Monday, Feb 14 WSJ had Real Science on Page 1, Column #1!
Finally seeing some Main-stream media ("MSM" in blogspeak) attention to McIntyre & McKitrick's critique of the politicaly correct but scientificly suspect MBH hockeystick paper.
Science requires reproducibility. Not disclosing all the data and not disclosing your algorithm makes the political hockeystick graphics just that, political graphics.
Science must have higher standards. Failure to hold climate science to the standards of science plays into the hands of the professional ostriches (and their chorus of not proved).
Polictical correctness has no place in science. Knee-jerk support for Mann et al is endangers the entire environmentalist agenda. We need a competent analysis that demonstrates the real trends, but includes medeival warm period and litlte ice age, and doesn't produce hockey-sticks from random input.
Moberg's recent study and borehole series are more plausible and in agreement; and the Scripps study (Note that M+M acknowledge Moberg looks interesting and independent.)
Both sides are engaged in whacking straw dogs (with hockey sticks) This WSJ article is mostly good news, the folks speaking out have finally been meard by the Main Stream Media. The fair-and-balanced tone of course results in their being too fair to the "we're on the side of right so it doesn't matter if the math is bad" folks. Argument Ad Hominem has no place in science ... didn't in Galileo's time either, of course ...
Pollution *is* bad, but MBH was bad "science" and Kyoto was bad policy. Assuming China won't increase pollution even faster than their internal consumption growth and improved standard of living to absorb even more manufaturing to offset Western Kyoto cuts is absurd, the laws of Economy can be outlawed by treaty no more effectively than the law of gravity could be repealed.
Putting policy ahead of evidence is the death of science, and may set back the policy when discovered.
References
