archive for January 2012
In extreme cases, entire fields of inquiry can go down a rathole for years because almost everyone has preference-falsified almost everyone else into submission to a “scientific consensus” theory that is (a) widely but privately disbelieved, and (b) doesn’t predict or retrodict observed facts at all well. In the worst case, the field will become pathologized — scientific fraud will spread like dry rot among workers overinvested in the “consensus” view and scrambling to prop it up. Yes, anthropogenic global warming, I’m looking at you!
There an important difference between the AGW rathole and the others, though. Errors in the mass of the electron, or the human chromosome count, or structural analyses of obscure languages, don’t have political consequences (I chose Chomsky, who is definitely politically active, in part to sharpen this point). AGW theory most certainly does have political consequences; in fact, it becomes clearer by the day that the IPCC assessment reports were fraudulently designed to fit the desired political consequences rather than being based on anything so mundane and unhelpful as observed facts.
– “Armed and Dangerous”, as quoted by Judith Curry
I think this particular article goes over the top in essentially dismissing all of AGW as junk science, but I think his perception is correct in that once you start invoking scientific consensus and deniers, you lay yourselves open to the charge of junk science.
– Judith Curry
I strongly suspect that people wouldn’t be going after these scientists if they hadn’t made overconfident statements about their research in the IPCC and their research and data were transparent.
– Judith Curry
Scientists Made People Do It.
As someone who has (unfortunately) been strongly advised to seek the counsel of m’learned friends, I’d be fascinated to know what “overconfident statements” I’d made about my research in the IPCC and what of my “research and data” were not transparent.
– Gavin Schmidt
If someone has personally called you a fraud, did you ask the person why? The accusations of fraud that I have come across in the technical climate blogosphere are mostly from people working in the fields of engineering, regulatory science or medicine, who do not see what is going on in the IPCC assessments as measuring up to the standards in their own fields.
– Judith Curry
So they knew that 93% of interannual variation in CO2 could be explained by natural responses to temperature and soil moisture content, yet they continued with the charade?
I guess it really was fraud after all.
Scientists must account for general public ignorance; not prey on it as has been done with this AGW hypothesis based on the fraudulent misrepresentation of the effect from greenhouse gases.
Actually all of co2 both MM or natural accounts for less than 5% of GH impact. Which gets to the fraud relating to residence time fraud and “compounding” human inputs in the green AGW narrative.
– the technical climate blogosphere