Saturday, September 3, 2011

Andrei Where to from here for science?

Dr Roy Spenser as he appears on the BBC website in a story concerning the resignation of a Scientific Journal Editor. An Editor who is resigning for an "error of judgement" in publishing a paper by Dr Roy Spenser.

What is wrong with Dr Spenser's paper? It calls into question the IPCC's calculations of the earths "energy budget". If Dr Spenser is correct the IPCC is wildly wrong.

It is an axiom of course that the IPCC is correct and there are many vested interests which depend upon the IPCC being correct. Which is why Dr Spenser needs to be shut down.

And why his papers should not be published.

It amuses me that in captioning his photograph the BBC feels the need to highlight Dr Spenser's religious affiliation - to their target audience this presumably suggests he is a wacko.

This also amuses me
The paper became a cause celebre in "sceptical" circles through its claim that mainstream climate models inflated temperature projections through misunderstanding the role of clouds in the climate system and the rate at which the Earth radiated heat into space.

This meant, it said, that projections of temperature rise made in Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports were too high.


Dr Spencer is a committed Christian as well as a professional scientist
The paper, published in July, was swiftly attacked by scientists in the mainstream of climate research.
We get "sceptical" circles for those who agree the paper has something to add to the debate and the mainstream of climate research for those who don't.

Do you think that there is anybody on the BBC payroll who has the mathematical savvy to actually understand this paper and make an informed judgement for themselves?

In truth this is seriously hard stuff put forward by a credentialed scientist which is worthy of attention. If it is wrong, if there are mistakes in the analysis of the data so be it.

Journals publish papers that are in error all the time and people pick up the mistakes and correct them. And that is the way it is supposed to work.

But not in Climate science - this so called scientific discipline is disgraceful. If an article no matter how poor goes along with the party line it is celebrated while any paper that questions the party line and thereby threatens the gravy train is dismissed, the authors smeared and heads roll.

This is not the first instance of this Stalinist behavior by the Climate Science community.

8 comment(s):

KG said...

I read somewhere about the mind-boggling amounts of taxpayer's money the pro-warming scientists are rolling in. Is it any wonder the field is ripe with corruption and that they'll hang on to the AGW scam to the bitter end?
(put a link up to this post over at my place Andrei)

ZenTiger said...

The last 5 minutes of my last post has another example of such attempted hatchet jobs.

He's been branded a Christian (unscientific types apparently) and next he'll be a right wing extremist of some sort.

Right-wing climate change denying Heartland Institute lobbyist James Taylor sings the praises of right-wing climate change denying scientist Dr. Spencer, also tightly associated with Heartland Institute, in a right-wing climate change denying magazine! (At Wotts Up With That

It can't be too long before he's fascist, anti-gay and racist.

It's not enough to debate the science amongst scientists now, in the spirit of competing ideas - the people involved have to be painted enemies of the consensus. All hail the consensus!

ZenTiger said...

Sorry, the above link was broken: Playing the Right Wing Conspiracy Card

And run the you-tube clip on my post a couple down from 39:00.

Reggie said...

Thankfully the works of Faraday & Clerk-Maxwell were never treated the same way !

David Winter said...

The Beep is being coy about calling Spencer (note the 'c') a creationist.

The editor didn't resign because the paper was bad (that happens) but because the review was botched (which also happens, I really don't think he needed to resign). I'm sure the published corrections will arrive in time (one problem of peer review is the lag between bad papers (spun out of all control) and their correction).

Sally said...

One only has to look at NZ where Chris de Freitas has been condemned for Not Teaching IPCC Reports. Disgraceful tactics by the establishment.

http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/07/25/prof-condemned-for-not-teaching-ipcc-reports/

"I hear that New Zealand is a stunningly beautiful country, full of fascinating people. But since I began researching the global warming debate I admit my view of it has become more nuanced."

Well worth reading the whole article that also refers to the declaration that climate change must be controlled by “timely central government means”

Andrei said...

My goodness Sally did you read the Herald Article about Chris de Freitas that inspired the post you linked to?

The climate dissenter holds his ground

It's a shocker, a real hit piece

Andrei said...

David disputes in science are not uncommon.

The only thing that makes this one of great public interest is that one side is trying to use science to accrue political power and wealth for themselves at the expense of everybody else.

And in so doing have perverted science and its processes to advance their agenda

Post a Comment

Please be respectful. Foul language and personal attacks may get your comment deleted without warning. Contact us if your comment doesn't appear - the spam filter may have grabbed it.