Phil Plait sez "Move along schmos. Nothing to see at ClimateGate in "The global warming emails non-event
One reason I haven’t talked about it is because I think it’s a non-issue. These files are not evidence of fraud. I am a scientist myself, and I’m familiar with the lingo.Sad to see a "trained mind" reduced to drool like this.
Elsewhere insightful minds note: Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation - Telegraph
Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with the Climategate whitewash, says Christopher Booker.
Still others build a case for The Conspiracy Of The Centuries [Reader Post]
The specific acts of data manipulation, and falsified results are now being disseminated across the Internet by regular citizens, known skeptics, and by intrepid reporters. Over the past week, and in the coming weeks, many people, and even the press, will publish these findings. Climate scientists who have found themselves ostracized will have been vindicated, skeptics will find new and curious supporters, and politicians will find themselves on the street, and possibly in a witness stand.
Shannon Love reminds us No One Peer-Reviews Scientific Software
BTW the original data is gone, tossed out like so much trash to "save space" when Hadley CRU moved to their spiffy new building. As Richard Fernandez notes in Belmont Club » Homogenized, sterilized and pasteurized
The main objective criticism of the carbon-based warming model is that it is not proved. Thatâs different from saying itâs not true. It may or may not be true. However, until it is conclusively shown to be true and the results can be reproduced, it would be unwise public policy to embark on a trillion dollar amelioration program, with far-reaching economic, social and environmental effects. Government normally intervenes when there is a compelling public interest to do so. It should never intervene on the basis of an uncertain bet. Government is not the racetrack where bureaucrats can bet taxpayer money on the horses they fancy.
Nor can the 'precautionary principle' be rationally invoked without recognizing the possibility that the climatologists, deprived of a real fact base, may in fact be getting their prescription wrong wrong. The precautionary principle would assign danger to both the chance you may get a cough and the possibility that the brown liquid in the unmarked bottle may not be what you think it is, because the label has peeled off long ago. Is it Nyquil or is it Drano? And do you feel lucky today? Robert de Niro and Christopher Walken illustrated the principle of dangerous living in the Deer Hunter. "Climate change. Click." Then spin the cylinders again. But the question must be asked, is the world allowed to peek in to the chamber? Isn't it allowed that much? Can we have the data please?
There is no necessity for the emails to indicate fraud - the behavior of the "scientists" themselves, specifically in finding ways to not share their raw data and methods, should have been a red flag long ago.
In fact, to many of us, it was, and we are now feeling completely justified in our healthy and appropriate skepticism.
Posted by: sherlock at November 30, 2009 9:19 AMI am not a skeptic. To be skeptical requires doubt, and there was never good reason to doubt what was going on in the global warming hoax.
'Latter-day scepticism is fond of calling itself progressive; but scepticism is really reactionary. Scepticism goes back; it attempts to unsettle what has already been settled. Instead of trying to break up new fields with its plough, it simply tries to break up the plough.'
'The abuse of words is the great instrument of sopistry and chicanery'.
As a scientist (okay, I'm currently employed as an engineer) and former programmer, I'm both outraged and appalled at this scandal.
You might notice that I don't say "surprised". That's because I'm not.
Posted by: physics geek at November 30, 2009 11:21 AMI can't begin to tell you how good it feels to have you link to my article. I consider you among the greatest writers on the web, and this means more than you can imagine. I humbly thank you.
Posted by: Patvann at November 30, 2009 11:37 AMThat Shannon Love article is fantastic. Great points, good analogies, well written.
I'm struck by how closely the whole dilemma resembles the problems that have routinely popped up with regard to cryptography. Readers of Bruce Schneier's Applied Cryptography should immediately recognize what I'm talking about. You can make an encryption algorithm secure by making the algorithm itself a secret, or you can publish the algorithm and then use it to encrypt messages by means of a secret key. Guess which method turns out to be more effective and more secure. Open source wins again...precisely because of (a more honest implementation of) this stuff called "peer review."
My point is, this whole thing is not exactly an unblazed trail. Climate science is not the same thing as encrypting and decrypting messages...but the whole "black box" situation works to the detriment of both. This trolley should not have come anywhere close to this far off the rails.
Great article Patvann .... you should write more.
Posted by: vanderleun at November 30, 2009 3:28 PMThe space they were saving is between their ears.
Posted by: wildman at November 30, 2009 3:48 PMAnd still the little birds nest higher on the hill.
Posted by: Alan at November 30, 2009 3:53 PM*sigh*
Phil is normally a good guy, but he done Got Religion on this one topic....
Posted by: Charlie Martin at November 30, 2009 6:24 PMPhil Jones has 'temporarily' stepped down from CRU.
It's a good day.
Posted by: Cathy at December 1, 2009 12:06 PM"It is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood." -- Karl Popper N.B.: Comments are moderated to combat spam and may not appear immediately. Comments that exceed the obscenity or stupidity limits will be either edited or expunged.
HOME