« | »

‘Scientists’ To Defend ‘Global Warming’

Some rear guard action from the New York Times:

Scientists Taking Steps to Defend Work on Climate


March 2, 2010

WASHINGTON — For months, climate scientists have taken a vicious beating in the media and on the Internet, accused of hiding data, covering up errors and suppressing alternate views. Their response until now has been largely to assert the legitimacy of the vast body of climate science and to mock their critics as cranks and know-nothings.

But the volume of criticism and the depth of doubt have only grown, and many scientists now realize they are facing a crisis of public confidence and have to fight back. Tentatively and grudgingly, they are beginning to engage their critics, admit mistakes, open up their data and reshape the way they conduct their work.

The unauthorized release last fall of hundreds of e-mail messages from a major climate research center in England, and more recent revelations of a handful of errors in a supposedly authoritative United Nations report on climate change, have created what a number of top scientists say is a major breach of faith in their research.

“Unauthorized release”? Up until now The Times and the rest of the Warmers, such as Nancy Pelosi, have described it as a theft.

In fact, it has generally been portrayed as the crime of the century.

They say the uproar threatens to undermine decades of work and has badly damaged public trust in the scientific enterprise.

It’s not the “uproar” that is undermining public trust in the "scientific enterprise." It is the evidence of their manipulation and mendacity that is undermining the "public trust."

The e-mail episode, called “climategate” by critics, revealed arrogance and what one top climate researcher called “tribalism” among some scientists. The correspondence appears to show efforts to limit publication of contrary opinion and to evade Freedom of Information Act requests. The content of the messages opened some well-known scientists to charges of concealing temperature data from rival researchers and manipulating results to conform to precooked conclusions.

Again, what amazing, albeit long overdue, admissions from the New York Times.

“I have obviously written some very awful e-mails,” Phil Jones, the British climate scientist at the center of the controversy, confessed to a special committee of Parliament on Monday. But he sharply disputed charges that he had hidden data or faked results.

Some of the most serious allegations against Dr. Jones, director of the climate research unit at the University of East Anglia, and other researchers have been debunked, while several investigations are still under way to determine whether others hold up.

Would The Times care to cite one serious allegation against the CRU that has been debunked?

Come to think of it, it’s a wonder The Times hasn’t resorted to claiming that the CRU has been “Swiftboated.” Or has our media finally come to accept that that now actually means ‘telling the truth about someone.’

But serious damage has already been done. A survey conducted in late December by Yale University and George Mason University found that the number of Americans who believed that climate change was a hoax or scientific conspiracy had more than doubled since 2008, to 16 percent of the population from 7 percent. An additional 13 percent of Americans said they thought that even if the planet was warming, it was a result solely of natural factors and was not a significant concern.

Why is this called “serious damage”? How can the truth ever be damaging?

Has the famously objective New York Times taken sides in this? (Just kidding.)

Climate scientists have been shaken by the criticism and are beginning to look for ways to recover their reputation. They are learning a little humility and trying to make sure they avoid crossing a line into policy advocacy.

Alas, if it weren’t for “policy advocacy” these ‘climate scientists’ wouldn’t have their phony baloney jobs.

“It’s clear that the climate science community was just not prepared for the scale and ferocity of the attacks and they simply have not responded swiftly and appropriately,” said Peter C. Frumhoff, an ecologist and chief scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists. “We need to acknowledge the errors and help turn attention from what’s happening in the blogosphere to what’s happening in the atmosphere.”

A number of institutions are beginning efforts to improve the quality of their science and to make their work more transparent. The official British climate agency is undertaking a complete review of its temperature data and will make its records and analysis fully public for the first time, allowing outside scrutiny of methods and conclusions. The United Nations panel on climate change will accept external oversight of its research practices, also for the first time.

Not that we believe they have finally gotten religion (that is, apart from the religion of ‘global warming’), but why are these measures only being implemented now?

Should this have been the policy since day one? Isn’t transparency and oversight a fundamental part of the scientific process?

It’s not like there were ever any national security secrets involved. (Which, of course, would have never stopped the New York Times or any of the rest of our watchdog media.)

Two universities are investigating the work of top climate scientists to determine whether they have violated academic standards and undermined faith in science.

And they will get to the bottom of this, for sure.

Never mind that untold billions of dollars that have been squandered around the world based solely on these intentional deceptions. We certainly shouldn’t treat this scandal as something that has had any serious real life consequences.

The National Academy of Sciences is preparing to publish a nontechnical paper outlining what is known — and not known — about changes to the global climate. And a vigorous debate is under way among climate scientists on how to make their work more transparent and regain public confidence…

But some scientists said that responding to climate change skeptics was a fool’s errand.

“Climate scientists are paid to do climate science,” said Gavin A. Schmidt, a senior climatologist with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies. “Their job is not persuading the public.”

He said that the recent flurry of hostility to climate science had been driven as much by the cold winter as by any real or perceived scientific sins.

“There have always been people accusing us of being fraudulent criminals, of the I.P.C.C. being corrupt,” Dr. Schmidt said. “What is new is this paranoia combined with a spell of cold weather in the United States and the ‘climategate’ release. It’s a perfect storm that has allowed the nutters to control the agenda.”

Spoken like a true arrogant bureaucrat who does not have to answer to anyone for his (make work) job.

But didn’t the CRU emails reveal that it was the global warming “nutters” who were controlling the agenda? Isn’t that the ‘Climategate’ scandal in a nutshell?

The answer is simple, he said.

“Good science,” he said, “is the best revenge.”

Er, it’s the lack of “good science” that is the problem, Mr. Schmidt.

In case you haven’t noticed.

This article was posted by Steve on Wednesday, March 3rd, 2010. Comments are currently closed.

10 Responses to “‘Scientists’ To Defend ‘Global Warming’”

  1. proreason says:

    “Good science”

    Until “scientists” from every discipline rise up and explicitly denounce the AGW hoax, condemn the hoaxers, and drive them out of their sinecures, the quotes will forever be necessary when using the word “science”.

  2. Duncan_M says:

    This article seemed like something of an about-face for John Broder. He evidently actually spoke with skeptics, rather than only getting his information from establishment message doctors. I’m sure Joe Romm will be ripping him a new one and telling climate scientists not to talk to him anymore.

    Did you notice, he didn’t call skeptics deniers?
    As you noticed, he didn’t assert the e-mails were stolen, but used the more skeptic-friendly designation unauthorized release.
    Most importantly, he directly quoted Willis Eisenbach’s response to Judith Curry without distortion, without taking fragments out of context. It was beautiful.

  3. Rusty Shackleford says:

    Defending the indefensible. The true mark of a liberal.

    • saccharin says:

      Does Al Gore know the science is no longer “settled”?

      How about John Kerry, Lindsey Graham and the rest of the fools in Washington?

    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      To them, science=magic.

      You’ll note that Algore is not a scientist. In fact, he did not perform very well in those areas, either in college. His cumulative GPA was rather non spectacular. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A37397-2000Mar18

      The self-proclaimed inventor of the Internet avoided all courses in mathematics and logic throughout college,

    • proreason says:

      “The self-proclaimed inventor of the Internet avoided all courses in interaction with mathematics and logic throughout college life,”

      I notice a couple of typos in your Wapro clip, Rusty, so I’ve corrected them for you

  4. Duncan_M says:

    Yeah the Dems are wack jobs, but the Repubs always manage to outdo them.
    The South Dakota legislature just passed a resolution demanding the global warming be taught in schools as caused by astrology and holistic medicine.

    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      Not so.

      Read more than the headline by the liberal writer.

      South Dakota legislators tell schools to teach ‘astrological’ explanation for global warming.


      The meat of the article gives away the substance by including the resolution as stated thus:

      NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the House of Representatives of the Eighty-fifth Legislature of the State of South Dakota, the Senate concurring therein, that the South Dakota Legislature urges that instruction in the public schools relating to global warming include the following:

      (1) That global warming is a scientific theory rather than a proven fact;
      (2) That there are a variety of climatological, meteorological, astrological, thermological, cosmological, and ecological dynamics that can effect [sic] world weather phenomena and that the significance and interrelativity of these factors is largely speculative; and
      (3) That the debate on global warming has subsumed political and philosophical viewpoints which have complicated and prejudiced the scientific investigation of global warming phenomena; and

      BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Legislature urges that all instruction on the theory of global warming be appropriate to the age and academic development of the student and to the prevailing classroom circumstances.

      NOWHERE in this resolution does it say anything about astrology save for the “astrological” statement which is a common mistake when people mean “astronomical” Which I believe to be the case here. It simply states that the subject will be taught as a THEORY not as FACT and that the evidence is inconclusive.

      The writer of the article and headline drew their own conclusions, probably based on an inadequate grasp of basic language skills. But this is a common tack for the left.

      I counted the votes and noted that the democrats voted against it and it was pretty much a vote down party lines, with the legislature in South Dakota being pretty well even. http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2010/MembersByDistrict.aspx

      The votes, here: http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2010/RollCall.aspx?Vote=1249

      It is therefore no surprise that the democrats voted against teaching it as theory vs fact.

      And as it stands on THIS blog, AGW is theory, not fact. Given the problems the AGW theorists are facing in the world (but not reported in the US) it stands pretty clear that there’s something wrong with the data.

  5. Helena says:

    Mr. Rajendra Pachauri seems to think a miniscule amount of data, creatively arranged, will convince people of the truth of his climate theories. He seems to believe the same about his hair.

  6. canary says:

    Obama is not going to cut back on pushing the global warming waste. The goal is to bankrupt this country. If it’s not health care or global warming, he still has a long list of expensive promises left to wear out our leaders with.
    It’s just a moment of Obama’s time, during his world tour travel show, for each spending spree he’ll attempt.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »