The AP's climate guy Seth Borenstein attempts to rally the AGW faithful against a rising tide of skepticism:
After an "exhaustive review" of the "stolen" (some say leaked) Climategate emails, Borenstein and his staff conclude that scientists may have indeed engaged in deliberate stonewalling of skeptics and mismanagement of data, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the science behind AGW conclusions was faked.
Or does it? The folks over at Watts Up With That? examine some of the raw data vs. the "smoothed" data and some away with some different interpretations.
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
When those who show any semblance of agreement with global warming can get tens of millions in research grants, and those who cast the slightest doubt on global warming theories lose existing grants or do not get any grants at all, is it any wonder that the data is dubious at best?
Carbon Dioxide Did Not End The Last Ice Age
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070927154905.htm
I want to write more about this, I really do. I am certain that at some level in the scientific community, there's a frustration with disbelievers that is akin to folks who look at Holocaust deniers as moonbats. I'm sure these scientists have worked lifetimes on their data, and I'm also sure that they truly believe the conclusions they've reached. That their conclusions are so widely shared--and now, POLITICALLY POPULAR--is a witches brew of heady fame and relevance that scientists wait lifetimes for.
So when I read the emails, it is clear to me that there is some Chicago thuggery at work in the scientific community---but is it that, or is it the kind of "thuggery" that keeps Holocaust deniers out of WWII conferences. I'm not making any kind of a case for the rightness or wrongness of either view--I'm making a case that the REACTION of the scientific community to unbelievers is not principally different than the REACTION of the legitimate WWII community. They see the apostates as drawing off valuable resources, they see them muddying what all (at least among themselves) consider to be settled issues--and on, and on.
What I'm getting to here in a long-winded way is that although these emails and data stories make me doubt a good bit of the work that these scientists are doing, I'm not ready to throw it over the transom. I am glad that there is new scrutiny being applied to this stuff, and I am glad that they are having to defend their propositions--because with respect to the UNDERLYING issue--I AM more circumspect of holocaust deniers than I am of global warming science critics.
But the bottom line for me is that whatever goes on here--I am not qualified to judge. I cannot judge the data or the conclusions. My views will ALWAYS be tainted by the opinions of proxies in whom I place my trust to know more about this stuff than I do. While I AM QUALIFIED to comment on social issues (like the propensity of the AGW community to circle its wagons and practice Stalinist purge-tactics), I am utterly without training in either the science or the statistical analysis to have a very good opinion on the science of the matter.
I accept the premise of climate change; my own skepticism and objections stem from the premise of mankind's contribution to it, and what "its" effects really are. Even among the AGWers, there are differing views as to whether we are too far gone to "fix" the damage. But yet, here we are poised to lay billions or even trillions of dollars before the altar of AGW and uproot our whole economy for the sake of doing something. And that is something I cannot accept easily.
There wouldn't be any problems if the researchers involved had followed their own code of ethics. They at the very least have manipulated the data and tried to stifle peer review. And now they appear shocked that their results are being questioned. Perhaps if they had allowed more dissenters among their ranks they would not have ruined their credibility.
Post a Comment