Article Image

Brad at Wendy McElroy's has his say on ClimateGate

Written by Subject: Climate Change
Amidst all the scandal about the hacked Climatic Research Unit (CRU) emails, I'm surprised that no one has caught this rather surprising admission, regarding the "lost" climate data, last month:
In this interview on Fox News, Ed Begley Jr., celebrity spokesman for Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), manages to get out the words "peer reviewed" eight times in the first 120 seconds. He's certainly "on message." Alas for Ed, apparently no one informed him that one of the scandals revealed by the hacked CRU emails is the manipulation and control of the peer-review system.

Begley also reveals that he, like too many others, doesn't understand the purpose or function of peer review. As Climate Skeptic succinctly put it:

Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) proponent Kevin Trenberth says "It is incontrovertible" that the world is warming as a result of human actions.

Those are not the words of a scientist. By definition, the conclusions of science are always controvertible, and open to refutation or revision. That's how science works.

Scientific method demands three things of a theory: that it be verifiable, falsifiable, and predictive.
Until now I've mostly ignored the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) circus. My opinions have changed somewhat due to the revelations of the last week. Briefly, I used to think that AGW proponents were wrong. Now I think they're dishonest.

That, in their lexicon, makes me a "denier."

Looking at the range of opinions, pro and con, I've identified at least four distinct beliefs which are "denied" (questioned) by different groups of people.
Leading British scientists at the University of East Anglia, who were accused of manipulating climate change data - dubbed Climategate - have agreed to publish their figures in full.
 Details of a university inquiry into e-mails stolen from scientists at one of the UK's leading climate research units are likely to be made public next week.

Announcement of a chair of the inquiry and terms of reference will probably be made on Monday, a source says.
SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.
Rigging a Climate 'Consensus' (Wall Street Journal)
The climatologists at the center of the leaked email and document scandal have taken the line that it is all much ado about nothing. Yes, the wording of their messages was unfortunate, but they insist this in no way undermines the underlying science. They're ignoring the damage they've done to public confidence in the arbiters of climate science.

Join us on our Social Networks:


Share this page with your friends on your favorite social network: