…broken again. I’ve been too busy with the book to delve into the Marcott mess, but it seems to have imploded almost immediately upon publication, and Science (and “science”) haven’t exactly covered themselves in glory:
Let me be perfectly clear — I am accusing no one of scientific misconduct. The errors documented here could have been the product of group dynamics, institutional dysfunction, miscommunication, sloppiness or laziness (do note that misconduct can result absent explicit intent). However, what matters most now is how the relevant parties respond to the identification of a clear misrepresentation of a scientific paper by those who should not make such errors.
That response will say a lot about how this small but visible part of the climate community views the importance of scientific integrity.
Given the history, I’m not hopeful.
[Update a few minutes later]
More thoughts from Jonathan Adler:
No, this does not show that climate change is a scientific fraud. What it does show, however, is that some are willing to “sex up” climate science findings to feed sensational media coverage, and end up undermining confidence in climate science. Given that there is still much we do not know about climate change — including why mean global temperature has been flat for the past ten years — undermining confidence in climate science can (further) undermine its ability to inform policy. Climate science has taken some significant hits in the past few years. It doesn’t need any more.
At this point, it should be abundantly clear how foolish it would be to make major public-policy decisions on such “science.”
No, this does not show that climate change is a scientific fraud.
The Earth’s climate has been changing throughout geologic time. So, climate change is far from scientific fraud. However, it looks like a great deal of what passes for climate science may well be based on scientific fraud.
It does illustrate the absolute sloppiness of Science, who saw the return of one of the most heavily-debunked graphs in all of science yet didn’t pause to look at the underlying data, none of which showed such a curve, because it was a graph they wanted to be true for personal and politically biased reasons.
They’d do just as well showing graphs showing an inverse relation of global temperature and the number of pirates.
Oh but now we have this:
Melt may explain Antarctica’s sea ice expansion
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21991487
Yes sports fans! Global warming is causing and INCREASE in antarctic ice!!!
Is there nothing Global warming cannot do?
Apparently northern hemisphere thermodynamics must be different than southern hemisphere thermodynamics because the meltwater affect only happens in the south. Perhaps their simulations use a flat earth model?
I saw that this morning, and I’m still trying to figure out whether it’s an April Fool joke.
If we dig deeply enough we may find that the first-ever appearances of the “catastrophic” and “anthropogenic” parts of CAGW came on a day immediately following the 31st of March, IYKWIMAITYD.
“Is there nothing Global warming cannot do?”
Stop statists from trying to rob me.
So how is that defamation lawsuit coming along?