Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 11/24/2009 10:11:29 AM PST by Red Badger
Climate scientists are reeling this week from the discovery that someone has hacked into the email archive of one of their most prestigious research centres, the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, UK, custodian of the most respected global temperature record.
Climate sceptics have gleefully blogged that the emails, now widely published on the internet, reveal extensive data manipulation and expose a conspiracy behind global warming research. An analysis by New Scientist finds scant evidence of data abuse, but does show persistent efforts to suppress work by climate sceptics.
Mostly the researchers are exposed as doing what they are supposed to do: engaging in an often adversarial process to arrive at the truth. One long exchange ends: "This is ultimately about science, it's not personal."
Those contacted by New Scientist by and large had simple explanations for their statements. One 1999 email by Phil Jones, director of the CRU, has been the focus of media coverage since news of the leak broke last Thursday. In it, Jones discusses using "Mike's Nature trick" to "hide the decline" in temperatures. "Mike" Mann, of Pennsylvania State University in University Park, told New Scientist the "trick" was simply a published device to extend to the present a graph of temperatures derived from the analysis of tree ring data. This is done using real thermometer data. Ostracising critics
What will prove more damaging is evidence that the researchers, who often attack their critics for not publishing in peer-reviewed journals, have sought to ostracise journals that did publish them.
(Excerpt) Read more at newscientist.com ...
PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN................
New Scientist used to have real science. I dropped my subscription a couple of years ago precisely because of their total ineptness when judging climate change articles.
They’re still better than Scientific American, but not much.
Chief Editor: “We are a scientific journal and need to address this in an article. How do we do it without getting on the wrong side of the issue?”
Editor #1: “Let's make sure we get an explanation from CRU. How do they want us to respond?”
Chief Editor: “They say they didn't manipulate the data to promote a political outcome. Print that.”
Editor #1: “What about that whole manipulation of the scientific journals and peer reviews. It's pretty obvious they were playing games in the e-mails to manipulate reputable publications and avoid anything that would cast doubt on their research.”
Chief Editor: “Did they have an answer to the manipulation that they wanted us to print? No? Just say there are some comments. Call him back and ask him if it is ok to say that they did not prevent any peer reviews from being included in the IPCC report. That will help them.”
Editor #1: “I'll do that and make sure they are comfortable with us publishing a story on this.”
In ‘67 my sister bought me a subcription to Scientific American. Couldn’t understand half of the articles and couldn’t figure out a third of the mathmatical games, but it was one hell of a great magazine. Sadly today it is a PC POS.
“2. Forget the climate change detractors
Those who deny climate change science are irritating, BUT UNIMPORTANT. The argument is not about if we should deal with climate
change, but how we should deal with climate change.
“
YES WE NOW KNOW THEY GAMEPLAN. THE RADICALS DON’T BOTHER TO ARGUE FACTS WITH PEOPLE. THEY JUST IGNORE ANYONE THAT DOESN’T FALL FOR THEIR BS.
I WOULD LIKE A FULL SCALE CAMPAIGN NEXT ELECTION TELLING THE ELECTORATE EXACTLY WHAT THESE PEOPLE REALLY THINK ABOUT THE VOTERS.
Deja vu... these GW fanatics are just using the skills they honed defending evolutionism from criticism (not all evolutionists are GW alarmists, but GW alarmists are practically all evolutionists). Just ask Dr. Richard von Sternberg if this sort of thing is a surprise to him... you know a position is in trouble when it cites its own bigotry and censorship as evidence that it is correct. New Scientist hypocrites take note!
New Scientist has certainly done its share of pimping global warming.
I wrote Scientific America a scathing letter about them abandoning science in favor of politics. The letter also had my cancellation to the magazine. I will subscribe to them again when and if they go back to proper scientific methods and get out of the politics of science.
Badger, the climate is changing and you know it.
Yes, it’s getting rather hot in East Anglia about now................
The author’s evaluation might have a bit a credibility if he’d at least menioned that the CRU authors implicated in this scandal have spent the last 8 years hiding their data from those outside their clique who asked for a chance to evaluate it.
The high was 60 yesterday but today it is like 45. Change I can believe in. I spit on Obamugabe and his change.
2. Forget the climate change detractors
Those who deny climate change science are irritating, BUT UNIMPORTANT. The argument is not about if we should deal with climate change, but how we should deal with climate change.
YES WE NOW KNOW THEY GAMEPLAN. THE RADICALS DON’T BOTHER TO ARGUE FACTS WITH PEOPLE. THEY JUST IGNORE ANYONE THAT DOESN’T FALL FOR THEIR BS.
It's not just this one issue, big as it is. The same sort of thing goes on, issue after issue. "Swift boating" as a neologism for "criticizing a Democrat, which is inherently illegitimate." The issue is how to oppose propaganda in general.The ancient Greeks faced this problem, and the formulation of the Philophers vs the Sophists seems to me to be instructive. The Sophists claimed to be wise, which naturally led to some very short arguments:
The Philosopher did not claim wisdom, but claimed only to love wisdom, and used that humility to reveal the arrogance at the heart of lthe Sophist's position:
- I am wise.
- You disagree with me.
- Therefore you are wrong.
I love wisdom, even though I don't claim to be wise. You can hit me with ad hominem attacks 'til the cows come home, but the facts and the logic of topic under dispute will not change. What are the facts? What inferences can we logically conclude from those facts?I formulate a version of this to show that journalism is not objective:
Journalism and ObjectivityIt seems to me that there is no debate more significant that the one over the putative objectivity of journalism.
Climate is always changing.....what's your point?
THANK You.
Amazing how a simple paragraphis so enlightening.
Thank You again.
I think it's called a joke....
Climate is always changing.....what’s your point?””
That is my point. Climate is a variable—do I get a Nobel prize?
You'll need a teleprompter first, then promise something. Just don't
say what something is.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.