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.
demands three things of a theory: that it be verifiable
, 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."
at the range of opinions, pro and con, I've identified at least four
distinct beliefs which are "denied" (questioned) by different groups of
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.
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.