Offending your friends
I have been looking for material which would explain the problems uncovered by
the "climategate" emails . It has to be something which does not require the reader
to have advanced training in math or science . Here are 2 articles which
cover that material , one from an economic POV :
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/b8bfa07e-1692-11e1-be1d-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1exJjNEwA
and the other from a social/political POV :
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/284137/scientists-behaving-badly-jim-lacey
At the risk of losing my independent status , I must point out that the National
Review is a very right leaning publication . But when they can write an article
which requires very little in the way of political embellishments you just know
there has been some very serious breaches on the other side .
If you don't have an interest in economics I strongly suggest you read that latter piece . The title I have chosen for this article is taken from a quote within that 2nd piece .
Here is the full quote . It was made as an attempt to summarize the views of some climate scientists :
Science must be as objective as possible, unless it offends your friends.
For the uninitiated I will now explain some of the terminology used :
Believers in AGW [Anthropogenic Global Warming] are called "warmists" in that piece .
Such warmists call disbelievers "deniers" even though they might actually be only
skeptics who have not made up their minds .
Here is a particularly pertinent excerpt from that NR piece :
Anyone still desiring to contest the assertion that only a few persons controlled the entire warmist agenda will be brought up short by this note from one warmist protesting that his opinions were not getting the hearing they deserved: It seems that a few people have a very strong say, and no matter how much talking goes on beforehand, the big decisions are made at the eleventh hour by a select core group. Over the years this core group, led by Phil Jones at East Anglia and Michael Mann at Penn State, became so close that even those inclined toward more honest appraisals of the state of climate science were hesitant to rock the boat. As one warm-monger states: I am not convinced that the truth is always worth reaching if it is at the cost of damaged personal relationships.
I think that says it all but you would be shocked to see some of the other
leaked emails . Read that NR piece for enlightenment ..
Tags
Who is online
104 visitors
Here is another excerpt :
Unfortunately, from the very beginning, the core group at the heart of Climategate had no interest in scientific truth. As one states: The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guide whats included and what is left out. In other words, lets decide on a conclusion and then use only evidence that proves that point, discarding everything else. One scientist who seems to have been slightly troubled by these methods wrote: I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it, which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run. In another note to Phil Jones, this same scientist complained: Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest.
But they did not express the uncertainty and that is where the problems started .
Well, I will never not be your friend over an issue.
I read both articles, and I have to say, that the first one was well done, but the second one was sopartisan, that I had a very hard time getting through it. I hate it when people come up with derogatory terms to call others in the opposite camp. To me, it negates the whole argument, as they are guilty of the cliques that they are complaining about.
The reading of private emails ( and you would have thought, that these scientist would have gotten smart to this whole deal, the first time around), doesn't negate the science. But then again, I have often said, that I am not sure if either camp has the science to prove global warming. My stance has always been, since there is no way to test anytheoryabout AGW, that I side with AGW not because of the science, since I don't think that it is there... onlyextrapolatedon, but because we have one earth, and if we are wrong and we are affecting the climate, we don't get a second chance. In other words, better safe not sorry.
The first article was well thought out and I think for most who either don't care about the science, or feel that there are better things to care about, that AGW is just a non issue. I can accept that. It makes no attempt to demonize, but rathercritique the way that the AGW scientist handled themselves, which has been questionable. But it didn't take stabs at the science in general, just that their own behavior was enough to do that. That I buy. The second article was as I said, way to us v them, for me to get my brain wrapped around. Sorry, about that.
Perrie ,
"The reading of private emails ( ... ), doesn't negate the science. "
No , not the reading of those emails but the content .
What is science ? It is a process of discovery . And part of that process is peer review .
When peer review has been prevented [this is strongly supported by the emails] then
what you have is no longer science . It is just politically based propaganda .
And there is no need to apologize about your reaction to the second article . It was
strongly partisan but it did not involve propaganda , just harsh criticism .
Yes Mike,
Better safe than sorry, since we haven't found a planet to live on, none the less get there. And since neither side has been able to "prove their case", I go along with some care taking of our little blue marble.
And stop with the hysteria of the slippery slope and then combine issues that have nothing to do with one another like the TSA and global warming. I truly doubt that is what Rich had in mind, when he wrote this.
If our society made it through the McCarthy era, I am sure it will make it through this.
Where is the bucket... I need a bucket!
Hey, where is chicken little, who wrote this...
Come out, come out, where ever you are.....
I'll get you for this!
Mike ,
As much as I share your enjoyment of this rebuke of the climatologists I am fearful ;
fearful of the effect this could have on the public's trust of science . If science is
perceived to be no longer about the seeking after Truth then it may not recover from this blow .
Just think, soon I'll be teaching creationism in my science class. Let's celebrate!
Bucket ? Chicken ? Are you referring to Col Sanders ?
Nice Rich! We need more of that, don't you think?
I'm going back to my dvr of Nova and string theory.
Hey Mike, string theory is free... just some math involved. Do you trust it? You only have to believe that there is apossibilityof 12 more universes just like this one. No problems there, right?
in this day and age, we most certainly CANNOT trust "science".
It's just another lie, perpetrated by "men".
It is a very very big topic you are calling a lie .
"Science has been filled with lies, since it's advent, and we both know that."
I'm sure Copernicus would consider you "Catholic" in your response .
I understand that some already are , maybe not in NY but in other states ...
I know. And if that doesn't scare the poop out of you, I don't know what will. Oh, and it's notcreationism, it'sintelligentdesign. Kind of an oxymoron when talking about science.
He would have! So it seems that we have regressed into the dark ages.
Mike ,
It all depends what you mean by science . To me it has 2 aspects :
1] It is a process on how to uncover/discover truths . There are certain steps the must be followed for it to be science .
2] It is a trusted viewpoint in these most untrustworthy times we live in . This public perception is what is likely to be damaged most in these incidents
"We must, instead, continue to view all stories with skepticism and a critical eye."
I agree with you there . In fact that is the attitude that needs to be part of any real scientist's mindset .
One more thing : you may be confusing science with technology . They are not the same .
Hey Mike,
Is flu C real? just asking?
Rich...
Nice can of worms here.
Perrie ,
This can of worms brought to you by Phil Jones and Michael Mann ....
"Can of worms"?
Is that real?
I'm pretty sure they are...
Here.. you taste.
Ick!
Yes. But dwelling on it, brings talk such as this. And as I said in my first post, the science could have been fine, but the fact that it was mixed with politics is what ruined the science.
Randy,
We all love ya. Don't go eating those worms. Ick
Perrie ,
"And as I said in my first post, the science could have been fine, but the fact that it was mixed with politics is what ruined the science. "
As soon as politics got into it , it was no longer objective and therefore not science . From what I've seen , these bigwhigs seem to have reached a standstill in their research so they consciously decided to bias their results by various means .
BTW , are you interested in an address of the searchable database of stolen emails ? You can look through it yourself . I have & what I found was startling to say the least ...
Sure I would love to read them. How did you get them? Are they part of public domain, or are you Richieleaks?
"are you Richieleaks?"
*snort*
Should I reveal that here on NT ? Maybe later ...
In any case here is the link :
I should warn you that there is an enormous amount of material there , some 5K emails .
I can reveal some that I found but you should probably do your own searching 1st .
Rich,
I just tried the link, but it just takes to a directory of a sort, and I don't know what I am looking for.
Hi Mac!,
That was an interesting read. Seems that there are two camps eachbasicallycalling the other side liars.
Great... how to find the truth.
Perrie ,
"I don't know what I am looking for."
It is a searchable database . Just type in whatever terms you find interesting and hit search ....
Mac and Perrie ,
Do your own "independent review" . Here is the searchable link :
Unless you want to hear what I found . It was pretty bad ...
There are many articles on the debunking of the e-mails ... are you stating that none are credible?
No . I'm saying to trust your own research . There is NO NEED to depend on other sources when you can do your own search . I did it . So can you .
Here is one email which I uncovered . What do you think of it ?
" From: Mike Hulme [mailto:m.hulme@uea.ac.uk]
Sent: 08 December 2003 14:10
To: Richard Starkey
Cc: simon.shackley@umist.ac.uk; a.minns@uea.ac.uk
Subject: Re: Will Hutton's A-level essay
Richard,
The McIntyre and McKitrick paper (MM03) has got a hidden agenda behind it. Check out this
web site for some commentary on it. As with the contentious Soon and Baliunas paper, MM03
has been published by Energy & Environment and is part of Sonja Christriansen-Boehmer's
on-going campaign.
[1]
So while not endorsing this attempt at undermining our basis for current exceptional global
warming, I must say I find myself in sympathy with much of what Will Hutton writes. In
particular his conclusion that the debate around climate change is fundamentally about
power and politics rather than the environment seems undeniable. There are not that many
"facts" about (the meaning of) climate change which science can unequivocally reveal.
I am copying this to Asher Minns, since Asher has been giving the issue of "sound science"
and Tyndall's reaction to it some thought recently.
Mike "
Reply#8 - Sat Nov 26, 2011 9:13 PM EST
Hey Rich,
I know that I am merely echoing your main point, but it's a foregone conclusion that this purely scientific issue has been forever poisoned by politics. The shame of it is that many of these men/women of science at some point allowed their politics to interfere with their relatively objective research. I suppose I need to qualify "objective", as I am comparing it to the political mud that it was dragged into made it nothing short of "subjective".
I have a personal opinion on this subject, but I refrain because I'll ending up standing on one side of a line, subject to the insults hurled from the other side. G-d knows I stand on one side of many lines already; there's no need to add another.
Soooooo, while we're waiting for a verdict on this, let's reduce our carbon footprint...
...just in case.
Yah, close...
...unless, of course, we're wrong...
Jonathan ,
"it's a foregone conclusion that this purely scientific issue has been forever poisoned by politics. The shame of it is that many of these men/women of science at some point allowed their politics to interfere with their relatively objective research. "
Well said . There are 2 "men of science" in particular who are puppet masters behind
the scenes , Phil Jones and Michael Mann . Many of the others are merely scared of
them . No , I'm not exaggerating .
Jonathan,
I think that we are on the same page.
Rich,
How can you say that? Do you have inside information or something? I mean seriously?
Hey , you're back ! RU going to insist on a link to prove it ?
Yep, I'm back and thanks Rich. Link? Only if there is one.
Perrie ,
Here is a link of some relevance :
And here is an significant excerpt from it :
There are plenty of articles, views etc. out there claiming that the climategate 2 emails are being taken out of context. I have also seen Phil Jones has been saying that it is just the normal to and fro of normal scientists going about their business etc. etc.
This is most certainly not the case in the emails that follow. There really is no hiding place for the authors, and no ambiguity. The emails will track how annoyance at the publication of a contrary article in a journal develops into an attack on the editor, Chris de Freitas, an accomplished scientist. The attack includes a plot to see if they can get him sacked from his job at University of Auckland. Within the story, it is evident exactly what kind of scientists the key authors are. The word scientist applied to these people has denigrated the meaning of the word.
Rich,
First may I note, that the article you cited is from a blog, which in essence has no morecreditablythan our site.
Second, upon reading the emails and the commentary, it is obvious to me, that this has turned into an Us V Them on both sides of the argument. Frankly, I am not sure if there is any science left to discuss, since the issue seems to be more political than about science, which personally I find very frustrating.
Finally, the issue has become very polarizing. I am not sure if Co2 causes damage or not, but the way the sides are playing it out, you either believe in AGW and all other issue that pertain tomaintenanceof the earth, or you don't give a damn about any of it, and the AGW people are nuts who run around like chicken little. Sad state of affairs.
Mike,
Both sides were cherry picking. Then both sides went to war.Neitherside has the science needed to make the case either way.
But the bottom line, is that it discredits all science, and that is what I resent.
Great article Rich, and learning from the back and forth.
Larry,
Your a man of science, like Rich and I. Don't you find this troubling all the way around?
Yes it's troubling for a few reason, all important. The science suffers and it endangers true study by fumbling it's own veracity. There are important discoveries to be made; we may very well miss them because the science is being influenced in a way, that is counterproductive to fluid and directed creativity. Fairy tale science also raises a generation that neither believes or adhere to the tried-and-true, Scientific Method, a model that has been very useful. Not too mention that we still liter, waste water and fuel, dump all kindsa shit in the oceans,...etc.
Spot on remark, Larry!
Not quite Mike. There can becorrelationstudies done. Those can go back millions of years with ice cores.
And remember Einstein could never prove any of his theories, yet we know they work.
But none of that is what is going on here with these two groups of scientists. It's more like spy v spy, than science.
Perrie ,
"First may I note, that the article you cited is from a blog, which in essence has no more creditably than our site."
Sure it is a blog but he is mostly just quoting and interpreting those emails . In some instances they have revealed the dirty tricks that were planned against the opposition . The opposition was merely trying to express their minority viewpoint . But the dirty tricks were an attempt to produce career ending results for their opposition , Chris De Freitas . That shows a level of ruthlessness and escalation that is worthy of someone like Richard Nixon , not scientists .
see this link :
"Second, upon reading the emails and the commentary, it is obvious to me, that this has turned into an Us V Them on both sides of the argument. Frankly, I am not sure if there is any science left to discuss, since the issue seems to be more political than about science, which personally I find very frustrating. "
It seems to me this is another case where the current medium of choice [the internet] has overwhelmed what used to be a fairly staid and unhysterical process of scientific discourse . I think the net has focused far more attention on science than has ever existed in the past . It forces things to speed up enormously . This is from the theory advanced by Marshall McCluhan many years back .
If left to themselves these initial researchers might have written a few journal articles and made slow steady progress towards some decision about climate and its influences . But with the enormous laser-like focus of the internet on them , they felt compelled to cut corners and puff up the data to make it appear they were making
progress when they were nowhere near the point of decision . It seems that this particular study , climatology , brings out the worst of the worst by combining public policy decision making [and its resulting politics] with the science . All that ends up happening is that the science ends up being ruined .
In conclusion , it was the combination of the internet media with the highly politicized public policy decision process which they handed off to these scientists . Now go & try to do objective work in that frying pan of an environment . It just couldn't happen & was doomed from the start to be compromised .
Mike,
Correlation studies have produced viable information. The firstcigarette/lung cancer studies were correlational and they were right.
Most drug studies are correlational, too, especially with psychological meds.
I would have to agree with you on that.