Steve Hayward has a long, but useful piece on Climaquiddick. He’s been reading a lot of the emails. While it’s not clear whether or not AGW is happening, it’s very clear at this point that the field has been completely discredited, even if those promoting it don’t realize it.
9 thoughts on “Scientists Behaving Badly”
Comments are closed.
Good article.
It is inferred that some emails were deleted and there is reference to people being somewhat guarded in what they said in these emails. Inference being that the real picture was likely worse than that represented in the emails.
The Medieval Warm Period is called “anecdote” in the article.
The historians have a very firm grip on the extent and effects of the MWP. But, it is true, no thermometers. The location of vineyards, the switch from rye to wheat, transitioning to more and less crops per year… there’s a whole lot of evidence to be dismissed without discussing it with historians.
While it’s not clear whether or not AGW is happening
Why don’t those who so derisively insult, not even dismiss, but rhetorically assault those people who are considering the situation, rather than arbitrarily prostrating themselves to some cult of faith, not realize that their assaults, dismissals and insults are actually hardening opposition?
If you treat everyone like a stupid child, eventually even children will tell you that they aren’t children. That only only serves the offenders ego, not your cause, even if it is correct.
I won’t go into my wishy washiness, it’s just that I have a wishywashiness to my opinion on this as far as cause. I have NO DOUBT as it applies to the recommended “remedies.”
I cut off a portion of my finger once, I didn’t think bayonnets should be banned, I got stabbed once in a freak accident, (a serrated butter/dinner knife) I don’t demand everyone overcook their meat to the point it can be cut with a fork. Hell I even have a scar on my palm from a fork (another freak situation, brought about by booze, and a frozen bun) should we force everyone to ban forks?
The remedy is more definable than the cause, and I know this.
Cause? unknown.
Remedy? WRONG!
Hell I even have a scar on my palm from a fork (another freak situation, brought about by booze, and a frozen bun) should we force everyone to ban forks?
I hear rumors that drunk-while-forking is a leading cause of social discord in open source projects. 😉
Wow. A reporter actually reporting on something, actually taking the effort to read the e-mails and comment on what is in them.
I liked the part of the e-mails giving a window into the factional disputes among the climate scientists themselves. Or that a reporter would actually discuss what is actually in the e-mails rather than lapsing into the bromides of “climate change well proven apart from this one lapse.”
Has anyone tried to interview Ian “Harry” Harris or any of the other programmers and data analysts at the CRU? I’d like to hear what they have to say … if they’re allowed to talk.
Right now, Harry Harris is the most pitied programmer on the face of the Earth.
While it’s not clear whether or not AGW is happening, it’s very clear at this point that the field has been completely discredited, even if those promoting it don’t realize it.
Well, you certainly couldn’t tell that from looking at Scientific American and Nature who are now digging in their heels with regard to Climaquiddick. Will history be kind to the scientists who stopped seeking truth and turned to forcing consensus instead?
So what can replace the main stream peer review science journal dinosaurs that have failed us?
It seems an open internet based science networking site is desired that can dispassionately impose the scientific method and rate the quality of work submitted. Something that robustly creeps towards good science and is not subject to political capture. Is there a way of hard coding the scientific method into such a site? Biasing it with the scientific method?