I reckon if Steve, Earthling and I started posted how the Earth is going to warm by 4-6 degrees due to human caused CO2 emissions you would start arguing we were wrong and that there was no proof of anything.
Good news of an eminent scientist justly rewarded.
Deniers must regret the day they picked on Michael Mann to attack. Adversity just made the guy tougher, and now he is a real public figure with an extensive public speaking schedule, for which he is earning pretty hefty fees!
But besides that, the good news is that Pennsylvania State University has made Michael Mann a Distinguished Professor in its College of Earth and Mineral Sciences.
I am sure you will join me in congratulating Professor Mann.
Congratulations to Michael Mann – Greg Laden's Blog
Internal academic politics are cutthroat, I agree 100%, it makes me happy I never became an academic. I have been shocked at the pettiness and vindictive in-fighting of some academics I have encountered. Professor Joe Lee spent a year in the Senate, and said that after College politics, national politics was a dawdle.
But you can bet that if Academic A in College X publishes something innovative or controversial, well then Academic B in College Y will be the first to try to make his reputation by proving Academic A wrong. Academic A may be master of his own little dunghill, but he cannot be master of all the dunghills, especially the ones in other countries.
Just like capitalism or Darwinism, there is an "invisible hand" that keeps science on the straight and narrow. Because academics and scientists are too fractious or too ambitious to sing from the same hymnsheet for long. Academic B (particularly if he is young, ambitious and arrogant) will want to take Academic A's scalp and make his reputation.
Of course, one occasion science had been temporarily subverted ... but ultimately science does win. The Piltdown Man hoax was the best example of that. It was a hoax that fooled scientists for years, but ultimately the people who proved it was a hoax were not journalists but scientists, too.
It is known and agreed that use of uniform (flat) priors for certain climate sensitivity calculations induces an upward bias in the results. James Annan agrees with that according to a comment on RealClimate, as do the different schools of Bayesian statisticians.
There is an extensive list of published papers that are subject to this error, including the influential Forrester paper.
However, you still are persisting over pages of this thread to deny it. And deny it. And deny it.
I swear I would suffer some sort of turn if you simply said, "on reflection, yes you are right. There appears to be a problem with this class of climate sensitivity papers".
Thankfully I don't think that will happen ever.
Point me the schools of Bayesian statisticians you are talking about and I will gladly read what they have to say. Or to the conversation on RealClimate which I could not find.
But don't expect me to take your word for it.
PS Here is a discussion between Annan and Andrew Gelman, a leading Bayesian statistician, about non-informative priors. There does not appear to be agreement.
Last edited by owedtojoy; 25th January 2013 at 06:06 PM.