December 05, 2009


Here's a long and detailed article on the Climategate fiasco: Scientists Behaving Badly

One of the striking features of the CRU emails is how much time the CRU circle spent discussing with each other the myriad problems with processing these data and how to display them to a wider world. On the one hand, this is typical of what one might expect of an evolving scientific enterprise. On the other hand, these are the selfsame scientists who have insisted most vehemently that there is a settled consensus adhered to by all researchers of repute and that there is nothing left to debate.

Posted by: Sarah at 08:19 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 108 words, total size 1 kb.

1 So here we are at my house, sitting at our separate computers calling back and forth to each other, have you seen this, or this? and sending links that get more and more outrageous. Such as this 
And if you link and read that it takes you to this from the latest Nature.
Oh, the arrogance of it all, the condescension is embarrassing.

Posted by: Ruth H at December 06, 2009 12:14 AM (zlUde)

2 Ruth -- Here's another one, called The Dog Ate Global Warming:

So the weather data that go into the historical climate records that are required to verify models of global warming aren’t the original records at all. Jones and Wigley, however, weren’t specific about what was done to which station in order to produce their record, which, according to the IPCC, showed a warming of 0.6° +/– 0.2°C in the 20th century.

Now begins the fun. Warwick Hughes, an Australian scientist, wondered where that “+/–” came from, so he politely wrote Phil Jones in early 2005, asking for the original data. Jones’s response to a fellow scientist attempting to replicate his work was, “We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”

Reread that statement, for it is breathtaking in its anti-scientific thrust. In fact, the entire purpose of replication is to “try and find something wrong.” The ultimate objective of science is to do things so well that, indeed, nothing is wrong.

Posted by: Sarah at December 06, 2009 07:46 AM (gWUle)

3 The original article on The Dog Ate Global Warming: was dated Sept 23, and has been amended but it tells me more and more that this was a whistle blower.  There has to be someone with a conscience in there somewhere. That would have been around the time someone was shopping those emails around to reporters who took no action.

Posted by: Ruth H at December 06, 2009 02:00 PM (JFseb)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
44kb generated in CPU 0.0134, elapsed 0.1295 seconds.
48 queries taking 0.1203 seconds, 172 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.