orogenicman
Darwin was a pastafarian
- Jul 24, 2013
- 8,546
- 834
- 175
Do you really want a list of all the things McIntyre has accomplished at Climate Audit?
No sir I do not. It would be like me asking you to provide a list of accomplishments by Leonard Nimoy on his old television show about ancient astronauts.
Even more important is the fact that he has made the internal workings of climate science accessible to the ordinary layman. There is no deferring to authority over there. And a lot less censorship of dissenting opinions as well.
And no science. Congratulations.
No science? Since when has correcting other's mistakes not been science?
Steig got his flawed Antarctica paper printed in Nature, on the cover no less. Statisticians at Climate Audit showed him where it was wrong. The Team laughed and said, so what are you going to write you're own paper?
So they did. Peer reviewers would not accept it as a direct rebuttal of Steig, it had to be just an improved version. Back and forth the paper was bounced with reviwer B making ever more shrill, nitpicking, or bizarre changes. After a year of being savaged in peer review (unlike pal review) the paper wad finally published, albeit with many of its fangs pulled by reviwer B.
Steig was allowed to reply, as is only fair. He made a big fuss over one of the changes implimented on reviwer B's insistence. But on the whole the paper was successful in showing that Steig' paper had incorrectly smeared warmth from the peninsula over into the rest of the continent by flawed methodology. CAHad won a small victory, the Team had shown its muscles in making it next to impossible for skeptical papers to get published.
But that was not the end of the story. Steig tripped himself up and subsequently admitted that he.........was reviwer B!!!!
How dishonorable is it to force an incorrect alteration on a paper from the anonymity of reviwer, only to publically criticize it later?
I would like to be able to hold climate scientists in the highest esteem and defer to their authority but as the climategate emails and this specific example show, there is plenty of pettiness and distortion going on in the background that makes it reasonable to doubt their ethics, especially when they are backed into a corner.
If you believe that correcting mistakes (and not obfuscating the issues) is what they are doing, you are sadly mistaken. And you don't correct mistakes in science in a frelling political blog. You submit your manuscript to the relevant peer reviewed scientific journal for rebuttal. Yes, I know, they've complained that they can't get their crap published because the scientific community is biased against them. But that's true of any CRAP submitted for scientific publication. Even valid submissions take time to get published. It took me nearly ten years to get my first paper submitted, partially because it was so large, and contained submission of 8 species new to science, but also because of the backlog of submissions. We all have these issues. The system is not perfect. Welcome to the real frelling world.
Climategate e-mails? Are you kidding me? Of course, you have no problem with the fact that a government server was hacked in violation of national and international law, that confidential e-mails were posted all over the internet, and that the good names of respected scientists were smeared all over the media, despite the fact that panel after panel found no wrongdoing other than a misdemeanor violation of the FOIA that was past its statute of limitations, requested for information the person requesting the information later admitted that he ALREADY frelling HAD!!! And you think this is the kind unethical behavior is what scientists should aspire to? Really? REALLY???
If you want any credibility in your arguments, you should leave bs like that at the door.