Climate scientist busted for fudging data

12 thoughts on “Climate scientist busted for fudging data”

  1. Bob Carter is more political activist these days than scientist. Appearing on any right wing media that will have him & making guest appearances for Barnaby Joyce on climate propaganda tours.

    Good to see that science also affirms what many always suspected…….that he is indeed a better political activist than he is a scientist.


  2. Thank you Phil. This distinction is extremely important. I also think that the scientific community has an enormous obligation to weed out the type of dodgy science.


  3. (so why isn’t he an author on Foster et al. 2010 – or is he?)

    At the risk of spilling the beans here, let’s just say that (ahem) he is.


  4. Sadly, de Freitas is a regular opinion page columnist in the New Zealand Herald, the Auckland-based leading newspaper in New Zealand. About every three months or so, this academic at University of Auckland produces another piece “debunking” AGW.


  5. Where is Barnaby Joice and Nick Minchin – I wonder what they now have to depend on in terms of justifying their position on anthropogenic global warming? Or is he just simply a Wally?


  6. Ove, you must (a) stop thinking like a scientist and (b) thinking our opponents are disinterested seekers after truth. If Joyce and Minchin were to have any idea that the McLean et al paper had been comprehensively rubbished (although it was always obvious that “their analysis method removes all temperature variation which is due to trend — which of course makes it impossible for their analysis to indicate anything whatever about the trend”) it wouldn’t mean beans. They would simply pick up some other bit of denialist rubbish from Watts or Plimer or Lindzen or Lomborg and quote that. Their opposition to the need for action on climate change has absolutely nothing to do with science and therefore can’t be changed by science. It has everything to do with the mindset that the world has been put here to be plundered, and that no environmental factor of any kind must ever get in the way of that plunder. This was never a scientific debate, always an ideological one, or, rather, it was always science versus ideology.


  7. The refutation of MDC09 has rather more profound implications that might at first be apparent.

    Not only are McLean, de Freitas and Carter themselves shown to be mathematically incompetent at what is really a first year uni undergrad level, but all of their denialist promoters/supporters are shown to be similarly incompetent and/or dissembling by direct implication through not detecting/acknowledging MFC’s mistake soon after its publication: and all the more so the more, the longer that they continue to remain silent after the publication of Foster et al 2010.

    Conversely, the proponents of AGW are shown to be able to definitively and unassailably refute such naïve nonsense immediately it is produced (even though the journey to publication took some time…). McLean might bluster and threaten that he has a solid response, but obviously the editors of the Journal of Geophysical Research did not think so, and neither McLean nor his two co-authors have attempted a decent response online – he is certainly welcome to explain his adherence to the oringinal publication here, or at Deltoid, or at Real Climate, or at Skeptical Science, or on the Rabbet Run, or at Hot Topic, or at any of a number of other blogs that are watching the story with a critical eye. Alternatively, there are other journals (E&E?), with less stringent acceptance criteria, that might permit Mclean and his co-authors to defend themselves.

    The whole affair is a depiction in miniature of the overall climate change debate. The naysayers make many claims, and their flim-flam is summarily deconstructed and shown to be the pseudoscientific rubbish that it is. Meanwhile, the real science remains stubbornly resistant to refutation, and indeed continues to gather ever more empirical support. That so many of the lay public do not understand this is a sad reflection of the general standard of scientific literacy, and of much of human nature.

    Anyone with an inkling of how science works, and of parsimonious process, would understand exactly upon which horse to put their money. Of course, if you’re being paid to talk up a loser, that’s a different story – and it’s not science…

    Just as most everything produced by the Denialati is not science.


  8. Is global warming going to destroy the world? No in fact in may prove to be an improvement for many living in third world countries. Rising ocean levels will increase the surface area for evaporation to occur. Making more atmospheric water available and increasing rainfall for crops. Growing seasons will also be longer and less fuel will be needed for heating. The climate changes all the time and if mankind has put a .02% bump in rate of change it’s pretty insignificant. These green policies will force massive changes in the world economy making the middle class poor and concentrate authority in nearly all aspects of our lives in the government. It’s all about money and power, and it always has been. If you think I’m wrong don’t waste your time flaming me go buy some soon to be beach front property and wait.


  9. Thom, where have you been? The major impacts seem to be falling disproportionately on developing countries (e.g. sea level rise, drought in Africa, monsoon failure in Southeast Asia). You need to read the IPCC fourth assessment report and other peer-reviewed literature to help you understand this issue.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s