Posted by: GoRight | June 26, 2010

More Super Genius Climate Science Thinking

I noticed the following on the climate change consensus talk page:

Anderegg et al

A recent paper mostly based on prior work by Prall has been published in PNAS. Like most academic analyses this one finds that support for the conclusions of IPCC in public statements made by scientists strongly correlates with experience and eminence within the field. Tasty monster (=TS ) 14:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

http://scienceblogs.com/classm/2010/06/the_credibility_factor.php

The above link for reference only. It isn’t a suggested source to use in the article. Tasty monster (=TS ) 14:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The study has been put into Scientific opinion on climate change which has a section about it here. I’m not sure that particular study will have much effect at all or is particularly notable in the context of the public perception. Dmcq (talk) 16:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

So why is this super genius type thinking?  This study has apparently “discovered” the obvious fact that the small group of climate “scientists” who work so hard to promote their own message via the IPCC and seek to keep conflicting papers out of both the IPCC reports and the peer-reviewed literature (see the Climategate emails for examples of such) happen to agree with their own papers.

Golly, who would have guessed that?  The mutual admiration society that is the peer-reviewed literature on climate change agrees with themselves, and everyone else doesn’t.  Hmmm.

Experience and eminence within the field? Bah.  Humbug.

Self-importance of the first order, nothing more.  What makes this so funny is that they are completely blind to this reality.   🙂

Anderegg et al

A recent paper mostly based on prior work by Prall has been published in PNAS. Like most academic analyses this one finds that support for the conclusions of IPCC in public statements made by scientists strongly correlates with experience and eminence within the field. Tasty monster (=TS ) 14:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

http://scienceblogs.com/classm/2010/06/the_credibility_factor.php

The above link for reference only. It isn’t a suggested source to use in the article. Tasty monster (=TS ) 14:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The study has been put into Scientific opinion on climate change which has a section about it here. I’m not sure that particular study will have much effect at all or is particularly notable in the context of the public perception. Dmcq (talk) 16:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Advertisements

Responses

  1. […] GoRight пишет: Anderegg et al. A recent paper mostly based on prior work by Prall has been published in PNAS. Like most academic analyses this one finds that support for the conclusions of IPCC in public statements made by scientists strongly … […]

  2. I skimmed through the paper, noticed them quoting themselves and the debunked Oreskes “study” (I believe Connolley invented a similar paper).

    A couple points obviously come to mind;

    1) People can design studies/surveys to prove whatever they want since they control all the parameters. This is easier in soft sciences, but Mann demonstrated the same principle by his selective use of bristlecone pine tree rings.

    2) All the big climate alarmists are always asking for more money and at the end of their papers they almost always say they need to study it more. Several of them (e.g. Mann) are simply scamming themselves money and prestige – before this global warming nonsense everyone recognized that the field was about as reliable as divination via chicken entrails.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: