Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 11/26/2009 2:54:00 PM PST by opentalk
Climate sceptics have lied, obscured and cheated for years. That's why we climate rationalists must uphold the highest standards of science.
I have seldom felt so alone. Confronted with crisis, most of the environmentalists I know have gone into denial. The emails hacked from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, they say, are a storm in a tea cup, no big deal, exaggerated out of all recognition. It is true that climate change deniers have made wild claims which the material can't possibly support (the end of global warming, the death of climate science). But it is also true that the emails are very damaging.
The response of the greens and most of the scientists I know is profoundly ironic, as we spend so much of our time confronting other people's denial. Pretending that this isn't a real crisis isn't going to make it go away. Nor is an attempt to justify the emails with technicalities. We'll be able to get past this only by grasping reality, apologising where appropriate and demonstrating that it cannot happen again.
It is true that much of what has been revealed could be explained as the usual cut and thrust of the peer review process, exacerbated by the extraordinary pressure the scientists were facing from a denial industry determined to crush them. One of the most damaging emails was sent by the head of the climatic research unit, Phil Jones. He wrote "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...
Barking moonbat trying to save his career by opining he was wronged, wronged I tell you.
The only lies, cover-up and deceit has come from the alarmist and their irrational goals and plans.
Journalism isn’t boot licking, I think he forgot that part.
Climate sceptics have lied, obscured and cheated for years.
Of course this is how this has to start out.......
Yet here you are yet once again. Watching a big story unfold, covered almost exclusively by Fox (and not at all excessively by them), the British press and blogs. When will you be able to convince Rahm Emanauel that you can’t hold out any longer, and get his permission enter into the next phase of the strategy: apologetics for the busted scientists and assertions that this doesn’t change anything in the debate.
Look at who one of the biggest global warming moneymakers is. Jeffery Imelt and GE. He’s so heavily invested in the global warming hoax, its failure will bring him financial devastation.
So be it.
ping
Lots of whining in this article, but he does get around to a reasonable final conclusion:
“No one has been as badly let down by the revelations in these emails as those of us who have championed the science. We should be the first to demand that it is unimpeachable, not the last.”
Indeed, if that had been your demand all along...Climate Change would not even exist. Climate science would have survived, but all the alarmism would have faded as background noise.
If GE goes the way of Dubai will anyone cry?
And yet it was the truth. LOL.
bump
I think he wanted to be the leader of the UN, which is pushing this global power grab.
“I think he wanted to be the leader of the UN, which is pushing this global power grab.”
That might be it, as well as taxing us heavily on energy to make money for his other sinister agendas.
Mister Gore, open the floodgates!
Mister Gore, tear down this fraud!
:’)
One of the biggest problems and issues in the AGW “debate” with journalists is that they keep flying this canard of “consensus” among scientists.
Let’s back up for a moment and nail down some broad generalizations of facts:
1. Most journalists have a liberal arts background - in writing, political science, etc. A very few have backgrounds in economics, but that’s not a real science, dismal or otherwise.
2. As liberal arts majors, they’re used to “consensus” being important in most of the areas of public life that they cover. For example, jury trials are about consensus. Votes in legislative bodies are about rough consensus and horse-trading. Public opinion polls, voting, etc — all about some level of consensus.
3. So the mistake that liberal arts majors make is in extending this thought process to science.
And here, they run off the tracks and into a ditch. In science, “consensus” doesn’t count for crap. Most all scientific progress in the last four hundred years comes, as a matter of hard fact, not from a “consensus,” but from one or two people out there on the fringe, doing something that tests or blows up the prevailing consensus of the day. I could rattle off a few dozen examples if people are interested, but take my word for it: real scientific advances do not happen as a result of large mobs of researchers the world over coming to some sort of agreement about “the way things work.” And this climatology field isn’t any different.
Get 100 physics jocks together in a room. Pay them all $1 million each to say “there is no gravity.” OK, so they all agree: “there is no gravity.”
And then you decide to take a step off the third floor balcony. You fall and break a leg. (or two). What happened?
The physical world doesn’t give a rat’s ass about “consensus.” Period.
The errors of “science journalism” in the last 20+ years is that a) the journalists don’t know the scientific method, and b) they failed to hold fashionable AGW climatology to a standard of the scientific method, which required of these statistical computer models a level of predictive skill to confirm their hypothesis. The AGW climate models have been shown in the last 10 years to have little to no predictive skill, and the regional large-scale weather modeling the AGW proponents have been issuing (eg, the number of hurricanes in the Atlantic in seasons since 2005) have been spectacular failures.
This is also why I have great sport making fun of economists. Many here on FR now love to poke fun at the “consensus expectations” of economists on various macro-economic indicators when the numbers come in “unexpected” above or below “consensus.” The reason why these numbers are falling wide of the “consensus” estimates is for the same reason that the AGW frauds are now being exposed: the econometric models aren’t science, they don’t pass the test of predictive skill, and economists continue to cling to their politically-based theories of how the economy works, numbers to the contrary.
Ergo, economics is not a science, dismal or otherwise. It is just political mental masturbation with numbers.
And now in the CRU, NZ and other eruptions, we see climatology is in a very real danger of being put in the same penalty box as economics: mathematical-based pseudo-scientific drivel.
By driving jobs to Mexico and China the result is increased pollution, they do not have the same pollution control requirements.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.