Climategate: Violating the Social Contract of Science

The scientific method only works when fellow researchers can implicitly trust the results offered by their colleagues.

November 22, 2009 - by Charlie Martin

On November 19, 2009, climate science was severely shaken by the release of a collection of email messages, together with a collection of data and data processing programs, that were alleged to have been stolen, or hacked, from the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (CRU). (See here and here for previous Pajamas Media coverage.)

So what is this “climate science” of which we speak? Trimmed down to the essentials, what scientists really do comes down to these steps:

1.Look at something happening.
2.Think of a way to explain what’s happening.
3.Make a convincing case, based on evidence and experiment, that this is the best known explanation. Part of this “convincing case” is providing enough information so that a knowledgeable person could, if necessary, perform the same experiments and get the same results. (This should really include some weasel-wording about “within experimental error,” but that’s a technical detail. What’s important is that the knowledgeable third party can get close enough to the same results to satisfy that third part.)
4.Submit that convincing case to other knowledgeable people to review, in order to see if they also find it convincing. This is what is called peer review.
5.Publish that convincing case for the rest of the world, where the results can be seen, commented upon, and challenged.
6.Every so often, others perform the same experiments and confirm or question the results.

Step 4, peer review, is essential to this whole process.

Pajamas Media

Global WarmingGate: What Does It Mean?

Just one of the scandals is the willingness to manipulate data to make a political case.

November 22, 2009 - by Charlie Martin

Late on the night of of November 19, news broke on PJM and elsewhere that a large amount of data had been stolen from one of the major climate research institutions by an unknown hacker and made available on the Internet. The institution is the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit, home institution for Dr Phil Jones and one of the world’s centers of research into anthropogenic global warming (AGW), or “climate change.”

snip

The emails suggest the authors co-operated covertly to ensure that only papers favorable to CO2-forced AGW were published, and that editors and journals publishing contrary papers were punished. They also attempted to “discipline” scientists and journalists who published skeptical information.

The emails suggest that the authors manipulated and “massaged” the data to strengthen the case in favor of unprecedented CO2-forced AGW, and to suppress their own data if it called AGW into question.

The emails suggest that the authors co-operated (perhaps the word is “conspired”) to prevent data from being made available to other researchers through either data archiving requests or through the Freedom of Information Acts of both the U.S. and the UK.

Read the article, including links to the source material at Pajamas Media

Global Warming Kool-Aid

Written by William Warren
Friday, 20 November 2009 08:28

Prof. Begemann: Ik geloof niet dat er een klimaatcrisis is

Opmerkelijk uitspraken van professor Begemann:

(1) Klimaatspecialisten bestaan niet. Wel fysici, natuurkundigen, onderstreept Begemann.

(2) Begemann over Noordpool: De zomers zijn wat warmer, de winters zijn kouder en een maand langer, sinds de laatste 10 jaar. Er is meer neerslag op de Noordpool, waardoor warm water valt, waardoor onderkant (en dus niet de bovenkant door de zon) van de ijskap op de Noordpool dunner wordt.

(3) 2 Pre-Inuït archeologische sites 1000km onder de Noordpool onder archeologisch wetenschappelijk onderzoek in Canada wijzen uit: 1000 jaar oude site Inuit leefde van jacht, echter op 4000 jaar oude site leefde de Innuit van Landbouw. Dat impliceert dat het klimaat daar veel warmer was dan nu.

(4) Bij verminderd ijs oppervlakte van drijfijs voedt de ijsbeer zich met andere dan zeehond/zeeleeuw vanuit de ijsschotsen. Ze zijn gemiddeld zeer gezond aangetroffen op diverse geheel ijsvrije eilanden.

(5) Wetenschappers geven hun (waarnemings/meet-)fouten niet toe in de klimaathausse, dat is zeer onwetenschappelijk, zo stelt Begemann!

(Voorbeelden kennen we inmiddels genoegzaam van het IPCC, van het KNMI en van de Climate Research Unit (CRU) )

(6) Voorbeeld van Begemann: Het mega blok zeeijs, dat afbrak op de Zuidpool ter grootte van staat Californië, bleek meetfout van een sateliet. (Ik ken dit voorbeeld/feit eigenlijk ook niet voldoende? Wie? Is dit geloofwaardig door Begemann aangehaald, Theo?)

(7) Begemann stelt concluderend vats, dat het klimaat steeds veranderd, echter gelooft geheel niet in een klimaatcrises van enige omvang en importantie.

Kortom zoals de weldenkende klimaatsceptici van het Klimaatalarmisme reeds lang hadden vastgesteld aan de hand van de toenemende stroom bewijzen tegen de KlimaatHoax-rapporten van het IPCC en van Al Gore's docudrama's!

Video van het interview met professor Begemann op: De klimatosoof

Er gaan miljarden om in deze klimaatindustrie. Blijkbaar is het "Hou jij ze dom, dan hou ik ze arm" van vroeger vervangen door "Hou jij ze bang, dan hou ik ze arm". Want dat deze hoax met man en macht in stand wordt gehouden om politieke macht en (belasting)geld moet toch zo langzamerhand ook wel eens tot het grote publiek doordringen?

Update: Zelfs de linkse roeptoeter BBC begint het licht te zien: What happened to global warming?

Australia leads the way in rejecting climate change 'solutions'

Rick Moran

Something important is happening in the debate over man-made global warming. Australia is beginning to rethink its government's own cap and trade scheme while an intellectual sea change is occurring that is giving more weight to legitimate scientific criticisms of the evidence for climate change.

Robert Tracinski and Tom Minchin writing in RealClear Politics explain that the government of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has had a series of "climb downs" on climate change legislation that gives hope that sanity may prevail in at least one westernized industrial democracy.

Take Australian Senator Steve Fielding who decided to investigate the evidence himself. An engineer by training, Fielding attended the recent Heartland Institutes Climate Change conference where skeptics presented about a dozen papers that exposed several myths about global warming:

Read the rest of the article at The American Thinker