Except in medicine, economics, climate nonscience, etc.... Garbage. The climategate cabal confessed in writing that they had engaged in corrupting the peer-review process and intended to go on doing so, and they suffered NO consequences. Indeed, their careers prospered even more.
They took a serious credibility hit. And, their credibility is what their customers are depending on.
The Fall of Scientific American James Esses, Spiked This once objective magazine now regularly panders to trans-activist pseudoscience. Read More
I am old enough to remember when SciAm was a wonderful magazine full of good popular treatments of recent real peer-reviewed science. It has not been that for decades, and in recent years has instead been full of unreadable woke trash. I'm amazed Michael Shermer lasted so long there.
No they didn't. No, because their actual customers are advertisers, who specifically prefer advertising to the credulous.
Your claim is false, as usual. The climategate emails constitute conclusive proof that my statement is objectively correct.
It's a conspiracy when you state "consensus was manufactured." Remember that climatology is studied around the world and includes numerous disciplines. If you think a consensus was manufactured, you need to show how that would be possible.
And the climategate emails describe some ways the conspiracy manufactured the consensus. I already did: the climategate emails show how peer review was manipulated to prevent dissenting views from being published in peer-reviewed journals. We also have the proof in the editorial decision to reject, without peer review, all papers that challenge the CO2 narrative.
Done. Manufacturing consensus: the early history of the IPCC Posted on January 3, 2018 by curryja | 385 comments by Judith Curry Short summary: scientists sought political relevance and allowed policy makers to put a big thumb on the scale of the scientific assessment of the attribution of climate change.
The climate gate emails do not show that at all. In fact, they were grossly misinterpreted at the outset.
Early history? How about today? Dr. Curry does believe humans are affecting climate, just not as much as other scientists do.
You showed Curry's opinion about the 1970's and 1980's. Much has changed since then. Our atmosphere IS being studied for decades now - which she notes was missing. We have satellites measuring temperatures at various altitudes, confirming surface measurements. We have major sea temperature monitoring. We have more years of data of all kinds. There is no way to filter the studies of all related fields in order to create a false result. Even scientists don't know what to expect - that's why they are studying. Plus, she's adding in policy makers. Policy makers are NOT known for adequately basing their policy decisions. For example, now we have a House Speaker from a district heavily dependent on fossil fuel extraction and who is absolutely opposed to the idea of climate change. What do you you think HIS policy decisions are based on? We do have to be careful, and especially with politicians.
Please read the post next time you want to challenge something. What you apparently didn't read: "I think Bernie Lewin is correct in identifying the 1995 meeting in Madrid as the turning point. It was John Houghton who inserted the attribution claim into the draft Summary for Policy Makers, contrary to the findings in Chapter 8. Ben Santer typically gets ‘blamed’ for this, but it is clearly Houghton who wanted this and enabled this, so that he and the IPCC could maintain a seat at the big policy table involved in the Treaty. One might forgive the IPCC leaders for dealing with new science and a very challenging political situation in 1995 during which they overplayed their hand. However, it is the 3rd Assessment Report where Houghton’s shenanigans with the Hockey Stick really reveal what was going on (including selection of recent Ph.D. recipient Michael Mann as lead author when he was not nominated by the U.S. delegation). The Hockey Stick got rid of that ‘pesky’ detection problem."
So, she claims that a draft summary got screwed up. I think Kyoto was somewhat screwed up, too. That doesn't show that the science changed. There would have to be a claim that this is a continuing pattern, not called out by scientists anywhere in the world.
The change you seem desperate to avoid is that the non-scientific aspects of global warming or AGW have grown by many orders of magnitude since then. IPCC is quite open about massaging the science to serve "social goals'. Read the first two or three chapters of Koonin's Unsettled. Among other things he quotes several prominent Climatologists who outright admit to placing their thumbs on the scale to influence progress to support social goals at the expense of scientific ones. You try to make these scientists super-human, selfless, crusaders working endlessly to save humanity. Ain't so my friend, it ain't so.
I love how Curry was initially on board with Berkeley Earth Project until the it started validating results from other sources and then she suddenly withdrew her support
Oh! You mean the book Scientific American says gets things wrong? https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-new-book-manages-to-get-climate-science-badly-wrong/
Maaaate life is too short - thing is there was massive political pressure (still is) on the IPCC to find that fossil fuel consumption was NOT causing climate change. Pressure from governments like Saudi Arabia https://www.climatechangenews.com/2...ut-language-with-techno-fixes-in-ipcc-report/
An you think Scientific American is a fair judge? Have you read a single chapter of the book are are you letting your controller prescribe you education?
