Here is an open letter to aspiring climate scientists concerning the scientific method among other things.
Is anyone bothered by the fact that scientists manipulated data to fit desired outcomes? Can we trust scientists to follow a procedure that can be replicated? These climate scientists can't even replicate their published data. This is disturbing.
Right, I am interested in the facts. I am raising awareness of the fact that some scientists didn't even document a method they could repeat. Why? If their work is the basis of CO2 tax, and Cap and Trade, and need for every human to change their behavior; they should have expected folks to question it. They should have been ready with a good demonstrable method. Now they are lawyering up.
Climategate has brought about some troubling news for climate scientists at the CRU in England and the NIWA in New Zealand. I am troubled by the sloppy science that is the basis of the IPCC, the Copenhagen Diagnosis, the Kyoto Protocol and Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth.
NASA may get sued, Congress is opening an investigation and these scientists may face criminal charges. These aren't just honest mistakes. There was manufacturing of data to obtain the desired outcomes and collusion to hide this fact.
What you are suggesting is a coordinated global conspiracy. I don't see that as being possible.
I'm happy to give equinox the benefit of the doubt and certainly not call it 'trolling.' Yes, the OP does imply a leaning towards climate-change-is-a-scam, but given recent events, that charge has unfortunately been given a massive boost.
When I report "Antarctica about to melt any day now!" I'm reporting a worst-case scenario on one end of the extreme and am usually not countering it with anything from the other end of that extreme. Is that any less biased reporting?
What's my ideology? Why would you think that reporting about scientists' misconduct is inflammatory? I keep asking questions and am wondering if anyone else is bothered by scientific misconduct? Where's the ideology in that? As Clive Crook points out, pro-science people should be the first to be outraged.
I refrain from labeling you or sizing you up. I keep wanting to get to the topic at hand and it seems you continue to switch the topic to me and what I think. This is at least the second time you have done this. When did you become the standard by which to judge? Please forward your credentials. You speak as though you are the model of objectivity. I keep going to back to basics...epistemic basics. I am very deliberately trying not to disrespect you by modelling good behavior. Take notice. It doesn't take much effort to move into an immature tone.
Also, I can't control you and won't try to censor you or shut you down. I would appreciate the same understanding and courtesy.
So you're saying you have no bias? I keep bringing up many reports from many sides. I have contributed AGW supporters who are disturbed by this scientific misconduct. George Monbiot has been a strong supporter of AGW in the media and now he feels duped.
I am not unbiased. My bias is not blatant. But back to the topic at hand. Is it ok for Scientists to lack ethics in their research?
In another post you mentioned RealClimate as the best or most balanced view on Climategate, yet at least four of the scientists at RealClimate have been implicated in the Climategate scandal. So, do you have any other "unbiased" sources to view this scientific misconduct from?
Actually, equinox, you have only ever linked to AGW-deniers or AGW-supporters who are saying they have been betrayed by CRU. You have yet to link to anybody who has looked at the stolen CRU emails (and remember that their provenance is not established) and concluded that they are less than they appear. I've skimmed thru the email text file and found some statements that can look pretty bad out of context. Unfortunately, we don't really know the full context, because the stolen files only present the part of the context that happened to be captured in the stolen files.
People are complaining that the data were "manipulated". Well, since they come from disparate sources and methods, they have to be, in order to make sense of them. When people talk about methods while they are manipulating data, they frequently speak rather casually. It's very hard to tell what was meant. People are also complaining that CRU was suppressing peer review of AGW-denier papers. Maybe that's because the papers were not good enough to warrant peer review. It doesn't seem possible to tell from these stolen files whether there's more to it than that.
Look, it would be great if all scientists were at all times completely professional and kept perfect records and never made mistakes and never got frustrated or petty, but unfortunately, they are human. This is what sausagemaking looks like. I would prefer that CRU had used more airtight procedures. This makes all of science look bad. No argument there. But it doesn't change the fundamental facts, or the scientific consensus about them.
Here is a long list of other agencies which agree with the IPCC report. Remember that the IPCC is basically an attempt to summarize the scientific consensus, so it uses these statements, and some of these statements refer to the IPCC reports. But the individual societies and agencies do their own work and have come to their own conclusions.
Think about it. Are CRU and RealClimate.org the only people working in the field? Do they control all the data? No and no. Even the American Association of Petroleum Geologists finally changed their consensus view from one of dissenting with the IPCC to a mixed, noncommittal statement in 2007. I'm pretty sure they don't take the IPCC or CRU as gospel, and even half of them can see that AGW is real, despite their vested interest in business as usual in the petroleum industry.
But the only people making it worse are the AGW-deniers. They're the ones with a vested interest in the status quo and financial backing from the fossil fuel industry and therefore the PR budget to pursue and inflame this kind of thing, and maybe even to pay off a "whistleblower" or hacker. I mean as long as we're indulging in paranoia, might as well include the side which has been using Karl Rovian tactics for years.
The AGW-deniers' entire goal is to get people to distrust the science so they can keep doing things the way they always have. They're not interested in truth. They're trying to hide truth. Why would you believe anything they have to say about climate or about hacked emails?
I'll worry about having to eat my words when the ice caps and glaciers start growing back. So far what I see out of this is a handful of scientists showing their frustration at being the target of a well-funded attack machine.