The smoking iceberg?

Diversity

Oh dear! Melanie Phillips is quite old enough to remember how reluctant the scientists were to accept the initial evidence for global warming. Are all the same scientists now conspiring to fake evidence for it?

Read http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/#more-1853

Seacole

Requiem for the Church of Climate Change.

There will be much wailing, howling, and renting of garments amongst the Left.

Augustus

I thought this 'trick' ummm, science wasw supposed to drag on
for at least another few decades. Well, blow me! Who would have thought that this anthropgenic-because humanity is evil-global warming disaster would come apart like that?

But now the cat is out of the bag. And that furry beast is shredding the myths quicker than
the myth-makers can put them back together again. Another 'settled science' goes in the dustbin of history.

Stepney

Shout it from the rooftops because so far, only the Mail has picked up on this.

It is the story of the decade so far. How alarmist pseudo-science has corrupted politicians and the global elite; how a compliant, lazy media has fallen for it all hook, line and sinker and how scientific rigour arriving at alternative conclusions has been suppressed.

Any hack worth their name should be on this like a hungry dog on chopped liver.

The door has been forced open, the light is shining in. Now where are the commentators? Who is going to be brave enough to step up the plate and say "We've ben sold a pup"?

Now, oh Lord, now, is the time for some journalistic rigour.

Get to it.

JohnBUK

Well I think we should await an announcement by the new EU Minister for Information before we jump to conclusions ;-)

macumazan

The concern is that the methods used to silence dissenters are recognisably Stalinist: vilify opponents and ruin careers by sacking editors of opposing journals and dismissing academics who fail to run the Party line. These are not the actions of disinterested scientists, but the same strategies as those adopted by Bolshevik activists. Certain of the HADCRU staff appear to have acted in Climate Science as did Lysenko in Biology. If the emails are genuine, one must expect very serious academic disciplinary investigation of their academics from the University of East Anglia authorities. Indeed, one should even expect governmental investigation of the dereliction of supervisory duty evident in the lack of action by those authorities themselves. The responses of the university to FOI queries (destruction of emails etc.) appear, on the face of it, to be criminal.

Peter

RealClimate is hardly a source of unbiased information on this. It is run by and used by the very same individuals who are implicated in these emails. Indeed, you can read something of how they use RealClimate in the emails themselves. RealClimate should merely be considered to be the official statement made by the implicated scientists rather than some dispassionate evaluation.

Mike "sceptic 'cos I'm right" Kingscott

@Diversity: please provide information (proof, if you will) as to the names of the scientists who were initially reluctant and (so you say) now conspire to fake evidence for it. Or is it possible that there is more than one group of scientists? Now, go and lurk at Real Climate and enjoy the wind-down AGW party while it lasts, you've been rumbled.

DAVE B.

I that where goofy GORE got his looney ideas, or did he make his up all by himself??

Roger K

Time to stone the Prophets of Doom. Well it was anyway.

The trouble is big business is in on it and now they wont let go. Just watch.

Jethro

Diversity doof- Realclimate.org is a Liberal website ran by the same loons who are caught in the act of perpetuating this fraud. Of course that website has a spin. If you want the facts google "Hadley" and see what a variety of experts are saying and come to a consensus based on facts. You say "all the scientists". The fact is more climate scientists deny AGW exists then believe it.

Baron Pipin II

if the world were to freeze from tomorrow the echondriacs just won't let go. Since we cannot be absolutely certain whether the climatic shift is anthropogenic shouldn't we try accommodating to it rather than attempting to stop it? Isn't that what has helped other species to survive in the past?

Tuvia Fogel

Most unlike you, Melanie, to only call East Anglia University "one of the principal academic centres behind anthropogenic global warming theory". Why not also tell your readers (though British ones should be aware of it) that East Anglia is also, to all intents and purposes, the academic headquarters of marxist rearguard action in all of Europe, the think-tank that produced half the 'human sciences' research that ground British society to dust for three decades, the source of most Israel-bashing campaigns in UK universities and the natural place for someone like Ilan Pappe to take refuge when the streets of Israel, the country he was betraying every day, became unsafe for him?

Sean

Climate change skeptics: modern day Flat Earthers.

Philo

Could someone show me where I can read Melanie Phillips' papers setting out the reasons to be sceptical of the arguments for global climate change put forward by scientists in the many relevant specialisms; and where I can read the articles she has written translating her work in these specialist fields into terms a layman such as me has a chance of understanding and assessing. Thank you.

Oflife

This is sad, because as someone who can testify from photos, video and memory that it IS getting warmer, no matter who or what is responsible, then flawed or corrupt science (as M hints at above) discredits genuine threats or discoveries.

And there is NO need or right for governments of any country to tax or punish consumers or businesses. The solutions to all these problems lie with the private sector and the sort of innovation coming out of the US and Germany who lead the world in solar technology.

Not to mention BetterPlace - of Israel.

We do need to develop an alternative to oil. It is dirty and the bi-products from smoke to PCBs and enocryne disruptors cause immense harm to millions of people world-wide.

That is fact, so please can we ignore these emails and replace oil ASAP. It will do the Israeli cause a lot of good too and starve it's enemies of the money they buy their arms with!

Kit

Pleased read these e-mails just discover the East Anglia Universities contempt to Freedom of Information requests. These people work for us but treat us with utter contempt.

Watt Tyler

It will be business as usual for the Global Warmers, I suspect.

The vilification of opponents will become more so. Excuses will be made. Pruning of the movement will be made, and the tainted wood excommunicated: "its a shame that a minority of bad scientists have brought Global Warming into disrepute." Straw arguments will be made: "scientists were initially reluctant to accept it, so why would they make it up?"

Our press is too lazy, too frightened, or too stupid to make explosive journalism about the truth of this.

Bill

Secrets breed lies. I hope all of the pain and suffering over this phoney science will end soon.

Eliza G

The Telegraph has tucked away James Delingpole's blog on this, probably because it ran one of those 'there's been a flood - it must be global warming' stories over the weekend. Doh!

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/

And don't you love the desperation of our 'Diversity' friend!

Never mind the evidence that doesn't support AGW or the evidence of all this wilful connivance unearthed by these hackers, just shriek 'how could there be connivance?'

These Guardianistas do hate Mel so much. Her crime? To smell a rat before everyone else.

Caught! Again. Just as with Mr Rusbridger's daughter and the ad hominem attacks on The Guardian.

Perhaps we could all send in a box of Kleenex to the Farringdon Road Fiction Factory?

Do your job

This has nothing to do with the Hadley Centre. Maybe your "journalists" should do some "fact checking".

Nordheim

Melanie, the global warming crowd worships the same idols as the left wing anti-capitalism, anti-American crowds. They want socialist, U.N. dominated governments, and global warming is just the kind of bogus crisis they need to impose their agenda.

Tasman Walker

This sort of behaviour has been common among certain parts of the scientific establishment for a long time, especially over the issue of creation and evolution. At last the public is beginning to see what is really going on. The film "Expelled" reveals some of the alarming developments in academia and how these ideas have consequences for government and national life. Well worth watching. See also the book "Slaughter of the Dissidents" by Jerry Bergman. Go to Creation.com and search for topics such as "peer review", "expelled", "lies", and "fraud".

Ben

So I guess we're not gods and can't change the climate. Hollywood celebs will be upset.

Paul from Texas

We knew they were corrupt because this was being pushed almost exclusively by liberals -- and their solution was more gov't control and higher taxes. (Rich people are exempt from harm and can emit unlimited CO2.)

We knew they were corrupt because they've refused to participate in any type of official public debate -- for 20 years!

We knew they were corrupt because of the way they attacked anybody who disagreed and the way they try to censor any contrary info.

We knew they were corrupt because they were telling us to sacrifice, conserve and suffer, yet they live like celebrities, have the largest carbon footprints, and they were poised to profit immensely.

We knew they were corrupt and we finally have some proof. They adjusted older data to make it appear cooler, and they manipulated recent data to make it appear warmer. I've seen graphs where before-and-after pics make temp history look like a seesaw.

Pragmatist

Expect the left wing biased MSM and Governments to quash this story or turn it in to a condemnation of the hackers while ignoring the criminal LYING of the so called Scientists. In fact dont expect it its ALREADY happening. The false religion of AGW must be protected at all costs just like Islam. there is an open door if not encouragement on attacking inJudaism and Christianity though.

Pragmatist

Climate Change exists it is a NATURAL phenomenon driven mainly by Sun spot activities. There is not ONE scientific paper which PROVES that the MINISCULE amounts of CO2 in the air emitted by MAN have any noticeable effect on climate whatsoever. Yhe earth has been COOLING for the past 12 years while mans CO2 emissions have continued the RISE. The NATURAL state of the planet over thousands of years is FAR warmer than it is now. CO2 rises ALWAYS follow Global Warming they NEVER precede it ask a GEOLOGIST not a CLIMATOLOGIST who cant even tell you if it will rain tomorrow. CO2 is not a pollutant it is a VITAL part of the cycl of life it feeds pants plants feed humans and animals MORE CO2 more plants more food better for life, LESS CO2 less plants man and animals starve. So apart from being TOTALLY wrong about AGW Green NAZI's are also anti LIFE.

Merlyn

The "authority bodies" are dropping like flies, thanks to the bloggers [ including Melanie] who value truth.
Personally, I would much prefer we find alternatives to oil from political OPEC etc. and that we take far better care of our environment, but lying, scaremongering and laying the blame on your average citizen for governments failures is not on.
Go bloggers!!!

GeoffM

Oh dear.

Does that mean I don't have to give all my money and "stuff" to the Third World?

How disappointing.

Geoffrey Dron

Deluge the Today Programme website with requests that they publicise this matter.

david elder

Mel, good post. One minor point: this CRU unit is not associated with the Hadley Centre. This was not Mel's mistake, it was made by an otherwise reliable blogger Anthony Watts at an earlier point in the story. He has now corrected the error. As several posters have noted, denials by RealClimate of the damning nature of the documents are worthless - RealClimate has the very people under fire in the documents.

Mr Teatime

It should be noted that the term "hacked" does not apply in this instance, the data was gained through unauthorised access to a remote computer system and therefore "cracked" - the data was stolen for the purpose of attempting to show man-made global warming as a fraud. Given the ignorance and desperation of the media and critics of man-made gobal warming evidence, the least the crackers could do would be to issue a statement through wikileaks rather than upload to a dubious Russian file server.

It is utterly laughable that these emails have been released by an unreliable source with poor provenance, yet there are those who treat it as gospel. Amazingly stupid.

Philo

"Could someone show me where I can read Melanie Phillips' papers setting out the reasons to be sceptical of the arguments for global climate change put forward by scientists in the many relevant specialisms; and where I can read the articles she has written translating her work in these specialist fields into terms a layman such as me has a chance of understanding and assessing."

...Okay, could one of the convinced sceptics here show me the papers that have convinced them, or, as I am a layman,the articles for the uninformed. What is it, in each of the many sciences implicated in this subject, that has persuaded you to abandon the agnosticism tinged with some respect for authority (while acknowledging that authorities may well be wrong) that is the only principled position for the lay pesron to take?

james

MSM not featuring this story &
James Delingpole's blog has had db troubles for the last 3-4hrs.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/

Deadman, Hobart, TAS.

Mr Teatime says: âœIt is utterly laughable that these emails [...] with poor provenanceâ� are treated âœas gospel.â�
Wherefore give a rats for the provenance when âœthe CRUâ™s director Philip Jones has confirmed that the material is genuineâ�?
Mr Teatime fails to provide a verb in his incomplete concluding sentence, so allow me:
People who believe irrationally in global warming because theyâ™ve noticed natural changes in the weather or because of their blind credulity in grant-seeking scientists of lucripetous poiticians are amazingly stupid.

bowmanthebard

There are two vital aspects of global warming theory that rule it out as genuine science.

First, genuine science proceeds by making up hypotheses and then testing them, in that order. But global warming theory tries to do it in reverse by starting off with "data" and then extrapolating. It avoids testing altogether, as the models it uses are specially constructed so that they cannot but fit the "data".

Secondly, in genuine science data consist of observations. But most of global warming theory's "data" are cunningly called "proxy data" -- in other words, not the results of independent observations, but carefully constructed products of the theory itself, specially engineered to support the theory.

On both counts, global warming theory is pseudoscience.

Dixon

"DAVE B.
November 21st, 2009 8:40pm
I that where goofy GORE got his looney ideas, or did he make his up all by himself??"

He makes up plenty. The latest was on a US talk show where he said the Earths core was not just hot but "millions of degrees". Its actually a couple of thousand.

Dixon

re bowmanrthebard...more fundamentally and , for the reason you gave, AGW is "unfalsifyable" It cannot be disproven because they keep re-writing the predictions after the events they fail to predict. Anything which cannot be disproven is not scientific. Pace Karl Popper and Imre Lakatos.

Augustus

The bottom line in the CO2 saga must surely be the following:
It can be established that there was an extensive medieval warm period, and that it was as hot, if not hotter then than in
the 1930s or 1990s. It is also certain that there were no cars or heavy industry anywhere on earth in those days. Therefore, something else must have caused it rather than mankind. Is it any wonder that scientists have been corrupting data from day one? Of course not, because they
and big government have been abusing the general public for their own national and private gains. A spurious warming trend fabricated for the convenience of the few into 'an inconvenient truth' for the many.

Dixon

re Philo...as discussed earlier, by bowman and me, the non-scientific nature of AGW is not a scientific question but much more fundamentally a matter of epistemological integrity. That being to say, a matter of the distinction between science and pseudo-science elucidated by such philosophers as Mill, Popper and Lakatos.

To ask what scientific papers convince one that AGW is pseudo-science is like asking an aetheist which book of the Bible convinces them there is no God.

Baroness Pipinino

We are told by the crowd of the global fanatics that the density of CO2 has gone from 280ppm (parts per million) to 380ppm in the last 200 years or so, i.e. an increase from 0.028% to 0.039%. That is to say that one hundredth of one percent of CO2 got added. Not one full per cent, not even one tenth of one per cent, just an infinitesimal one hundredth. This, they shout, will kill life as we know it.

Is there a better way of endorsing the old wisdom that if Gods want to destroy someone they make him mad first?

John Levett

Melanie - for Philo's benefit, I have peer-reviewed your piece and am happy to confirm that the views expressed are entirely in accord with the known data.

jose garcia

why not?

scientific grants are granted by lobbies and universities, as it says in one of the emails, competition is fierce.

what are the chances of getting research money if you publish results against the lobbies political ideologies.

is like MPs lobbing to cut their own expenses , it cant happen

AT

everything are good or great

matt

Melanie - your last "here" seems to be a link to your gmail inbox. Probably best removed with so many hackers around!

Mjolnir de Jersiaise

This revelation will not, however, make a blind bit of difference to Gordon "New World Order" Brown; He'll still be forging ahead with his grandiose plans to tackle "Climate Change" regardless.

nemesis

For Philo
November 21st, 2009 9:26pm
450 Peer reviewed papers supporting skeptiscism of AGW

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

Fergus Pickering

You don't need a bleeding degree or publication in journals to say that someone is lying. It does look like someone is lying. Perhaps a scientist is lying. Perhaps a load of scientists are lying. Perhapsthey are doing it for money? Heavens, is this possible? Could holy scientists ne just like the rest of us? Could holy scientists be like fornicating cardinals and popes? Could such things be. on, o by the hairs on my chinny-chin-chin

ted willis

wishful thinking

Philo

bowmanthebard
November 22nd, 2009 2:18pm

I write here under correction as I am neither scientist nor philosopher, but 1. Lakatos and Popper are hardly the last word in the philosophy of science - I suspect it is possible to fail to meet their criteria and still count as good science and 2. the "observations" in many sciences result from complex manipulations - I am not sure what you would count as genuine observations of the climate over the last several million years and how the observations used by climate scientists fail to come up to your standards.

These are not intended as snotty debating points - I merely suggest, Is it not possible that the debate is not so easily won as your comments imply?

John Levett
November 22nd, 2009 5:25pm

Melanie Phillips is a journalist and commentator, not a climate scientist. When you say you have peer reviewed her articles, do you mean as a fellow journalist and commentator? I simply don't know (perhaps I should).

nemesis
November 22nd, 2009 7:09pm

Thank you. I will start wading through them!

Baron Pipin II

Philo @ 1.26:

Sir Thomas Huxley definition of science: ‘Science is common sense at its best. Rigid accuracy in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic’.

For starters: where is the common sense in the AGW theory with the man-made CO2 as the culprit when in the last 1,000 years the earth has gone through the medieval warming phase, and the mini ice-age between 1600-1730? Both well documented. Doesn’t this hint to you that there may be another mechanism at play, of which we know little?

Laurette

I would like to know, not who hacked into the computers - for them to tell would equal a ticket to doing time - but how they knew where to go and what to look for. A University's computer system is not a small thing, yet the hacker[s?] seem to have gone to the most damaging cache of documents. I would not be surprised if some real scientist, sickened by the criminal behaviour of the institutions and of his/her colleagues, has not somehow seen to it that evidence of their dishonesty should see the light?

Baron Pipin II

If, before going to bed, you feel like a good laugh have a peep at ‘It’s raining bears! Hallelujah! on the Daily Telegraph site. Delightful. Some of the comments deserve a prize.

http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/it1/

Sergey

I read some salient citations from this hacked e-mails. Hardly outright fraud or conspiracy, but lack of integrity, objectivity and even elementary decency in relations with opponents revealed quite strikingly. You need not be a falsificator to make your study untrustworthy: it is such attitudes to incovenient facts and inconvenient people that make whole scientific schools zealous propagators of pseudo-science. But I would wait for real data analysis from Climate Audit to make more serious claims. It will take weeks to accomplish, but be patient. Exposing of a scientific fraud, if it actually took place, is a time-consuming task.

Deadman, Hobart, TAS

Philo says, "Melanie Phillips is a journalist and commentator, not a climate scientist."

If you look at the 'accepted' climate scientists, many are not climate scientists either. Lawyers and accountants, have been accepted by the doomist industry as legitimate experts (if they toe the party line), yet scientists with good science degrees, who have carefully studied the data for years, such as Steve McIntyre, are discredited by Mann, Jones, The Team, and the lickspittle media cronies as a denialist and sceptic and as non-experts, therefore, whom all right-thinking dupes must ignore.
These released e-mails prove that Mann and Jones deliberately lied about their alleged data and calumniated McIntyre and organised a campaign to sideline him, and that McIntyre was right all along.

Augustus

Their science was lousy to begin with:-

Stage 1. We know its getting warmer, so we'll ignore any evidence that says that it's due to the natural variables of nature.

stage 2. when models don't show the evidence of warming that they expected, they don't try to analyse why not, they simply dictate that the problem is CO2.

Stage 3. They then change the data to represent what they pretend to 'know' to be the truth.

This isn't only a 'smoking iceberg', it's a snowball that's
going to roll. It's true that up until now the MSM have been global partners in the scam, because doom and catastrophe sells. But what sells more is scandal. And isn't this going to be the scandal of the century?

There have been many dishonest attempts at pseudo-science, just as there have been many dishonest attempts at banking, such as the mortgages scandal.
It's always done to pass off the motives of a single group as some kind of post-modern science, but it is in reality nothing more than the rule of the self-appointed over everyone else.

Philo

nemesis,
Popular Technology: am I right that some computer analysts and engineers have set up this site to provide a resource for those sceptical of man-made climate change? In other words, they gather articles (peer reviewed) that express scepticism. You will agree that this is to get things arsy-versy: they are convinced that climate change is not to any extent man-made and they select articles to that effect. My question remains: I am told that sceptics represent a very small fraction of all the scientists in all the disciplines relevant to the study of climate. How do you and Popular Technology and Melanie Phillips and all her acolytes her decide that this very small minority is correct and the very large majority is wrong? I am wading through the articles you referred me to - but most of them I am not qualified to judge - how do I recognise a paper that allows the work of the other 99% of scientists to be ignored?

Going Rogue

That YouTube footage someone's put up isn't polar bears falling from the sky.

It's Guardian staff members in fancy dress hurling themselves from the top of their office block in a last ditch effort to try to get someone to take them seriously.

Keep going - and take Alan Rusbridger with you.

If he stays alive he'll have to wear a polar bear costume for the rest of his life or die of shame.

Matt

Having read some of the emails, I don't yet see any evidence to support Melanie's thesis that "an international conspiracy of scientific experts to distort, falsify or suppress evidence..." exists. It looks more like scientists discussing science. What's the problem here? Isn't that what they're supposed to do? If someone could actually make a clear case that there's any news here, or anything dodgy is going on, how about presenting it clearly, rather than making hysterical allegations. Alternatively, how about take the plunge and learn some science...?

Frank P

Like most phenomena isn't climate a retrospective measurement? As a prognostication, it is not only unreliable, it has more often than not been proved quite risible when extrapolated too far into the future, particularly by computer modelling.

In my lifetime 'too far' has usually been anything more than a few seasons. Recently we've had some inconvenient weather, probably caused by extra-terrestrial phenomena: external causes, sunspots, solar winds, or myriad other phenomena most of which we not only do not understand at this period of our evolution, but probably never will.

Man can certainly foul his own nest, but cannot control universal forces - yet. The charlatans who suggest that we can are full of that other terrestrial substance which definitely does happen. Sleep well, you're as safe as you ever were, or ever will be (not very). Just try not to be quite so arrogant- and slovenly.

David Lindsay

I have just heard Lord Putnam in Durham Cathedral on the need to return to pre-Modern societies for the sake of the climate. How dare he come to the spiritual heart of an impoverished county still standing on vast reserves of coal, and come out with that!

We demand high-wage, high-skilled, high-status jobs, including as the economic basis of paternal authority in the family and in the wider community. We demand mass opportunities to travel. We demand universal access to the meat that is part of our natural diet. We demand economic development in the poorer parts of the world. We demand the unfettered right to reproduce on the part of working-class people, of non-white people, and of people in the developing world.

We demand chariots.

And we demand fire.

In the Wilderness in America

It couldn't have happened to a more pompous, arrogant hypocrite. Al Gore must be mad as hell with this latest threat to his livelihood. Even the polar bears are laughing.

Whoever hacked into the computers to get the emails deserves some kind of award for shining light on the greatest scientific hoax since Piltdown Man in the early 1900s in America.

Hopefully, the media will run with this scandal in spite of their embracing Mr. Gore and his Oscar and his Nobel Peace Prize. Journalists love a good scandal more than a hysterical Chicken Little (Gore) who may wind up being a Cassandra.

Dixon

"Philo
November 22nd, 2009 8:12pm
bowmanthebard
November 22nd, 2009 2:18pm

I write here under correction as I am neither scientist nor philosopher, but 1. Lakatos and Popper are hardly the last word in the philosophy of science - I suspect it is possible to fail to meet their criteria and still count as good science..."

All you are demonstrating is that you simply dont understand their arguments. Which isnt an argument in itself. It merely underscores that you confuse working in "a science" with being "scientific". Which is like confusing being in "the arts" with being "an artist".

Dixon

"Baron Pipin II
November 22nd, 2009 8:32pm
Philo @ 1.26:

Sir Thomas Huxley definition of science: ‘Science is common sense at its best. Rigid accuracy in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic’."

But thats shoe-menders as well. "Rigour" without a falsifyable hypothesis only results in a net accumulation of data, capable of interpretation in an infinite numfer of ways.

"Common sense" as einstein said ( he said a lot of other shoe-menders too, but I agree with this one ) id merely the sum of prejudices one has acquired by age of sixteen. Reality almost always defies common-sense. EG, a pan of hot water takes longer to boil than one of cold water!

The beauty of the real scientific method, as opposed to pseudo-science, is that it can reveal as true things which one would never have expected.

Dixon

Philo: "I am told that sceptics represent a very small fraction of all the scientists in all the disciplines relevant to the study of climate. How do you and Popular Technology and Melanie Phillips and all her acolytes her decide that this very small minority is correct and the very large majority is wrong? I am wading through the articles you referred me to - but most of them I am not qualified to judge - how do I recognise a paper that allows the work of the other 99% of scientists to be ignored?"

This is that old chesnut about "consensus" again. When Semmelweis discovered the bacterial vector of infection, 99% ( at least ) of medical "scientists" were adamant that bacteria were harmless and that...therefore, he must be wrong. So set upon was he that he ended up in a looney bin, where, ironically, he died of septicaemia. Two years later his opinions...not merely minority opinions but almost entirely unique, were confirmed.

Science has nothing to do with consensus. It either is science or it isnt. Semmelweis was a scientist proper, his "peers" were guffers repeating each others opinions in pack formation. Like most people who work in any field of science at any time in history. Semelwis is but one example. There are numerous others.

BTW, there are several million scientists in the "relevant fields". Can you tell us who has surveyed their views on this matter? There are only two hundred members of the IPCC, can you, without looking it up, name any of them? Thats not to suggest ignorance on your part, but that, like the new president of Europe, their status may be formally lofty yet founded on little.

Australians for Non-Bigoted Thinking

What BETTER EVIDENCE of MEDIA BIAS & BIGOTRY on Climate Change, when DAMNING EVIDENCE IS STARING YOU IN THE FACE !!!, but NO REPORTING OCCURS !!!

Of Course there was a typical NO REPORT of this issue by the BBC, with its headline, 'Hackers
Target Leading Climate Research Unit'...Readers of same will think by inference, that Skeptics are criminal and desperate, because there was NO reference to the moral motivation of the hackers !, which was...'We feel that climate science is, in the current situation, too important to be kept under wraps', and so they acted out of a duty of care to the public that the science become transparent. However, there was even a worse bias to sully the reputation of Climate Change Skeptics, in that there was NO reference to the damning revelations unmasked by the content of the emails and documents, which thus could have vindicated the hackers' motivations !

P.S.

The ABC, Australia's Bigoted Communicator, and propaganda arm of the Labor Government and Climate Change Movement, has not even reported these findings yet. I wonder why ???

and...

What odds would you give, that a high profile ABC commentator would interview an articulate journalist with the facts at their fingertips, such as Australia's Andrew Bolt, on these potentially potent findings that could do great damage to the credibility of the Climate Change Movement ???

Don't hold your breath......

*Reference to the BBC article cited earlier, here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8370282.stm

Brian O'Connor

Matt November 22nd, 2009 10:56pm wrote:

Having read some of the emails, I don't yet see any evidence to support Melanie's thesis that "an international conspiracy of scientific experts to distort, falsify or suppress evidence..."

Really! Perhaps you should read more of the emails!

Here's a nice post which might change your mind (or not): The Alarmists Do "Science": A Case Study .

You may believe what you wish, of course, and I wouldn't presume to try and persuade you against your instincts. But if the files are authentic and unaltered, you're bucking the current, my friend. And I doubt your instincts are infallible . . . or are they?

Then, there's a WaPo article, which contains this nugget:

In another, Jones and Mann discuss how they can pressure an academic journal not to accept the work of climate skeptics with whom they disagree. "Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal," Mann writes.

"I will be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor," Jones replies.

Patrick Michaels, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute who comes under fire in the e-mails, said these same academics repeatedly criticized him for not having published more peer-reviewed papers.

"There's an egregious problem here, their intimidation of journal editors," he said. "They're saying, 'If you print anything by this group, we won't send you any papers.' "

Is pressuring journals NOT to publish contrary views REALLY how science works?

I'm just saying . . .

Pete

Dixon
November 23rd, 2009 3:58am

"There are only two hundred members of the IPCC, can you name one of them?"

I can Dixon! The so called Prof. Phil Jones!

Nevermind, eh?

Odd how the media aren't running with the story isn't it?

I blame the bad weather in Cumbria...

davidke

Most unlike you, Melanie, to only call East Anglia University "one of the principal academic centres behind anthropogenic global warming theory".

It's also the main influence on DfID and its preposterous "sustainable livelihoods approach" and the crazy aim of abolition of world poverty nonsense. UEA graduates dominate DfID and they're out there in the field turning the lights off all over Africa.

John Levett

Philo - as a fellow human being with the ability to think for myself, old bean. Unlike your heroes at CRU, Melanie allows us all - rather than only those singing from the same hymn sheet - to make judgements about her findings.

Dave

Hmm, a lesson from history;
"Newtongate: the final nail in the coffin of Renaissance and Enlightenment ‘thinking’"

http://carbonfixated.com/newtongate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-renaissance-and-enlightenment-thinking/

Still now Mel has declared;

"this ultimately inevitable outcome may well bring all of science into disrepute as a result."

I guess we should start with repealing the laws of motion.

Edd.

There is no doubt in my opinion, that climate change is man made BUT.... how so ?
I guess if these dreadful people are persuade to make enough noise (or maybe have their funding cut) they will win their (IMVHO) false argument, for the time being at least. Money talks far louder than common sense!
I did actually hear someone on the BBC Today program this morning say that deforestation had been partly to blame. I would have thought this obvious. Ask the people in Cumbria if this recent deluge is biblical, or maybe due to people felling millions of trees to grow palm oil for 'bio fuel', in the now much drier Amazon basin. Ask also the people of Africa who have suffered years of drought if the believe that due to deforestation their climate has changed. These people are the true friends of the earth as they understand it far more than scientists. Ask the people in Australia and the far east if they believe that due to deforestation, in the once huge Indonesian forests, to grow palm oil for bio fuel, that the climate of south Asia and Australasia has changed.
What scientists fail to say is that there is no more water on the planet now than there was in the year dot. But carbon is what trees are made of as they absorb it cut them down in huge numbers and you have altered natures equilibrium. Precipitation due to an elementary discovery made by Isaac Newton, has to go somewhere. But hey, there is no money to be had with that theory is there ?
I wonder also how the effects of transporting billions of tonnes of ore and other minerals from A to B might effect the balance of the earths orbital path ?
Keep up the goods' work.
All the best,
You and others like you do a great job Melanie, it's about time we saw you back on Question Time by the way.

Frank S

The liberation of this material, which ironically enough contains messages contemptuous of the Freedom of Information Act, is a step forward for those struggling against the forces of 'lights out everywhere, we're saving the world'. But the struggle has a long way to go since this particular scam has seen many tens of billions of dollars disbursed to the bandwagon of climate alarmism. That makes it quite a substantial vehicle. What shame it has on board for science and politics!

Linda Smith

From Nigel Lawson's article, - "Copenhagen will fail - and quite right too" in today’s Times:

"...Moreover, the scientific basis for global warming projections is now under scrutiny as never before. The principal source of these projections is produced by a small group of scientists at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU), affiliated to the University of East Anglia.

Astonishingly, what appears, at least at first blush, to have emerged is that (a) the scientists have been manipulating the raw temperature figures to show a relentlessly rising global warming trend; (b) they have consistently refused outsiders access to the raw data; (c) the scientists have been trying to avoid freedom of information requests; and (d) they have been discussing ways to prevent papers by dissenting scientists being published in learned journals.

There may be a perfectly innocent explanation. But what is clear is that the integrity of the scientific evidence on which not merely the British Government, but other countries, too, through the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, claim to base far-reaching and hugely expensive policy decisions, has been called into question. And the reputation of British science has been seriously tarnished. A high-level independent inquiry must be set up without delay.

It is against all this background that I am announcing today the launch of a new high-powered all-party (and non-party) think-tank, the Global Warming Policy Foundation (www.thegwpf.org), which I hope may mark a turning-point in the political and public debate on the important issue of global warming policy. At the very least, open and reasoned debate on this issue cannot be anything but healthy. The absence of debate between political parties at the present time makes our contribution all the more necessary.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6927598.ece

Philo

Dixon,
I suggest you study the philosophy and practice of science a bit more thoroughly, perhaps even follow the debate as it has evolved over the last fifty years. It may rid you of the romantic notion that it is all about heroic individuals fighting for truth against the obtuse consensus of tenured duffers. It is mainly about building on the consensus, on the assumption that it is more likely than not to be broadly correct. Only very occasionally is it about overturning orthodoxy.

On surveying the numbers of scientists, you rather make my point for me. Nemesis provided me with a reference to 450 peer reviewed papers against man-made climate change. There are, let us say, 450000 for man-made climate change (you say millions, and you may be right). The question then is very simple: how do you as a layman come to the decision to agree with the 450 and not with the 450000?

Philo

John Levett,
"...as a fellow human being with the ability to think for myself, old bean. Unlike your heroes at CRU, Melanie allows us all - rather than only those singing from the same hymn sheet - to make judgements about her findings."

A few remarks: this exceptional ability to think for yourself, does it allow you to adjudicate between partical physicists? quantum theorists? evolutionary biologists? oncologists? Or is it only the sciences that relate to climate?

"My heroes at CRU"? - a false inference already.

You seem to imply that Melanie Phillips has made some findings in some science related to climate and has shared these findings with us. Or do you mean her findings of stuff on the internet? Or intimations of Truth from her intuition?

For peer review to be of any use, the writer and the reviewer have to know what they are talking about.

Dr Michael Salt

Oh dear, what will our corrupt Thought Police at the BBC do?!

Probably blame Israel.

Quadruples all round!!!!

Linda Smith

Philo posted re science: “It is mainly about building on the consensus, on the assumption that it is more likely than not be broadly correct.”

Philo clearly knows nothing about science, or the philosophy of science. A theory has to be falsifiable. It is the job of the scientist to falsify the theory. End of story.

Philo

Linda Smith,
"A theory has to be falsifiable. It is the job of the scientist to falsify the theory. End of story."

There is an infinity of falsifiable theories. One could spend an eternity falsifying them and it would not be science. It would be a story without end (signifying nothing).

Karl Popper was a distinguished philosopher, but I doubt if even he thought he had said the last word on science. There have been decades of scientific practice and philosophical reflection since Popper.

What has puzzled me is how lay people here have felt confident in dismissing the work of scientists who study climate (while no doubt accepting without question the findings and practical applications of science in other fields). What is it allows them this confidence?

My position is that of an ignorant agnostic with a few doubts arising from my experience of economic theory, models, and forecasting. Economic systems are at least as complex and economists' attempts at prediction are not encouraging.

cuffleyburgers

Philo

Your slip is showing.

A huge house of scientific and political cards as been erected on the basis of this warming data and the (now-discredited) hockeystick.

The revelations described by Ms Philips and elsewhere on the interweb (try Devils Kitchen) are that this data is essentially false, it has not been prepared according to good scientific practice, the practitioners of much of the science have indulged in all sorts of shananigans to keep the data secret, to hide inconvenient truths and to discredit their opponents.

It may be that despite this, they are right. However your attempt to continue the generalised smear of deniers and sceptics seems a little desperate.

Deniers and sceptics can now much more credibly point to the flaws in the AGW theories than they could a week ago.

The fact that proper reasoned debate founded on verifiable and universally agreed facts cannot take place on this subject rather than ad-hominem attacks, smears, cover-ups and lies does tend to fuel scepticism of people like myself, but not apparently you.

Neil Craig

While many individual scientists have a lot to answer for politicians & journalists have been much more unanimous in their proclamation of "consensus". The biggest single assertion of scientific opinion is the Oregon Petition of 31,000 scientists saying catastrophic warming is bunk & a CO2 rise actually beneficial. That this has not been mentioned by politicians & the media is the real scandal.

It is virtually impossible to find a scientist, not ultimately funded by government who proclaims catastrophe. While politicians denounced Exxon for giving a few hundred thousand dollars on real research it seems government has given £13.7 million to one of the CRU "researchers". They got exactly what they paid for. I have previously written of Sir David King being chosen as the government's chief science advisor & the nonsense he spouted about Antarctica becoming the only habitable continent by 2100 - but it did mean the politicians gave him the job title. The lesson is that science funding should not be done by politicians & their appointees.

Deadman

standard reasoning:
If it quacked like a duck, and walked like a duck, it was hatched from certified duck eggs and, when roasted with a nice plum sauce, tasted like duck, then it was a duck.

modern AGW reasoning:
If it look like a duck, walk like a duck, and I say it's a golden goose, then it's a golden goose, and to say otherwise makes you a duckist denier in the pay of the evil poultry industry.

Magritte's reasoning:
If it look like a duck and walk like a duck, it's a pipe.

Philo

Cuffleyburgers,
"...your attempt to continue the generalised smear of deniers and sceptics seems a little desperate."

I can only assume you haven't read what I have written.

I have asked a simple question. I have read your response, and re-read it. I see no attempt to answer my question.

Linda Smith

Philo posted “My position is that of an ignorant agnostic with a few doubts arising from my experience of economic theory…”

Economics is not a science. Philo is correct when he admits he is ignorant.

Geoffrey Dron

Hey folks - worth looking at CiF (Guardian) today - we "deniers" have had the opportunity to get our own back on the lefties and even the Guardian moderators can't stop the flow. Thanks Mel, James Delingpole, Watts and, of course, the hacker.

JimmyG

Most people on here seem to believe that the world is getting warmer generally (ok, not every year, but long term). Whether this is down to man made climate change or not, surely it is still a big problem for the survival of the human race? Even if it is natural, don't we kinda need to do something about it in order to maintain our current way of life?

bowmanthebard

Dixon brought the names of Popper and Lakatos into the discussion. I didn't.

It's hardly contentious that science has a crucial reliance on observation and experiment. Using the broadest brushstrokes, there are really only two ways of relying on observation -- or at least only two that anyone has thought of yet. The first is to use "induction" -- in other words, to observe instances and to extrapolate. So you observe a bird with feathers, then another bird with feathers, and so on, till eventually you say "all birds have feathers". The second is to guess (i.e. hypothesize) and then to test the guess by seeing if its predictions turn out to be true.

Obviously, both of the above are fallible. You might argue that the second is more fallible than the first. But if you want to discover aspects of the world that cannot be seen directly, which is what science does, the first is wholly inadequate. You cannot get the concept of an electron by looking at wires and generalizing. You cannot get the concept of a virus by looking at sick people and generalizing.

As far as I know, the only self-described "scientists" who think science is based on induction rather than the "method of hypothesis" (or the "hypothetico-deductive method" as it is also known) are psychologists and climate change "scientists". All the "big names" in philosophy of science from Popper and Lakatos to Kuhn and Feyerabend accept that science essentially involves hypotheses, and that hypotheses have to be tested -- although they diverge on many other matters at the next level.

Sergey

"Whether this is down to man made climate change or not, surely it is still a big problem for the survival of the human race?"
Hardly. Geologic record shows otherwise: during warm periods life thrives, and during cold periods it suffers and declines. It is much easier and cheaper to adapt to excess of warmth than to excess of cold. Warming is very unevenly distributed between climate zones: it is much more strong in the cold areas and is very weak in the hot areas. Where I live, in Moscow, warming is evident in changing of vegetation: trees became much more luxuriant during last decade. And these changes are welcome. Even wheat grows better: for the first time in the last 100 years Russia exports, not imports wheat - and in millons tonnes.

Dixon

Philo, you appear to be sincere in your views yet wildly adrift, so you deserve a reply, that you would not were I to think you merely extracting the urine.

You say:
"Philo
November 23rd, 2009 11:06am
Dixon,
I suggest you study the philosophy and practice of science a bit more thoroughly, perhaps even follow the debate as it has evolved over the last fifty years. It may rid you of the romantic notion that it is all about heroic individuals fighting for truth against the obtuse consensus of tenured duffers. It is mainly about building on the consensus, on the assumption that it is more likely than not to be broadly correct. Only very occasionally is it about overturning orthodoxy.

On surveying the numbers of scientists, you rather make my point for me. Nemesis provided me with a reference to 450 peer reviewed papers against man-made climate change. There are, let us say, 450000 for man-made climate change (you say millions, and you may be right). The question then is very simple: how do you as a layman come to the decision to agree with the 450 and not with the 450000?"

Thats two charges on your part. In the first, its quite clear how adrift you are. You say things have "evolved" in philosophy over the "last fifty years". But in fact Lakatos's major work was published in the mid Seventies, only thirty five years ago. So, though I hate to use this expression, the fact is that you clearly dont know what you are talking about. Your admonition to read deeper into philosophy comes accross as hollow bluster on the part of someone who has read none.

More fundamentally, from that first part it is clear you dont know what philosophy IS. You appear to use the term in the colloquial sense, like "...Rons philosophy on women is...". Philosophy as an epistemology is the use of logic to determine fundamental truths. Which do not change with fashion or go out of date. Moreover, this failure to understand what philosophy is, leads you to assume "philosophy of science" refers to thoughts on the practice of science in broad terms. For a start, Lakatos's work interprets Poppers thinking precisely in order to address that very issue, particularly science as it is conducted in "research programs" as opposed to by individuals. So, obviously you really dont know anything about Lakatos but are bluffing that you might seem to. But again, more fundamentally, the "philosophy of science" is not about such issues as the cultural conduct of scientists at work ( thats anthropology )...it is really about the abstract distinctions which exist between the character of a scientific case and those presented in other epistemologies, such as philosophy itself. In so being, it identifies the distinctions between scientific argument and cultural behaviour that merely emulates the STYLE of science, which is what Lakatos dubbed "pseudo-science". This is all independent of, although tied to, the fact that scientific practice is undertaken in large teams. In which respect you need to refer to the work of the social anthropologist of science Kuhn. His work indicates that, as you say, science seldom involves an individual overturning an orthodoxy, but AN ENTIRE GENERATION OF PRACTITIONERS in a field wihin science suddenly overturning an orthodoxy. His so called "paradigm shift". Which is still a case of overturning a disfunctional orthodoxy. But on a vastly larger scale than in the case of an individual, such as Semmelweis. So, my argument there seems to have been supported by the very material you unwittingly adduce.

In the second part of your response to my comments you simply put words into my mouth. I have not anywhere in this discussion commented upon the conclusions of AGW proponents. You say I do. Quote me if you can. I havent. All my remarks in this discussion have been about the character of the AGW argument, not its conclusions, a seperate issue. I have argued that AGW is pseudo-science for the simple reason that it cannot be falsified. A fundamental criterion of the scientific character of a hypothesis or claim. Nothing in AGW can be falsified, because it is subject to infinite levels of what Lakatos called "protective belts" of sub-tending conjectures ( eg, the influence of volcanic dust ). Even a broken clock tells the exact time twice a day. By coincidence. That doesnt make it a viable chronometer. Similarly, even AGW may get some predictions right, by coincidence. That doesnt make it scientifically valid!

Again, it doesnt matter how many people believe a thing, that does not make it necessarily so.

I would have thought that was obvious.

Now I am migrating to Melanies latest thread on Environmentalism, if you want to reply, I will be there, not here.

Dixon

"Philo
November 23rd, 2009 12:51pm
Linda Smith,
"A theory has to be falsifiable. It is the job of the scientist to falsify the theory. End of story."

There is an infinity of falsifiable theories. One could spend an eternity falsifying them and it would not be science. It would be a story without end (signifying nothing)."

Again, it is quite evident from the above statement that you simply dont understand what is meant by "falsifyable" or what the significance of that is.

The only distinction between science and mumbo-jumbo is that one can be falsified and the other not. That IS the identifying characteristic of science. A scientific hypothesis, alone among all methods of investigating the world is capable of being falsified when wrong. Anything else, like AGW, can hide behind an infinite number of excuses. You can see that when they try to excuse conflicting data with numerous statements of "ah, but, this that or the other happenned". This is what Popper called "immunisation" of a pseudo-scientific concept.

Dixon

Philo:
"Karl Popper was a distinguished philosopher, but I doubt if even he thought he had said the last word on science. There have been decades of scientific practice and philosophical reflection since Popper.

What has puzzled me is how lay people here have felt confident in dismissing the work of scientists who study climate (while no doubt accepting without question the findings and practical applications of science in other fields). What is it allows them this confidence?"

AGAIN, again and again, you just dont understand the concept of philosophy. Its not"bar-room philosophy" we are talking about, its the use of abstract reasoning to deduce fundamental truths about the nature of knowledge. It doesnt go out of date like food at a supermarket. It remains valid unless or until someone shows it to be wrong. The LONGER ago it was deduced and therefore the LONGER it has sustained scrutiny, then the MORE valid it by definition must be! Like the laws of physics!

Daniel Newhouse

The whole thing is remarkable for how much of a red herring it is. Laypeople get their panties in a wad because a scientist uses the word "trick."

Feline

Philo,
If you require scientific credentials,
I'm a Fellow of both the RSC and IChemE, and a chartered Chemical Engineer, Chemist and a Scientist that I suppose makes me a scientist. I can tell you that playing with models that lack predictive ability is not a science. It is just what it is: playing with models. It is very simple to torture the data that they would confirm your assumptions backwards, but the ultimate poof is the predictive ability. And I doubt that the models developed during these 20 years have a single grain of this ability.

In the Wilderness in America

Feline, you are the one true scientific voice crying in the wilderness of philosophy here. Predictability, that's the proof, that's the reality check. Einstein knew that, and so should we all.

Kyle

Always knew global warming was false. I mean anything that happened in the world all of a sudden it was global warmings fault.
Now we see the lies they told. The chicken little story comes to mind. Just amazing how many people fell for this bs. Just shame on humanity.

bowmanthebard

I agree with Daniel Newhouse that we should not read too much into the word 'trick'. That was almost the last point I made on Richard Black's "Earth Watch" blog before the BBC shut it down:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/profile/?userid=14173178

However, I think we should read something into the fact that the BBC now deems discussion of the issue verboten. I think we should read something into the meager coverage in the UK press. I think we should read something into this statement from the CRU:

"The volume of material published and its piecemeal nature makes it impossible to confirm what proportion is genuine."

This suggests that some of the material is not genuine. In which case, which bits are not genuine? Would they not have brought at least one non-genuine bit to our attention if they could? The air of habitual mendacity in the statement makes me suspect that the material is all genuine!

EyeSee

There has been some pointed remarks that the Hadley Centre has nothing to do with the CRU. Not entirely true. Well, not true at all actually. They are bosom buddies and it is from the Hadley Centre that the CRU receives its datasets. The Hadley Centre is up to its neck in the untruths of AGW. In fact, it is a major fantasy factory.

Oscar

Is the Global warming story similar to the smoking story (turned out to be true) or the Y2K hype (proved nonsense)?

I don't know. What I do know, reading these leaked emails, is that climate scientists are all too human. They fight for their opinions, and facts and critics clearly get in the way of their beliefs.

Far more disconcerting is the behaviour of large parts of the media. We have created a sect-like collective belief system that says 'the science' is conclusive. Every society gets the journalists it deserves. The UK got the BBC.

Christopher Bowring

I have blogged elsewhere that the AGW theory is being promoted by scientists and politicians who refuse to debate the theory they promote. Al Gore switches off the microphone of a journalist who asks an 'inconvenient' question. George Monbiot turns down invitations to debate with the Spectator. And now we have more damning evidence.

However, as anyone with a modicum of scientific training will know, this does not prove that the AGW theory is false. I believe on balance that it probably is false, but no one can be sure. What the warmists have done, through trying to deceive, is to damage possibly irreparably the theory in which they claim to believe which is just as bad a situation as if they had succeeded in their scam.

wrinkled weasel

Not really a comment, but such a witty and cogent mixing of metaphors deserves recognition.

Philo

Feline,
Thank you for your comments.

As I said, my experience with economists, their theories, models, and forecasts, makes me, even as an ignorant layman, somewhat doubtful about the value of predictions produced by complex models of complex phenomena. I get the impression the scientists feel the potential consequences are so grave that they must go beyond science to advocacy - which seems to mean exaggerating their confidence and stifling debate.

Whoever has published these e-mails, for whatever reason, has done a good thing. Lord Lawson is right to call for a proper audit of data (I think he too was burnt by economic forecasts, although in his case the forecasts were his own).

I still have a question how all those here so confident in their beliefs manage to adjudicate in favour of the "450" articles arguing that global warming is a myth and against the "450000" arguing that it is reality.

bowmanthebard

Philo asks:

'I still have a question how all those here so confident in their beliefs manage to adjudicate in favour of the "450" articles arguing that global warming is a myth and against the "450000" arguing that it is reality.'

There are two reasons why the confidence is well-placed:

1. "Peer review" -- the means by which the orthodoxy / establishment protects itself and expands its influence;

2. Non-specialists can judge a theory as well as the specialist -- probably better, in fact -- when its predictions turn out to be crap. You yourself rightly recognize that economics is crap.

Brian O'Connor

Feline November 24th, 2009 10:41am wrote:

I can tell you that playing with models that lack predictive ability is not a science.

Precisely . . . and I say that as a former scientist who enjoyed the respect of his colleagues, even those who did not agree with his conclusions.

This business of fudging data, destroying or withholding it (especially in light of FOIAs), and attempting to prevent "those-who-must-not-be-heard" from publishing contrary views is repugnant in the extreme to anyone who values dispassionate investigation.

Charlie Martin makes the point that there is a social contract between scientists and the public. These bozos — the UK and US scientists whose emails are so damning — apparently violated that contract in spadees, and in so doing have assaulted the very essence of science.

Philo

bowmanthebard
November 24th, 2009 8:05pm

I'm not quite sure about either answer:

The "450" are peer reviewed. The "450000" are peer reviewed. How do you choose between them?

There is a great deal of science - pseudo or real - before they get to the "predictive" models. I take it the scientific understanding of climate change does not stand or fall on the success of some models, just as it does not stand or fall on the probity of some closed minds (paleontology is not wholly vitiated by Piltdown).

Feline

Philo asks:

'I still have a question how all those here so confident in their beliefs manage to adjudicate in favour of the "450" articles arguing that global warming is a myth and against the "450000" arguing that it is reality.'

The science usually have a prevailing paradigm. The prevailence of any partuclar paradigm is not necessarily determined by purely scinetiic factors, but uite oftenly by the external ones. In this case it is the ready availability of grants for the studies that support the existing paradigm and denial of funding to those who oppose it. It has nothing to do with the truth.

Philo

Feline,
You give an accurate description of the grubby reality of how scientists compete for funding. You then make a leap that is not warranted by what you have said before, " It has nothing to do with the truth." It has something to do with truth, but as with all human activity there is a lot more going on - so what's new.

None of this answers the question how I as an ignorant agnostic or you, no doubt less ignorant, but I assume also a lay person, adjudicate between the scientists. What justifies a lay person in righteous indignation about one scientific theory rather than another?

Scott A Joseph, MD

If you recall, Melanie, the great Mark Steyn stated something along the line of the following: "some of us believe the most important problem over the next twenty years is the rise of Islamofascism. Some of us think it's global warming. In 20 years, one of will be revealed as an idiot."

I worry about terrorism, myself.

Rob M

This has been wonderfully illuminating. From a position where I thought that AGW was reasonably well documented and underpinned by a range of independent measurements from scientists in many institutions and countries around the world, the scales have fallen from my eyes, and I now realise that it's all been orchestrated by a cunning gang of ... uh, actually, I'm not sure - lefties, that's it! Definitely lefties. The postings that I found most helpful in my re-education were from:
1) Pragmatist: because it is a truth universally acknowledged that if you use LOTS of CAPITALS in a post, it immediately becomes much more CONVINCING. Extra points for the Green NAZI reference. I also learnt from his post that CO2 feeds pants - I never knew that. Honourable mention too for use of capitals to Australians for Non-Bigoted Thinking: always good to hear from a minority group.
2) Baroness Pipinino's: utterly convincing because it had numbers - not one number, not two numbers, but four numbers in it. (Admittedly, I was a little puzzled that 380ppm became 0.039% although 280ppm was 0.028%, but that's maths eh - it's not for lowly commoners). Also, a mathematician friend of mine (all right, it was me, before I became properly re-educated) thought that maybe it was the relative increase of 36% that might be more significant here, rather than an 'infinitesimal one hundredth [of a percent]' but I realised that such thinking - or maybe any thinking - was just lefty. Ugh, sorry.
3) Feline: who in his November 24th post announced (I'll alternate genders, I think, since I don't know which is correct) her credentials as a scientist, and he certainly demonstrated them to my satisfaction in her second post, which showed a fine disregard for such unscientific notions as using a spellchecker. Or a grammar checker. Or a sense checker.

But who let this chap Philo in: asking these impertinent questions about how people here decided that the 0.1% of peer-reviewed papers were The Truth? And then repeating the question just because he didn't get an answer? The bounder - I'll bet he's a lefty.

Brian O'Connor

Philo November 25th, 2009 6:20pm

None of this answers the question how I as an ignorant agnostic or you, no doubt less ignorant, but I assume also a lay person, adjudicate between the scientists. What justifies a lay person in righteous indignation about one scientific theory rather than another?

Permit me . . .

While you could use (incorrectly, IMO) the fallacy of "appeal to popularity" prior to the disclosure to justify your contention that there is no fault in following the herd, it is not possible after the fact. At least, in my opinion . . , As I've argued before, science is not subject to the democratic process. Feel free to disagree with me.

You would do well to read Aliens Cause Global Warming by Michael Crichton.

Were you, or others, to do so, you'd find that there's much to be said for skepticism, especially when someone claims that ALL scientists, except those bought and paid for by big oil and other special interests, and those who are deniers by nature or otherwise for profit, agree with (fill in the blanks).

Believe as you wish, Philo. It's your credibility!

Original Tony

The reason the government hasn't officially waded into this debate is the £50 zero rated carbon tax on my MOT I had done on Monday. It's a tax scam.

Feline

Rob M. You can think what you jolly well please. It's your private business. Phlogistone theory was also once recognised by the scientific community. The scientific theories are not voted into by the majority. They are verified by the data. If some people deny their professional peers access to their raw data they are frauds. If the same people attempt to silence dissenting publications because these publications may damage their chances of funding, they are not scientists but swindlers. It has nothing to do with being Right-wing or Left-wing. But I'm afraid this is beyond you.

Brian O'Connor

To Rob M (November 25th, 2009 11:14pm):

Condescension is no substitute for a reasoned argument, and appeal to popularity is a logical fallacy, even when the "popular view" is bolstered by the authority projected by "consensus scientists" with lofty degrees (appeal to authority).

I'll say it again: science is not subject to the democratic process, and "scientific consensus" has been used a great many times to discredit or ignore skeptics and to suppress contrary views. The result has been hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of needless deaths.

So — I would urge you, as I did Philo, to read Aliens Cause Global Warming. Michael Crichton, its author, provides some juicy examples of "scientific consensus" being just dead wrong plus the resistance of the "consensus community" to data that would falsify their view.

You need to understand that "consensus" is a political concept, not a scientific one, and those who, herd-like, follow scientists who demand allegiance to their views based on "scientific consensus" play a very, very stupid game.

Sir Jerison

This is so damming it's unreal. My partner was a huge supporter of science and there devine right to dictate to the world. Since this was released she has been silent as the grave. I love the fact that the only true highlighter of the truth is the one thing that liars don't like. TIME! Time will reveal if these scientists are telling the truth. Then all you do is give it to Dan Brown lol.

Freedom of speech is the right of every living person. Freedom of the truth is down to those who will fight to identify it at what ever the price.

Grrrr

Mel, I put your information on this topic on my free hosted board yesterday. Today the thread has totally disappeared. Everything has disappeared, your words, other site info, links, youtube, all info pertaining to this topic, the whole kaboodle, gone! I am the Administrator on my board, no one else has access to the controls. Also, the board is very slow today, and having problems with pages regenerating.
Never has this happened before.

Bill Seacole Corr

My daughter has been crying herself to sleep fretting about the drowning polar bears.

What am I to tell her now?

bowmanthebard

You most likely have made a mistake, Grrr, since we're all fallible, but it's rather chilling that we also have to consider the possibility that you've been "no platformed"!

To "no platform" someone = to silence the expression of his views because they're "fascist", and "the only way to fight fascism is to use fascist methods" (according to the current authoritarian dictionary)

Widespread use of the word 'denier' is a sure prelude to a spate of "no platforming", I'm afraid.

Michael JR Jose

So Philip Stott worries about the rep of science does he? Do you mean 'scientists'? Let us not forget that honest open debate eventually leads to the truth being more widely known, in science as in politics. The Svensmark theory of sun-cosmic ray-cloud cover interaction will be the standard climate theory soon. Check out the book 'The Chilling Stars' and the DVD 'The Cloud Mystery' by Lars Mortenson (you will have to google to find his site).

Serena

I understand that this is bad, but I have enjoyed the efforts to reduce pollution as a result. There is no conspiracy that it effects our health adversely though and I don't want a backlash to be that we become lax on trying to get our air cleaner etc.