Science, Innovation, Politics
Excellent to see some proper climate scientists starting to write a blog of their own. Definitely worth following. Their explanation of the 'trick' seems very clear. I wonder why they call it the Climate Onion?Because you have to peel away so many layers to get at the truth?Or because it can make you cry?
Roger,Your dad has a post about the 3 views. Which reminds me of a question I wanted to ask you. Given the absence of replication of climate studies, why are so many climate scientists so certain about the state of the science? We have many, many examples of really shoddy studies being exposed whenever anyone takes a look at them. We know the temperature monitoring stations have been incompetently managed. We know the code is often a mess. We know that statistical analysis is regularly butchered, often in ways that are really "gobsmacking". It seems that every time people who really understand stats and math sink their teeth into a climate science study, the errors just keep rolling on.Isn't there an extraordinary amount of hubris coming from these guys? Every time we turn over the rock we find evidence of mistakes. Wouldn't a reputable scientist want to call a timeout and wait to learn how much of the work is actually of sufficient quality?Given how much crap has already been exposed, I think it's pretty reckless for any scientist to assume that there isn't a whole lot more of it waiting to be exposed.
The first step on the path to wisdom is the recognition of our ignorance and fallibility.
It would seem that Sturgeon's Law "Nothing is always absolutely so." and Sturgeon's Revelation "90% of everything is crud."should be posted above every scientist's (and journalist's for that matter) desk. For modelers add Korzybski's "The map is not the territory."
Dear Paul, it's called climate onion for a simple reason