A close reading of the hacked emails exposes the real process of science, its jealousies and tribalism
-
Scientists sometimes like to portray what they do as divorced from the everyday jealousies, rivalries and tribalism of human relationships. What makes science special is that data and results that can be replicated are what matters and the scientific truth will out in the end. But a close reading of the emails hacked from the University of East Anglia in November exposes the real process of everyday science in lurid detail. Many of the emails reveal strenuous efforts by the mainstream climate scientists to do what outside observers would regard as censoring their critics. And the correspondence raises awkward questions about the effectiveness of peer review – the supposed gold standard of scientific merit – and the operation of the UN's top climate body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The scientists involved disagree. They say they were engaged not in suppressing dissent but in upholding scientific standards by keeping bad science out of peer-reviewed journals. Either way, when passing judgment on papers that directly attack their own work, they were mired in conflicts of interest that would not be allowed in most professions. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/02/hacked-climate-emails-flaws-peer-review[^]
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Scientists sometimes like to portray what they do as divorced from the everyday jealousies, rivalries and tribalism of human relationships.
I'd love to see this cited. Most scientists I've come across have at least one pet theory they'd love to prove so they could shove it down the throat of someone who disagrees. Not directly aggressive, more of a passive aggressive. But again, those emails depict little more than petty rivalry and being annoyed by FOIA requests by people who publicly denounce them repeatedly before they see the data.
-
Scientists sometimes like to portray what they do as divorced from the everyday jealousies, rivalries and tribalism of human relationships. What makes science special is that data and results that can be replicated are what matters and the scientific truth will out in the end. But a close reading of the emails hacked from the University of East Anglia in November exposes the real process of everyday science in lurid detail. Many of the emails reveal strenuous efforts by the mainstream climate scientists to do what outside observers would regard as censoring their critics. And the correspondence raises awkward questions about the effectiveness of peer review – the supposed gold standard of scientific merit – and the operation of the UN's top climate body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The scientists involved disagree. They say they were engaged not in suppressing dissent but in upholding scientific standards by keeping bad science out of peer-reviewed journals. Either way, when passing judgment on papers that directly attack their own work, they were mired in conflicts of interest that would not be allowed in most professions. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/02/hacked-climate-emails-flaws-peer-review[^]
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
What are your opinions and thoughts on this? You've copied a chunk of the article into a post (at least posting a link to your source) but what are you posting it for? From what I read on that, I'm pretty certain that the scientists did what most people would do. Their only mistake was doing it when they were legally supposed to provide everything, not pick and choose.
-
What are your opinions and thoughts on this? You've copied a chunk of the article into a post (at least posting a link to your source) but what are you posting it for? From what I read on that, I'm pretty certain that the scientists did what most people would do. Their only mistake was doing it when they were legally supposed to provide everything, not pick and choose.
It proves that the Global Warming->Climate Change->Climate Stability crap is unreliable at best. They are bad scientists who don't care about science at all, their job was to make a big lie believable.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
-
It proves that the Global Warming->Climate Change->Climate Stability crap is unreliable at best. They are bad scientists who don't care about science at all, their job was to make a big lie believable.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
No, it doesn't. It proves that a group of scientists didn't want to provide every little shred of documentation they had to a bunch of people (reporters and amateur scientists as they seem to have believed them) that were making these requests on a frequent basis. They did what a group of people (regardless of the subject) would probably have done to be able to get on with their jobs and not be bombarded with crap from idiots. It's a big conspiracy theory, because it makes it look like a cover up. I just see it as unfortunate behaviour in the public eye.
-
Scientists sometimes like to portray what they do as divorced from the everyday jealousies, rivalries and tribalism of human relationships. What makes science special is that data and results that can be replicated are what matters and the scientific truth will out in the end. But a close reading of the emails hacked from the University of East Anglia in November exposes the real process of everyday science in lurid detail. Many of the emails reveal strenuous efforts by the mainstream climate scientists to do what outside observers would regard as censoring their critics. And the correspondence raises awkward questions about the effectiveness of peer review – the supposed gold standard of scientific merit – and the operation of the UN's top climate body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The scientists involved disagree. They say they were engaged not in suppressing dissent but in upholding scientific standards by keeping bad science out of peer-reviewed journals. Either way, when passing judgment on papers that directly attack their own work, they were mired in conflicts of interest that would not be allowed in most professions. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/02/hacked-climate-emails-flaws-peer-review[^]
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
Standard close ranks procedure. This is of course a load of crap. The US data and Hadley data correspond precisely because there WAS colllusion between Mann and Jones. To say the CRU data is valid because it is mirored by the US data is foolishness in the extreme. Jones has commited a crime. That of failing to provide th einformation. IF he could be oprosecuted he would be, but due to a technicality he cant. However he is now a criminalm and therefore will not be given his job back. Dont forget too the broader inquiry in March regarding teh content of the emails before a commons comittee. Thes can be toothless or not, depending on who is put on the board, but there are sufficient politicians who want to give AGW a good grilling to see if it can stand up to a hard enquiry, and I bellieve we all do too. I expect this will find serious issues, as have already been found with Russian and Chineese data that Jones was involved with. That in fact Jones burried many years ago with his influence over the journals editors. There is little chance Jones will be back. Additionally the IPCC is starting to come apart. Pachuri is now a joke, with his smutt novelist part time work, and exposed deceit. It is likely a very rigourous pannel will be put in charge of the IPCC. We will actually start to see real scince done, and after a few years AGW wil become quieter and quiter till it fades away without anyone in power having to actually admit they were wrong, its the only way out for them, the funding will reduce gradually, and it will become a foot note in history. However we wont see prosecutions for fraud, which is a shame.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Scientists sometimes like to portray what they do as divorced from the everyday jealousies, rivalries and tribalism of human relationships. What makes science special is that data and results that can be replicated are what matters and the scientific truth will out in the end. But a close reading of the emails hacked from the University of East Anglia in November exposes the real process of everyday science in lurid detail. Many of the emails reveal strenuous efforts by the mainstream climate scientists to do what outside observers would regard as censoring their critics. And the correspondence raises awkward questions about the effectiveness of peer review – the supposed gold standard of scientific merit – and the operation of the UN's top climate body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The scientists involved disagree. They say they were engaged not in suppressing dissent but in upholding scientific standards by keeping bad science out of peer-reviewed journals. Either way, when passing judgment on papers that directly attack their own work, they were mired in conflicts of interest that would not be allowed in most professions. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/02/hacked-climate-emails-flaws-peer-review[^]
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
-
No, it doesn't. It proves that a group of scientists didn't want to provide every little shred of documentation they had to a bunch of people (reporters and amateur scientists as they seem to have believed them) that were making these requests on a frequent basis. They did what a group of people (regardless of the subject) would probably have done to be able to get on with their jobs and not be bombarded with crap from idiots. It's a big conspiracy theory, because it makes it look like a cover up. I just see it as unfortunate behaviour in the public eye.
The climate cultist defends his priests and denies conspiracy when one is out in the open. Don't worry, you may purchase your carbon indulgences from the church if you are permitted to do so.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
-
The climate cultist defends his priests and denies conspiracy when one is out in the open. Don't worry, you may purchase your carbon indulgences from the church if you are permitted to do so.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
And again you resort to making passing off your own fault to someone else. The only cultist here is you CSS. You suckle from the teat of your Uncle ALex every chance you get. You ask for more forbidden knowledge and spout it here. This is actually comical. You said the data was fabricated after those e-mails were shown. "the trick with the tree rings, etc..." I pointed out the article that showed it was just them getting rid of bad data. The rings stopped working after some unknown environmental issue (no one is blaming GW, it might be pollution, but either way, they have the accurate data from the point where things diverge.) So now your masters are using the same article I pointed to to say the data is unreliable because the scientists were pissed off? Did the fact that they couldn't sell the lie angle because it was shown as a lie not dawn on you? Really? What's next? Do we get the data thrown out because of punctuation? I don't care if AGW is real or not in this. I do care that you are changing the game to make what you are (a cultist) into your opponent and acting superior after transferring your traits to them. The fact that this is a common debate tactic resorted to when you know you have lost should tell you something CSS. "I award you no points and may God have mercy on your soul."
-
The climate cultist defends his priests and denies conspiracy when one is out in the open. Don't worry, you may purchase your carbon indulgences from the church if you are permitted to do so.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
Is that the best you can do? You post a link to an article, copy and paste a section and then leave it for discussion to begin, then when you're questioned as to your opinion decide that I'm one of those conspiring to cover up the truth. Jones does not sound like a particularly honest person, but he has dedicated his career to a cause. Maybe this could be turned around, maybe it's a conspiracy to discredit the findings of scientists. I find it funny that you choose scientific topics to attack in your postings, yet your sources remain quite narrow without any attempt to find both sides of the argument. Maybe you're a part of the conspiracy to discredit. You rarely voice your own opinions without an attack on those asking, accusing me of being a "climate cultist" is hardly sufficient argument against a statement that was a matter of opinion on my part.
-
Scientists sometimes like to portray what they do as divorced from the everyday jealousies, rivalries and tribalism of human relationships. What makes science special is that data and results that can be replicated are what matters and the scientific truth will out in the end. But a close reading of the emails hacked from the University of East Anglia in November exposes the real process of everyday science in lurid detail. Many of the emails reveal strenuous efforts by the mainstream climate scientists to do what outside observers would regard as censoring their critics. And the correspondence raises awkward questions about the effectiveness of peer review – the supposed gold standard of scientific merit – and the operation of the UN's top climate body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The scientists involved disagree. They say they were engaged not in suppressing dissent but in upholding scientific standards by keeping bad science out of peer-reviewed journals. Either way, when passing judgment on papers that directly attack their own work, they were mired in conflicts of interest that would not be allowed in most professions. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/02/hacked-climate-emails-flaws-peer-review[^]
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
Wow - scientists are human beings ? This is the shocking news of the day ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.