3 thoughts on “Mark Steyn: How the Hockey Stick Crumbled — A Post-Mortem”
So when it is obvious that these guys falsify data, why can’t they be prosceuted for doing this – I guess the sponsors wanted the results and were happy if it stuck.
If I falsified data with my company – someone could get hurt since it involves motors, and I would get procescuted by federal agencies.
Seems odd that blatent fraud and theft of funds for fraudulent studies is taken so lightly.
At the very least I would expect the rest of the scientific community to drum out the perp – because he/she is giving a bad name to science. Folks don’t trust scientists today the way they did in the 1950’s. But no, that doesn’t seem to be happening either.
The down tick on the original data seems as questionable as the uptick on the gerrymandered data. I’d question the validity of the last part of the data, if not the whole data set. But I’m not an expert climate scientist. It amazes me that these folks put out blatant garbage without any fear of getting caught. Is it that or do they know that the false results will remain in the collective memory forever?
The excellent Powerline post is a fine update!!!
When recent alkenone data became indeterminate, the Marcott et al group used addition of items (modern temperature) “…not part of the study.” This is reminiscent of what Michael Mann did by grafting (had to use that word!) modern temperatures to the record when the tree-ring proxies went in the wrong direction.
Leave a Reply
Discover more from JunkScience.com
Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.
So when it is obvious that these guys falsify data, why can’t they be prosceuted for doing this – I guess the sponsors wanted the results and were happy if it stuck.
If I falsified data with my company – someone could get hurt since it involves motors, and I would get procescuted by federal agencies.
Seems odd that blatent fraud and theft of funds for fraudulent studies is taken so lightly.
At the very least I would expect the rest of the scientific community to drum out the perp – because he/she is giving a bad name to science. Folks don’t trust scientists today the way they did in the 1950’s. But no, that doesn’t seem to be happening either.
The down tick on the original data seems as questionable as the uptick on the gerrymandered data. I’d question the validity of the last part of the data, if not the whole data set. But I’m not an expert climate scientist. It amazes me that these folks put out blatant garbage without any fear of getting caught. Is it that or do they know that the false results will remain in the collective memory forever?
The excellent Powerline post is a fine update!!!
When recent alkenone data became indeterminate, the Marcott et al group used addition of items (modern temperature) “…not part of the study.” This is reminiscent of what Michael Mann did by grafting (had to use that word!) modern temperatures to the record when the tree-ring proxies went in the wrong direction.