Bishop Hill Comets, climate and admitting you are wrong
May 17, 2011 Climate: other The Miller-McClune site (H/T Paddy, via GWPF) carries an interesting story of how a theory of comet-caused climate change turned out to be wrong and how hard it was to get the truth out.
It seemed like such an elegant answer to an age-old mystery: the disappearance of what are arguably North America’s first people. A speeding comet nearly 13,000 years ago was the culprit, the theory goes, spraying ice and rocks across the continent, killing the Clovis people and the mammoths they fed on, and plunging the region into a deep chill. The idea so captivated the public that three movies describing the catastrophe were produced.
But now, four years after the purportedly supportive evidence was reported, a host of scientific authorities systematically have made the case that the comet theory is “bogus.”
Reader Comments (26)
"Such intransigence has been seen before in other cases of grand scientific claims. Sometimes those theories were based on data irregularities. Other times, the proponents succumbed to self-delusion. But typically, advocates become so invested in their ideas they can’t publicly acknowledge error."
'Nuff said.
“It does feed distrust in science,” says Wallace Broecker, a geochemist at Columbia University and an international dean of climate research. “Those who don’t believe in human-produced global warming grab onto it.”
So is this about the bad science or making sure your hate figures don't get any more rope to hang you by ?
"Yet, the scientists who described the alleged impact in a hallowed U.S. scientific journal refuse to consider the critics’ evidence — insisting they are correct, even though no one can replicate their work: the hallmark of credibility in the scientific world."
"...team members call their critics’ work “biased,” “nonsense” and “screwed up.” "
"After the theory was first announced in 2007 in Acapulco, Mexico, Holliday had attempted to collaborate with Kennett to test the idea. But Kennett effectively blocked publication of the study last year after the results didn’t support the comet theory."
“It is very peculiar,” Holliday said. “They propose an idea, a study contradicts it, then they criticize the scientists or the work.”
“He won’t listen to anyone. It’s almost like a religion to him.”
Hmm, sounds familiar, interestingly enough, look who pops up as a comentator!
Eric Steig,
Still claiming that the RC posts about O'Donnell 2010 vindicate him!
Interesting that Eric Steig pops up as a commenter, claiming to have also been a victim of character assassination for publishing something going "against the grain", and offering support for the comet theory.
The parallels are just too obvious - the intransigence in the face of overwhelming refutation, the claim to victimhood, the re writing of history. But for Steig to claim he was publishing something "that appears to go against the grain" is just silly. The whole reason he got the attention he did, and so obviously craved, was that his work went very much WITH the grain, adding yet another continent to the global warming cause.
Steig doth protest too much, methinks.
The dogma hates to be challenged, so this example of the Grauniad getting pwned by a California educator who dares to teach both sides of the argument is well worth a read.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2011/may/17/global-warming-school-teaching-controversy
It'll take a lot longer than 5 years to overturn global warming mongers. There is a mass of money involved. A sum of almost unimmaginable amount.
'refuse to consider the critics’ evidence — insisting they are correct', I'm sorry to say these scientist have ever right to say such comments as this is now standard practice in science today, it's post modern don't you know, although I understand that post modern just means assuming the worst.
stephen richards
True -- but already everyone in California is laughing at "global warming" after this endless winter Tour of California Snowed out
The big cosmic blockbuster that should be all over the blogosphere:
http://calderup.wordpress.com/2011/05/17/accelerator-results-on-cloud-nucleation-2/
Can someone please enlighten me as to why the hypothesis has to be 'bogus', and not merely 'wrong'?
bo·gus (b½“g…s) adj. Counterfeit or fake. [From English bogus, a device for making counterfeit money.]
Chuckles - I think you already know the answer: it is the vogue word used by establishment scientists to label people they disagree with as not just wrong, but dishonest. It is why Simon Singh initially lost his case to the chiropractors, because it wasn't enough for him to say their ideas were delusional, he had to imply that they were crooks as well, although it seems he thought he could pretend he did not know that the word bogus carried such implications (odd for a professional writer), just as those who call sceptics "deniers" like to make out there are no Holocaust connotations. It is also why Steve McIntyre will not use the "f" word at Climate Audit, at least so far as the science itself is concerned, as he does not want to stoop to their level.
Good news, cam just announced uk will wait for eu to agree on emmesions before we commit.
Yup, cmdocker, the greens will be disappointed. Probably Osborne to thank for that
Some hilarious comments from Huhne during his Q&A in the house just now:
At one point he noted how his experience in financial markets taught him how difficult it was to make predictions 2 years ahead (but strangely he accepts IPCC predictions about the weather in 100 years time without question)
In another answer he drew a parallel between Stalin's attempt to impose communism in Russia, with his attempts to impose CO2 taxes. Noting that he would succeed where Stalin failed because CO2 taxes were being imposed globally.
Unbelieveable.
@Nicholas Hallam: .... Probably Osborne to thank for that
O/T, Osborne is also said to have been one of the very few who spoke up against Ireland being saddled with its now impossible mountain of debt:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2011/0507/1224296372123.html
If these examples are consistent with George's political outlook, I'd like to see him speak his mind more often.
Thanks Don P. and David S. for your replies to my query. So it's not enough that it be falsified, feelings are that it should never have been hypothesised in the first place, and all mention expunged from the records. Sort of 'Moving the Previous Question'.
Past performance suggests any date between 2018 and 2091 as the year CO2-based AGW will go the way of the dodo...
"...In another answer he [Huhne] drew a parallel between Stalin's attempt to impose communism in Russia, with his attempts to impose CO2 taxes. Noting that he would succeed where Stalin failed because CO2 taxes were being imposed globally. Unbelieveable." --Chilli
He seriously garbled the intended message. He and his handlers expect Communism in the guise of AGW prevention to be imposed globally, and thus on the UK, and have been telling each other for a long time, "We will succeed where Stalin failed." He carelessly used the insiders' catchphrase as a disastrous metaphor here. His handlers will not be pleased.
Which specific grain did Eric Steig go against in publishing his Antarctic results?
BTW, Bishop: I'm getting error messages again when attempting to comment. My previous comment was a draft, not the edited version. Please remove it and I'll repost in a different thread where it's not OT. Thanks.
"Page Not Found The page /process/CreateJournalEntryComment could not be located on this website. We recommend using the navigation bar to get back on track within our site. If you feel you have reached this page in error, please contact a site operator. Thank you!"
jorgekafkazar
Dont forget to tell us here which thread, because you've whetted appetites with that 7:10PM posting.
Sorry Pharos: It was an O/T comment about Chris Huhne's Q&A in Parliament on the 'Carbon Budget'.
You can read the Stalin comment in Hansard here:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmtoday/cmdebate/06.htm
Here's the quote in full:
Chris Huhne: "The attempt to build socialism in one country under Joe Stalin was not an unalloyed success, and, similarly, an attempt to build climate change policies in one country would not be an unalloyed success. We must keep a weather eye on the competitiveness of our industries and on what is going on overseas, but we have set a very clear direction. We will be ambitious in our climate change goals, and I am determined for us to drive the growth of these new opportunities and industries as a result."
The 'debate' was sickening to watch. With practically every questioner warmly welcoming the proposals and demanding even faster, even more damaging taxes and restrictions.
Chilli
Stalin's legacy
http://necrometrics.com/20c5m.htm#Stalin
Nowadays, every article discussing scientific malfeasance, dishonesty or systemic errors in any discipline must contain a brief sentence re-stating faith in CAGW science.