Climate Science Process

House of Cards

59 Comments

Almost everywhere someone looks in the last IPCC report, they find claims that are either not substantiated by the citations or citations to non-peer-reviewed sources.    Two more examples:

Climate Quotes finds that the claims that wildfires were hurting tourism were all to non-peer-reviewed sources, and the source for the Canadian claim actually said virtually the opposite.

Bishop Hill looks at a random paragraph on climate change and food production, and finds, surprise surprise, non peer-reviewed sources and claims not backed by the citations.

59 thoughts on “House of Cards”

  1. Hmmm, reading up through this thread, it looks like my “multi-link” comments finally made it through the spam filter. Sorry about all the duplications, and there’s probably another one coming.

  2. So now Mr. M wants us to guess what he is thinking? Very strange.

    How about this: I have no idea what you believe or do not believe. You have, however, a posting record that includes at least one bogus and misleading blog, several links to highly conservative online rags (which should not be trusted anymore than we should trust FOX News or Rush Limbaugh), and you, like most denialists, seem obsessed with a series of illegally obtained emails for which the scientists in question have been officially cleared. What is more, the email you linked to above is pretty tame and I cannot figure out what issue you have with it. In the communication Mann simply says they will moderate comments, Osborn can use RealClimate in any way he sees fit, and this is an effort to battle the disinformation the denialists (“the McIntyres of the world”) are putting out there. Better yet, let’s actually read the darn thing:

    guys, I see that Science has already gone online w/ the new issue, so we
    put up the RC post. By now, you’ve probably read that nasty McIntyre
    thing. Apparently, he violated the embargo on his website (I don’t go
    there personally, but so I’m informed).

    Anyway, I wanted you guys to know that you’re free to use RC in any way
    you think would be helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful about
    what comments we screen through, and we’ll be very careful to answer any
    questions that come up to any extent we can. On the other hand, you
    might want to visit the thread and post replies yourself. We can hold
    comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think
    they should be screened through or not, and if so, any comments you’d
    like us to include.

    You’re also welcome to do a followup guest post, etc. think of RC as a
    resource that is at your disposal to combat any disinformation put
    forward by the McIntyres of the world. Just let us know. We’ll use our
    best discretion to make sure the skeptics dont’get to use the RC
    comments as a megaphone…

    In any event, I think this thread is dying a slow and painful death and I am needed elsewhere.

    Cheers.

  3. @ John M:

    You say: ‘Told you what? Why you’re calling me a denier or denialist? Shouldn’t you know?’

    I never called you a denier.

    YOu say: ‘Didn’t you read it?’

    Yeah I did. The claims made in the IPCC don’t differ from the paper. The paper is prob. scientific. Ben seems to think there would be a political or ideological bias in the paper due to being connected with an Org. ,which is actually independent, and promotes sustainability, that is all he says?

    You say: ‘Jeez, I thought that’s what we were arguing about.’

    You seem to be saying that the paper could be biased and so the IPCC didn’t verify it. I am saying that the paper could be biased, but the ipcc prob. verified it, and it is actually ok. I do not see any evil because there is no evidence for it yet. All you have is suspicions.

    YOu say: ‘Except when they go running to them with their next press release, I guess.’

    Which is the same for everyone. The mass media is a double edged sword. They help but also hinder. They, it seems, care about nothing but ratings.

    Waldo has explained the email. Plus you only have to have a quick glance at RC to see that alot of skeptical questioning goes on. I think they moderate out all the unreasonably antagonistic stuff, old rehashed arguments debunked ages ago, that sorta stuff.

    You say: ‘And we’ll have to let the audience decide how many’

    I don’t think I even directed any at you, not one. Def. not replete. Can you find one then argue how it is replete in number?

  4. “In any event, I think this thread is dying a slow and painful death and I am needed elsewhere.”

    A kid’s birthday party need a clown?

  5. OK, the personal denier/denialist accusations came from Waldo.

    Sorry.

    The tag team strategy, along with your very liberal use of the term, led me to confuse tweedle-dee with tweedle-dum.

    You seem to be very forgiving of RC and IPCC based on what “probably” happened.

  6. And you, Mr. M, seem to be very antagonist of RC and IPCC based on what “allegedly” happened (in several instances) but which, upon closer observation, clearly did not. See above. Most if not everything you posted is provably wrong. It is not clear that you have any real knowledge of RC or the IPCC, only what the deniopshere publishes – which is why I have so liberally used the dreaded “term.”

    Please do not play that you are the reasonable one here – it sounds silly.

    Although I really did like this: “A kid’s birthday party need a clown?” Most repartee is extremely lame on this blog, but this was rather witty and I got a chuckle. Good job.

    And now I really must be going.

  8. @ John M:

    YOu say: ‘The tag team strategy, along with your very liberal use of the term, led me to confuse tweedle-dee with tweedle-dum.’

    See, it happens. Sometimes we might mistake your position, and sometimes you mistake ours. No big deal.

Comments are closed.