Science vs. Politics: Tipping Points in Climate Change Communication

[Sorry!]

Some interesting commentary from climate scientists who "recognize that climate change is real and that human activities are probably contributing to that change."

Any person who, on these forums, thinks that climate scientists blame global warming entirely on human activities is far removed from the reality of the situation. It is quite obvious to everyone (AGW proponents and skeptics) that these things happen on Earth naturally.

A major part of climate science is to attempt to go as far back as we can measuring the temperature. I believe in order to get our own time period we have gone back 2000 years. It's not as if they are comparing our temperature now to what the temperature was say 50,000 years ago in the middle of a glaciation.

 

[Astronuc]

Any person who, on these forums, thinks that climate scientists blame global warming entirely on human activities is far removed from the reality of the situation. It is quite obvious to everyone (AGW proponents and skeptics) that these things happen on Earth naturally.

A major part of climate science is to attempt to go as far back as we can measuring the temperature. I believe in order to get our own time period we have gone back 2000 years. It's not as if they are comparing our temperature now to what the temperature was say 50,000 years ago in the middle of a glaciation.

It is well established that there are warming and cooling cycles. As far as I can tell, the discussion/argument is whether or not there is a current warming trend and how much of that trend is due to do human activity.

It appears that there are those who argue - there is no warming trend - and some of those claim scientists are falsifying or fudging their work to show that there is a warming trend.

Then there are those who argue that there is or might be a warming trend - but it's entirely natural - and therefore we don't need to do anything differently, i.e., we can ignore any consequences and just proceed as before, or the consequences are no big deal and we don't need to take extraordinary actions.

There there are those who argue that there is a warming trend and we must take mitigating actions to stop or even reverse the warming trend, and we must take extraordinary measures to deal with the extraordinary consequences.

And there are those who argue that - wait! - the Earth is actually cooling - and we don't need to worry or we need to enhance the heating.


Ultimately - one has to look at the quality of the argument and evidence.


Now some say - well heck it was warm way back when and the earth/life survived. True. But we also know that many species became extinct. Based on that there are some who are concerned that current warming might lead to widespread death of the human population. Now some might see that a bad thing (bad in the sense that people suffer and die), but others might see that a good (reduces competition for limited resources).

At present, humanity has committed a lot of infrastructure and investment that simply cannot be picked up and moved - certainly not economically. That seems to be a principal concern with respect to rising ocean levels. There is also the related issue the more energy in the atmosphere means more active/extreme weather (hurricanes and tornadoes) which means more property damage/destruction and injury or death. That's a quality of life (human suffering) and economic issue.


So which argument is correct? And what is the appropriate course of action?

 

[sylas]

I do agree with you sylas but one thing that is important in this whole thing (since this is the politics forum) is how this looks on climate science in general. Jones requesting that multiple persons delete e-mails in my opinion (regardless of the circumstance) does not look good in public light. ...

Exactly. It doesn't look good. The remarks, even though made privately, were ill advised and he has rightly expressed regret.

I agree with pretty much everything you say here. So what to do now?

Option 1. Self justification?

Despite my attempt to give a kind of apologetics for those unfortunate remarks, I don't actually think it is going to be very useful to make a big public issue over it. There's more than could be said; but you will never convince people who don't want to be convinced, and people who want to forgive him will do so anyway. A few folks on the fence might be persuaded that he's not nearly as bad in reality as is being suggested by his harshest critics, but in the meantime we just fling lots of mud all over the place and waste yet more time.

Option 2. Self immolation?

I disagree very strongly with calls for his resignation. George Monbiot has been the most damaging such call, given his strong record as an outspoken supporter of the science that Phil Jones represents, and I think George has it wrong.

Resignation of one scapegoat won't satisfy the loudest critics; they want to push these stolen files as the magic bullet to expose the whole hoax and fraud from top to bottom; it will merely give more leverage to try and get more resignations and character assassinations. It won't actually help anything for the CRU; in fact it will just be more disruption to their core business for no actual benefit I can see; certainly it will give no let up to the attacks (look again at the emails and what has been going on already for years).

And, frankly, it is simply over the top as far as justice is concerned.

For what it is worth, the University has already expressed their strongest support for him. From Climate scientist at centre of leaked email row dismisses conspiracy claims in guardian.co.uk, 24 Nov 2009:

Trevor Davies, the University of East Anglia's pro-vice-chancellor with responsibility for research, rejected calls – including from the Guardian commentator George Monbiot – for Jones to resign: "We see no reason for Professor Jones to resign and, indeed, we would not accept his resignation. He is a valued and important scientist."​

Quite so.

Option 3. Measured regret, and get on with the job.

This is what has been chosen; and it is the right choice. The statements given acknowledge the problems with wording in some emails, and expresses regret. From the same story in the Guardian:

Jones accepted, though, that the contents of some of the emails were cause for embarrassment: "Some of the emails probably had poorly chosen words and were sent in the heat of the moment, when I was frustrated. I do regret sending some of them. We've not deleted any emails or data here at CRU. I would never manipulate the data one bit - I would categorically deny that."​

That no deletions occurred seems a natural conclusion, given that the email actually suggesting this was not deleted! And note... we have only been able to see the emails that the hacker decided to show. It is, explicitly according to comment given with the file by the unknown hacker, a selection.

My suggestion: let the scientists get back to working on the science, as soon as possible -- and wish the police good luck in finding the hacker.

Cheers -- sylas

 

[turbo]

I have read several dozen of the emails stolen from CRU. I don't find them damning because they discuss methodology, robustness of results, etc. That's how science is done among peers. You need to critically examine the data AND the analysis to identify weaknesses and potential problems. Also, if the data don't fit your model well, you have to consider how the model might have to be modified to accommodate observations. If none of these things had been done with due diligence, then CRU's opponents would have some justification for claiming "fraud".

One troubling aspect, IMO - there seems to be a very small number of emails for such a large and on-going project. My 2 collaborators and I generated far more emails than that during a short 2-year project identifying and classifying interacting galaxies. Was the release selective or cherry-picked by the hacker(s)? We may never know unless the management at CRU chooses to discuss the extent of the theft and the completeness of the posted email files. The timing of the theft and release of the emails seems to be connected with the upcoming Copenhagen summit, so we should treat the integrity of the release with some suspicion.

 

[seycyrus]

Any person who, on these forums, thinks that climate scientists blame global warming entirely on human activities ...

And there we go back to the defined qualifiers "likely", and "very likely" and the suspiciously undefined "most".

Didn't you say something about 90% in another thread?

 

[seycyrus]

I have read several dozen of the emails stolen from CRU. I don't find them damning because they discuss methodology, robustness of results, etc. That's how science is done among peers.

Oh please. You DO NOT tell people to go and delete their emails.

 

[sylas]

Ultimately - one has to look at the quality of the argument and evidence.

For the kinds of questions you appear to be asking here, we can do that, in the science related forums.

I can see the reasons for it, but it can get tricky to attempt a clean distinction between science and politics. The conclusions of science impact upon policy choices. Even if we have incomplete and uncertain information; we should expect our governments and other decision makers to use the best information available, including best information about what is certain or uncertain. Not only about climate, but about anything!

But you can't decide the answers on the basis of politics; that way lies disaster. Policy may help decide what questions are worth investigating, for the benefit to policy makers or to society. Science, however, does not decide the answers based on the policy you'd like to support.

Hence: science forum discussions need to be based simply on the merits of argument and evidence, on a case by case by case basis. Getting into political implications or alleged improper motivations for particular conclusions is not appropriate there.

Here: what to do when there's a disagreement on a question of science? A policy argument predicated on a particular conclusion on the science (this can work either way!) can sometimes be given as an implicit statement about the science; a cheap way to make an unargued assertion about (on the one hand) how climate change will be massively expensive, or (on the other hand) about how climate change is not caused by greenhouse gas emissions.

Cheers -- sylas

 

[Sorry!]

And there we go back to the defined qualifiers "likely", and "very likely" and the suspiciously undefined "most".

Didn't you say something about 90% in another thread?

Uhm, no, I never said anything about 90% of climate change being attributed to human activities... I don't think at least. Instead of posting random non-sense you should just post the actual statement.

 

[Sorry!]

Oh please. You DO NOT tell people to go and delete their emails.

If you read turbo-1's other post you would see that he does agree that the request to delete e-mails was out of line, he also shows his position on why he doesn't think it is very damaging to climate science as a whole.

Clearly you must fall into his, 'already against AGW and won't change no matter what happens.'

 

[seycyrus]

Uhm, no, I never said anything about 90% of climate change being attributed to human activities... I don't think at least.

My comment was directed at the way the IPCC's statement has defined "likely" and "very likely". I thought incorrectly, that you and I had exchanged comments about this in another thread. My apologies.

But since you insist on being blatantly offensive, I will call you on your strawman, and ask you to point out who exactly **"... thinks that climate scientists blame global warming entirely on human activities."** - Bold mine

This post here strikes me as not knowing enough about the science in question or even in science in general.

Oh is this another cleverly hidden personal attack? Way to go! And in response to such a short post on my part... What, did I give your girlfriend a hard time in the past or sumthin?

 

[seycyrus]

If you read turbo-1's other post...

But I wasn't responding to his other post.

Clearly you must fall into his, 'already against AGW and won't change no matter what happens.'

I'm certainly against the exaggerated stance of the IPCC's current statement.

 

[Sorry!]

My comment was directed at the way the IPCC's statement has defined "likely" and "very likely". I thought incorrectly, that you and I had exchanged comments about this in another thread. My apologies.

Very nice.

But since you insist on being blatantly offensive, I will call you on your strawman, and ask you to point out who exactly **"... thinks that climate scientists blame global warming entirely on human activities."** - Bold mine

How is this a strawman? I suggest you go back and re-read what I wrote. Actually I'll make it easier:

Any person who, on these forums, thinks that climate scientists blame global warming entirely on human activities is far removed from the reality of the situation. It is quite obvious to everyone (AGW proponents and skeptics) that these things happen on Earth naturally.

(so I guess that makes you the one making the fallacy... interesting how that works out.)

Oh is this another cleverly hidden personal attack? Way to go! And in response to such a short post on my part... What, did I give your girlfriend a hard time in the past or sumthin?

You are the one who is being hostile in your posts(towards myself and turbo, how was I to know you mistaken me for someone else?) I was just responding in kind. As well I highly doubt my girlfriend would have taken any interest in you at any point in the past so it's probably not very likely that you did that. Sorry, no.

 

[Sorry!]

But I wasn't responding to his other post.

But your responding to his position, which he made clear in two posts. This is like reading the first page of a report and attacking the entire report only to find out that your attack is answered later on in the report anyways.

I'm certainly against the exaggerated stance of the IPCC's current statement.

Which one.?

 

[seycyrus]

How is this a strawman? I suggest you go back and re-read what I wrote. Actually I'll make it easier:

Are you just shooting to make noise? I copy/pasted your original comment with ellipses to designate omitted parts. I admit that I can't figure out the multiquote (will a personal attack soon follow?), but i try my best.

I read your statement several times. You raised the specter of
**"Any person who, on these forums, thinks that climate scientists blame global warming entirely on human activities..."
**

so that you could shoot it down in the next sentence. That's a strawman. Can you show me such a person who has made that claim regarding the beliefs of climate scientists?

You are the one who is being hostile in your posts(towards myself

Those two sentences were hostile? These two?
**
And there we go back to the defined qualifiers "likely", and "very likely" and the suspiciously undefined "most".

Didn't you say something about 90% in another thread?
**

Unlikely.

... I was just responding in kind.

You were responding in kind? Show me where I called into question your comprehension of science.

As well I highly doubt my girlfriend would have taken any interest in you at any point in the past so it's probably not 'very likely' that you did that. Sorry, no.

Since it is obvious to both of us that I do not know you or your g-friend in real life, it is likewise obvious that my comment was implying that you were carrying this hostility towards me as baggage from something else you have read.

 

[Sorry!]

Are you just shooting to make noise? I copy/pasted your original comment with ellipses to designate omitted parts. I admit that I can't figure out the multiquote (will a personal atatck soon follow), but i try my best.

I read your statement several times. You raised the specter of
**"Any person who, on these forums, thinks that climate scientists blame global warming entirely on human activities..."

This is not a straw-man at all. I was responding to Astronucs post about how scientists view climate change not as solely caused by humans. I was agreeing with his post and pointing out that probably no one on these forums thinks that way. If any do though they are far-removed from the reality of science. You must be reading deep, deep in between some particular lines to make up what you're claiming.

Since it is obvious to both of us that I do not know you or your g-friend in real life, it is likewise obvious that my comment was implying that you were carrying this hostility towards me as baggage from something else you have read.

I know.

 

[seycyrus]

This is not a straw-man at all.

It's the definition of a strawman. You raised the spectre of something that doesn't exist for the sole reason of making your own point. Your raised a weak argument so that you could counter it with your own argument.

Now, would you please point out where, in THIS thread, Turbo discussed the deleted emails?

Would you please point out where I questioned your comprehension of science, so that I can understand how you responded *in kind*.

 

[Sorry!]

It's the definition of a strawman. You raised the spectre of something that doesn't exist for the sole reason of making your own point. Your raised a weak argument so that you could counter it with your own argument.

Now, would you please point out where, in THIS thread, Turbo discussed the deleted emails?

Would you please point out where I questioned your comprehension of science, so that I can understand how you responded *in kind*.

In kind refers to the hostility of the posts not the same subject matter of the posts...

As well I was mistaken it was sylas that posted, it jumped to his post when it showed the last poster was turbo-1 so I assumed that was turbo's post.

My post is not a strawman
Astronuc posted

Some interesting commentary from climate scientists who "recognize that climate change is real and that human activities are probably contributing to that change." They don't say humans are causing climate change or global warming, but that human activities are probably contributing to the change. On the other hand, they offer caution as to remedial actions.

(bold mine)

Along with an article, I supported his posting of the article by saying:

Any person who, on these forums, thinks that climate scientists blame global warming entirely on human activities is far removed from the reality of the situation. It is quite obvious to everyone (AGW proponents and skeptics) that these things happen on Earth naturally.

A major part of climate science is to attempt to go as far back as we can measuring the temperature. I believe in order to get our own time period we have gone back 2000 years. It's not as if they are comparing our temperature now to what the temperature was say 50,000 years ago in the middle of a glaciation.

He responded to me in support of my post as well as what his take is on the views of people related to climate change.

So again, point out, how this is a strawman fallacy, using logic this time.

 

[DrClapeyron]

Global climate change - as it is now called - is a scare tactic. There is nothing new about this. I will point to an obvious example in the 1950's concerning the Red Scare. There may have been legitimate arguements in which communist did exist and were infiltrating the US government.

However, the argument that global climate change is going to doom us all has no merit because it offers no solution. The lack of any real imagination to solve the supposed problem should have been like an alarm going off.

On a similar not, Linus Pauling and others had strong evidence to support that above ground nuclear tests were harmful and could become more harmful if allowed to continue. Something was done about and it did not drag on for decades. That is the exact opposite of global climate change.

 

[Sorry!]

Global climate change - as it is now called - is a scare tactic. There is nothing new about this. I will point to an obvious example in the 1950's concerning the Red Scare. There may have been legitimate arguements in which communist did exist and were infiltrating the US government.

However, the argument that global climate change is going to doom us all has no merit because it offers no solution. The lack of any real imagination to solve the supposed problem should have been like an alarm going off.

On a similar not, Linus Pauling and others had strong evidence to support that above ground nuclear tests were harmful and could become more harmful if allowed to continue. Something was done about and it did not drag on for decades. That is the exact opposite of global climate change.

See seycyrus, this is a strawman fallacy. The post has 3 different strawman fallacies in one. Is based on no facts about climate change and is merely speculation/personal opinion on the matter.

 

[Evo]

The most comprehensive discussions of the stolen emails is taking place at a couple of blogs. Normally blogs are not appropriate sources at physicsforums; and if mentors deem this inappropriate I will not object to removing the following links. However, in my opinion this is a case where the blogs are directly relevant; they are maintained by people involved directly in the affair in various ways, from the side of the CRU and from the side of their critics. Realclimate is an education blog seeking to explain the mainstream climate science perspective by active working scientists who are very prominent in the field, and Climate Audit is a blog specifically aiming to give a detailed examination, or "audit" of various conclusions of scientists as represented at realclimate. In both cases, the comments at the blogs give a picture of the two very different reactions; as the majority of commenters at each blog tend to align with the views of the blog itself.

Edit, no, both are biased blogs and aren't allowed.

 

[Evo]

That no deletions occurred seems a natural conclusion, given that the email actually suggesting this was not deleted! And note... we have only been able to see the emails that the hacker decided to show. It is, explicitly according to comment given with the file by the unknown hacker, a selection.

That's what they need to prove right now, that they did not delete those e-mails. The e-mails in question appear to be missing. Hopefully they intend to produce the e-mails they were told to delete and clear this up.

When you know that you may have to release information and you intentionally delete the information, it's certainly not looking good, even if they can say that it's not illegal if there is no court order, it is definitely unethical. I know that I get notifications from our legal department that information is going to be requested and to not delete any e-mails I find on my computer that relates to the pending request. We have to adhere to government oversight, shareholders, etc... I have had to furnish e-mail correspondence and files and testify in court before on behalf of my former employer.

 

[seycyrus]

In kind refers to the hostility of the posts not the same subject matter of the posts...

There was no hostility in *my* post. Therefore you cannot be responding *in kind*.

As well I was mistaken it was sylas that posted, it jumped to his post when it showed the last poster was turbo-1 so I assumed that was turbo's post.

So... you attacked me personally because I responded to turbo's post and not to some other post that you thought he made, but he never did. Got it.

My post is not a strawman

It's the definitions of a strawman.

So again, point out, how this is a strawman fallacy, using logic this time.

I used logic last time. You used a strawman. The fact that you used it to argue a moot point does not make it not less so.

 

[seycyrus]

See seycyrus, this is a strawman fallacy. The post has 3 different strawman fallacies in one. Is based on no facts about climate change and is merely speculation/personal opinion on the matter.

You don't know what a strawman fallacy is, apparently.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

You don't know what a strawman fallacy is, apparently.

From what I can tell Sorry was using his 'strawman' to communicate a point and not to actually refute an argument. If he is not refuting anything then it is not a fallacious argument.

Now if we could please discuss the topic and stop discussing the discussion it would be helpful to not have to sift through the noise.

 

[Coldcall]

Count Iblis,

"I don't think so, given the fact how the sceptics are regarded within the climate science community. No reputable scientist would want their data to be reviewed by people who they regard as completely incompetent."

Steve Macintyre is no incompetent. He has forced numerous corrections to climate data inaccuracies and mistakes. So if you are claiming he is incompetent then what does it make Mann, and Hansen whose errors he corrected?

Just because Macintyre is critical of the methods used by the warming alarmists is no excuse to withold publicly funded climate measurements.

Oh please don't compare a genius like Einstein to people like Mann and Hansen, that is really a joke.

 

[Count Iblis]

Count Iblis,

"I don't think so, given the fact how the sceptics are regarded within the climate science community. No reputable scientist would want their data to be reviewed by people who they regard as completely incompetent."

Steve Macintyre is no incompetent. He has forced numerous corrections to climate data inaccuracies and mistakes. So if you are claiming he is incompetent then what does it make Mann, and Hansen whose errors he corrected?

Just because Macintyre is critical of the methods used by the warming alarmists is no excuse to withold publicly funded climate measurements.

Oh please don't compare a genius like Einstein to people like Mann and Hansen, that is really a joke.

Macintyre did not really correct a major eror, the hockey stick is still an accepted fact. All he did is point out that the result may be less statistically significant as proof that GW exists based only on the data that went into the hockey stick.

It is similar to astrophysicists doing loads of data processing on the shapes of far away galaxies in a cluster to extract the dark matter signal (dark matter would warp the apparent shape of galaxies via weak gravitational lensing). If some dark matter skeptic comes along and criticizes some statement by these astrophysicists on this being proof that dark matter really exists, because this is not 8 sigma proof but only 4 sigma, so be it.

 

[Evo]

Macintyre did not really correct a major eror, the hockey stick is still an accepted fact. All he did is point out that the result may be less statistically significant as proof that GW exists based only on the data that went into the hockey stick.

It is similar to astrophysicists doing loads of data processing on the shapes of far away galaxies in a cluster to extract the dark matter signal (dark matter would warp the apparent shape of galaxies via weak gravitational lensing). If some dark matter skeptic comes along and criticizes some statement by these astrophysicists on this being proof that dark matter really exists, because this is not 8 sigma proof but only 4 sigma, so be it.

No, that's really not the same. Obvbiously we're not going to get into a discussion of everything that was found wrong with Mann's hockey stick here, that's been discussed in other threads.

I'm really amazed to find people on here saying that "hey everyone intentionally skews their data, it's ok". Even if that were true, it does not make the presented skewed results correct, does it? I believe that's the point, the data should not be intentionally skewed and presented to the public or to governments to push their agenda.

How does one interpret the intentions of the following e-mail?

At 09:41 AM 2/2/2005, Phil Jones wrote:

Mike,
I presume congratulations are in order - so congrats etc! Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time ! And don't leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs [McKitrick, McIntyre] have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? - our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it. We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it - thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant here, but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who'll say we must adhere to it ! ...

 

[Evo]

One of the released e-mails

From: Mick Kelly (mick.tiempo@gxxxxxxxx.com)
To: (P.Jones@uxxxxx.uk)
Subject: RE: Global temperature
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2008 09:02:00 +1300

Yeah, it wasn't so much 1998 and all that that I was concerned about, used to dealing with that, but the possibility that we might be going through a longer - 10 year - period of relatively stable temperatures beyond what you might expect from La Nina etc.

Speculation, but if I see this as a possibility then others might also. Anyway, I'll maybe cut the last few points off the filtered curve before I give the talk again as that's trending down as a result of the end effects and the recent cold-ish years.

Enjoy Iceland and pass on my best wishes to Astrid.

Mick

On the subject of integrity in Science

This is a quote from Feynman's famous 1974 commencement speech at Caltech:

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.

 

[Sorry!]

Evo you just don't give up huh? Selecting proper data to represent your theory based on the fact that other data you do not believe to be correct is not 'skewing' results. That's what science is all about, you may not agree with it and think that a scientists has to accept all results from all tests no matter what happens but I highly doubt we would have come as far scientifically as we have. If you knew ANYTHING about McIntyre then I doubt you would be posting on here that because the climate scientists want to not give information to him would strike you as 'skewing data' (which you make it seem like because you post reference in the same post as the one you talk about them skewing data). Just because you never paid attention to the side-details (the parts where they pointed out they had extra data that showed confunding results) they include in their reports, lectures, etc. etc. where they show why they believe that data is invalid doesn't mean they never did that... because they did.

 

[mheslep]

... There is no indication of any actual fraud, hoax or public deception...

Whether or not there's any actual misconduct, there's every indication that the authors and subjects of those emails would gladly entertain obscuring results contradictory to their hypothesis. They fall well short of the standard set by Feynman, posted by Evo in https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2461921&postcount=105".

 

[Evo]

Evo you just don't give up huh? Selecting proper data to represent your theory based on the fact that other data you do not believe to be correct is not 'skewing' results. That's what science is all about, you may not agree with it and think that a scientists has to accept all results from all tests no matter what happens but I highly doubt we would have come as far scientifically as we have. If you knew ANYTHING about McIntyre then I doubt you would be posting on here that because the climate scientists want to not give information to him would strike you as 'skewing data' (which you make it seem like because you post reference in the same post as the one you talk about them skewing data). Just because you never paid attention to the side-details (the parts where they pointed out they had extra data that showed confunding results) they include in their reports, lectures, etc. etc. where they show why they believe that data is invalid doesn't mean they never did that... because they did.

Heh, you didn't read my post quoting Feynman. Perhaps after you read it you will understand how proper science is conducted.

 

[Sorry!]

I think it is clear that the people who support climate scientists and the people who do not support them and the people who support the skeptics will probably not change who they support regardless of which direction this thread takes.

EDIT:
@Evo, Yeah I did read it. Not the first time I've read it in my lifetime either. Are you angry that the scientists 'hide behind' laws protecting their data and information? Is this why you think they are not conducting 'proper' science? I think some secondary research into these skeptics is necessary in this case...

 

[Evo]

I think it is clear that the people who support climate scientists and the people who do not support them and the people who support the skeptics will probably not change who they support regardless of which direction this thread takes.

This thread isn't about "climate scientists", it's about unethical scientists. I support ethics in science.

EDIT:
@Evo, Yeah I did read it. Not the first time I've read it in my lifetime either.

So, based on your posts supporting omitting and skewing data in order to make the results 'appear" to support their work, would it be safe to say that you completely disagree with Feynman?

 

[mheslep]

I think it is clear that the people who support climate scientists and the people who do not support them and the people who support the skeptics will probably not change who they support regardless of which direction this thread takes.

EDIT:
@Evo, Yeah I did read it. Not the first time I've read it in my lifetime either. Are you angry that the scientists 'hide behind' laws protecting their data and information? ...

There are no such laws protecting 'their' (Hadley) data. Some of the ground station is owned by other meteorology organizations and they don't want it freely released, they want to be able to charge for it. Frankly such data should either be bought up by governments and placed in the public domain, or otherwise considered unacceptable for scientific use.

...I think some secondary research into these skeptics is necessary in this case...

Investigate all you want. All MM data is openly available on the web. And BTW, there'd by nothing scientific about such an investigation.

 

[Sorry!]

This thread isn't about "climate scientists", it's about unethical scientists. I support ethics in science.



So, based on your posts supporting omitting and skewing data in order to make the results 'appear" to support their work, would it be safe to say that you completely disagree with Feynman?

No, but we have to look at the circumstances which is what I said. Feynman says that you shouldn't omit information/data from reports unless you explain why (which they do) and I still have yet to see the climate scientists skew any data... I've read every e-mail you've posted to seemingly prove this point and I'm not convinced yet. Especially when all the points you've posted have been covered by the scientists themselves (sure maybe they are trying to save their asses but when I already had similar thoughts prior to reading their response it just makes it more inforced in my mind.)

This thread is about climate scientists and you seem to think that they are unethical, well the ones at the CRU anyways. No one here is talking about nuclear scientists are they? It's only about the climate science realm we are discussing so I don't see what your point is. In fact I'm sure what you said is a logical fallacy anyways but I'm not bothered to see which one.

Edit: link remioved - off topic for this thread.

Here is an interesting 'brochure' style information package released on climate change recently. It's interesting to note how they've decided to bundle this information together. Makes it very clear that politics has a huge hand climate science and that their goal is to try and sway the common people of the world. (The usage of words and lots of pictures, easy lay-out etc.) What does everyone make of this?