A series of Wall Street Journal editorial page-bashing ads shows the climate cause in mid-crackup.
Holman Jenkins writes in the WSJ:
A series of Wall Street Journal editorial page-bashing ads shows the climate cause in mid-crackup.
Holman Jenkins writes in the WSJ:
When I worked in a research lab, we called correction factors “fudge factors”. Using them without including original data and a full explanation would get you fired. Government scientists seem to have no qualms about doing things of that nature and no fear of retribution.
The Crichton article is on a website urging people to take action against ExxonMobil and co for “peddling climate science disinformation”
Might not be the most impartial website…
I read the anti-Crichton article. First, there is no evidence it was written by a scientist, real or not. Second it several logical errors, including appeal to authority, and third, it doesn’t even respond to most of it’s self-imposed (straw man) questions!
The latter is particularly revealing because to actually fully answer some of their faux questions, they’d have to admit to manipulating data.
One point that isn’t refuted is that temperatures in several cities showed a real, unadjusted decline. Yet, the response is an argument the heat island effect accounts for only 6% of an locale’s increase of temperature. So why are so many temperatures adjusted upward by Mann, et. al.?
Another silly answer starts: “Over a century ago, scientists researching CO2 discovered that the earth’s temperature is very sensitive to small changes in atmospheric CO2.” The very next paragraph starts, “The answer is that CO2 is only one of several factors that influence temperature, such as volcanic eruptions, solar variability, sulfur dioxide emissions (see Figure 1), and small changes in the earth’s orbit.”
Bottom line is the so-called article is nothing more than a cherry picked, unattributed opinion piece with a bunch of equally cherry picked footnotes.
(I actually don’t want to defend Crichton’s novel since I thought it was awful. I also do believe Crichton cherry picked some of his data, though not all. However, the rebuttal is, at best week, extremely disingenuous and quite inaccurate. Unfortunately, that seems to be often the case with the so-called “Union of Concerned Scientists”, which is anything but.)
Climate change was what they hung their hat on because it was global in theory and huge taxes could be enacted to save the earth and some could be transferred to third world sxxx holes. The long time frame let them enact dozens of $100million rip offs like Solyndra totaling billions of dollars that a percentage was rolled back as campaign contributions.
Luddite…
Great book that one. A real scientist took all the nonsense in that book apart one claim at a time. Crichton’s response was to gratuitously add a child molester into the plot with the name of the scientist who debunked all the pooh in the book. Class move Crichton. Won’t every read one of your books again.
Oh, and
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/fight-misinformation/crichton-thriller-state-of.html#.V3QkrTW_6-c
Everyone should read the novel State of Fear by Michael Crichton. Written in 2004 it projects the actions of the enviro terrorists. Particular attention should be given to Appendix 1 at the back of the book about a new scientific theory that arose at the start of the last century and how leading lights bought into it until it was proved it had no scientific basis.