Barking moonbat trying to save his career by opining he was wronged, wronged I tell you.
The only lies, cover-up and deceit has come from the alarmist and their irrational goals and plans.
Journalism isn’t boot licking, I think he forgot that part.
One of the biggest problems and issues in the AGW “debate” with journalists is that they keep flying this canard of “consensus” among scientists.
Let’s back up for a moment and nail down some broad generalizations of facts:
1. Most journalists have a liberal arts background - in writing, political science, etc. A very few have backgrounds in economics, but that’s not a real science, dismal or otherwise.
2. As liberal arts majors, they’re used to “consensus” being important in most of the areas of public life that they cover. For example, jury trials are about consensus. Votes in legislative bodies are about rough consensus and horse-trading. Public opinion polls, voting, etc — all about some level of consensus.
3. So the mistake that liberal arts majors make is in extending this thought process to science.
And here, they run off the tracks and into a ditch. In science, “consensus” doesn’t count for crap. Most all scientific progress in the last four hundred years comes, as a matter of hard fact, not from a “consensus,” but from one or two people out there on the fringe, doing something that tests or blows up the prevailing consensus of the day. I could rattle off a few dozen examples if people are interested, but take my word for it: real scientific advances do not happen as a result of large mobs of researchers the world over coming to some sort of agreement about “the way things work.” And this climatology field isn’t any different.
Get 100 physics jocks together in a room. Pay them all $1 million each to say “there is no gravity.” OK, so they all agree: “there is no gravity.”
And then you decide to take a step off the third floor balcony. You fall and break a leg. (or two). What happened?
The physical world doesn’t give a rat’s ass about “consensus.” Period.
The errors of “science journalism” in the last 20+ years is that a) the journalists don’t know the scientific method, and b) they failed to hold fashionable AGW climatology to a standard of the scientific method, which required of these statistical computer models a level of predictive skill to confirm their hypothesis. The AGW climate models have been shown in the last 10 years to have little to no predictive skill, and the regional large-scale weather modeling the AGW proponents have been issuing (eg, the number of hurricanes in the Atlantic in seasons since 2005) have been spectacular failures.
This is also why I have great sport making fun of economists. Many here on FR now love to poke fun at the “consensus expectations” of economists on various macro-economic indicators when the numbers come in “unexpected” above or below “consensus.” The reason why these numbers are falling wide of the “consensus” estimates is for the same reason that the AGW frauds are now being exposed: the econometric models aren’t science, they don’t pass the test of predictive skill, and economists continue to cling to their politically-based theories of how the economy works, numbers to the contrary.
Ergo, economics is not a science, dismal or otherwise. It is just political mental masturbation with numbers.
And now in the CRU, NZ and other eruptions, we see climatology is in a very real danger of being put in the same penalty box as economics: mathematical-based pseudo-scientific drivel.