Skip to comments.Climate science: Credibility at risk, scientists say
Posted on 02/21/2010 9:47:32 PM PST by neverdem
SAN DIEGO (Feb. 20) Publication of hacked emails exchanged by climate scientists. News accounts of problems in vetting data used in climate-assessment reports. Charges by critics that scientists wont release their raw data so that others might independently vet published analyses of climate trends. Taken together, these events have marred the reputations of climate scientists, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and perhaps science generally.
Or so concluded a distinguished panel of science luminaries, yesterday. They included Ralph Cicerone, president of the National Academy of Sciences; James McCarthy, a Harvard climate scientist and chairman of the board of directors of the American Association for the Advancement of Science; Nobel Prize winner Phillip Sharp of MIT, who co-chaired the NAS report last year: Ensuring the Integrity, Accessibility, and Stewardship of Research Data in the Digital Age; and Astronomer Royal Martin Rees, President of Britains Royal Society.
They spoke as part of a late-breaking session at the AAAS annual meeting one that was co-sponsored by the National Academy of Sciences. Its stated theme: ensuring the transparency and integrity of science. However, its organizers conceded that what prompted them to shoehorn the session into the meeting were a series of back-to-back climate controversies that played out daily in news accounts over the past several months.
The Climate-gate emails and concerns over Himalayan glacial-melt data in a 2007 IPCC report together served as sort of a wake-up call, McCarthy said. But a wake-up call that he and others initially all but ignored.
The climate-science community, of which he is a part (he was a co-chair of an IPCC working group) largely dismissed the news revelations as accounts of bumbling behavior by well-meaning if overworked scientists. It didnt appear that this would be a very big deal for anyone, McCarthy explained, because none of...
(Excerpt) Read more at sciencenews.org ...
Not in the state run media. The author and the science luminaries are the real deniers.
You would NEVER know this from the democrat party State Run Media in the U.S.
What credibility? Oh you must mean with the true believers in the MSM?
These guys evidently have not even scratched the surface of what was revealed by Climategate. They are clearly still in denial due to their willful ignorance, and are a disgrace to "science" and the pursuit of truth...
Their focus appears to be primarily on the PR aspects of the case rather than the scientific misconduct underlying much of "climate science" which should rightfully be the point of discussion...
It reminds me of the academy award winning old movie about the French Scientific panels not approving the vaccines for rabies in sheep, because of course rapids is not spread by little germs. Louis Pasteur was laughed at but he used the scientific method and prevailed against the illuminati.
The climate change scientists should remember what they learned about the scientific method, and that it did not call for voting on the right answer, but replicating the results by scientist peers.
“...these events have marred the reputations of climate scientists...”
I’m not sure that will be limited to climate scientists.
Further down in the article:
By not stepping up to defend the general strength of climate science in the wake of recent public challenges, the panelists acknowledged, bloggers and television pundits have been free to spin the revelations as evidence that most climate science is now suspect. And it most assuredly is not, the panelists maintained.
Well you can have the whole world covered in snow, and Al Gore and his supporters in the media and elsewhere will still blame it all on industrialization and global warming/climate change.
F.B.I., Laying Out Evidence, Closes Anthrax Letters Case NY Times paints a nut.
Some noteworthy articles about politics, foreign or military affairs, IMHO, FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.
What was this, a gathering of the Captain Obvious Junior Rangers club?
Just like the entire facade of the Left and especially the Obami, the Science Frauds think the ‘focus appears to be primarily on the PR aspects of the case’??? I find this unbelievable, these folks are not going to be able to use the idiotic ‘we were bamboozled crap when the truth is available for all to see...that is why the braindead US Media has not only ignored ClimateGate but have gone on the offensive to prop up a total fabrication. When BP, Caterpillar dumped their ClimateChange support, State AG’s filed lawsuits and Peabody Coal filed a lawsuit, the bell finally sounded in these scammers pea-brains, now they are starting to see the very real possibilities that the AGW ship has foundered, soon it will be every man for himself...these perps will all start pushing the women and children out of the lifeboats...thanks to AlBore and his internet!
If they lost credibility, they can only blame themselves for declaring ‘the science is settled,’ which make science a matter of agreement rather than endeavor.
Neither karma nor history will be kind to these con artists and thieves.
As a man of science with technical degrees from three of the top scientific institutions in the world, I most strongly disagree with this statement. ALL science is suspect and open to being questioned. Science is not true because of consensus but because the weight of the evidence proves the conclusions even when questioned. When a field refuses to permit questioning, it has ceased to be science and become something less than science.
“The climate-science community, of which he is a part (he was a co-chair of an IPCC working group) largely dismissed the news revelations as accounts of bumbling behavior by well-meaning if overworked scientists.”
Almost as bad as “the dog ate my research.”
Climate science: Credibility at risk, scientists say
I just thought of something. Actually it started a couple days ago and I just had my 'Eureka' moment. To wit:
'Climate Science' cannot be a 'science'.With any 'science', a + b always = c. And any scientist will get those same results. It will always be 'c' no matter who does it. 'c' is a constant (pun intended).
They WON'T get a + b ≅ c, or a +b ≈ cBut that's exactly what you do get with so-called 'climate science'. It's always 'maybe', 'possibly', 'might be, or 'probably'. That isn't science. It's friggen Alchemy. Or in modern English, Junk Science.
In my Professional Career, I deal in Physics and its Laws and Properties (though I am not a Physicist). And there are no 'maybe', or 'might be'. When I see an *oversight*(1) some Architect or Engineer made, it's wrong - period. No guessing, or 'what ifs' required. And if I don't find a solution so a + b does = 'c', Houston we have a problem. [I was going to say so E=mc2 but I don't want be an ass ;-) ]
(1) Architects and Engineers never make a 'mistake'. They just make some occasional design 'oversights'. (inside joke)