Thursday, June 10, 2010

The Worst Scandal in Science's History (5)

The final part of EoR's exercise in shooting fish in a barrel

EoR is only halfway through Dr Happs' exaggerated claims, but the rest of his article basically come down to exposing the vast worldwide conspiracy of faked climate change science, essentially based on what has become known as Climategate, and using such emotive language as 'scandal', 'clique', 'conspiracy' and 'criminal'.

Climategate has been investigated by three independent reviews. No wrongdoing has been found (other than criticism of how FOI requests were handled).

Brian Angliss has written a very good summary of just how out of context the Climategate quotes are. This is cherry picking raised to an incredible level, indicating how desperate the deniers are to get any tiny scrap of evidence that might just possibly be twisted to their spurious arguments, and just how empty that argument really is.

A few other points of interest (or despair, given how weak the article is)...

The IPCC is ignoring data sets that do not fit their predetermined views (do you see yet how the deniers claim that scientists exhibit the very faults they seem incapable of perceiving in themselves?), but instead rely on those from the Climate Research Unit alone - the very place those evil lying criminal scientists who wrote the Climategate emails work! How can they be trusted?

Well, perhaps because climate science is based on a plethora of data souces, including Argo which Dr Happs notes as being disregarded.

Dr Happs produces a graph sourced from joannenova.com.au. EoR won't demean anyone by raising issues of how to judge whether a reference source is valid and reliable. There is a difference between using accurate data, and data that you found on a blog that fits your predetermined conclusion.

Dr Happs quotes Monckton as a reliable source to judge the Climategate scientists as not only wrong, but criminal. Remember earlier in his article when he claimed the IPCC shouldn't be listened to because many of the staff weren't scientists? Monckton is increasingly a joke, even to the climate deniers. An eccentric UK aristocrat, a well known serial liar, and in no sense a scientist. Yet Dr Happs, who seems to understand science so well, and the necessity to really verify facts (otherwise, how did he learn that the entirety of climate science was a conspiracy?) describes him as:

Mathematician Christopher Monckton, former scientific advisor to Margaret Thatcher


Monckton is not a mathematician. He was never a 'science' advisor to Margaret Thatcher. If Dr Happs can't get these simple facts right, how much of his argument can be trusted?

Dr Happs' only other points of any substance, other than name calling and unsubstantiated accusations, are that the 'hockey stick' graph is a fabrication, as proven by McIntyre and McKitrick in Corrections to the Mann et al (1998) proxy data base and Northern Hemispheric average temperature series. Climate science is so mendacious that even staunch warmist George Monbiot has been converted, Dr Happs informs us:

British journalist George Monbiot, environmental and political activist and one of the fiercest media propagandists for man-made global warming, has now reversed his position in light of the damning evidence.


McIntyre and McKitrick are wrong. Very wrong.

The 'hockey stick' graph is not a fabrication.

George Monbiot indeed published an article that was severely critical of the Climate Research Unit in the light of the Climategate emails. This was prior to the three reviews. It does not represent his ongoing position on climate change. More cherry picking of data by Dr Happs. Indeed, Monbiot's latest article is on Monckton, one of Dr Happs' authorities. The byline (probably written by a subeditor) seems eerily relevant:

Monckton repeatedly exposes the shallow fallacy of climate denial, dragging down those stupid enough to believe him.


Dr Happs notes at the bottom of his article that Australia's Chief Scientist has not responded to him, even after three months. Since she supports the science of climate change this is hardly surprising. EoR presumes she, also, must therefore be part of the worldwide criminal conspiracy if Dr Happs is to be believed. EoR also notes that, even months after the Climate Research Unit were cleared of any wrongdoing, Dr Happs' calumnies remain uncorrected.




Conspiracy Links

New Scientist on climage change
Scientific American on global warming
CSIRO on understanding climate change
National Snow and Ice Data Center - Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis
NASA - Is Antarctica Melting?

Previous Entries on The Complete and Horrible Truth About The Worst Scandal in Science's History
The Worst Scandal in Science's History (4)
The Worst Scandal in Science's History (3)
The Worst Scandal in Science's History (2)
The Worst Scandal in Science's History

2 comments:

  1. Hiya! :)

    Firstly - disclaimer - Perth Skeptics meetup.com group are NOTHING to do with WA Skeptics.

    Secondly - I have met Mockton. He came to my school. He was really pretty bloody awful. And the entire school went through a massive analysis of his claims, followed up by a lecture by the Chief Scientist of WA and a geoscientist, about how Mockton was wrong.

    I'm not surprised, in short, how the CS is not getting in touch with the WA Skeptics. I had a feeling they were tending down that track during the last (several years now) lecture I attended of the WA Skeptics, where they essentially bullied one of the Al Gore presenters who go around talking about 'An Inconvenient Truth'. :/ Wasn't a pleasant experience watching them do that. :/

    Thanks for pointing out the Aust Skeptics stance on it in your blogpost. The groups are essentially independent nationwide, really?

    ReplyDelete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.