In 1992, Mark Serreze Was A Hockey Stick/Global Warming Denier

screenhunter_28-mar-12-00-174dd4 Denver Post: Archive Results

His science has since descended into a death spiral.

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

22 Responses to In 1992, Mark Serreze Was A Hockey Stick/Global Warming Denier

  1. Steve Case says:

    “They” made him an offer he couldn’t refuse.

    • stewart pid says:

      Steve beat me to it … I was going to comment on the cash that spiralled Mark’s way when he went over to the dark side 😉

  2. Giftoftruth says:

    2010 the Iceland volcano erupted and it released more co2 into the atmosphere than the human race did in all of its existence. The warming of earth is a hoax! Just another scare tactic used to distract our attention and for unlawful codes to be implimented.

  3. Perry says:

    Who crossed his palm with 30 pieces of silver?

  4. darrylb says:

    A takeaway is that there are regular routine large changes at the poles. One area warmed by near 5 degrees F., and another cooled by as much.
    Now so much is made of so little.
    I began the teaching year with a Mark Twain quote which was intended to emphasize errors and uncertainty in science. After a long typically exaggerated Mark Twain Story he wrote (as I recall)
    “There is something fascinating about science, one gets a wholesale return of conjecture on such a minimal investment of fact”.

  5. geologyjim says:

    He was just following all that taxpayer cash down the sewer drain

  6. jason Calley says:

    Just like climate is influenced by many, many different factors, human actions are similar. Serreze, no doubt, had many different pressures on him. Money — while the most obvious — is often not the greatest of those pressures. Maybe it was a desire to agree with co-workers in the field, maybe a desire to more easily get published, maybe a desire to be on the dominant team, maybe he embraced CAGW because he was not smart enough to understand how complicated the physics is. Once you put someone in a position where they have a strong emotional need to believe something, it is only a matter of time before the reasoning part of the brain falters and we each see clearly the evidence which supports our emotional wish, but become blind to evidence which conflicts with what we so desperately wish were true. Most people cannot resist the push to reconcile belief with desire. In the case of CAGW, the money may be just the last positive reinforcement.

    What do you call people who put truth above desire? They are called “scientists.” Many people have credentials that they studied science — but only a few of them are actual scientists. Sadly, Serreze is apparently not among them.

    • Gail Combs says:

      The problem spreads because of Money and Peer Pressure with a strong sprinkling of coercion from above. We are well aware that if you are not a ‘Team Player’ you do not advance and you may even be fired.

      We are seeing Censorship at it’s nastiest returning to the USA. So much for equal rights. ‘Political Correctness’ is now mandatory for advancement in across the board.

      On another thread a Grad student with a TA job was just fired because the college found out he had attended an Ayn Rand Institute seminar/event.
      http://watchdogwire.com/pennsylvania/2014/10/03/opinion-oppression-in-the-name-of-fairness-a-disturbing-trend-on-college-campuses/

      John Kehr reported he had to remove a commentors name because he was told by the hiring company that they did not hire Deniers
      http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2013/03/introducing-the-marcott-9/

      ALSO SEE Ayn Rand on Censorship:
      Warning you will not like what she says but listen to the end. Her take home is Censorship starts by picking the least attractive actions to slip in censorship. The Camel’s nose in the tent. Censorship is a major pillar of Collectivism.
      http://aynrandlexicon.com/ayn-rand-works/censorship.html

      • Jason Calley says:

        Prior to the mid-to-late 1970s, the only current usage of the phrase “politically correct” here in the US was in reference to the Communist Chinese practice of imprisoning and “reeducating” those whose opinions, philosophies and thoughts were not approved by the tyrannical Mao regime. They were reeducated (tortured, beaten and murdered) until their thoughts were “politically correct.” The phrase denoted something that was absolutely anathema to every basic principle of American freedom. When the phrase first began to be used in the US to mean a certain school of thought (a school now know as “Progressive”) I at first wondered if it were being used as a joke or as a parody. “Certainly no one in America would use THAT phrase for themselves and for their politics! They will become a laughing stock!”

        Oh, I was wrong. I underestimated both how evil the “politically correct” crowd was, and how gullible much of the US public was.

    • inMAGICn says:

      jC

      This is somewhat pedantic, but scientists must put “facts” above desire. A scientific quest for “truth” often ends badly.

  7. northernont says:

    I’ll update the story…..After spending two years analyzing more than 1 million Government grant offerings to find non-existent CAGW effects , University of Colorado researcher Mark Serreze has revealed that he is suffering from the greenback effect, an ailment that can only be contracted through direct contact with grant money, giving new meaning to the phrase ” you get what you paid for”.

  8. SMS says:

    Odd that Mark Serreze would find no AGW footprint up to 1992, but a few years later when the “pause” began; he did find a footprint. As has been mentioned in previous comments, money can make a prostitute out of anyone.

  9. mjc says:

    Looking at many journal articles and papers, it’s pretty clear that one of the major pressures to ‘change one’s tune’ started in the early/mid 90s with the number of ‘pro’ papers growing. The ‘publish or die’ mantra of academia, especially when the peer-review process becomes corrupted and biased in a certain direction is one of, if not, the main driving forces. Because, without being published, recently, you won’t even get access to the ‘grant pool’. So it’s an even bigger motivator than the money itself.

    Who/how that happened doesn’t really matter. It did and it was brought on by that ‘publish or die’ mentality…it made it very easy to corrupt the process.

  10. John Kerry just called Mark Serreze. He wants his flip-flops back.

  11. Cheshirered says:

    Nice find! Mark will be SO pleased it’s now in the blogosphere. 🙂

  12. Climatism says:

    Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
    Good find. Wonder if Mark is as aware of his own B$ ?

Leave a Reply to Gail Combs Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s