Climate Skeptic Mistake Goes Unchallenged?
Climate skeptic James Delingpole's admission that he doesn't read peer-reviewed science make his attacks on climate science hard to stomach. Nevertheless, it's hard to deny that science is flawed and mistakes happen. What's most important to understand is how we recognize mistakes are made, and what we do to correct them. A recent post on Skeptical Science entitled A Case Study in Climate Science Integrity charts the course of mistaken conclusions drawn by both an Argentinian environmental group called Universal Ecological Fund (FEU) and prominent skeptic scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen, based on apparently incorrect analysis of the same IPCC data. The errors in the FEU report—which over-estimated the projected consequences of warming—appear to have been publicized and challenged immediately by environmental groups, bloggers and journalists alike. Meanwhile Lindzen's incorrect analysis—which interpreted the same data to mean we have little to worry about—continues to go unchallenged in skeptical circles. Who'd have thought it?