Re: OT: getting rid of the medieval warm period

On Sep 8, 1:09 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
bill.slo...@xxxxxxxx wrote:
On Sep 7, 11:36 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
In a thread here some time back I mentioned a climate researcher who I'd heard
was approached with respect to 'getting rid of the medieval warm period' in
order to make the IPCC case for AGW more compelling.

At the time I didn't have a cite but I just found it again.

http://www.epw.senate.gov/hearing_statements.cfm?id=266543

Statement of Dr. David Deming
University of Oklahoma
College of Earth and Energy
Climate Change and the Media

Another one of Exxon's shills.

And you think that's a reason to disregard him ? Oh, he got some funds from an oil
company so you can't believe a word he says ? How ridiculous can you get ?

I could go through his statement line by line - it is all anecdote and
induendo - or point out that he isn't a climatologist, but a petroleum
geologist, and that his claimed expertise about heat transfer refers
to heat flows within the crust of the earth, which isn't all that
relevant to global warming, but you don't have the attention span for
that sort of analysis.

Your bias is so embedded you must be blind to it.

His presentation just says that he doesn't like the scientific
evidence. He doesn't adduce any counter evidence, and he hasn't got
any claim to expertise in the field, despite his misleading self-
introduction.

You don't have to be biassed for that to ring a few warning bells.

And if you hadn't already made up your own mind, you might have
detected some of the warning signals for yourself.

I could talk of IPCC shills. Heck, the grants available to those who take 'the
company line' over AGW are plentiful. Suggest that you don't believe man is
reponsible and your research will never get funded. That' sounds far more like
institutional bias to me.

Because you don't know much about how scientific research in general
is funded.

Go out and try and get one of those grants for yourself. You have to
put together a convincing plan of research into an area that is going
to look promising to the established experts in the field. Then you
write it up and submit it to the usual grant-giving authorities, who
will send it out to be evaluated by a number of referees, who will
compare it with other schemes for using up grant money.

If your ideas sound good, you will get the money, do the research and
try and publish the results in peer-reviewed journals. If you don't
manage to publish it, you chances of getting another grant will be
diminished.

This may sound like institutional bias to you, but that is how the
system works in pretty much every field of science, and it seems to
generate a respectable amount of progress - nobody has yet come up
with a better system.

Getting money out of Exxon seems to be rather easier, but they aren't
interested in finding out anything new - quite the reverse.

Try to get it into your head that the IPCC exists to review regular
scientific research in climatology, which is just one more area of
scientific research. The IPCC doesn't have any grant money to
distribute to fund original research.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Interesting Take on Climate Change Argument
    ... Frankly it is outside the area of expertise of ... the IPCC or the science behind it. ... The usual IPCC argument. ... Maybe it's just in the USA, but there's plenty of evidence laying ...
    (rec.audio.pro)
  • Re: Interesting Take on Climate Change Argument
    ... Frankly it is outside the area of expertise of ... The usual IPCC argument. ... That would be tricky since ther aren't that many ice ages in the geological record! ... Look at their work in depth and there's plenty of very bad science there, ...
    (rec.audio.pro)
  • Re: Interesting Take on Climate Change Argument
    ... much chance of bumping into someone working in the field of ... atmospheric physics. ... Frankly it is outside the area of expertise of ... The usual IPCC argument. ...
    (rec.audio.pro)