Friday, December 18, 2009

The Real Significance of Climategate

...a silencing of climate scientists.


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.


How to Manufacture a Climate Consensus


2 comments:

  1. 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?

    It 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%.

    ReplyDelete
  2. if studies in biology were exposed to show favoritism and censorship of non-Darwinian theories, would you just stop believing in evolution?

    If 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.

    ReplyDelete

If the post you are commenting on is more than 30 days old, your comment will have to await approval before being published. Rest assured, however, that as long as it is not spam, it will be published in due time.

Related Posts with Thumbnails