Comments on: ClimateGate and FOI

By: dover_beach

dover_beach — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 00:58:04 +0000

There are still many other lines of evidence for anthropogenic climate warming.

NMG, who, here, is denying AGW? What we are disputing is its purported magnitude. There are NOT many lines of evidence that establish that the magnitude of AGW at present concentrations, or those likely to obtain in the 21st C, is catastrophic; actually there are many lines of evidence to the contrary. That is why people, such as yourself, rarely defend the latter claim, preferring the safer ground of the former, which almost no one is disputing anyway.

What is worse then the apparent fraud committed by those involved have been the declarations of other climate scientists tangentially involved, or not at all, that appear to condone or defend their colleagues fraudulent activities as necessary in the circumstances.

By: Sinclair Davidson

Sinclair Davidson — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 00:41:57 +0000

Sure. Evidence is produced using a process. That process is now in doubt.

By: NMG

NMG — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 00:39:22 +0000

In agreement, maybe.
There are still many other lines of evidence for anthropogenic climate warming.
We are in agreement that the Himalayan glaciers are melting more slowly than was previously thought and that the “scientist” that included the data in the knowledge that it was false may find his future career prospects somewhat truncated.

My argument is that one cannot trust people entirely hence the checks and balances inherent in the scientific method is one of the few (relatively) reliable paths to truth we have.
It is not people we should trust, it is the evidence. They may be the worst people on earth, it doesn’t make them wrong.

By: daddy dave

daddy dave — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 00:32:00 +0000

Failure to conform fully to a FOI request. Crime of the century. Hold on a second whilst I grab my lynching rope. Get a grip! Does this in any way falsify the numerous lines of evidence for anthopogenic climate change?
.
no, it doesn’t falsify them, it invalidates them. “Falsification” is only applicable in situations where scientists have behaved honestly and ethically. The fact that AGW alarmists like yourself are defending a charge that nobody is making (at least in regard to climategate/glaciergate/IPCCgate) shows how desperate you have become.

By: daddy dave

daddy dave — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 00:25:15 +0000

I should clarify that I’m not comparing climategate scientists to child molesters. I was simply illustrating the concept of good faith and how it works in our society.

By: daddy dave

daddy dave — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 00:22:43 +0000

Why would we assume that Climate scientists are more pure of heart than the rest of us?
.
that’s the wrong way to frame it. Here’s how the system works. We assume that all scientists are pure of heart until proven otherwise. Then, once we discover that they are not, we never listen to them again.
.
The same is true for monetary fraud. If you’re convicted of fraud, there are certain things that society won’t let you do, like take care of other people’s money.
.
If you’re convicted of child molestation then from that point on, you’re not allowed to hang around schools. it’s nothing personal. Of course people are not pure of heart but the system only works if we assume good faith until proven otherwise.

By: Sinclair Davidson

Sinclair Davidson — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 00:05:34 +0000

So we’re in agreement. I also vote for the scientific method. When I see that the scientiic method has not been followed, especially when people declare that they are following the scientific method, I then decide not to trust the results.

By: NMG

NMG — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 23:55:44 +0000

Still missing the point of data falsification on the issue at hand. That they have done the wrong thing I have fully conceded but has it negated their data? Re the Himalayan glaciers melt. Who brought this mathematical error to light? Peer review by other scientists. I would go further, I feel confident that in the totality of the evidence there will be mistakes, obfuscations, and even outright lies. Why would we assume that Climate scientists are more pure of heart than the rest of us? That is why I get frustrated hearing the “you have to decide who to trust” argument in relation to this issue. What a load of codswallop. If you must put “faith” in something because the evidence is too complex I vote for the scientific method. It may be wrong, there may be mistakes but over time they will be corrected. It is one of the few fields of human endeavour that can even claim that.

By: Sinclair Davidson

Sinclair Davidson — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 23:42:22 +0000

From the New Scientist

Some argue that the views of an untutored blogger, or even a scientist from another discipline, should never carry the same weight as those of someone with a lifetime's expertise in a relevant field. But if occasionally the emperors of the lab have no clothes, someone has to say so. The wider review of science made possible by the blogosphere can improve science and foster public confidence in its methods. Scientists should welcome the outside world in to check them out. Their science is useless if no one trusts it.

By: Sinclair Davidson

Sinclair Davidson — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 23:24:13 +0000

Not an allegation? Wow. When a government agency declares that an individual and institution have broken the law and all that stands between them and prosecution is the statute of limitations this is not an allegation? Okay. Do I have proof? Personally, not in my possession, but this is what the media reports.

The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.

The latest criticism of the IPCC comes a week after reports in The Sunday Times forced it to retract claims in its benchmark 2007 report that the Himalayan glaciers would be largely melted by 2035. It turned out that the bogus claim had been lifted from a news report published in 1999 by New Scientist magazine.