Of course, like models, all analogies are wrong but some are useful! I think this hits the nail on the head in terms of CRU's perspective but I grant you it does not describe well any of the probable things that might be in the heads of the Climate Audit crowd. Undoubtably, some are sincere crusaders.
I really do prefer to take people at face value, but some impressive bit of researching over at Deep Climate kinda makes it hard to believe in the whole "gee, we're just asking" schtick Steve McIntyre puts out to the general public.
Check out the very substantial Part 1: In the beginning and the perhaps more damning Part 2: the Barton investigation and the Wegman panel.
And don't anyone forget: we have seen it all before!
- Log in to post comments
More like this
My general feeling about Judith Curry's stuff over at Collide-a-scape was that it was all tolerably vague. But there was one specfic.
Over there, she copied Bishop Hill and proposed "Jones 1998 and Osborn and Briffa 2006" as key neglected papers.
More directly she has proposed:
1. The Spatial…
Dan Vergano in USA Today reports:
Officials at George Mason University confirmed Thursday that they are investigating plagiarism and misconduct charges made against a noted climate science critic.
"I'm very well aware of the report, but I have been asked by the university not to comment until all…
In The Hopeless Monster? Not so fast! Bora says:
In a back-and-forth with a commenter, Coyne defends himself that he is talking about the changes in genes, not evolution. This just shows his bias - he truly believes that evolution - all of it - can be explained entirely by genetics, particularly…
Over the past few days we have had another outbreak of stories of how global warming has been totally disproved. For example, James Delingpole: the global warming industry is based on one MASSIVE lie
When finally McIntyre plotted in a much larger and more representative range of samples than used…
Since when is reading a blog and using google "impressive research"? All I saw was common knowledge, scare quotes, ad hominems, and guilt by association (the coordinator of the government investigation was a REPUBLICAN! Ooooooh, scary!)
I also liked the bit in part 2 where the author was dismissive of how M&M questioned subreports and wanted Mann's code since we now know some references were shoddy and the code is broken.
How do you know that? And can you be more specific?
Skeptics rarely provide specifics or cite references, but there's always plenty of innuendo, hand waving and "known facts." :P