Is it fraud or fanaticism? Discuss
November 24, 2009 10:03 am Ecology, Internet, Political Correctness, Politics, ScienceThe Wall Street Journal reports that various senators are showing interest in the climate fraud.
A more moderate interpetation of the behaviour of the Climate Club scientists appears today at the Air Vent. This is a letter from a climate skeptic to the New York Times reporter, Andy Revkin, who it appears from the hacked data, has been working hand in glove with the Climate Club scientists. Identified as Ryan O, he writes:
“These (a selection of emails) serve to illustrate not that the scientists involved are engaged in fraudulent behavior for personal gain, but rather that they feel that it is their right or duty to be the gatekeepers of what information is allowed to be seen. I think it is clear that the scientists believe that they are correct. I think it is clear that they use this belief to justify actively engage in censoring their own results (and pressure others to censor theirs) to prevent full disclosure of the uncertainties involved in the methods they employ. I think it is clear that they use this belief to justify attempts to discredit legitimate criticisms, in some cases with the knowledge that those criticisms are accurate. I think it is clear that they use this belief to advocate suppressing free expression on the internet. I think it is clear that they use this belief to attempt to manipulate the peer review process to present their results in a way that lends more credibility to their conclusions than otherwise would be the case. This is advocacy, not science. It in no way invalidates AGW theory, but it does call into question the certainty with which these scientists claim to understand the magnitude of the AGW effect – and, by extension, the magnitude and timing of the anticipated consequences.”
“This naturally leads into another important lesson: the insular nature of this relatively small, yet incredibly influential, group of scientists leads them to believe that it is their right to decide who should be privy to data and code. As a party to several of the FOIA requests of the University of East Anglia and CRU, I find myself appalled at the cavalier manner in which several key individuals handled FOIA requests.”
An excellent review of the nature of the offences against science is given at Pajamas Media: “Three things you absolutely must know about climategate“, by Iain Murray. He states that the data released show unequivocally that:
1. They have manipulated data to produce predetermined results (NB All computer modelling does this to some extent).
2. They have discussed methods of subverting the scientific peer review process to ensure that skeptical papers had no access to publication. (ANd then said that opponents, such as Stephen McIntyre, should not be listened to because they have not been published in peer-reviewed journals.
3. They have worked to circumvent the Freedom of Information process of the United Kingdom.
All this is unequivocal. What is alluded to but not mentioned in Murray’s article is that the data does not produce the published results when it is run through the algorithms they say they have used. Too many “parameterizations”, what we know as fudge factors, have been employed, I reckon. We will be hearing more about this aspect soon.
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
Dalwhinnie
Gernot Kofler :
Date: November 24, 2009 @ 11:27 AM
Scientist as Guardian of the Environment: A Moral Monster?
Is it science and is it good policy to mix deception with being honest? The contradiction here is obvious and very damaging for sensible policy making. An excellent example of where the commercial precept, honesty, has been compromised by the guardian precept, deception, is the role that some scientists have played in supporting the environmentalist cause. Stephen Schneider is a scientist and an environmentalist who was reported to have said in an interview for Discover magazine in October, 1989 that:
“(We) are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place …To do that we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”1
Schneider admitted that in his capacity as a guardian of the environment, he would apply the guardian precept, deception. But what does that make of his role as scientist and the contribution that science can make to environmental issues? The above quote was noted by The Economist in an article on the very hostile response of many environmentalists, among them some prominent scientists who are also environmentalists, to Bjorn Lomborg’s book, The Skeptical Environmentalist. Lomborg found that official statistics on the state of the environment did not present the kind of alarming stories that the environmentalists gave to the press and that the press duly reported. Scientific American published four articles by scientists, one of them by Schneider, that are highly critical of Lomberg’s book. The Economist did not see the articles challenging the substance of Lomberg’s book, rather, they were expressions of the view that the public should not be told the truth because that would lessen public support for environmental issues. The environment needs an alarmed public and this need is contradictory to scientists applying the commercial precept, honesty, to environmental issues.
Jane Jacobs nicely distinguished between guardian and commercial values in her book, Systems of Survival (1992, Vintage). People as environmentalists may use guardian precepts such as deception for the sake of the task, for example, fomenting an alarmed public. People as scientists, are supposed to follow the commercial precept of honesty, for that is what enables science to progress and become useful to society. Jacobs says there is need for skilful use of the guardian and commercial precepts for a modern and complex society, and explains that improper mixing of the precepts creates moral monsters. One needs to know which precepts to apply to the circumstances, without mixing them up. The hacked climate e-mails look like a good opportunity to apply the Jacobs model. The e-mails reveal that as guardians of the environment, the climate scientists at CRU sought to suppress the commercial precept, dissent, from scientists who doubted global warming claims.
1. Quoted in, The Economist (2002) “Defending science,” February 2, pp. 15-16. This article is designated “premium copy” and is not available on the Internet without subscription. The archives for Discover only begin in 1992.