I hope that the above will be kept in mind as the debacle over the hack at the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia comes to light. Evidently someone broke into a "secure" server and copied a vast amount of data and emails over the past weekend. Their real crime has been to publish it all and show a spotlight on an organization that has evidently gone to great lengths to hide, alter or misrepresent data in order to reach a preordained conclusion.
It’s a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty–a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid–not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you’ve eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked–to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.
Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can–if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong–to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else
come out right, in addition.
In summary, the idea is to try to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another.
If, as I suspect, those scientists have destroyed data and emails in order to hide their fraud, then AGW or climate change, is finished. That in and of itself insn't a bad thing, as global warming has gone far beyond being a science to many of it's supporters and become something of a pseudo religion. After all, if you label those who oppose you, for whatever reason, "deniers" then perhaps you've gone too far.
UPDATES: here's my comment from www.realclimate.com:
I’m not a climatologist, but I am educated. and I believe myself to be a reasonably intelligent individual. It seems to me that the emails requesting the deletion of all emails on (subject) be deleted to avoid FOIA requests for data is rather damning in and of itself. Especially if that request is for specific data in order to replicate a study..
Now if such a destruction of email/data is to prevent someone from replicating a study…isn’t that in fact a criminal act? If not publicly so, but from a scientific stand point.
For example, several years ago a group of scientists claimed to have devised a way to create “cold fusion”…but NONE of their research was replicable…and so were publicly thrashed (in a figurative way). Now…if these scientists at CRU have hidden/destroyed their data files in order to prevent anyone from replicating their research, does this not call into question EVERYTHING they’ve done? Does this not call into question ALL of their research?
As you can see, I’m not hysterically accusing anyone of anything, merely asking a reasonable question. I’ve taken the time to track much of the information that is now publicly available and come to my own conclusions. Now, is the what if part…
If this hack, and the information that has been released is proven to be accurate, what response will this site take?
Ladies and Gentlemen, thanks for your time
2 comments:
The "climate" debate is clearly settled. If someone can make a ton of money and exercise control over their fellow citizens it is truth and not challengeable. No one with actual evidence to the contrary need apply. The only reward to the disputer is to be labeled a "denier" and their credentials assailed. Thus the most dangerous among us become the academic with a stipend.
Yes, that's why I decided not to become an academic...AFTER I'd finished graduate degrees (2).
But I disagree, the "science" isn't settled. In fact from what I've seen over the past several days, the scientists at CRU @ the University of East Anglia are massaging data to fit the political goals they have set.
After the hack, and my actually being able to see what the climatologists have been doing (not the science, but the political agenda they are pursuing) has moved me firmly into the "denier" camp. I was squishy before, but I'm now firmly on the "other" side.
Al Gore, is part of the problem, he's created a huge fear, in order to capitalize from it. He owns substantial portions of the two largest "carbon trading" firms in the world and since "documentary" (I hesitate to call it that because it don't believe it was. I have come to see that it was propaganda produced to strictly give reason for his companies existence), has made millions more.
Post a Comment