ClimateGate and the Climatati

[Guest TrueMetis]

Which is why only the police should investigate the police! Scientists should only investigate other scientists, politicians should only investigate other politicians, and robbers should only investigate robbers. What does the public know about thievery after all?

The public does not investigate the police, the public does not investigate politicians, and the public does not investigate robbers. Why should they investigate scientists? I'm advocating that people who understand what they are doing do the investigateing.

If the public is affected it has the right to question anyone who is purporting to be acting in the public's interest or who affects their general welfare with their activities. The "public" is not stupid as you seem to think. It does contain people capable of understanding very complex concepts - even to the point where they can think with them.

The public is pretty stupid.

Are Americans flunking science? A new national survey commissioned by the California Academy of Sciences and conducted by Harris Interactive® reveals that the U.S. public is unable to pass even a basic scientific literacy test.

•Only 53% of adults know how long it takes for the Earth to revolve around the Sun.

•Only 59% of adults know that the earliest humans and dinosaurs did not live at the same time.

•Only 47% of adults can roughly approximate the percent of the Earth's surface that is covered with water.*

•Only 21% of adults answered all three questions correctly.

I'm going to leave it up to these idiots.

My link

[Riverwind]

The public does not investigate the police, the public does not investigate politicians, and the public does not investigate

You do not seem to understand the meaning of 'public'. What it means is an independent authority set up to represent the interests of the public does the investigation and all proceedings are open.

The gomery inquiry was the public investigating politicians.

The YVR tasering inquiry was the public investigating the police.

Every trial for every robber is the public determining guilt via a judge or a jury.

Scientists cannot investigate scientists for the same reason police cannot investigate police - their loyalty to the group exceeds their sense of duty to public.

[Guest TrueMetis]

You do not seem to understand the meaning of 'public'. What it means is an independent authority set up to represent the interests of the public does the investigation and all proceedings are open.

The gomery inquiry was the public investigating politicians.

The YVR tasering inquiry was the public investigating the police.

Every trial for every robber is the public determining guilt via a judge or a jury.

Scientists cannot investigate scientists for the same reason police cannot investigate police - their loyalty to the group exceeds their sense of duty to public.

Ah nevermind then.

Scientists are not the cohesive group you make them out to be.

Edited December 6, 2009 by TrueMetis

[Pliny]

The public is pretty stupid.

The public is "you". If not, to what part of society do you think you belong?

[Guest TrueMetis]

The public is "you". If not, to what part of society do you think you belong?

I know I've done plenty of stupid things. All the more reason not to trust the public.

[Pliny]

I know I've done plenty of stupid things. All the more reason not to trust the public.

The public is you!

[jbg]

Ah nevermind then.

Scientists are not the cohesive group you make them out to be.

But their source of funds is "cohesive".

[Guest TrueMetis]

But their source of funds is "cohesive".

So scientists from Europe get funding from the same place as scientists in America?

Edited December 6, 2009 by TrueMetis

[jbg]

So scientists from Europe get funding from the same place as scientists in America?

Generally, science is governmentally funded or university funded. Most universities get governmental research grants. A non-problem is very uninteresting to fund.

Further, I think that the "cap and trade" or emissions trading industry enriching the likes of Maurice Strong, Desmairis and Power Corp., among others creates its own pressure to find a problem to solve. When Reagan deregulated oil and gas prices many brokers in that field quickly failed since there was no spread to arbitrage. The money players are seeking regulation in order to create a lucrative industry. This is not about protecting the daisies and polar bears.

[Riverwind]

So scientists from Europe get funding from the same place as scientists in America?

CRU got funding from the US government.

[Riverwind]

Gee. Another climate scientist alleged to have resorted to blackmail in order to suppress views that go against the 'consensus':

Okay folks, here comes a new e-mail from the climate community yesterday that I did not hack (I was copied on it), and it is a case study in not getting it.

Andy:

Copenhagen prostitutes?

Climate prostitutes?

Shame on you for this gutter reportage. [Emphasis added.]

This is the second time this week I have written you thereon, the first about giving space in your blog to the Pielkes.

The vibe that I am getting from here, there and everywhere is that your reportage is very worrisome to most climate scientists.

Of course, your blog is your blog.

But, I sense that you are about to experience the 'Big Cutoff' from those of us who believe we can no longer trust you, me included. [Emphasis added.]

Copenhagen prostitutes?

Unbelievable and unacceptable.

What are you doing and why?

Michael

It makes me wonder how many more of these kinds of revelations will it take to to convince the climate science apologists that climate science has been completely corrupted by fanatics that suppress dissenting views.

Another source here.

Edited December 6, 2009 by Riverwind

[eyeball]

The public does not investigate the police, the public does not investigate politicians, and the public does not investigate robbers. Why should they investigate scientists? I'm advocating that people who understand what they are doing do the investigateing.

The public is pretty stupid.

I'm going to leave it up to these idiots.

My link

The same idiots that are responsible for choosing the investigators?

I hear what you're saying but how much is pretty stupid, 50%+1 or maybe less, say 45%? I guess I just subscribe to the hope or faith that putting the issue to the public will yield the best option out of a selection ranging from; doing absolutely nothing to applying a precautionary approach on through to doing whatever it takes.

At this point settling the issue of action one way or the other really seems as much about democracy as it is science, politics or economics and I fail to see why policy makers can't simply compare the weight of consensus to that of the scepticism amongst the experts and act somewhere within that spectrum in a manner that more or less corresponds to the consensus/scepticism ratio.

I'm more than a little troubled at the seeming inability of policy makers to simply decide whether to take this issue seriously never mind settle on what action to take. How the government goes about making this fundamental decision appears seriously flawed and so is the mechanism that converts citizens wishes, desires, instructions, whatever into public policy.

If democracy truly is something in which ignorance or stupidity cannot be tolerated then we should face that reality however politically unpalatable it may be. Perhaps it should be a requirement that voters take basic comprehension tests. If we're collectively too stupid to make the really important decisions that need to be made how on Earth can we be trusted to pick who should decide? Something just doesn't scan here.

Edited December 7, 2009 by eyeball

[Riverwind]

I fail to see why policy makers can't simply compare the weight of consensus to that of the scepticism amongst the experts and act somewhere within that spectrum in a manner that more or less corresponds to the consensus/scepticism ratio.

Because climate scientists know nothing of economics and energy production. Reducing carbon emissions is hugely expensive and will do nothing to alter what may be ahead. Money is better spent elsewhere and the only reason we are even talking of carbon emission reductions is because politically motivated activists see anti-CO2 regulations as a way to impose policies that they like even though these policies will do nothing to address the alledged problem. Edited December 7, 2009 by Riverwind

[Keepitsimple]

OK.....I think the sh*t is really starting to hit the fan. The CBC....that's right, the CBC. Here's what Rex Murphy had to say (video)......and he does a terrific job of saying what needs to be said:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgIEQqLokL8

Edited December 7, 2009 by Keepitsimple

[Wild Bill]

OK.....I think the sh*t is hitting the fan. The CBC....that's right, the CBC. Here's what Rex Murphy had to say (video)......and he does a terrific job of saying what needs to be said:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgIEQqLokL8

You gotta love Rex Murphy! There's something about those folks on the Rock for reducing an issue to plain language and common sense.

Perhaps it's a "big city vs suburbia or rural" thing. John Boy Walton grows up on a farm and learns from early childhood that you put a lever's fulcrum close to the load and not the handle. He learns that if you don't get the seed planted in time you'll starve come winter.

Big city folks like those in Toronto seem to think that if you don't have enough bread the solution is to demand the feds subsidize the opening of more variety stores - that if you don't have enough electricity you just need to wire extra outlets in every house!

[Pliny]

You gotta love Rex Murphy! There's something about those folks on the Rock for reducing an issue to plain language and common sense.

Perhaps it's a "big city vs suburbia or rural" thing. John Boy Walton grows up on a farm and learns from early childhood that you put a lever's fulcrum close to the load and not the handle. He learns that if you don't get the seed planted in time you'll starve come winter.

Big city folks like those in Toronto seem to think that if you don't have enough bread the solution is to demand the feds subsidize the opening of more variety stores - that if you don't have enough electricity you just need to wire extra outlets in every house!

Rich!

Understanding the Economics of Sustainability is essential.

Here it is in a nutshell.

Acting out of ignorance of basic Economics

Edited December 7, 2009 by Pliny

[myata]

There's no lack of extremely genial people (aka crackpots) claiming anything, from eternal motion to unlimited communication to aliens in the parallel Universe, if only one cares to look closely around the Net. The only difference between those and the climate sceptics seeking outlet in the popular media or on the Web forums, is that unlike the other forementioned captivating subjects, this one happens to be in the focus of media and public attention, resulting in all valuable opinions being duly reported and discussed at length by people who have about as much (or little) clue about that they're talking about as some of the opinions being reported.

Is climate science is perfect and without flaws? There's no reason to expect that, no human knowledge being eternal and flawless. Problems, mistakes and even intentional falcifications have been known, and will happen, as is the nature of our path to knowledge. What we know for certain though, what's been tested and proven by science's progress over many centuries is that any opinion, claim or theory must be tested in the forum of qualified peers; and once tested, an established conclusion can always be reproduced by repeating identified steps of experiment, or sequence of logical reasoning.

That is why any novel idea or claim does not necessarily (actually, ever) cause complete negation of all knowledge obtained previously, unlike e.g popular art or fashion. The validity of established research is confirmed by fact and logical reasoning that can be repeated by anybody (who has a clue) any time. That is why the real science, unlike media / Web emanations around it, has nothing to fear from qualified, expert critical analysis. Any result that can be confirmed within the community of qualified, dedicated peers is a positive result and another stepping stone to revealing greater knowledge.

And that is exactly why political and ideological exercises around science are worthless (and potentially dangerous, as any case of illiteracy guiding the course of society) waste of time. One can accept the established opinion of science and act on it; or one can challenge it with an argument of equal quality in forum of qualified peers. If none of the above, it must be just another attempt at stalling the progress of knowledge for who cares what reason (ideology, laziness, etc), like it happened so many times before that it isn't even worth mentioning. Interestingly, in that respect, things also work in the scientific, i.e natural selection's way: those interested and willing to learn, explore new opportunities and horizons, advance and reap rewards. Those who'd rather sit back and ignore the change, are eventually discarded as useless ballast. Not to judge or cheer for any one of the options, it's simply the way things appear to be in this, current reality.

[Keepitsimple]

There's no lack of extremely genial people (aka crackpots) claiming anything, from eternal motion to unlimited communication to aliens in the parallel Universe, if only one cares to look closely around the Net. The only difference between those and the climate sceptics seeking outlet in the popular media or on the Web forums, is that unlike the other forementioned captivating subjects, this one happens to be in the focus of media and public attention, resulting in all valuable opinions being duly reported and discussed at length by people who have about as much (or little) clue about that they're talking about as some of the opinions being reported.

I could actually read this post so I assume you copied it from somewhere else.....but I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say. Are you saying that the "scientists" are crackpots because they have hidden their data and programs from the public and there can be no independent confirmation of their work?

[Keepitsimple]

The alarmists are getting ever more frantic - they know the gig is almost up. Here's how Copenhagen opened up:

Opening ceremonies began with a short sci-fi film featuring children of the future facing an apocalypse of tempests and desert landscapes if world leaders failed to act today.

"Please help save the world," said a terrified little girl at the end of the film.

Link: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/091207/world/un_climate_warming

[Pliny]

There's no lack of extremely genial people (aka crackpots) claiming anything, from eternal motion to unlimited communication to aliens in the parallel Universe, if only one cares to look closely around the Net. The only difference between those and the climate sceptics seeking outlet in the popular media or on the Web forums, is that unlike the other forementioned captivating subjects, this one happens to be in the focus of media and public attention, resulting in all valuable opinions being duly reported and discussed at length by people who have about as much (or little) clue about that they're talking about as some of the opinions being reported.

The question being asked here is,"Who are the ones that know what they are talking about?" It seems the ones that have been making that claim have seriously hurt their credibility.

If you believe that parroting an already determined view is a good scientific argument to end debate (which I believe is the intent here) then I would take another look at your post. It certainly is not an encouragement to continue the scientific inquiry you so value.

[Pliny]

I could actually read this post so I assume you copied it from somewhere else.....

Funny! I had that same thought!

[Riverwind]

That is why any novel idea or claim does not necessarily (actually, ever) cause complete negation of all knowledge obtained previously

I am getting sick of the strawmen that alarmists keep using to dismiss the importance of these emails. The fundamentals of climate science are not overturned by these emails but they do call into question the reliability of the IPCC answers to the key questions like how much warming are we likely to experience over the next 100 years.

The problem that climate science has it the data is extremely poor and subject to the judgment and adjustments by the scientists. We are told that we can trust the collective judgement of the scientific community because they will challenge each other's judgments and ensure the consensus is not biased towards one particular view.

But we know from the emails that key members of the scientific community has systematically attempted to suppress dissenting views and sought to adjust the numbers based solely on what they felt would better support the IPCC political agenda.

To illustrate how key the scientists caught in the emails are one only has to note that they made up 12 of the 26 authors of the latest 'its worse than we thought' fable called the Copenhagen Diagnosis. The scientists are the ones who control what message is being heard by governments and media and everyone should care that they have been exposed as corrupt.

The bottom line is defending the institutions of climate science like the IPCC right now is completely irrational and simply demonstrates that climate alarmism is a religion - not a matter of science.

Edited December 7, 2009 by Riverwind

[myata]

I could actually read this post

Good stuff! You're certainly making great strides in "science" already!

Are you saying that the "scientists" are crackpots because they have hidden their data and programs from the public and there can be no independent confirmation of their work?

I'm not sure how much point would be to have them given to general public ("So you think you can math", anybody?), but it is certainly an obligation of a professional scientist to present any claims they make to the critical consideration of qualified peers. If / when it is not done, or done improperly, it'll be discovered, just as it had been in this and many other cases. Which only proves why and how scientific process works, sorting out research with merit from unsubstantiated or even deliberately false claims, not to mention gibberish from media / general Web forum.

[Keepitsimple]

Riverwind.....I continue to thank you for your rational discussion. A basic flaw of the entire IPCC process is boldly contained in their mandate or "statement of purpose". I've said it before but it bears repeating. Firstly, the mandate creates a natural and obvious bias in the process towards human-induced Climate Change. If that's what you're looking for, there's simply a natural tendency to ignore of discount opposing evidence. In conjunction with the emails, the second statement further illustrates why the IPCC process is so tainted - the emails show that the key scientists - who are the gatekeepers for the IPCC, the filters for what the IPCC reviewers see - have demonstrated deception, manipulation, misrepresentations, a corruption of the peer-review process and outright incompetence in the development of computer programs and the protection of source data:

The original IPCC mandate (my bold) was and still is:

The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.

In addition:

The IPCC does not carry out research nor does it monitor climate related data or other relevant parameters. It bases its assessment mainly on peer reviewed and published scientific/technical literature.

Edited December 7, 2009 by Keepitsimple

[myata]

The problem that climate science has it the data is extremely poor and subject to the judgment and adjustments by the scientists. We are told that we can trust the collective judgement of the scientific community because they will challenge each other's judgments and ensure the consensus is not biased towards one particular view.

The problem with general Web forums vs "science" though is that anybody can write absolutely anything with no consequence - whatsoever. Here's couple of examples:

1) I successfully completed a controlled thermonuclear reaction (with a contraption in my basement) that will provide eternal source of energy for this humankind, and make billions for me and my family.

2) I just returned from a galactic blueplanet radiation emissions conference in the Orion nebula travelling 3.7889 times faster than speed of light by super quanta muonic waves.

Please feel free to use either (or both) as a groundbreaking foundation for a new branch of (Web) science, my complements.