AGW catastrophism Climate Change Culture Data Dissent Freedom Global Warming History IPCC Omniclimate Policy Politics Science Skepticism

Raise Your Hands If You're Ready To Handle (Dishonest) Data Tampering

(comment posted at Greenfyre’s)

Greenfyre: if there is a subsequent release and it contains actual credible evidence of data tampering, I will say so

And that’s good enough for me.

After “ClimateGate” the consensus is still there, the AGW science is still there, COP15 will still take place, etc etc. What is dead is the notion that climatological alarmism is a nicely consensual necessary conclusion of an unbiased reading of the data, rather than a reasonable worldview based on observations but that might just as well be supplanted by a different one.

I just hope that in the eyes of all, “catastrophical AGW” is now a little less like “General Relativity” and a little more like “String theory”.

And even if the work of hundreds hasn’t been invalidated, still there is enough ongoing “power politics” activity at CRU (and elsewhere) to warrant a different approach to AGW skepticism. The problem is in fact not much in scientists that have an “ideology of science”, rather with scientists whose ideology involves stifling debate and censoring those who do not follow orthodoxy.

How many of those quoted would be prepared to “say so” if any “credible evidence of (dishonest) data tampering” were to surface?

0 replies on “Raise Your Hands If You're Ready To Handle (Dishonest) Data Tampering”

I don’t think he’ll be on the road to Damascus anytime soon.

It’s a full-time job just trying to be aware of the number of publications in this field – this Reuter’s post has 14 reports being released in time for Copenhagen. It’s impossible without hours of work to identify which climate projection their crud is founded on:

I mean do they use a) 2 deg C b) 6 deg C c) cooling until 2015 d) cooling until 2020 e) just hotter so worserer etc? It would be a joke except I’m finding it hard to laugh.

Lubos’ll be after you for invoking string theory:-)

I saw Greenfyre’s post earlier – from the title “CRU Hack, time to hit back … hard” it doesn’t really appear that he’ll be spending much time on self-reflection or unbiased viewing of the text of the hack.
Even his opening line reflects how polarised this issue is – “The climate change science community was caught off guard by this for obvious reasons.” ‘Off guard’, whatever happened to openess and integrity, what needed guarding, aren’t they proclaiming the truth?

I am dumbfounded at those reports on the hack which include bits of or references to the IPCC report as a means to “confirm” the nothing to see here, the science is settled argument. They really don’t see any irony in this at all. Perhaps that is the tragedy.

I consider Greenfyre like Saul of Tarsus, for those of biblical inclination 😎

As for the tragedy, it’s in their loneliness. There’s an upcoming post about it….

Leave a Reply - Lascia un commento

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.