Will Climategate Melt Away The Myths of Scientific Nobility?
November 26, 2009 · By Matthew Campbell
Well, it looks like it didn’t take long for the doubts to begin. Hitting back at an absolutely damning development from last weekend, the folks at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which incidentally acts more like a political than a scientific body, are now claiming the OJ Simpson defence — the evidence is tampered!
Ever since this story broke earlier in the week, I keep getting brought back to this clip of Dr. David Berlinski, professor of mathematics (formerly of the University of Paris). The problem with the dogmatic climate clan is that they did have a clue, and didn’t tell us about it.
There’s a larger issue at stake here though, given the amount of credibility we invest in the research and academic professions. It’s not that good work doesn’t get done, it almost always does, and by very talented people too. However, like any other profession involving people, there is always the temptation to fudge the numbers. A CFO would be criminally negligent if he didn’t institute internal controls over money handling; likewise, an engineer who doesn’t do her due diligence on a project has to answer to the law. So, isn’t it time that there was some self-imposed regulation among the scientific community? After all, some of the research we’re talking about will mean the difference of not only dollars, but lives. What guarantees do we have that the piles of scientific goop fed to us is legitimate and free of unreasonable personal bias?
Again, other professions have taken great strides to negate the human effect so why not the science profession? Given the amount of tax dollars we give to the folks in question, is it too much to ask for a little more than the scientific method as an ethical guide for the research?
Suzuki Bonus: David Suzuki’s thoughts from an earlier time on how he sees humans (the good part starts 20 seconds in)!
They are right, the evidence is tampered, and they are the crooks who have been doing the tampering. You only have to look at the case of DDT to realise these idiots have been killing people the world over for years with all their phony claptrap.
Hmmm, a 10th level maggot becomes a big wheel? How appropriate that he was so clairvoyant in 1972.
“isn’t it time that there was some self-imposed regulation among the scientific community?”
There is. It’s called the Scientific Method. It doesn’t stop errors or fraud from occurring, but the practice of peer review and the need for replication and falsifiability mean that fraud or errors are almost inevitably discovered and corrected.
I have to point out again that this issue is not about the science of climate change; no actual findings have been challenged or disproved. It’s about the perception and propaganda that surround the issue.
They have a slightly strange and unusually accented way of pronouncing the word “Climategate.” Somehow they have it sounding like it consists of five syllables.
They have already produced a number of segments to cover the story. Whle somewhat different in terms of presenters, tone and content, each segment comes replete with stunning background visuals such as a “board’ of the homepage of the Climate Research Unit, a.k.a.
C.R.U.
School of Environmental Sciences
Faculty of Science
University of East Anglia
Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK
Tel:
+44-1603-592722
Fax:
+44-1603-507784
E-mail:
cru@uea.ac.uk
The organization has a staff, the list posted onsite, of minimum 49 personnel. The eleven top bigwigs are all listed as “Dr. so-and-so.”
It would appear that most of the information screened by the news organzation in question is most, if not all, easily available on the internet.
When “University of East Anglia Scandal” was googled on Sat. 21 Nov 2009, 36,500 items were found in (0.258 seconds.)
“University of East Anglia Scandal” googled this Friday a.m. 27 Nov 2009? 98,700 (0.15 seconds.)
Ahhh, yes. As for the identity of that hard-hitting news outlet doing the “shining a light into the dark recesses of world events?” bit. None other than a Russian (RUSSIAN?) television network. And, to them. English is a foregin languge!
As of reveille @ 0445h [0945h zulu] Friday a.m. 27 Nov 2009, Number of North American news outlets “shining a light into the dark recesses of world events?” gambit suggested by Harper, and so roundly mocked and reviled by Canada’s MSM, especially when he avoided Q & A time after his recent address?
Well, Canada MSM is still pimarily investing much time, money, energy and personnel power on a story where one civil sevant has alleged “War Crimes” levels of misconduct by Canadian military in Afstan.
“Who in our government knew what? When did they know it? Show us the docmentation? We prefer to believe one single individual rather than the three Generals [with their probably close to 100 combined years of service in uniform.” All their outcry, supposedly on the grounds of “freedom of the press.”
Other than that, N.A. Media has been remarkably silent.
PRINT: Wall Street Journal has printed a few stories. National Post likewise. Some mention in the Toronto Sun. Maybe some other sightings in print that have escaped me.
RADIO: Sorry. Have not monitored this medium at all, though it is understood that many talk shows have picked up on the story.
TELEVISION (ENGLISH): Fox News (banned in Canada.) CTS-TV, a “Christian” Canadian TV network. More than decent coverage on the Michael Coren show, even with AGW supporter on the panel. With FOX TV banned in Canada, one is curious how the story is carried on Canada’s newest broadcasting licensee. How does AlJazeera English TV handle this news item?
You all, you ‘freedom of the press’ giants, all who pride yourself on your prowess in the field of hard-hitting investigative journalism; Now, because of your being driven by your apparent bias-blinded stance, and your intransigence-buttressed ineptitude and incompetence, do you folks like being scooped by the Russians?
Therefore:
The MARCEL MARCEAU “SILENCE OF THE MIMES” AWARD FOR GROSSEST INEPTITUDE AND HIGHLY BIASED COVER-UP IN JOURNALISM, SELF-MUTED CATEGORY, is awarded Jointly to CBC (Radio & TV – English and French Services,) CTV, ABC, CBS, NBC, The Toronto Star, The Globe and Mail, most other Canadian & USA Print outlets, all of the forgoing with all their affiliates and various subsiduaries and holdings.
Google is a wonderful thing. So is the much maligned art of “hacking.”
DaveGoreAlSuzukiElliLizzieMay! Your time is up. Just Ask George Monbiot, who, until Sunday past, was titled “The Al Gore of U.K and Euro Environmentalism.”
tj
t.e.& o.e.
Did someone at this website just delete a portion of my response?
balbuican, your post was edited to remove a line that interferes with rule 5 of the posting rules (I made sure your main point is in tact though).
As for the points you are making, notice that I had mentioned the scientific method by name in the post. What are you saying by agreeing with my original premise that the method does not stop fraud but that the method is regulation? There is an apparent contradiction here.
As for peer review, I’ve posted this before on this site and I will post it again; peer review is one of the biggest scams going. Simply find a group of other academics who happen to agree with your worldview or beliefs (this is more true in the humanities, but can also apply to science as science is only man’s experimentation and interpretation of the data. To put such faith in this system ignores not only the fact that this story is evidence that fraud in the scientific community is quite possible, but the controversy of element 118, which just over 10 years ago was “discovered” by a scientist who in the end admitted that he cooked the books. I ask you balbuican, if other professionals are capable of such cooking with more riggerous standards, what specifically stops unethical scientists?
Your censorship is, frankly, appalling.
Your blog’s “rule 5″ states only that “Any messages that are deemed unsuitable will be deleted or edited,” which is simply a statement that you will change anything you find “unsuitable”, without informing the readership, or author, that you have been tampering with their writing, or why,
In the past week I’ve posted several notes here, and at Stageleft, complimenting The Politic on achieving what I thought was a new level of quality. I was mistaken: your edit was infantile, and the fact that you don’t indicate in the edited text that you’ve altered a writer’s contribution is dishonest and disgraceful.
i will publish this note and my unedited response at Stageleft: readers interested in what “The Politic” (snort) considers “unsuitable” may judge for themselves.
You’re more than welcome to publish your filth on your own website…
“Filth”. Right. Let’s let your readers judge, shall we?
Balbulican,
Allow me to direct you to the website mission:
“ThePolitic is a group weblog devoted to insight and original commentary on Canadian and American politics. Our contributors are a collection of minds from across North America who believe strongly in free speech and independent thought.
Our intention is to provide an intellectually honest viewpoint on the topics of which we write, in order to nurture public discourse and the free flow of information which all of our contributors cherish as the foundation-stones of a free society. It is our sincere hope that readers of this weblog will leave with new ideas, new viewpoints and new avenues of thought.”
They only need to believe in free speech, not practice it.
By the way, since you edit posts, why was this one acceptable?
“old white guy on November 25th, 2009 6:56 am [#]
no more prisoners. shot first bury second.
Balbulican, clearly you wrote something worse than advocating the killing of people in cold blood.
Cool it RD, I’m looking into this issue.
I have contacted Matthew and asked for a better explanation of why the comment was edited. I have also followed up with balbulican and explained I was not aware of the editing and that I was looking into this issue.
If you’ve got a problem with something on ThePolitic.com, rather than posting your complaints in a comment thread, please take it up with me directly.
Fair enough Greg. Personally, I don’t know the hierarchy at this site so I would not have known who to contact.
Writer complaining about editing of information edits information.
Maybe next week we’ll get a piece about pieces with poor levels of understanding and worse logic.
I received a very civil note from Greg. Much appreciated. I look forward to Matthew’s clarification.
Matthew — I think it’s important to separate science from scientists.
Science will emerge unscathed from “climategate,” mainly because it is obvious science was circumvented out of political idealism. Had the scientific method been adhered to we might not arguably have ever gotten to this point. Kyoto wouldn’t have moved forward, etc.
Scientists, however, risk a loss of trust by the public. It won’t be the same level of distrust we have of lawyers, used car salesmen and politicians, by no means. We need another four or five “climategate” debacles for that to occur. But I suspect people will think twice, perhaps thrice, the next time a group of scientists step forward to claim the sky is falling, it’s our fault, and we need to kill the oil industry and transfer wealth from the West to Africa et al in order to solve the problem. And more they should.
Balb — The infamous “hockey stick” has been challenged and thoroughly refuted by McIntrye and McItrick. It’s the work the folks at CRU should have done but were unwilling to do because of their foregone conclusions and political allegiances.
What!?…now we need a The Politic inquiry?…thanks Balbull…heh.
oh and Balbull, it would be nice if you would restore my comments at the Bunker that disappeared rather quickly…a little bit of honesty goes a long ways towards credibility my friend and you’ve got a long row to hoe.
No comment of yours has ever been censored, deleted or edited in any way at the Bunker. If you’re implying otherwise, you are a liar. Period.
Balbull, are you stating that after the
“plagiarizing” fiasco that you did not delete my comment after I “followed you home”? maybe check with the other one before I call you an outright liar or put forth the post with my comments restored…thanks pal.
For a guy who says he is just looking out for Man Kind and was never born into money, and just a poor man of no means doing what is right. It is really to bad he does not understand that we are at the end of the Ice age as most grade 5 kids have learned for what the last 100 years. And if Susuki is not in it for the money how is he able to own and live in a very large house in the most expensive part of Town in Vancouver. When a cheap house in Vancouver is a million bucks his must be 20 million. Just how does a poor man do that ?
I think we’re in agreement Mark, although I’ve been watching enough sketchy research take place over the last decade to be convinced that the scientific method, which is really only a general guideline to most scientists and not even really a standard except in politicized debates like these, is woefully insufficient to handle the modern world’s research.
I don’t always agree with Colby Cosh, and science is usually one of those areas of contention, but I think he did a good job this week in laying out the land, as far as honesty and integrity in the research world goes:
http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/1.....a-problem/
Again, why aren’t we expecting folks to make up data and lie in their reports if there is a vested financial interest in defending one’s research and subsequent findings?
It seems like there is a lot to unpack in this post and all the comments. I find that we seem to have drifted in a number of different directions. Matthew, I think I’m on board with the basic crux of your post – that politics and science have mixed a little too much in regards to AGW and that we should all remember that scientists are people, and thus, fallible. A healthy skepticism is, er, healthy.
However, I think the post comes off a little more pointed than you may have intended. Many of the issues that have come up are in regards to process and dialogue. I have read some concerns about the computer models used to forecast the impact of climate change. Nonetheless, “Climategate” (man, I hate all the “*gate” scandals) doesn’t, necessarily, refute all the evidence that we (humanity) are basically screwing up the environment.
Hopefully, if C-gate does anything, it will encourage more inquisitiveness by the general public, and shift the question of addressing environmental issues away from a strictly scientific analysis.
@c
Touche!
You’re quite right Jonathan, it certainly doesn’t, although I think that’s why you have the folks like the ex-founder of Green Peace going around saying that the current environmentalists are a completely foreign advocacy group to him. It effect, having the current enviro-establishment discredited could actually help the environment in the long run by allowing us to pursue legitimate green issues.
Thanks also for going after the “-gate” tendency all scandals seem to acquire these days. You would think that we could be more original…
Defintiely, concerns about the motives of certain environmentalists is certainly valid, Matthew. I find there is a lot of dishonest discourse on both sides of the debate. It’s a shame.
There is one final point that I forgot to make in my previous comment. Environmentalists should be upset about this scandal as well. Though I’m skeptical of all the AGW claims (and proposed solutions), I still think it’s quite an important issue. Those who have caused this scandal have allowed people to reflexively dismiss all GW (man made or otherwise) concerns. They have set the cause of helping the environment (for lack of a better phrase) back.
Mahmood: No comment of yours has ever been censored, deleted or edited in any way at the Bunker. If you’re implying otherwise, you are a liar. Period.
Balbull: I’m not implying squat, I’m telling you I’ve had two comments deep-sixed at the Bunker and you or the other one know it and that’s that.
You are a liar. Period. I can say that categorically because:
a) We do not censor or edit, ever. I have never removed or edited a single comment, and Stageleft is even more adamant about it than I am.
b) There is simply nothing you could say that I would ever bother to censor. We’ve been trolled by people even stupider and fouler mouthed than you.
If you want to continue lying, have the courtesy to do it at my site. Or of course you can creep away and lie at some site I don’t frequent. I won’t be back here.
Balbull, say what you will but the three of us know that 2 of my comments stupid or foul did not see the light of day at the Bunker…well I should say they were “up” but not for very long.
I might add that the Bunker is in fact not your site but belongs to the other one and I will not slither into the Bunker and have my stupid foul comments deleted…I’m done with you, good day Sir.
Well, that was a nice hit and run…