Hard News: Doing Science in Court
146 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Newer→ Last
-
Heres the paper.
Since by your own admission you're an "intrigued New Zealander", could you also give us the source for the claim that this paper disproves the theory that CO2 is responsible for global warming? There is no single mention of CO2 or carbon or dioxide in the paper itself, nor is such a conclusion spelt out in the abstract.
-
Giovanni, I think David might be referring to an unpublished paper available from the author's website (due to be published by Atmospheric Science Letters):
The author's provide some background here:http://rossmckitrick.weebly.com/index.html
David, to be honest, it seems like a bit of a waste of time posting about an article like that here- making absolutist claims on the basis of an, as yet, unpublished paper. A paper which the authors themselves have pointed out, has been difficult to find a journal which will publish it. Being a peer-reviewed article doesn't assure that their science is correct either, it simply allows the ideas to be tested in an open forum and to be disputed, disproven, elaborated, or improved upon. -
The other point is that NIWA are public servants. We pay for their work. So they are the ones beholden to us to justify their research.
Therefore, shouldn't the methodology be easily obtained through an OIA request?
-
Did Euan Mason "test" the data or has he just expressed an opinion without backing it up?
I don't believe he has to "back up" a statement that essentially says "put up or shut up". AKA the normal scientific process. If you have an opposing theory, write a paper and submit it for peer review. Going to court would be what you would do if you already knew that there is no merit to your theory.
ETA:The question remains.
Not really.
-
The other point is that NIWA are public servants. We pay for their work.
Hmmm... yeah.... How's the tax cut going then?... nice is it? Get to keep more of your "Hard Earned Money" eh?... cos that's the important thing eh?.
-
By the way David, maybe you're not in the pocket of big oil, but when McKitrick (who's an economist by trade) spoke to the senate commission on global warming he was sponsored by these guys.
-
Here is the paper from the International Journal of Climatology: Rhoades, D.A. and Salinger, M.J., 1993: Adjustment of temperature and rainfall measurements for site changes. Int. Journal of Climatology 13, 899 – 913.. I haven't read it yet, but have at anybody who's interested.
-
The other point is that NIWA are public servants. We pay for their work.
I don't understand your attitude here. The problem is what exactly?
-
The kinds of adjustment NIWA have done are completely transparent, and not remotely controversial, to anyone with even a basic knowledge of statistics. When challenged to explain themselves they have done, and they've also released long term records from places that have not been moved and have no urban effects - Raoul Island, anyone? These show the same trends quite clearly.
Needless to say, the C"S"C and their new front-project have lied openly about adjustments.
I'm actually most pissed off about NIWA, who fired Salinger for having the cheek to discuss science with the media unfiltered through their PR officers. But the C"S"C come a close second.
-
The other point is that NIWA are public servants. We pay for their work.
and for their defence in the Court case.
-
...they allow room to have policy decided by the tried and true systems of graft and political favour. Essentially the only purpose is to allow policy that favours businesses...
Like setting up a 'working group' of carefully selected right-wingers to 'review' the tax system or welfare or retirement funding, for instance.
-
Like setting up a 'working group' of carefully selected right-wingers to 'review' the tax system or welfare or retirement funding, for instance.
And not all that long ago, Tricky Dick Prebble put on his tin-foil hat and ranted about an "industrial Gestapo" of "retired trade union officials" and "failed Labour and Alliance candidates".
-
Sorry if this has been posted before, but this was interesting.
First I found Bob Carter, which lead me to this.
-
Something that I'm having difficulty understanding in relation to the court action is: what are the grounds? Under what law are CSC bringing their action?
It doesn't seem to be fully explained in any of the press I've read.
The Penguin/Irving case, and the Simon Singh/BCA case, were fought out under UK libel law (I assume NZ libel law is significantly different).
So what are the legal grounds for their complaint?
If some PAS legal type with a more mainstream legal background than me can shed some light on this, I'd be grateful.
-
JLM,
Andrew Geddis has had a go
http://www.pundit.co.nz/content/i-dont-know-this-law-it-probably-exists-only-in-your-heads -
A fairly on-topic link that I thought might be enjoyed round these parts. Not our Tom Scott but I'm sure he would appreciate it.
-
Its very mathematical though, which is appropriate as so was Santer et al 2008.
I wonder sometimes if there's a genuine 'two cultures' disconnect on the modelling. Econometricians like McKitrick are determined to run ever-fancier regression models on the data, and therefore distrust series that leap away from historical trends (which may have something to do with their inability to predict or even believe in financial crashes and other such Black Swans). Are they simply trained not to comprehend structural models, where (for example) a long slow increase in CO2 can trigger sudden changes away from previous equilibria?
-
If Mr Leyland is this guy (whom I remember lecturing me at University), it's Bryan, not Brian.
-
Will this trial be New Zealand's version of the Scopes Monkey trial?
-
Something that I'm having difficulty understanding in relation to the court action is: what are the grounds? Under what law are CSC bringing their action?
IANAL, but it seems to be a straight out judicial review, reviewing certain NIWA decisions for illegality, irrationality, or procedural unfairness. It will hinge on the central ground - "irrationality" - which will likely require a court to find that appointing a highly qualified, profssional scientist to do work in their area of expertise was somehow "unreasonable" or defied logic. And that I think is highly unlikely to succeed.
-
David
If the science is to be robust then let other scientists test it.
Whats to fear?Making your data, results and methodology available is generally considered sufficient to allow this. THis has been the case for some time.
And as has been pointed out, the upward trend is backed up by unadjusted data from stations that haven't moved (and the 'unadjusted' graph the CSC is using now shows a very little warming).
I suspect people new to the debate will tend to be disappointed by the dismissal they get, most of these things have been hashed out ad nauseam many moons ago. Though that doesn't seem to have happened here.
As regards this particular case, the more I see the more it looks like a publicity stunt. Judging by the was the release about NIWA everyone's reading on Scoop concerns an underwater volcano, it doesn't seem to have been hugely successful.
-
I suspect people new to the debate will tend to be disappointed by the dismissal they get, most of these things have been hashed out ad nauseam many moons ago. Though that doesn't seem to have happened here.
Well, it has, but in bits and pieces.
The zombie-argument nature of the debate is very familiar to me. Genetic modification advocacy tends to be heavily zombiefied, but the climate deniers tend much more towards pasting in screeds of jargon they don't really understand, but which is quite tedious to argue with, because you have to parse what's being said (which might not make sense) then go and find its original lair. In that sense, it's oddly effective
As regards this particular case, the more I see the more it looks like a publicity stunt.
Arguing about this on Kiwiblog yesterday was weird. The merest suggestion that it was a publicity stunt, or anything other than a bold quest for the truth prompted people to roll around screaming like they'd had their kneecaps shot off. It's an odd combination of slandering scientists then complaining about "ad hominem arguments" when anyone is even mildly pointed in response.
But if it was a publicity stunt, it was bloody poorly organised. The CSC's inability to send Scoop a press release, Leyland's claim to be ignorant of any support from Alan Gibbs ...
-
This is why I often think the cock-up theory of history is more plausible than the conspiracy theory alternative. I've met Vincent Gray; he really does believe that Anthropogenic Climate Change is a fraud put upon us by Socialists. I knew Augie Auer when he was alive and a parishioner at the church I used to attend, and he was quite sincere; these are not Machiavellian men seeking to do wrong. No, what they are are piss-poor scientists (in the field of Climatology) who, having failed at the game of arguing in the peer-reviewed literature, think that persuading the public to believe them will grant them their victory anyway.
That being said, Leyland seems like he might be trying to be the Kissinger of the group. Now there is a man who exemplifies the conspiracy theory of history.
-
This is why I often think the cock-up theory of history is more plausible than the conspiracy theory alternative
The first cock-up probably gave birth to the first conspiracy stories. And the pattern seems to have stuck.
Pure conjecture. OK -
But if it was a publicity stunt, it was bloody poorly organised.
Agreed. These guys seem increasingly desparate.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.