Home > AGW, Catastrophism, Climate Change, Global Warming, Humor, Omniclimate, Science, Skepticism > How Many NAS Members Does It Take…

How Many NAS Members Does It Take…

…to chip away at the integrity of climate science?

It’s either 255, or they ran out of memory on the Z80.

Never mind that a Google search on Peter Gleick, the main signatory of the (May 6) open letter from 255 members of the US National Academy of Sciences in defence of climate research, reveals the guy as author of a book published (as luck would have it) on May 3 (sales will surely plunge due to his name becoming ever better known).

Just compare the following statement from the letter

When errors are pointed out, they are corrected

to Mr Gleick’s reaction (him again, publicity-shy as usual!!) on the Huffington Post and SFGate when people pointed out that the original caption of the accompanying picture on Science magazine readsThis images [sic] is a photoshop design” (in case you wonder, the text was already there on May 3)

…a fantastic peek into the way the climate denial “machine” works…small but vocal part of the infosphere dominated by the climate deniers…try to paint the entire climate science community as fake…attempt by climate deniers to divert public attention once again from the facts of climate change…

As it is apparent, when errors are pointed out, they are not corrected before a paranoid rant gets published. And what about “fame still awaits anyone who could show these theories to be wrong“? I don’t think so: in the case of climate science, that’s abuse and organized bullying what awaits them.

Advertisements
  1. 2010/06/08 at 22:06

    Erasmussimo: “If you don’t care to accept the judgements of eminent scientists”

    That’s not at all the point of my post. Alas, “integrity” doesn’t always accompany “good (scientific) judgement”, as the story of William Shockley clearly shows.

  2. 2010/06/02 at 18:45

    Your reasoning is apparently as follows:

    “Mr. Gleick published a book on climate change. Therefore he has a financial interest in popularizing climate science and therefore his statement in support of climate change is unworthy of serious consideration.”

    That’s a pretty far stretch. But I really don’t need to fight this argument, because there are still 254 other scientists who signed the letter, which is 253 more eminent scientists than you have. How will you dismiss their signatures? By showing that they too have published papers, articles, or books about climate science?

    • 2010/06/06 at 23:22

      Erasmussimo

      > Your reasoning is apparently as follows

      I do not see the basis for your interpretation of my reasoning about Gleick’s publicity drive (and no, his latest book is not about climate change, AFAIK). Let me state it in a format similar to yours (and keep in mind, it is minor compared to what his paranoid rants revealed):

      Mr Gleick pushed for a 255-signature letter about “the integrity of science”. Too bad he hadn’t any trouble to consider the integrity of appearing as main signatory, despite having a book out on the same week. Hasn’t he ever heard of Caesar’s wife? For me, there are 254 “eminent scientists” that didn’t consider the matter worth the bother of replacing Mr Gleick as the “face” of the letter, for integrity reasons.

      I’ll leave to a better day puerile games about who has more “eminent scientists” on his side. I do not have any “eminent scientist” on my side because I do not have a “side” and I do not care about the personal opinions of 253, 253,000 or 253,000,000 scientists any more than Einstein cared about one hundred of them being against his science.

      • 2010/06/08 at 00:55

        You place a great deal of emphasis on who organized the letter. Then you turn around and say that you don’t care what the scientists say. Right.

        If you don’t care to accept the judgements of eminent scientists, then you are assuming the responsibility to reach an informed judgement on your own. So tell me, what do you think of the different climate models cited in IPCC AR4 WG1? Which is your favorite, and why?

        And what’s your informed opinion on the reliability of the tree data in the Briffa study? What do you think its strengths and weaknesses are?

        Oh yes, I’m sure that you’ve come to some interesting conclusions regarding the reliability of oxygen isotopic ratios in ice cores, especially the differences between those in Greenland and those in Antarctica. I’d love to hear your opinions on that.

        I have so many more questions from such a great expert as you! After all, I know a great deal about the physics of it all, and I’ve read the IPCC AR4 WG1 in depth, but I still end up relying on the judgements of the relevant experts. Somebody like you, who doesn’t need experts to form an opinion, must be a font of information!

  3. willnitschke
    2010/05/25 at 07:33

    The Z80 let you pair registers so the maximum was actually 65535. You’re thinking of the Intel 4004. 😉

    • 2010/05/27 at 00:33

      Will do you think next letter will contain 18,446,744,073,709,551,615 signatures?

  4. Bruce of Newcastle
    2010/05/20 at 22:40

    It’s the other way around in Germany – petition from 77 scientists saying CAGW is rubbish:

    http://pgosselin.wordpress.com/2010/05/18/77-non-anonymous-sceptical-german-scientists/

    • 2010/05/21 at 00:02

      Only 77? Expect replies along the lines of “my petition is bigger than yours!”

    • 2010/06/02 at 19:08

      I had a look at the petition from 77 scientists. I was curious as to how reputable these scientists were, so I decided to look at a subset. To make sure that I was being fair, I simply selected names by a simple algorithm: I chose the 15th, 30th, 45th, 60th, and 75th names. Here’s what I got:

      #15: Peter Dietze. Not a scientist, an electrical engineer, and has published no reviewed papers on climate change. http://www.desmogblog.com/peter-dietze

      #30: Heinz Hug. A chemist, he has offered some chemistry-based objections to elements of the climate change hypothesis, but has not published any peer-reviewed papers on the subject.

      #45 Horst Malberg: This guy is mysterious. He is listed as the director of the “Institute for Meteorology” in Berlin, and seems to have a track record on weather prediction, but is not listed on the home page of the Institute. I suspect that he really is a bona fide member of the Institute for Meteorology, but he is a meteorologist, not a climate scientist. There’s a big difference between the two. It’s rather like the difference between a news reporter and a historian.

      #60 Sigurd Schulien: not much on this guy. He’s listed as a “University Lecturer”, and I found a reference to him at a conference in 2001 on sources of renewable energy. Nothing whatever on climate change other than his signature on the letter to Angela Merkel.

      #75 Jurgen Fuchsberger. This guy appears to be an architect.

      So there you have it: five supposed scientists, not one of whom is actually a climate scientist. What we have is an electrical engineer, a chemist, a meteorologist, a university lecturer, and an architect. I think this presents us with a good characterization of the situation: the climate scientists all embrace the climate change hypothesis, and the people who reject it aren’t climate scientists. Doesn’t that tell you something?

  5. 2010/05/12 at 01:13

    It is somewhat telling that none of the usual suspects signed this letter.

    No Hansen? No Mann? No Schmidt?

  6. papertiger
    2010/05/11 at 23:24

    Over at Peilke Jr’s website, I put the claws to Peter Gleick with a link back to this page.

    Hope you approve.

  7. papertiger
    2010/05/11 at 06:57

    I wonder if these 254 junk scientists are in on it, getting a cut of the proceeds, or if they are being played for rubes?

  8. 2010/05/11 at 01:58

    It’s a hoax, folks…. best one ever pulled on the mathematically and scientifically illiterate public.

  9. 2010/05/10 at 16:36

    I caught your ’emperor without clothes’ comment at Andy Revkin. 🙂

    More details about the Science polar bear image
    http://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2010/05/07/integrity-science-gleick/

  1. 2010/12/03 at 23:18
  2. 2010/05/14 at 18:51

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

%d bloggers like this: