Free Markets, Free People

AGW Climate-gate review: Why the “science” is suspect

My friend Ed Morrisey over at Hot Air, goes on a righteous rant about the failure of the American media, unlike the British and Australian media, to investigate the allegations of fraud and malfeasance leveled against those who have advanced the AGW theories. Why they’ve not done so remains a mystery (well, sort of). But while doing so, Ed offers a very good list of what has happened to date:

I suspect this will end up being a partial list as more and more comes out. And, to add to his last point, this week another very respected scientific institution voiced it’s concerns:

Scientists at the heart of the Climategate row were yesterday accused by a leading academic body of undermining science’s credibility.

The Institute of Physics said ‘worrying implications’ had been raised after it was revealed the University of East Anglia had manipulated data on global warming.

Of course Dr. Phil Jones of East Anglia’s CRU, testifying before the Science and Technology Committee in the UK, admits to writing some “pretty awful emails” but denies the manipulation of data charge. The Institute of Physics is having none of that however:

Giving evidence to a Science and Technology Committee inquiry, the Institute of Physics said: ‘Unless the disclosed emails are proved to be forgeries or adaptations, worrying implications arise for the integrity of scientific research and for the credibility of the scientific method.

‘The principle that scientists should be willing to expose their results to independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital.’

In fact, it is known as the Scientific Method. Jones, apparently, doesn’t agree:

[Jones] claimed it was not ‘standard practice’ to release data and computer models so other scientists could check and challenge research.

In the world of science – real science – that should automatically mean that it should be “standard practice” for other scientists to disregard anything theorized by someone who refuses to release data and models for peer review. And that appears to be exactly what is beginning to happen among the more reputable scientists.

Meanwhile, with total disregard for the story or the facts our media and politicians continue to push for implementation of the policy recommendations that have been derived from this rapidly disintegrating attempt to scam us through “science.” Given the scam they’re running about health care reform, that should come as absolutely no surprise.

~McQ

[ad] Empty ad slot (#1)!

18 Responses to AGW Climate-gate review: Why the “science” is suspect

  • “Settled science!, consensus!, deniers!!!!!!!….bzzzzzzzzz…global agreement!!!!!…spark spark spark…..clang…right wing….bzzzz…spark…ODS!!!!! bssssssssszzzzzzzzzzz…..random posters on the internet versus reputable scientists with letters after their names just like me!!!!!!!….spark…bzzzzzz…..smoke…clang…………BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMM.”
    <crickets>
    <crickets>
     
    We apologize Dr. Erb’s head has exploded.  We hope to have him repaired before the House vote on Health Care.
     
    Thank you for your patience.

  • I feel as though I’m living in the middle of Ayn Rands “Atlas Shrugged.”

    • Rick,  you’re just in the first third of Atlas Shrugged.  We will be coming to the middle in the next 2 years, when the actual producers start going on strike.

      • Producers won’t go on strike. They just won’t be able to produce if price signals become so distorted that contracts become impossible.

        That’s one of the goals of these bastards: to get people to just throw up their hands and get the hell out. Out of business, out of political life, out of society in general.

        Then it will just be the government “facilitators” and their “clients.” And decay and death, of course.

  • [Jones] claimed it was not ’standard practice’ to release data and computer models so other scientists could check and challenge research.

    Gosh.  Who knew?  I guess my university’s chemistry library was just lucky to get all those collections of journal articles in which numerous scientists – including Nobel* laureates – broke from “standard practice” and actually DID publish their data so that other scientists could reference, check, and even (gasp) challenge their work.  How lucky were I and my fellow students that great chemists who came before us actually wrote down DETAILED information about how they conducted their experiments so that we could not only repeat the work (and be graded on how close we got to the expected results!) but also learn the proper way to record and report our own work.  I’m amazed that my average state university had such resources.

    / sarc

    I cannot help but believe that REAL scientists, even if they believe in AGW, will be vocal in their condemnation of these pathetic excuses.  Quite aside from one’s pride in being a scientist and one’s dedication to openess, facts and truth, there is also the issue of public trust: if scientists blithely accept this tomfoolery, then they can never again have any expectation that anybody will accept their work no matter how rigorous it is.

    —–

    (*) I should clarify that the Nobels were awarded for real achievement in chemistry, not “feel good” Peace Prizes.

  • Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick debunked the “hockey stick” (twice). So, Phil Jones’s admission that 20th Century warming “may not” be unprecedented is late and thin.

    McKitrick lays it out in some detail here. That’s a good one so I give it a high recommendation for reading and bookmarking.

  • Here is a heads up to show you what they have in mind.

    March 2, 2010, 6:35 pm
    Fuel Taxes Must Rise, Harvard Researchers Say
    By SINDYA N. BHANOO
    To meet the Obama administration’s targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions, some researchers say, Americans may have to experience a sobering reality: gas at $7 a gallon.
    To reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the transportation sector 14 percent from 2005 levels by 2020, the cost of driving must simply increase, according to a forthcoming report by researchers at Harvard’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.
    The 14 percent target was set in the Environmental Protection Agency’s budget for fiscal 2010.
    In their study, the researchers devised several combinations of steps that United States policymakers might take in trying to address the heat-trapping emissions by the nation’s transportation sector, which consume 70 percent of the oil used in the United States.
    Most of their models assumed an economy-wide carbon dioxide tax starting at $30 a ton in 2010 and escalating to $60 a ton in 2030. In some cases researchers also factored in tax credits for electric and hybrid vehicles, taxes on fuel or both.
    In the modeling, it turned out that issuing tax credits could backfire, while taxes on fuel proved beneficial.
    “Tax credits don’t address how much people use their cars,” said Ross Morrow, one of the report’s authors. “In reverse, they can make people drive more.”
    Dr. Morrow, formerly a fellow at the Belfer Center, is a professor of mechanical engineering and economics at Iowa State University
    Researchers said that vehicle miles traveled will increase by more than 30 percent between 2010 and 2030 unless policymakers increase fuel taxes.

    http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/02/fuel-taxes-must-rise-harvard-researchers-say/

    • One thing that IS well known (sat least to those not suffering from cranial-rectal inversion) is that CO2 FOLLOWS RATHER THAN LEADS temperature increases.
      As in the old adage, FOLLOW THE MONEY.

  • I know lefties who keep carefully talking about climate change, but only about how the deniers messed up their criticism here and there (silent about the rest) and only link to realclimate as if that was the gold standard.

  • But they must be getting scared, right? The Guardian is taking this stuff up, how long can American lefties keep their head in the sand? I have been polite so far…so tempting to start sending links to Guardian stories.

    • Harun[H]ow long can American lefties keep their head in the sand?

      That’s easy: until they get the laws and regulations that they want.

      I also don’t think that they are getting scared so much as frustrated: “Why do you people keep questioning us???  Don’t you know that what we want to do is for your own good???  We’re trying to make a more socially just and equitable world with us in charge save the planet!!!” Hence, we see them doubling down and trying to quietly morph “global warming” into “climate change”.  Just last night, Yahoo! News had a story about how those sneaky Red Chinese are planning to take strategic advantage of the ice-free Arctic Ocean (which ISN’T ice-free, but what does that matter?).

  • They have a solution.
     
    They will find another problem if this one doesn’t pan out.

  • Thanks for this concise list Bruce. I am going to use it to make my gullibal freinds upset that they fell for the climate scare.

  • Aw, come on. It’s settled science for Christ’s sake. Over 2,000 global warming scientists signed a petition. They can’t all be wrong.

    And, if you don’t believe me, just ask Professor Scott Erb. He will set you strait.

  • Should Obama Send His Science Team on a National Campaign to Explain Climate Science?

    I think it would be a good idea to send Chu, Lubchenco, and Holdren around to help inform the public

    Sure, as long as they, and their entourage, travel by bicycle and don’t exhale.

    Remember, anyone who claims to believe in AGW and produces a carbon footprint larger than an African herdsman is lying to himself and everybody else. If you really believe that AGW poses a real danger to the planet and you are not reducing your own personal carbon footprint to the absolute minimum then why should I?