A refereed journal, Climate Research, published two particular papers that offended Michael Mann of Penn State and Tom Wigley of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research. One of the papers, published in 2003 by Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas (of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics), was a meta-analysis of dozens of "paleoclimate" studies that extended back 1,000 years. They concluded that 20th-century temperatures could not confidently be considered to be warmer than those indicated at the beginning of the last millennium.
Friday, December 18, 2009
The Real Significance of Climategate
...a silencing of climate scientists.
How to Manufacture a Climate Consensus
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I'm curuious: if studies in biology were exposed to show favoritism and censorship of non-Darwinian theories, would you just stop believing in evolution?
ReplyDeleteIt happens, but that doesn't make evolution a "farce," it just means scientists don't have time to drop 99.9% of their research just to placate a whiney .1%.
if studies in biology were exposed to show favoritism and censorship of non-Darwinian theories, would you just stop believing in evolution?
ReplyDeleteIf those non-Darwinian theories had actual evidence to back them up, then I would question the dogma, sure. And while that may not be the case with evolutionary theory, it just might be with climate theory.
You can't just filter out the science you don't like and then expect to arrive at the truth.