Wednesday, December 02, 2009

The hard lesson of Climategate

While I was in Mexico a huge and sad scientific scandal broke out.  "Climategate" revealed that East Anglia University's famous Climatic Research Unit was involved in an active conspiracy to suppress data and persecute those who held believes other than CRU's orthodoxy.  Further, other scientists like Michael Mann, famous for the hockey stick graph and his writings on RealClimate, have been shown to be either selecting evidence or outright lying. 

This is a huge blow to science.  Regardless of what one thinks about the whole global warming debate making stuff up, like these scientists did, is wrong.  Now, people have every right to question any data climate scientists put forward.  Instead of reasonable, rational scientists the environmental field is overrun with people like Robert Christopherson.

I take this opportunity to once again call for rational discussions on the environment without the crazies on either side.  Those who deny carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and the Al Gores must go.


Anonymous said...

The U.S. government will also ignore this issue just like it has ignored every single issue that didn't fit its agenda for making the U.S. just another socialist state; a U.N. lapdog.

Real scientists who have published real science that disagree with popular, politically correct science per the U.N. have been complaining for years that they were being blackballed & unable to get published. And now it's news?

Stupid is as stupid does. The only reason that the media, any media is reporting on this is because the media darlings got caught with their pants down. It would have been politically correct, scientifically wrong business as usual otherwise.

It's not just with the bogus climate change either. Any scientist who disagrees with the politically correct pseudo-science of evolution is also blackballed & has to self-publish. Why aren't people smart enough to ask the hard questions without someone having to hack into the bad guys computers & then shove it into the public's face?

1. If the science & the mathmetical process can NOT be redone by another scientist using the raw data, then it's bogus. Period.

2. Statistics can be manipulated to say just about anything. It the statistical process isn't explained & independently tested, then don't believe it!

Stephen Mackenzie said...

Erm, no. The emails show nothing of the sort.

Catholicgauze said...

Ummm yes.

VK said...

Are you daft? There is nothing incriminating in the emails.

Oh wait, this must be sarcasm, however poorly executed. Nice trick, there.

Stephen Mackenzie said...

Sorry for the delay, the NYT password recovery thingey was broken.

Anyway. The article makes a claim of a conspiracy, but doesn't actually back that up with any facts. Very unlike the NYT, actually. I'm surprised.

I shall come right back at you with this editorial from Nature:

Stephen Mackenzie said...

Ah, an inquiry to be held. That'll settle the matter...