What are global warming scientists afraid of?

Question

Science is not science until the study has been reproduced by other researchers. The peer-review process only weeds out obvious errors but does not reproduce the study and cannot weed out more subtle errors or efforts to defraud.

If a scientist does not archive his data or provide supplemental data to other researchers who request it, then he is trying to contravene the testability requirement of the scientific method. This is not science but pseudoscience.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience

Global warming climate scientists are trying their best to prevent Stephen McIntyre from auditing their science. McIntyre has found several errors and is the one who broke Michael Mann's Hockey Stick.
See http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/Climate_L.pdf

Now Malcolm Hughes at the University of Arizona has attempted to block McIntyre's IP address from accessing their website.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2208#comments

What are they trying to hide?

Bob, the Hockey Stick is broken. The National Academy of Sciences ruled in favor of McIntyre on every significant point of science. They agreed the evidence did not support the claim it is warmer now anytime in the last 1000 years. They said it was the warmest in the last 600 years (or was is 400 years?). At any rate, they agreed with McIntyre the claim it is warmer now than during the Medieval Warm Period could not be supported. The National Academy of Sciences also agreed with McIntyre the bristlecone pine series is not a temperature proxy and should not be used in reconstructions. This point was clearly made but dendroclimatologists continue to use it because that is the only way to get a Hockey Stick shape. Von Storch and Zorita confirmed McIntyre's claim that Mann's decentering of the data causes an artifical Hockey Stick even when trendless red noise data is fed in.

Crabby, you said my second link is a propaganda site funded by Exxon. Not true. The website belongs to the University of Guelph in Canada. Ross McKitrick is a professor there and he and McIntyre broke the Hockey Stick together. The article is an English translation of an article that first appeared in the Dutch science magazine Natuurwetenschap & Techniek. It is an excellent science magazine and the author, Marcel Crok, has a strong reputation.

Bob, here is the NAS panel report. Check it out and you will see that while they were polite to Michael Mann (much more than the Wegman Report was), they still sided with McIntyre on all the important issues I mentioned above.
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309102251

Bob, regarding your question on the "better replications," Osborn and Briffa 2006, Hegerl 2007, Juckes 2007 and anything by Mann or Rutherford all use the bristlecone pine series the NAS said should not be used. All of these studies are defective and should not be relied upon.

Answer 1

What the GW community of scientists fears, is loss of their grant money, inability to be hired or promoted, inability to be published, not being invited to conferences in places like Bali or other vacation hot spots, being taken off the list of invitees for high class parties, no face time on the networks, death threats, and ostrification. All of which will occur if any of them deviate from the party line, that global warming is caused by man, mostly the men who live in the US, and other industrial nations. This reminds me of the climate in Europe in 1100AD. Most educated people knew the earth was round, and revolved around the sun, to say so however brought about a quick trip to the executioner

Answer 2

worldwide warming and cooling, alongside with climate replace, have been happening because of the fact the earth formed some billion years in the past. In that experience, it relatively is not a lie and could constantly be reality. The almighty question that has plagued our media for the previous couple a protracted time is not any be counted if anthropogenic (human) outcomes on the earth (a.ok.a., larger quantities of CO2 and different toxins) has bring about larger warming (for that reason) and climate replace. there is adequate clinical data in all varieties of clinical magazine articles to assist the two factors of the argument. inspite of the reality that anybody has an identical opinion that CO2 levels have long gone up, some have self assurance that this has bring about an surprisingly warmer globe whilst others have self assurance that the warming occurs first and CO2 only follows. in the latter case, the growing to be levels of CO2 could be much less because of the fact of human beings and the warming could only be labelled as 'many times clearly-brought about' (with the aid of photograph voltaic storms, etc). The technological expertise can and already has supported the two factors of the fence. The media alongside with politics look to have jumped on the anthropogenic argument bandwagon, whilst there's a circulate by skill of a few scholars (and others) to the two refute this theory or to a minimum of comprehend that we only don't be attentive to! what's for particular is that we are emitting and producing a lot of toxins every day and that that's no longer sustainable. yet another actuality is that human beings have long gone far previous what the earth can sustainably help, the two in terms of our inhabitants usually and our man or woman and collective impacts. in this comprehend, worldwide warming and climate replace could (if anthropogenic) in basic terms be a symptom of an excellent better situation. regrettably, much less interest is payed to this somewhat particular root of the worldwide's situation.

Answer 3

I have no idea what Hughes is doing or not doing.

But global warming scientists are afraid of nothing. They know what they're doing is the very best science has to offer, checked and triple checked by scientists all around the world. The data has been repeatedly replicated by independent groups all around the world.

They have the support of EVERY major scientific organization in the world. Not to mention a Nobel Prize (and they're people who would really hate to look like fools).

They have produced documents that are likely the most well researched and carefully peer reviewed documents in the history of science.

What one guy does is not proof of anything. Whether they are one of the few "skeptics" or part of the mainstream.

The hockey stick is not broken. The National Academy of Sciences said it was basically correct, if overly statistically "smoothed" (averaged). Since then it's been duplicated many times with more rigorous statistical methods. Detailed proof here:

http://environment.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/mg18925431.400/mg18925431.400-2_752.jpg
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11646

McIntyre nibbles around the edges of the data, and has found some minor problems. None of them has any impact on the main results. An excellent example is his finding a minor error in the NASA data. It changed global temperatures by about a thousandth of a degree. It is even less significant than that. Since it only affects the border between two years, long term global temperature rates of increase are not affected significantly.

"The drafting of reports by the world’s pre-eminent group of climate scientists is an odd process. For many months scientists contributing to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change tussle over the evidence. Nothing gets published unless it achieves consensus. This means that the panel’s reports are extremely conservative – even timid. It also means that they are as trustworthy as a scientific document can be."

George Monbiot

Ron C - We'll agree to disagree on the original "hockey stick". Do you seriously question the many better replications?

Answer 4

They're hiding the fact that they're wrong.

Maybe a little more "oversight" would help.

Corporations are required to have audits. And even then corporations still get away with bad accounting methods and cooking books.

But who checks in on the scientist or their findings?

Does anyone see a conflict of interest with "peer review"? Like asking Enron to do an internal audit of itself.

I'll be laughing the day when the global warming bubble bursts.

Answer 5

Scientists are afraid of the uncertainties. They can't be sure of the outcome. They can predict and create models of possibilities. But life is unpredictable. The fact that some scientists admit they are worried, worries me!

Answer 6

You are correct--scientific results have to be reprudicible--and where global warming is concerned, have been--far beyond what is usually regarded as necessary.

The crackpots like the ones you provided links to may not be aware of that--but who cares? They don't know what's going on in science and no one takes them seriously.

BTW--the second one isn't even that--its a propaganda site funded by Exxon/Mobile. LOL

Answer 7

This sounds suspiciously like a rant. A lot of people try to hide a lot of things, you'll just see towards your biases (as will I).

Answer 8

UNCERTAINTIES. Even scientists cannot predict 100% what can happen to earth tomorrow but we must appreciate the times they spent to help us to realize and look back at what we've done throughout our lives that contributes to the 'aging' of our earth.

Answer 9

..Is absolutely not true at all.

I do believe in global warming, but not man-made global warming or AGW. Global warming is the natural heating and cooling of the Earth that occurs in cycles. Al Gore has tricked many into believing that we will all die in 25 years if we don't do something now. He has basically turned it into a religion. You have to agree it even sounds like one, (environmentalism, environmentalists, etc.)

Al Gore has as much credibility on environmental issues, as Bill Clinton has on marital fidelity.

Take a look at Gore’s documentary for example; he exaggerates his figures by 1000%, as proven by one of his former colleagues. He also fails to accurately show the warming period in medieval times of which the years were hotter on average then any other time in history. Truth is, the Earth goes through cycles of warming and cooling, and according to past recordings, we are nowhere near as hot now as it was several hundred years ago in the Middle Ages. He’s telling us all to ride our bikes to work when he flies a personal Lear jet around the world and 4 out of 5 of his houses consume 20 times more energy then the normal consumer.

William M. Gray, a climatologist and pioneer in the science of studying hurricanes, said there is absolutely NO man-made global warming, or Anthropological Global Warming (AGW) in a speech at the University of North Carolina (UNC).

I don't feel obligate to provide anymore references to people disbelieving global warming because there are simply too many to name. You should know however, that over half of scientists worldwide (except for the ones on the IICC) disbelieve AGW.

There’s something wrong here…

The media consists of left-wing deacons, who continue spreading Gore's sermon to the uneducated and unaware to foster love for him in order to provide him with funds so he can fly around the world in his own personal CO2 emitting Lear jet.

Thanks for your time,

If you have any questions please contact me, and don't listen to those nerds who try to tell you otherwise.

Answer 10

global warming is a very serious problem. if it continues the ice caps of the poles and greenland etc will melt flooding the entire earth and washing away all the life.

not to mension increased diseases like skin cancer etc.

this is why global warming scientists are afraid of global warming