Global Warming Scandal Makes Scientific Progress More Difficult, Experts Say

[sherp]

Phil Jones just stepped down as Director awaiting a complete investigation per the Anthony Watts blog of the emails and hacking. Jones is one of the "lights" in the Global Warming Scam . Wow, at least in Britian they don't fool around. What would really complete the scam is for it to snow on their heads in Copenhagen. Will Obama show? What a hoot. Al should give back the prize and it should be awarded to Irene Sendler who rescued 2,500 children from certain death in the Warsaw Ghetto. The wonderful women who actually lived her faith and helped her fellows and did not get the prize cause they gave it to Al Gore for his "Inconvenient Truth". And Mann is being investigated at Penn State.

 

[Oddball]

have any charges been laid yet in this e-mail hacking conspiracy of yours yet

Took awhile for Halderman, Erlichman and Liddy to be charged and convicted, and for the impeachment process for Nixon to shake out too.

....and just how many scientists have been implicated?

At least ten, with the implications of ruined subsequent work spreading to everyone who took their fraudulent data on good faith.

Granted, they're not answers you're prepared to accept, but there they are.

 

[Jay Canuck]

10.... and that is just implicated.

 

[saveliberty]

Help Wanted: Department Head for Climatology Studies. Must be reputable person with at least 12 peer reviewed papers on the subject area. Ability to garner federal grant money under trying conditions a must. Attention to detail, solid recordkeeping and working independent of other scientists is important. Position is immediately available at Penn State. No emails please.

 

[keee keee]

You forgot GOOD LIAR

 

[Annie]

Scientific progress will not be more difficult - the results and explaining them to the public will....and that was exactly what all the paid media deniers, large oil companies, oil barons and partisan hacks want. Although some in the public are buying the media inuendo the majority of the public still trusts that when a vast majority of the worlds scientists generally agree that man-made climate change is a reality it is.

Poor Jay, he hasn't a clue to the implications of what this is. On the other hand, that makes him a useful tool in the hands of the left. Says Jay:

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Link to Jones casualty story:

Inquiries Begin on Climate Files; Head of British Climate Unit Steps Aside - Dot Earth Blog - NYTimes.com

 

[garyd]

Lets see jay so far you gave us a poll fromm 1998 and 2006. How about something a bit more recent.

 

[Annie]

Something to ponder for those that are trying to defend, from someone of the same ilk:

ClimateGate III: The Mystery of the Missing Data - Megan McArdle

ClimateGate III: The Mystery of the Missing Data

01 Dec 2009 03:54 pm
Over the weekend, I came in for some probably deserved criticism from Clive Crook over my initial, somewhat airy, reaction to ClimateGate. In my defense, he quotes my first post on the topic, not the follow up. That was early innings, and my initial estimation of the emails that got the most press at the beginning--particularly the "trick" email--hasn't changed all that much. Sexing up a graph is a bad thing. But the world is not going to plunge off a cliff because of one overdone graph. I've become considerably more concerned at items that have subsequently gotten more attention.

Clive says:

Megan McArdle adopts a world-weary tone similar to The Economist's: this is how science is done in the real world. If I were a scientist, I would resent that. She has criticised the emails and the IPCC response to them, then says she still believes the consensus view on climate change. Well, that was my position at the end of last week, and I suppose it still is. But how do I defend it? There is far more of a problem here for the consensus view than Megan and ordinarily reliable commentators like The Economist acknowledge. I am not a climate scientist. In the end I have to trust the experts. That is what we are asked to do. "Trust us, we're scientists".​

He is right: this is not how science should be done. Bullying, groupthink, and bad behavior take place, even by scientists who are right--but that is not to say that I approve of it. And I confess, some of the revelations are making it harder for me to trust this group of scientists about the magnitude of the change, even though I am still pretty confident about the direction.

They apparently tried to organize a deletion of files in order to avoid an FOI request. This is horrifying, and I simply cannot understand why so many of their supporters are willing to downplay it. A couple of sample quotes: "Unfortunately, there are also a couple of messages that suggest an effort to destroy emails that might have been subject to a Freedom of Information request. That's a genuine problem, though it's not clear to me just how big a problem it is. . . . So on a substantive level, there's really very little to this." that's from Kevin Drum, who I greatly respect. More worrying is Real Climate: "Suggestions that FOI-related material be deleted ... are ill-advised even if not carried out. What is and is not responsive and deliverable to an FOI request is however a subject that it is very appropriate to discuss."

Words fail one, reading that latter comment. Ill-advised? Deleting data in order to avoid an official information request is a crime, as is trying to coordinate same, even if you fail in the execution. It's also grossly unethical, and hard to reconcile with any reasonable understanding of science. Moreover, it's the sort of thing that is often done by people who have nasty secrets, so it's hard to pass it off with a blithe, "Oh, dear, now that was a wee bit naughty!"

Imagine reading this email exchange coming from, say, senior officials in the Bush administration. Would any of these bloggers regard this as the ethical equivalent of jaywalking on an empty street?

It's entirely possible that the aspiring self-censors were merely trying to avoid some trivial embarassment, since we have no idea what, if anything, was actually deleted. But it does not inspire the kind of trust you want to have in people who are advocating massive economic dislocations.

There is strong evidence that a small group of scientists has inappropriate power over the process of consensus-building. Particularly, they seem to have exercised considerable sway over the peer review process at prominent outlets, while simultaneously deriding their critics because . . . they weren't being published in those peer reviewed journals. As Derek Lowe says, "But while it may have happened somewhere else, that does not make it normal (and especially not desirable) scientific behavior. This is not a standard technique by which our sausage is made over here."

As with the FOI deletions, I find the defenses incredibly underwhelming. They boil down to the fact that these scientists were sick of answering criticisms from people they don't like. And I am actually sympathetic. Corporate groups and conservative interests did put a lot of money into battling any evidence of anthropogenic global warming, for reasons that had very little to with a committment to solid science. Having gone more than a few rounds with critics like this, I heartily empathize with the weariness. But unfortunately, having people you don't like crawl all over your work looking for errors is, er, science. When I come across scientists who don't get that, well, my trust in their work sort of plummets. Contrast this with something like Steven Levitt's classy response when he was caught in coding errors.

It is not clear to me that CRU can now reproduce their own data set...

Yes, there is a lot more...

 

[garyd]

If the data don't fit delete it , eh Jay?

 

[Claudette]

Global Warming. What a bunch of BS. Al Gore is laughing all the way to the bank and all the scientists are wipiing the egg off their faces.

Don't worry though. Ol'Al , being the money and publicity hungry kinda guy he is, will find a way to make a few more bucks outta this mess. LOL

 

[Darkwind]

The trustworthiness of the scientific community's global warming data pool is being called into question as the scandal over doctored data continues to unfold.

The latest revelation came on Sunday with the publication of a report by The Sunday Times of London that scientists at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit in the United Kingdom confessed to throwing out most of the raw temperature data on which the theory of global warming is founded.

The loss of the data prevents other scientists from checking it to determine whether, in fact, there has been a long-term rise in global temperatures during the past century and a half.

"They are making scientific progress more difficult now," says Willie Soon, a physicist, astronomer and climate researcher at the solar and stellar physics division of the Harvard University-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. "This is a shameful, dark day for science," he said in an interview with FoxNews.com.

Soon also suggested that there has been systemic suppression of dissenting opinion among scientists in the climate change community, ranging from social snubs to e-mail stalking and even threats of harm.








Global Warming Scandal Makes Scientific Progress More Difficult, Experts Say - Science News | Science & Technology | Technology News - FOXNews.com







that sound's like the way libtards operate!

Sorry, I needed to fix your post....

Its better now....

 

[Ravi]

Link to Jones casualty story:

Inquiries Begin on Climate Files; Head of British Climate Unit Steps Aside - Dot Earth Blog - NYTimes.com

The guy that writes the blog at your link is IMO the only one reporting with any credibility and no bias.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

There is a consensus!!!! That is the end of the debate!! STFU You deniers!! Global warming is a new religion for the godless and now "Mother Earth" is going to punish you all for your blasphemy!!!! Apostates!!!!

I've peer reviewed this post and found it 100% accurate

 

[blastoff]

Maybe Al's next movie will be called 'an inconvinent goof.'

Great title for the AlGore biography.

Might piss off our resident goof, Canuck, but, hey, life's a bitch.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Global Warming Scandal Makes Scientific Progress More Difficult, Experts Say.

Yeah, just like having oozing pustules on your lips makes it less likely someone will kiss you on the mouth

 

[NO!bama08]

I just want to know what Mr. Global Warming himself thinks.... Al Gore. Will he ever admit
he was wrong? He's made millions off of his "sky is falling" speeches. Idiot.

 

[Navy1960]

USCAP Members Include:
•AES
•Alcoa
•Alstom
•Boston Scientific Corporation
•BP America
•Caterpillar
•Chrysler
•ConocoPhillips
•Deere & Company
•The Dow Chemical Company
•Duke Energy
•DuPont
•Environmental Defense Fund
•Exelon Corporation
•Ford Motor Company
•FPL Group
•General Electric
•General Motors
•Honeywell
•Johnson & Johnson
•Natural Resources Defense Council

United States Climate Action Partnership


I always found it amusing to say the least when someone would claim the mean old oil companies are behind some scheme to discredit the IPCC or the "man made Global Warming" advocates. If no one has noticed lately many of those very same oil companies are major proponents of climate change legislation and perhaps that because if this man made global warming theory is passed through draconian legislation and mandates they all stand to gain literally billions upon billions of dollars for it. Man made global warming being settled science makes me laugh because science at its essesence is discovery and once someone claims that it anything is settled then it throws out the window possibility. I will remind everyone that long ago that the world was flat was settled scince as well and that didn't turn out so well for those that thought so. Perhaps the efforts behind this man made global warming have nothing at all to do with a noble effort to save the planet and everything to do with making a select few very wealthy by creating a market through legislation and mandates?

 

[Zander]

There is a consensus!!!! That is the end of the debate!! STFU You deniers!! Global warming is a new religion for the godless and now "Mother Earth" is going to punish you all for your blasphemy!!!! Apostates!!!!

I've peer reviewed this post and found it 100% accurate

I concur!! We now have a consensus. The science is officially settled and AGW is real, STFU!

Relativity.......Theory
Evolution.......Theory
AGW.............Settled Science!

 

[Navy1960]

I would also remind people that it was settled science up until recently that Pluto was a planet , however now it's not settled science. To imply that the science of Man Made Global Warming is settled is complete nonsense and is more akin to reading tea leaves or tree rings in this case and calling it settled science. Science allows for honest debate on the merits of issues and when that debate is squashed it becomes a cult.