Post by marchesarosa on Feb 23, 2011 12:46:31 GMT 1
Pseudoscience.
It is the latest concept to beat sceptics with.
Rolls nicely off the tongue of the running dogs of the IPCC with a bit more stylistic oomph than mere "anti-science. Thelma and Louise will love it.
It's the latest "big idea" from Chief Scientific Officer Beddington (he who organised the Oxburgh Committee whitewash of CRU)
See this bit of gratuitous propaganda.
In closing remarks to an annual conference of around 300 scientific civil servants on 3 February, in London, Beddington said that selective use of science ought to be treated in the same way as racism and homophobia. “We are grossly intolerant, and properly so, of racism. We are grossly intolerant, and properly so, of people who [are] anti-homosexuality...We are not—and I genuinely think we should think about how we do this—grossly intolerant of pseudo-science, the building up of what purports to be science by the cherry-picking of the facts and the failure to use scientific evidence and the failure to use scientific method,” he said.
Beddington said he intends to take this agenda forward with his fellow chief scientists and also with the research councils. “I really believe that... we need to recognise that this is a pernicious influence, it is an increasingly pernicious influence and we need to be thinking about how we can actually deal with it.
”I really would urge you to be grossly intolerant...We should not tolerate what is potentially something that can seriously undermine our ability to address important problems.
Proper little cadre, isn't he, railing against AGW denialists alongside racists and homophobes? It will be the "broad masses of the scientific consensus" and show trials next. Has the man no sense of history?
Sir John later said "It is time the scientific community became proactive in challenging misuse of scientific evidence".
Judith Curry took up Bishop Hill's challenge that Beddington should therefore condemn "Hide the Decline" (the divergence of tree ring proxies from the instrumental temperature record circa 1960) and opened a debate on AGW "pseudoscience" on her blog here
judithcurry.com/2011/02/22/hiding-the-decline/
It is obvious that there has been deletion of adverse data in figures shown IPCC AR3 and AR4, and the 1999 WMO document. Not only is this misleading, but it is dishonest (I agree with Muller on this one). The authors defend themselves by stating that there has been no attempt to hide the divergence problem in the literature, and that the relevant paper was referenced. I infer then that there is something in the IPCC process or the authors’ interpretation of the IPCC process (i.e. don’t dilute the message) that corrupted the scientists into deleting the adverse data in these diagrams.
McIntyre’s analysis is sufficiently well documented that it is difficult to imagine that his analysis is incorrect in any significant way. If his analysis is incorrect, it should be refuted. I would like to know what the heck Mann, Briffa, Jones et al. were thinking when they did this and why they did this, and how they can defend this, although the emails provide pretty strong clues. Does the IPCC regard this as acceptable? I sure don’t.
More here
judithcurry.com/2011/02/22/hiding-the-decline/
It is the latest concept to beat sceptics with.
Rolls nicely off the tongue of the running dogs of the IPCC with a bit more stylistic oomph than mere "anti-science. Thelma and Louise will love it.
It's the latest "big idea" from Chief Scientific Officer Beddington (he who organised the Oxburgh Committee whitewash of CRU)
See this bit of gratuitous propaganda.
In closing remarks to an annual conference of around 300 scientific civil servants on 3 February, in London, Beddington said that selective use of science ought to be treated in the same way as racism and homophobia. “We are grossly intolerant, and properly so, of racism. We are grossly intolerant, and properly so, of people who [are] anti-homosexuality...We are not—and I genuinely think we should think about how we do this—grossly intolerant of pseudo-science, the building up of what purports to be science by the cherry-picking of the facts and the failure to use scientific evidence and the failure to use scientific method,” he said.
Beddington said he intends to take this agenda forward with his fellow chief scientists and also with the research councils. “I really believe that... we need to recognise that this is a pernicious influence, it is an increasingly pernicious influence and we need to be thinking about how we can actually deal with it.
”I really would urge you to be grossly intolerant...We should not tolerate what is potentially something that can seriously undermine our ability to address important problems.
Proper little cadre, isn't he, railing against AGW denialists alongside racists and homophobes? It will be the "broad masses of the scientific consensus" and show trials next. Has the man no sense of history?
Sir John later said "It is time the scientific community became proactive in challenging misuse of scientific evidence".
Judith Curry took up Bishop Hill's challenge that Beddington should therefore condemn "Hide the Decline" (the divergence of tree ring proxies from the instrumental temperature record circa 1960) and opened a debate on AGW "pseudoscience" on her blog here
judithcurry.com/2011/02/22/hiding-the-decline/
It is obvious that there has been deletion of adverse data in figures shown IPCC AR3 and AR4, and the 1999 WMO document. Not only is this misleading, but it is dishonest (I agree with Muller on this one). The authors defend themselves by stating that there has been no attempt to hide the divergence problem in the literature, and that the relevant paper was referenced. I infer then that there is something in the IPCC process or the authors’ interpretation of the IPCC process (i.e. don’t dilute the message) that corrupted the scientists into deleting the adverse data in these diagrams.
McIntyre’s analysis is sufficiently well documented that it is difficult to imagine that his analysis is incorrect in any significant way. If his analysis is incorrect, it should be refuted. I would like to know what the heck Mann, Briffa, Jones et al. were thinking when they did this and why they did this, and how they can defend this, although the emails provide pretty strong clues. Does the IPCC regard this as acceptable? I sure don’t.
More here
judithcurry.com/2011/02/22/hiding-the-decline/
