Comments on: Breaking-ish News http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3509 Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:36:51 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: James Bradbury http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3509&cpage=1#comment-1231 James Bradbury Wed, 29 Jun 2005 03:36:55 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3509#comment-1231 I have to echo the concerns of Lisa D. I also humbly suggest that now may be a good time for all scientists to take a fresh look at what the politicization of science means for the integrity of their respective fields. In 2005, alone, we have seen medical doctors, evolutionary biologists and climatologists directly questioned and challenged through political, legislative and legal actions by elected officials in our state and federal governments. I hope, when returning to this topic, that Prometheus can speak to this broader issue. Kind Regards, james I have to echo the concerns of Lisa D. I also humbly suggest that now may be a good time for all scientists to take a fresh look at what the politicization of science means for the integrity of their respective fields.

In 2005, alone, we have seen medical doctors, evolutionary biologists and climatologists directly questioned and challenged through political, legislative and legal actions by elected officials in our state and federal governments. I hope, when returning to this topic, that Prometheus can speak to this broader issue.

Kind Regards, james

]]> By: Lisa D. http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3509&cpage=1#comment-1230 Lisa D. Tue, 28 Jun 2005 19:12:59 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3509#comment-1230 I've read the letters, and it goes beyond grandstanding to an attempt to intimidate-- intimidation because certain scientists are being singled out and asked to provide incredible detail on their career life, research product, not to mention the not-so thinly veiled accusations of professional misconduct from the level of the U.S. Government. What's interesting is that it appears that out of all the climate science out there, the Mann et al curve seems to be the lightning rod that those opposed to discussing climate policy are now pinning their hopes upon. It's yet another example (albeit at an elevated level with higher personal costs) of the values debate on what to do, if anything, about climate change being masked by red herrings about the science. I guess on the plus side we can be glad that the US Congress is taking such a keen interest in bristlecone pine and other tree ring data--- and people say the public doesn't care about science... I’ve read the letters, and it goes beyond grandstanding to an attempt to intimidate– intimidation because certain scientists are being singled out and asked to provide incredible detail on their career life, research product, not to mention the not-so thinly veiled accusations of professional misconduct from the level of the U.S. Government. What’s interesting is that it appears that out of all the climate science out there, the Mann et al curve seems to be the lightning rod that those opposed to discussing climate policy are now pinning their hopes upon. It’s yet another example (albeit at an elevated level with higher personal costs) of the values debate on what to do, if anything, about climate change being masked by red herrings about the science. I guess on the plus side we can be glad that the US Congress is taking such a keen interest in bristlecone pine and other tree ring data— and people say the public doesn’t care about science…

]]> By: James Annan http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3509&cpage=1#comment-1229 James Annan Tue, 28 Jun 2005 12:02:44 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3509#comment-1229 I guess this is the nearest thing to contrition we can expect from Prometheus for this previous contribution to the witch-hunt: McIntyre’s views on climate science policy make good sense and are good for the community as a whole. I guess this is the nearest thing to contrition we can expect from Prometheus for this previous contribution to the witch-hunt:

McIntyre’s views on climate science policy make good sense and are good for the community as a whole.

]]> By: William http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3509&cpage=1#comment-1228 William Tue, 28 Jun 2005 11:27:31 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3509#comment-1228 A curious air of unreality... clearly MBH98 *is* the original hockey stick paper. Its the one that Senator X has written to Mann about; its the one that M&M have spent so much time over, its the one that the IPCC cite (the very page you quote shows taht one cited first, and the GRL one is merely an extension of it). How very "ironic" this all is. A curious air of unreality… clearly MBH98 *is* the original hockey stick paper. Its the one that Senator X has written to Mann about; its the one that M&M have spent so much time over, its the one that the IPCC cite (the very page you quote shows taht one cited first, and the GRL one is merely an extension of it). How very “ironic” this all is.

]]> By: kevin http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3509&cpage=1#comment-1227 kevin Tue, 28 Jun 2005 01:31:24 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3509#comment-1227 Thanks William, but there's no need to be defensive on Michael's behalf or backhandedly insulting on your own. Clearly the Nature 1998 paper is not the original hockey stick pub, with data going back only to 1400. The "hockey stick" as used by IPCC and the source of controversy in the WSJ article, refers to the GRL 1999 pub, which goes back to 1000. (If you want, take a look at the figure legend and caption for Figure 2.21 in the 2001 IPCC Scientific Basis report: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/069.htm#fig220 ) And if even if all that were not true, my point about the irony of blasting GRL peer review while publishing a controversial paper in the same journal still stands! Thanks William, but there’s no need to be defensive on Michael’s behalf or backhandedly insulting on your own. Clearly the Nature 1998 paper is not the original hockey stick pub, with data going back only to 1400. The “hockey stick” as used by IPCC and the source of controversy in the WSJ article, refers to the GRL 1999 pub, which goes back to 1000.

(If you want, take a look at the figure legend and caption for Figure 2.21 in the 2001 IPCC Scientific Basis report: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/069.htm#fig220 )

And if even if all that were not true, my point about the irony of blasting GRL peer review while publishing a controversial paper in the same journal still stands!

]]> By: William http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3509&cpage=1#comment-1226 William Mon, 27 Jun 2005 22:52:39 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3509#comment-1226 Ironically for accuracy... your need to dig at Mann in your previous post leads you to call the 1999 GRL paper "the original". But, as Any Fule Kno, the original is MBH98 in Nature. Ironically for accuracy… your need to dig at Mann in your previous post leads you to call the 1999 GRL paper “the original”. But, as Any Fule Kno, the original is MBH98 in Nature.

]]>