Last post

I briefly had an article up here, which a couple of commenters suggested was unwise to post. On reflection I agree, and accordingly I've removed it.

Comments

[MikeHaseler]

I feel really sorry for the lass. She will have gone through an education system that was just oozing global warming hysteria - it's not her fault that she has been egged on to produce a thesis that will look pretty daft in a few years time,

I agree, she is not the one we should be criticising - more a victim than a culprit.

[Barry Woods]

you could just send her a free electronic copy of 'The Hockey Stick Illusion' with compliments of the author.

[RoyFOMR]

I rather enjoyed reading it. She'd clearly had done a barrow-load of work and written down her thoughts clearly and explicitly.
And what Mike said...

[MikeHaseler]

I think this explanation of their "science" sums up all that is wrong:

"Iʻm talking, yes, about the scientific method. Simply put, to have a valid argument, a scientist will hypothesize about something, letʻs say the temperature of a certain place over a specific period of time. He or she will then record temperatures for a specific length of time then write a paper and send it in to a journal publication-for example Science or Nature. Before it gets published, various other scientists read it to assess the validity of the argument. If none can falsify it or find no major inconsistencies, the paper gets published and then is used as the basis for other scientific hypotheses. So, these peer reviewed articles are what constitute the scientific fact."

In other words, if no "scientist" publishes a paper that says the world has not warmed - if no one questions warming because they don't want to rock the boat ... if for whatever reason the evidence contradicts the hypothesis or the models ... but no one publishes .... if no one sees it in their career interests to suggest the models are carp, .... then according to this absurd notion which wouldn't wash in an arts subject like literature criticism and is about as far from science as you can possibly get, .... despite the real fact that none of the models predicted the climate and the climate has not warmed in this bubble of madness it is a "scientific fact" that the world is warming and the models are all correct ... because none of them have published a paper saying otherwise.

[Andy scrase]

Oh dear, I missed something on the internet.i need to pay more attention. Will tell wife.

[Filbert Cobb]

I found the link on the cached post - thanks Mr Google. It amused me that the young person's degree was a BS. I expect she will turn up immediately as a lead author for IPCC.

[Jantar]

I'm disapointed the origional story was removed. However there is still enough information here that I was able to find the thesis via Goggle Scholar.

For a post graduate thesis I was rather disapointed in the standard. Although she indicates an open mind on the matter, she is preared to accept Mann's assertion that all the data is available on the internet, but discarded M&M's assertion that there was insufficient information given to find exactly what the data was. I would have expected that she would have attempted to obtain the data herself to see which side was correct.