There are plenty of climate scientists in the world that I highly respect, many of whom I don’t share the same views with on climate change. However, these scientists are respectful towards others, they’re pretty honest with their data, and still have scientific integrity.
There are a select few scientists out there, however, whom I have lost all respect for － Dr. Michael Mann being one of them.
Re-Blogged From Shadow Stats
The CPI chart on the home page reflects our estimate of inflation for today as if it were calculated the same way it was in 1990. The CPI on the Alternate Data Series tab here reflects the CPI as if it were calculated using the methodologies in place in 1980. In general terms, methodological shifts in government reporting have depressed reported inflation, moving the concept of the CPI away from being a measure of the cost of living needed to maintain a constant standard of living.
Further definition is provided in our CPI Glossary. Further background on the SGS-Alternate CPI series is available in our Public Comment on Inflation Measurement.
By Larry Hamlin – Re-Blogged From WUWT
The Los Angeles Times is at it again hyping anti science climate alarmist propaganda trying to conceal the global wide Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age that are supported and justified by hundreds of scientific studies.
This climate alarmist propaganda Times article cites a new “study” that ridiculously attempts to deny these clearly established warm and cool periods in our past.
This alarmist hyped new “study” is addressed in a superb article at the JoNova website demonstrating the complete lack of scientific veracity of this studies claims.
By David Middleton – Re-Blogged From WUWT
Geoscientists in the oil & gas industry spend much of our time integrating data sets of vastly different resolutions. Geological data, primarily well logs, are very high resolution (6 inches to 2 feet vertical resolution). Geophysical data, primarily reflection seismic surveys, are of much lower and highly variable resolution, dependent on the seismic velocities of the rocks and the frequency content of the seismic data. The rule of thumb is that a stratigraphic unit must be at least as thick as one-quarter of the seismic wavelength (λ/4) to be resolved.
By Gregory Sloop – Re-Blogged From WUWT
Notwithstanding portrayals in the movies as eccentrics who frantically warn humanity about genetically modified dinosaurs, aliens, and planet-killing asteroids, the popular image of a scientist is probably closer to the humble, bookish Professor, who used his intellect to save the castaways on practically every episode of Gilligan’s Island. The stereotypical scientist is seen as driven by a magnificent call, not some common, base motive. Unquestionably, science progresses unerringly to the truth.
This picture was challenged by the influential twentieth-century philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn, who held that scientific ”truth” is determined not as much by facts as by the consensus of the scientific community. The influence of thought leaders, rewarding of grants, and scorn of dissenters are used to protect mainstream theory. Unfortunately, science only makes genuine progress when the mainstream theory is disproved, what Kuhn called a “paradigm shift.” Data which conflict with the mainstream paradigm are ignored instead of used to develop a better one. Like most people, scientists are ultimately motivated by financial security, career advancement, and the desire for admiration. Thus, nonscientific considerations impact scientific “truth.”
By Dorothy Bishop – Re-Blogged From Nature
More than four decades into my scientific career, I find myself an outlier among academics of similar age and seniority: I strongly identify with the movement to make the practice of science more robust. It’s not that my contemporaries are unconcerned about doing science well; it’s just that many of them don’t seem to recognize that there are serious problems with current practices. By contrast, I think that, in two decades, we will look back on the past 60 years — particularly in biomedical science — and marvel at how much time and money has been wasted on flawed research.
How can that be? We know how to formulate and test hypotheses in controlled experiments. We can account for unwanted variation with statistical techniques. We appreciate the need to replicate observations.
By Josh – Re-Blogged From WUWT
Josh comes through with another cartoon. In case you missed it, over the weekend, Willis Eschenbach published “Planet-Sized Experiments – we’ve already done the 2°C test”
One of the truths in that article was directed at this past weekend’s “climate strikes”, inspired by 16 year old Greta Thunberg. Willis makes a lot of sense with this introduction to data:
People often say that we’re heading into the unknown with regards to CO2 and the planet. They say we can’t know, for example, what a 2°C warming will do because we can’t do the experiment. This is seen as important because for unknown reasons, people have battened on to “2°C” as being the scary temperature rise that we’re told we have to avoid at all costs.
But actually, as it turns out, we have already done the experiment.
Below I show the Berkeley Earth average surface temperature record for Europe. Europe is a good location to analyze, because some of the longest continuous temperature records are from Europe. In addition, there are a lot of stations in Europe that have been taking record for a long time. This gives us lots of good data.
Continue reading
