The scandal of fiddled global warming data

[pjclarke]

As nobody has provided me with a list of the Top Ten 'sceptical' papers in PopTart's list, I had a look in his 'highlights' section. One of the papers there is Richard Tol's critique of John Cook's literature review which found a 97% concensus. Tol lists some flaws in the study (though the journal also published Cook's rebuttal to Tol's rebuttal), but the interesting part is in Tol's conclusion..

There is no doubt in my mind that the literature on climate change over- whelmingly supports the hypothesis that climate change is caused by humans. I have very little reason to doubt that the consensus is indeed correct. Cook et al.,however,failed to demonstrate this ....


If this is is one of the best papers in 'support of scepticism of AGW', just how unsupportive are the others?

[pjclarke]

I've just been ploughing through an academic paper which I assume was peer reviewed.

The author made the simple mistake of confusing decimal and hexadecimal so the bit of code he included is a load of tosh.

McKitrick screws up yet again – Deltoid

[EternalOptimist]

In one post pj has a pie graph claiming there are two sceptical papers. In another post he he talks about how the top ten sceptic papers are rubbished.

He has an argument for every occasion - the only problem is that they are inconsistent with each other, they do not form a cohesive narrative

Its a bit like the 'Deflated football' defence

A guy is in court denying that he borrowed a football and returned it bursted

'firstly your honour, I did not borrow a ball from him
Second, when I borrowed it, I returned it in the same condition
Lastly, I admit I borrowed and bursted it, but I repaired it before returning it'


Individually , the arguments might convince some - but they do not stack up together

[mudskipper]

I am (weather permitting) having lunch with HyperD tomorrow.

I must tell him to log onto CUK - I miss his rants (and cakes).

[speling bee]

In one post pj has a pie graph claiming there are two sceptical papers. In another post he he talks about how the top ten sceptic papers are rubbished.

He has an argument for every occasion - the only problem is that they are inconsistent with each other, they do not form a cohesive narrative

Its a bit like the 'Deflated football' defence

A guy is in court denying that he borrowed a football and returned it bursted

'firstly your honour, I did not borrow a ball from him
Second, when I borrowed it, I returned it in the same condition
Lastly, I admit I borrowed and bursted it, but I repaired it before returning it'


Individually , the arguments might convince some - but they do not stack up together

Point us towards that post will you?

[BlasterBates]

McKitrick screws up yet again – Deltoid

As we mentioned before it is important to note that this link is a blog and not a peer reviewed paper, and therefore although it isn't necessarily wrong, it is unconvincing.

[speling bee]

I am (climate permitting) having lunch with HyperD tomorrow.

I must tell him to log onto CUK - I miss his rants (and cakes).

FTFY

And remind him to vote UKIN.

[speling bee]

As we mentioned before it is important to note that this link is a blog and not a peer reviewed paper, and therefore although it isn't necessarily wrong, it is unconvincing.

Quite right.

[EternalOptimist]

Point us towards that post will you?

look up a few. he wants someone to give him the top ten out of over a thousand.
and its not so he can praise them

[speling bee]

look up a few. he wants someone to give him the top ten out of over a thousand.
and its not so he can praise them

So did he say that the top ten are rubbished?