[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: Climate change vs BANDits
Grant Godsman wrote:
<With respect, it is you who fails to understand the import and gravity
of the Climategate emails. Certainly the office of the freedom of
information commission in the UK does not agree with you. They have
clearly stated that in their view breaches of the law took place. It is
only the fact that it is too late to prosecute under the relevant
legislation that those responsible will escape punishment.
And to gloss over the issue of data hiding - something that has gone on
for years among this group of people - and not reflect on what this
means for free and open scientific enquiry is especially worrisome.
The data that was eventually released was the highly adjusted and
manipulated data, not the raw data needed to evaluate whether or not
the adjustments etc were valid or not.>
Recently this list spent almost a month discussing the issues of what
journalism and science mean to one another. In this case, the above represents
a misconstruction of the facts in the case. Were the emails leaked, the
scientists at hand guilty of not revealing data that was already apparently
available, and were actually guilty of modifying the data apart from the need
to fit three to four completely different datasets together to form a
continuum, this would say nothing to the matters that affect anthropogenic
global warming, which is what Tom Holtz and others have already stated. The
nature of AGW (it's truth or not) and what happened at Climategate are
completely different issues, and it is inherently dishonest to assume that what
occured with the "scandal" has anything to do with the data involved that
argues for AGW.
I say this without having any opinion on the nature of AGW.
Jaime A. Headden
"Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969)
"Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn
from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent
disinclination to do so." --- Douglas Adams (Last Chance to See)
"Ever since man first left his cave and met a stranger with a
different language and a new way of looking at things, the human race
has had a dream: to kill him, so we don't have to learn his language or
his new way of looking at things." --- Zapp Brannigan (Beast With a Billion
> Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 05:02:11 -0800
> From: email@example.com
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: Climate change vs BANDits
> "I'm not aware of a country other than the US of A where manmade global
> warming is a political issue. Elsewhere, it's a _scientific_ issue. As in
> "peer-reviewed primary literature"."
> What? You should get out more! ;)
> It's a political issue everywhere, not just the USA, because at heart the
> IPCC is not a scientific body. It is run via the UN by member nations (they
> are the ones who appoint the chairman etc) and reflects their interests.
> Always has and always will.
> It is naive to think anything else.
> If you think this issue isn't political anywhere else, you haven't been
> anywhere near the UK or Australia recently.
> With respect, it is you who fails to understand the import and gravity of the
> Climategate emails. Certainly the office of the freedom of information
> commission in the UK does not agree with you. They have clearly stated that
> in their view breaches of the law took place. It is only the fact that it is
> too late to prosecute under the relevant legislation that those responsible
> will escape punishment.
> And to gloss over the issue of data hiding - something that has gone on for
> years among this group of people - and not reflect on what this means for
> free and open scientific enquiry is especially worrisome.
> The data that was eventually released was the highly adjusted and manipulated
> data, not the raw data needed to evaluate whether or not the adjustments etc
> were valid or not.
> And as the source code released by the hacker, (though there is in fact the
> possibility that the information had been carelessly left in an open
> location), reveals, what we do see is an absolute mess.
> And now it transpires that the raw data has, er, "disappeared."
> Quite frankly, the various blogs at science.blogs have merely sought to
> defend the party line, almost without question. But events have left them
> behind and they have become virtually irrelevant to this debate.
> The lame response of 'nothing to see here, move along why don't you' is just
> not good enough.
> It may have been the hottest decade on record, not that that m
> ans terribly much, but, as Dr Phil Jones himself has admitted today, it was
> also a decade that saw no additional warming and that there was a slight
> cooling trend towards the end.
> What does all this mean? Really, who knows. Which is my basic point. We do
> not know enough to be stating with the kind of evangelical certainty that
> some have about what is going on, what is causing it and what the future
> We should calm down and start trying to be cleverer about how we respond to
> climate change.
> Utopianism's "sole function is to allow its devotees to condemn what exists
> in the name of what does not." Jean-François Revel
> --- On Sat, 13/2/10, David Marjanovic wrote:
>> From: David Marjanovic
>> Subject: Re: Climate change vs BANDits
>> To: "DML"
>> Received: Saturday, 13 February, 2010, 8:19 PM
>>> I don't think the science
>> of man made global warming is as settled as
>>> birds are dinosaurs.
>> You can't think about stuff you don't know. You should go
>> out less and read more. :-)
>>> Too many ex vice presidents and environmental
>> loonies involved for a
>> What do I care whether Al Gore is fat.
>> I'm not aware of a country other than the US of A where
>> manmade global warming is a political issue. Elsewhere, it's
>> a _scientific_ issue. As in "peer-reviewed primary
>>> Then there are so called scientists refusing to
>> publish their data
>>> and refusing to comply with freedom of
>> information requests.
>> Climategategate: the scandal of quote-mining an enormous
>> number of purloined e-mails and not even understanding what
>> the quote-mined snippets mean.
>> For instance, the alleged refusal to publish data is a
>> misunderstanding of the following two facts: 1) the
>> scientist in question doesn't own the data and therefore
>> doesn't have the right to publish them -- addressing such
>> requests to him is simply a mistake; and 2) the data are
>> already in the public domain. Just downl
> here are
>> four independent series of measurements in the public
>> domain, and all show warming, warming, warming, warming.
>> All this is documented in detail. For most of December and
>> January, there were several posts on it on http://scienceblogs.com per week,
>> and they all got a
>> lot of traffic.
>>> Not to mention the coldest winter for decades.
>> This decade is the warmest on record.
>> I repeat: this decade is the warmest on record.
>> More required reading: http://realclimate.org,
>> http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid, and first of all
>> -- the latter explains how science itself is biased against
>> "climate skeptics".
> Yahoo!7: Catch-up on your favourite Channel 7 TV shows easily, legally, and
> for free at PLUS7. www.tv.yahoo.com.au/plus7
Hotmail: Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft.