When even Judith Curry finds a lot of problems with Roy Spencer's latest attempt to prove every climate scientist apart from him is wrong, you know that it is not by any stretch of the imagination a serious threat to the "orthodox" view of AGW.
This post by Curry is actually one that is useful, for a change, as it notes the political use to which Spencer's study was put, and the reaction from Real Climate, and Fred Moolten, who for some reason has taken on the job of being the voice of AGW orthodoxy on Curry's blog.
But Andrew Bolt says: the guy who wrote about polar bears, he's done something wrong, apparently.
(The Alaska Despatch, meanwhile, reprinted an email from the relevant Alaskan Bureau, saying this in part:
We are limited in what we can say about a pending investigation, but I can assure you that the decision had nothing to do with his scientific work, or anything relating to a five-year old journal article, as advocacy groups and the news media have incorrectly speculated. Nor is this a "witch hunt" to suppress the work of our many scientists and discourage them from speaking the truth. Quite the contrary. In this case, it was the result of new information on a separate subject brought to our attention very recently.Yet thousands of climate skeptics around the world will go on thinking this was a significant matter of another nail in AGW's coffin, or some such rubbish.)
No comments:
Post a Comment