The NY Times has barely covered the story, neither has the Washington Post or any of the major news networks (except Fox). The Obama administration says they will continue to follow the lead of the “2,500 scientists” who must represent the famous “scientific consensus” that Al Gore and his minions hurl like daggers at anyone who questions them. Forget that those 2,500 scientists have clearly formulated their opinion based on fudged data, intimidation of dissenting voices and computer models with such blatant fudging in the code that programmers have commented those sections with words like “Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!” etc… Nope, nothing to see here. Move along.
By the way, having been a computer programmer for a long time, let me tell you that the only reason for a comment like that is because the commenting programmer was either embarrassed by having to write that code, or was covering for having been ORDERED to write the code. That comment means the programmer knew that the code was no longer remotely “scientific.”
I’ve been saying for years that the computer models are junk and are riddled with artificial techniques to force a desired outcome.
So, in Copenhagen they will now be debating how to spend TRILLIONS of dollars of your money while CRIPPLING the most powerful economic engines of history, all to address a “problem” that has the scientific credibility of Piltdown Man.
What a world, eh?
8 users commented in " Climate research shenanigans totally ignored "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackThe “2,500 scientists” is a canard anyway. It’s the number of contributors to an IPCC Assessment Report. It includes both True Believers and True Skeptics, like Richard Lindzen.
It’s a failed appeal to authority.
Well, since the data isn’t available to be “peer reviewed” (or whatever the heck you call it when other scientists check your work), and the program that draws conclusions from that data is incomprehensible to other programmers, we just need to check with the other experts…
Surely, there are other experts who have independently gathered data?
Surely, there are other scientists who have written (or helped write) programs to accept that data and draw conclusions from that data, right?
Wait…
Are those what are called “skeptics?”
There isn’t a lot of data to review. Much of the data originally gathered by the CRU and Dr. Mann was gathered from remote locations from scientists who aren’t part of the Western community and much of it was provided under special agreements to not spread it around. Or at least that’s what requesters have been told for almost a decade. Data which WERE gathered from known sources (like NASA) actually HAS been legally obtained by “skeptics” with the result in NASA’s case that NASA’s data was proven to be incorrect (and too high, of course) and NASA was forced to correct and republish it.
This entire episode confirms what I and others have long suspected – that a small cadre of “scientists” have controlled much of the flow of climate science to their own benefit. It is *thrilling* to watch them squirm now, along with the crook politicians trying to benefit from this scam.
With regard to reproducibility, there was an excellent article on WUWT that explains the lengthy obfuscation perpetrated by Jones et al. It notes that the real problem is not just getting at the raw data, a challenge in itself, but also getting the specific data which was used to reach the conclusions. They simply don’t want anyone questioning their results.
We live in an age now where data may be so easily manipulated, massaged or even deleted that *all* science must be questioned which does not fully disclose the raw data, code and other materials needed to reproduce the result. If a scientist won’t do this, s/he is NOT a scientist; they’re a snake oil salesman.
I say this because in the past the data for most science was the real world. You could look through a telescope, a microscope or a spectroscope to read results. We’re now dealing in the realm of “models” which are themselves creations of men, fully subject to his failings. If you intend to create models and feed them raw data, publish *everything*, not just your result.
I have said for years that the computer models used to “predict” climate changes are completely worthless and you’d get equally valid results from rolling dice or flipping coins. I may have been too generous. The models clearly have been manipulated to fudge the results towards a more grant-friendly direction for years.
One of the best summaries of the current situation in climate science I’ve seen (and I can’t remember who said it) was: “If the models are correct, then the temperature data we are collecting are wrong. If the data are right, then the models are wrong. Either way the science is far from ‘settled’.”
And yet Hopenhagen moves forward unfazed…
Dadman, that’s because it’s NEVER been about climate or science.
This has always been about gaining control of the US and other freedom loving countries. Look at the Kyoto treaty. It was to repress the US more than any other country, while socialist leaning countries can actually pollute more.
The stimulus package, the Obamacare attempted take over of the US Health industry, and Global Warming all part of the whole global government. The leftists in this country are arrogant enough that they think they will be part of the ruling class of the new global order which is why they are working toward it.
Plus, remember that Global Warming has become the leftist religion, Gore is the GW Pope.
Always follow the money. With all that has been spent on this, is it any wonder why these scientists would do this?
Leave A Reply